Ladies and gentlemen, the deputy attorney general of
The United States. Oh, it is not a
crime to party with mister Epstein.
Fair point. I was at a birthday party
last weekend, and there was cake, balloons, and
presents,
some paper
hats. Pretty tame stuff. I'm sure that's what
he means. Is the public going to learn
about
men that abuse these girls? Like, what does
that mean?
Allow me to explain.
It means men who engage in sexual activity
with girls who are either trafficked or were
too young to grant consent or both. Hope
that helps. I'm
crime to email with mister Epstein. Again, fair
point. Sending an email is not a crime.
You know what it is though? Evidence.
Some of these men may have done horrible
things and and if we have evidence that
allows us to prosecute them, you better believe
we will.
Some of these men may have done horrible
things.
What makes him say that? Could it be
the hundreds of victim statements, the thousands of
pictures and videos,
and the mountain of shockingly specific witness interviews?
There's this built in assumption
that somehow there's this hidden tranche of information
of men that we know about
that we're covering up or that we're not
we're choosing not to prosecute.
It's not hidden. It's literally on the Internet,
complete with names, dates, and details of the
sexual abuse these monsters heaped on their victims.
But but I don't think that that that
the public or you all are going to
uncover,
men
within the Epstein files that abuse women.
At the risk of repeating myself, that ship
has sailed. The DOJ released the documents and
now they're telling us not to believe what
we see with our own lying eyes.
Folks, this is not about politics.
It's about whether we want to be a
nation of laws or a boy's club for
billionaires and powerful politicians.
As someone who took an oath to uphold
those laws, I know where I stand.
Share your thoughts in the comments.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours breaks
free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Friday, 02/06/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. Basically, a
focus on the main story of the title
today with some follow ups from the previous
show and some additional points that you're gonna
wanna see today. But I wanna start with
a couple of of opening points. First, just,
Rockfin. We're not live on Rockfin at the
moment.
I I tried to even rapidly that was
the delay there to start, to create a
new one and start it, and it's still
not showing up.
So just full transparency. We we know what's
going on with Rockfin around the the weird
transition behind it and the kind of kicking
people off the platform in a very, just
when they tried to lean into the independent
media and the way they handled that was
just inappropriate. It was dishonest, in my opinion.
Nonetheless, we still use it because we're you
I'll put it on YouTube, put it anywhere.
Right? But I've sensed that there was something
changing in the platform. This
could just be some random glitch. I'll try
it again the next show, which will likely
be tomorrow.
But I'm interested to I'm wondering if there's
something else happening here because a lot of
things are shifting, platforms are changing, who they're
leaning in with. And this is the first
time this happened. It's a pretty easy setup.
So reach out,
Ask, you know, see if the right now,
it looks like Jimmy is live on Rockfin,
so hard to say. But let you guys
know if you're on Rockfin, for some reason
it's not there, we'll try to put it
up later. Now other notes that I wanted
to include to start.
Ultimately, in regard to the fundraiser yet again,
just what a fantastic event that was.
We had, there was just very quickly some
misunderstanding
on what who was gonna do what, and
there was a few things that we hadn't
ultimately, we just sent out yesterday or or
and today.
So for for basically, some of you might
not get it for the next week, but
are, expected coming for like, I think it
was the seed packs and a couple of
other things just ultimately didn't get sent when
we thought it was, basically. So those are
on the way. Ultimately,
I think some of you should have already
gotten some of the things. I think bottom
line out there, if you're expecting something and
you haven't got it, please reach out to
us. But I would imagine by the end
of this week, everything should be handled. I
think in regard to some of the books,
I know that, Derek, who just got back
done with, he his, People's Reset event, I
believe we'll be sending those out now. So
and and those I we'll I'll be making
sure that happens as well, and some other
things as well. Zoe sent hers, but just
in case, if you're out there and you
expected something and didn't get it, please reach
out to me. And best way to do
is just to call the line in the
office because I'll see that right away. But
it's important to me. Right? Now I know
most of you did supported us because you
just wanna support us, but it matters to
me that we follow through with those things.
And I was really actually excited about putting
this together for some of you. The the
way we put together the multiple seeds you're
gonna get, corn, butternut squash right out of
our garden. And so it'll be coming in
a little package where you can, you know,
it'll be labeled and you'll be able to
plant them for the new season. I think
that's pretty cool. So on that note, just
wanted you to know that those things will
be coming, but there might be a delay
for some of you right now.
Last thing was podcast.
There's been something's going on with our podcast.
I just noticed there was some kind of
a back
basically, I had them uploaded, but it wasn't
showing, and I I was just dealing with
it today. You if you're only following podcasts,
you probably just got, like, four or five
episodes at once. Just wanted to say apologize
for that. But the rest of that is,
no. That was it. The the the only
opening notes I had there. But today, in
general, let's get into the I mean, interesting
note just to start on with the Epstein
cover up, which is what it is. We're
gonna talk about the fact that the chaotic
reality of the redactions and what they did,
AI involved, like everybody knew, in regard to
the cover up of the DOJ part of
it. You know, this is pretty self evident.
The scope of the transparency act was about
basically everything outside of victims,
illegalities,
and then, obviously, national security is always there
for them to abuse.
But what's interesting is that the communications
between Kash Patel and Bondi and others and
the DOJ, they're the two focal points, are
obviously supposed to be there, and they're clearly
involved in this and having main conversations.
And and we're talk I'm talking about, as
we'll get into the articles, behind the scenes
conversations.
And since this was required to be released,
outside of some kind of national security overlap,
there should be communications between them, and there's
none. And suddenly, it's being called out by
a lot of different people. So you could
argue that's just them not wanting to be
embarrassed, which I kinda sense is probably the
reality.
But either way, that means they committed a
crime.
Knowing that should've been involved in order just
to
hide something.
And I'm what I'm saying is it doesn't
seem like with the time frame that it
could've been something involved, but maybe there's more
to it. Maybe it's them discussing, covering something
up. Interesting point to make. But the point
the the larger discussion right now is that
everybody seems to be able to well, within
the conversation,
we'll make a point about the overlap of
different well,
I think I might have taken that off,
the point of the different platforms.
That right now, people are arguing, and I
haven't verified it myself, and I think that's
why I took it off, that you go
on Facebook and there's just, like, zero conversation
about Epstein. Now, again, I haven't confirmed that.
But I do notice the difference in discrepancies
between the platforms, and I think it behooves
us to
step back and go, okay. You know, what
we see in this
sweet Twitter dynamic or just independent media,
are we in a bubble too? And I
think the answer is always yes. But it
doesn't mean that not everybody sees what we
see, just to a different degree.
But consider that, first of all, that maybe
what we're all gasp you know, kind of
just blown away by is not even breaching
the larger conversation out there because of the
way this salsa put together. Keeping that in
mind,
I think it's important to recognize that within
the conversation, people who are engaging with the
files, the discussion, which is a huge part
of the conversation, the media sphere,
it's not as it's it's just
obvious what's happening. They are putting out the
information, and there's nothing happening. Now
we've all discussed this around being deliberate, the
idea that this was designed in order to
put this out in a way that couldn't
really be
legally gone after. And I don't mean that
in the sense that they're I mean, my
opinion is that within the files even they
put out, maybe even with the design of
making it like I just described, they still
accidentally put stuff out or made mistakes or
forgot to redact something. Again, assuming that's not
all part of some grand plan. I just
have a low opinion of them. But the
reality being that we're they're kind of co
manufacturing a moment a situation with these files
where they're changing the way we see things
in order to hope that's enough to pacify
us, to stop us, you know, pitchforks and
torches marching down the street demanding accountability.
But there's still a kind of
a battle going on between that growing awareness
and this kind of partisan back and forth
around
why it shouldn't like, some people calling it
moral panic, like this was all completely manipulated,
it's all conspiracy theorists, some people claiming that
Epstein's story in general has been completely lied
about, like, it's just getting buried.
But the fact and the evidence we have
is what we should focus on. And that's
what I've been saying the last so many
days on this, is we have to stay
focused on what we can prove. And there's
tons. That's why I started with that clip
from the retired FBI agent. Plenty of other
people out there with credentials and backgrounds are
going, Yeah. This is just wildly obvious, and
they're choosing to do nothing. Now, had they
put out only things that were subjective, which
I think was the plan, they didn't. They
failed in a lot of ways, I think
by mistake. Then they could have argued, Well,
no. There is no legal channel for us
to take and just let people do what
they're doing, and then turned around and said,
see, you're all a bunch of irresponsible children,
and we can't give you all the information
because this is what you do by design.
And largely stoking those idiots to do it
in their corporate media mainstream,
you know, nexus over there. But overall,
if we let this go this direction and
they continue to, you know, air out things
without being able to verify them in the
sense that we're talking about, like in a
court of law, we can effectively see this
going nowhere.
And my point again is that within that
and before we even got here,
we have evidence to show criminality. Of people
within this administration, Biden's administration, we can't miss
the forest for the trees. Happens every single
time.
So before we get into the Epstein conversation,
what I wanted to start with was some
updates on foreign policy
because it is related, not just because of
the larger picture that I see, but because
the
foreign policy elements we're discussing of regime change
of even the network state agenda, but the
idea of
resource manipulation, of
the AI overlap. These things directly connected with
the elitist inner circle of what Epstein was
manipulating
for Israel, in my opinion, but just intelligence.
And so understanding how these things are continuing
in the midst of all this, it matters
to see what how they might connect back
to the inner circle of the administration within
this or even the global dynamic that I
think it is a part of, but also
just the idea that it could be something
being done just to keep you from paying
attention to their crimes. And if that is
the case, think about how disgusting that is.
Being able to murder people in Yemen, for
example, in order to keep people distracted or
pivoting back to the whole conversation. I actually
don't think that's the case. I think these
are ongoing agendas, but
considering that they're the kind of people that
would do something like that. But let's start
with
Saudi Arabia. Because it's it isn't
the Yemen conversation, the starvation tactics, and what
they've been doing there has been going on
decades.
But it did sort of take at least
a back seat in the coverage, but ultimately
did
it shifted on the direction. Right? We saw
the Houthis engaging with the discussion of Gaza,
Saudi Arabia, and and the ISIS elements and
The US elements and The UAE elements that
were being thrown. And they were
primarily aimed at the Houthis and the Yemen,
you know, civil war, they call it, which
is really just another occupation just like Syria
was not a civil war.
But the reality is that they've continued and
have never stopped
occupying them, suppressing them. But here we are
with another report from antiwar.com, which you should
be supporting. Saudi Arabia's
air strikes in Yemen killed at least 13
civilians in January. Does that not matter?
Is there a declared war? I mean, I
do this every time. I shouldn't I I
just need to be for you guys because
because you guys know this. But the point
is this matter. These are civilians. That's a
crime.
If it was Iran or anybody else, even
the allegation will be enough to make this,
you know, we need to do something about
the Iranian government. Now you've got Saudi Arabia
who's the chief ally of The United States,
vassal state for US and Israel, in my
opinion, bombing and killing civilians without a declaration
of war in a location where people are
starving.
That's the story, and nobody seems to care
about that. But it's 13 people, so why
should we care when people are dying around
the world? Yeah. It's it's about perspective. But
realize this is who we're dealing with. Every
single person in the
the good guys, at least that's how they
really want the world to see it, are
the ones that are so being framed as
standing against the Gaza and Iran and all
these groups. These are the ones out there
murdering people day by day. Every single moment
we're talking, they're killing innocent people or people,
if you wanna quibble about the reality of
children being innocent.
What's Iran doing right now? Can you demonstrate
them killing children, starving, raping, torturing? Can you
demonstrate the
before Al Qaeda took over Syria, can you
demonstrate that happening? You can have allegations and
narratives and arguments and all sorts of proxy
divisions, but not the reality of it. Saudi
Arabia, Israel, The United States, The UK, these
are the groups that are doing the terrorism,
and we need to stop pretending like we
all don't know that. Epstein is a step.
We're now seeing this. This is a step
we should've taken a long time ago. What
Al Qaeda is, what these groups are, what
they've been doing to you with their ideology
while pointing at anybody else. It really is
that simple, guys, and we just need to
get past that. But in case you missed
it, they're killing people in Yemen yet again.
Here we have,
Israeli strikes on Lebanon that never stopped, have
continued
during the supposed ceasefire. Rate of Israeli strikes
on Lebanon at highest level since the ceasefire.
I mean, that's, that's
this platform knows well that they violated that
a long time ago. And since they're bombing,
there is technically not a ceasefire. But the
title is to make a point.
How can you have the highest level of
bombing since the ceasefire? Because they pretend it's
not happening. Craig Murray's called it out.
Sarah Abdallah continues to report on it. They
are just relentlessly bombing and pretending like nothing's
happening. No big deal though, because we're not
supposed to talk about that because they don't
matter, apparently. US launches its twenty seventh airstrike
in Somalia of the year. That's just this
year. We're February.
They're murdering people every day with these strikes.
You could call it accidental civilian killings,
but this is the reality. When you get
into what's actually going on there and what
it's really about and the weird pivot to
Minnesota, the Somali pirates, the whole thing, there's
a bigger story going on here. I'm not
gonna go into it now since this is
a brief opening, but the reality is we've
covered this in-depth. And that you can even
go into the groups they're discussing and why
they're there in the first place. Guess what?
Because of US intervention, because of Israel manipulation.
This is not an opinion.
Their own reports will show this, that they
are responsible for why the group is there
in reaction to what they were doing illegally
and then have turned them into,
by narrative, the very terrorists they wanna fight,
or they were turned into that because of
their illegal actions in the country. And, really,
it's a nuance in between all that. It's
sort of like the rest of the situations.
But here we are.
Peace president continuing to kill people in Somalia.
Trump is blasting away at Somalia with zero
effect.
Really should make you ask, that's responsible statecraft,
what the objective is there. In other news,
The Intercept reports Pentagon makes largest known arms
purchase
from Israel
for banned cluster weapons because that's okay when
the good guys do it. You can buy,
what use cluster munitions. You can use white
phosphorus. You can torture, rape, and steal, and
it's all good because that's what Pompeo told
you they were taught to do. Right?
We steal, lie, cheat, and steal.
These are the bad guys. And I don't
mean that they're you know, you could argue
this in a sense of good and evil,
or binary one versus the other, or just
recognize there's
a scale, a long
moving scale of people
doing good and bad things. It doesn't mean
by default the one fighting them is the
good guy. It doesn't mean that you see
what I'm saying? But these are bad guys.
People who are doing this and lying to
you, raping and torturing and overthrowing countries and
surreptitiously removing their leadership so they can exploit
their resources and then continuing to use the
very things they call everybody else terrorists for
using.
Simple. They're bad people. That shouldn't be that
difficult. But then you should they look at
the other groups, maybe the ones fighting them,
and go, well, use the same scale. They're
probably bad people too if you understand what's
going on. But realize that the people that
are standing up screaming we're fighting for freedom
are the ones who are really causing the
problems today. I think people are starting to
come around to that. Now on Iran, because
that does seem to be building for the
fifteenth time, it's important to understand a few
things.
It does seem as if this is going
in that direction. Now I'm hesitant only because
that's happened a lot.
And a few times, though, it has ended
up being like last time where Trump acts
like we're not doing anything. We wanna talk
or pulling back, and then they use that
lull to attack Iran, which was what happened,
and Trump was involved with that. Or he
was played and doesn't wanna admit that. Either
one makes sense to me. But now we're
here in this situation again. They've stoked the
protests, the riots, because, you know, they they're
so funny. A protest riot is something we
often see in this country that gets, you
know, it's either peaceful protest, even those people
burning buildings down, or it's all riots, even
though they're all standing there with flowers, which
is, you know, a joke. But they do
both those have existed in the sense of
not being violent. I mean, like, no king's
day, for example.
They called them rioters. There wasn't a violent
event that told the the entire thing other
than being attacked.
My point is that these people on the
ground were very clearly rioting
in black masks, working for foreign entities as
according to Iranians and the union groups and
everybody else. So they stoke this. Now understand,
they even admitted that. Iranian or rather, Mossad
agents have admitted they're on the ground. Pompeo
has admitted they're on the ground. Mas'ad or
rather Israeli elements have said they're arming them.
But it's okay because they're the good guys,
guys. That's okay. Right? They can do whatever
they want as long as they yell that
they're good guys. And here, we have Besant
for the second time
openly.
We're I I don't even think he realizes
I'm not sure. This could either be him
trying to transition us into, well, it's okay
because we're the good guys kind of mindset.
Like, we can go in there and
rape and kill, but it's we're the good
guys, so it's okay. That's the kind of
game that's being played. My point is what
he's describing here is illegal,
is completely 100%
internationally illegal, is illegal in the eyes of
the US government if we believe what they
say every day. And so he gets up
and says, I'm doing this illegal thing.
So So it's interesting. Right? You have to
question about whether that's him being stupid, which
I kind of doubt, or them just trying
to do what Israel's doing right now. Yeah.
We're arming them in the protest.
Of course, we are. Iran's terrorists.
See how that works? But even though that's
their narrative, and even if they were terrorists,
whatever they claim that means, still illegal what
they're doing. So here he is telling you,
we caused the protest, we collapsed their money,
and now we're gonna use that against them.
And meanwhile, they're out there saying, look how
bad Iran is with their
infrastructure.
What more can we be doing to make
sure that we are placing the pressure,
that we need to on the greatest state
sponsor of terrorism, and that is the Ayatollah,
and Iran. Yeah. Very objective report questioning even
though she's not a journalist. The point is
this is so obviously set up to, you
know, what work can we do to stop
the evil boogeyman that we're fighting all the
time and all the bad things they're doing?
Like, that's not the question is let's set
this up to make it clear for people
listening that we're doing the good thing. The
state the largest state sponsor of terrorism, like,
can we actually just collectively laugh at this?
This is the same thing we're seeing everywhere.
I was gonna make this point earlier, and
I put, in regard to an opening point.
I put it off. There's just so many
of them.
Elon Musk,
day after day coming out and going, you
know who the bad guys are by who
are censoring your free speech with a straight
face. He keeps saying that.
Well, you're doing that, man. Does anybody not
know that? Well, you're literally doing that. No.
You can argue it's the good reasons or
the the ones that are bad or whatever
you're just but you're still doing it. So
you can't claim censorship equals bad
while you're censoring and pretend you're not bad.
It's just infuriating. And so in this case,
we know that Iran is not even close
to the state leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Why? Because the only things they point to
are Hezbollah,
Houthis. Okay. Lies I've said a million times.
Take every narrative they'd ever said about those
groups, most of which are lies, but take
it at face value and compare it to
a fraction of what we can prove about
Israel and The United States. It'll blow your
mind. And realize they've been publicly admitted and
caught for arming Hamas and funding the moderate
rebels, and Saudi, Saudi Arabia will harvest ISIS
and Al Qaeda elements.
So just take the face of the what
we can prove and compare it to what
they claim, and you still recognize that they
are obviously
the leading state sponsors of terrorism, The US
and Israel. But even comparatively,
you can't make the arguments that they're the
leading state sponsor of anything in regard to
that conversation. Maybe involve with some if you
wanna make the case. But here they are
saying that because they need you to believe
that because they're building a case to go
after Iran. Very simple. And what she's saying
is, what more can we do? Is this
America first? Why are we even talking about
this? Why would it be American responsibility
to change this situation because they're bad guys?
Well, okay. Well, is this is this about
what Americans want? Or is this you see
where this goes? Is this a moral mission?
Are we going to stop them because they're
evil and bad? Why would that be America
first? Is that what Americans want? It becomes
infuriating.
What we could do at Treasury and what
we have do is have done is created
a dollar shortage in the country. Oh. At
a speech at the Economic Club of New
York in March, I outlined the strategy.
It came to a
swift and,
I I would say, grand culmination
in December. Right. Right. When this all really
kicked off. Right? When one of the largest
banks in Iran went under, there was a
run on the bank. The central bank had
to print money. Right. Right. Okay. So he
just literally said, we caused that. We made
that happen. The bank collapsed, caused a run
on the bank, by the way, which is
one of the main things that became the
problem. People in the streets going, we're angry
with this situation because of the the money
and the collapse.
And yet, they can stand there with a
straight face and talk to you, Rubio and
the rest, as if it's all because Iran
and their evil terrorism spending.
Even if that's what you claim they're doing,
you just admitted that you created the collapse.
This is because they know that people out
there will go along with their narrative regardless
of the information.
And there might very well be an agenda
about doing this. We've thought about this a
lot over the years, about, like, schizophrenically putting
out the information and then coming out two
seconds later and giving you something else. Right?
Look into Bill Clinton. He's the bad one.
The next day, I like Bill Clinton. I'm
mad at looking at him. Now that could
just be stupidity,
or it could be crafty. It could be
confusing. It could be meant to muddy the
waters while everything else is I don't know.
You can decide for yourself. Tell I'll tell
you what, though. This is insane that we
can't put these pieces together. It speaks to
an incredibly psychologically
manipulated population.
The Iranian currency went into free fall. Inflation
exploded, and, hence, we have seen the Iranian
people out on the street. We will Yeah.
Hence, we did that, and now they're on
the streets. I mean, it's cut and dry.
Continue
monitoring all the partners,
the all the Iranian partners.
The good news, senator, is that we have
seen and we can see it,
with our fence end.
We have seen the Iranian leadership
wiring money out of the country like crazy.
Yeah. Well, surprise surprise because you're literally destroying
their finances.
You know, you think that the Peter Thiel,
and Musk, and Trumps of the world would
not be doing literally everything they could to
ensure their financial security well before they even
let you know what was going on? Really?
They just it's so crazy how they frame
them as evil for doing
exactly what they've already done in the past,
and we know that they would do today.
So the rats are leaving the ship,
and that is a good sign that they
know I know they're not, by the way.
They're not. They're not leaving the ship. They're
very clearly doubling down. But this is what
they hope will change the conversation. If we
scream that they're collapsing, maybe people will believe
that. They did this with then what remember
they were all saying, oh, my god. Povelevi's
taking over. They fled the capital. Oh, we're
and then nothing happened. It went route the
next day. Nope. Didn't happen. They hoped that
that would reach the masses and they might
change what they were doing because they thought
that was happening. That's that's
legit regime change tactic.
But this guy this this,
you know, aristocrat muppet we're talking about, this
this is, like, such a classic example of
everything
that people do not what he is. He's
just elitist insider, you know,
is the way he is. It's just funny
to me. It's it's it's like right out
of The Muppet Show. And, I mean, about
the way they present that category.
These people are just absolutely playing the game.
And it could be that they wanna benefit
themselves, or it could be that they're just
trying to deceive you for a larger agenda,
but I kinda get the sense that rats
might be fleeing the ship, just not the
ship they're talking about. That they are out
there desperately trying to make their own way,
and, you know, all every man for himself
is what it might it's starting to feel
like. But you can,
as always, decide for yourself. These are all
just my opinions, obviously. But, you know, there's
a lot shifting right now. Now, Mark Levin
comes out because he's very America First and
says, it's time to military attack Iran.
Okay? Even though quite literally nobody in or
rather in the Republican Party, like, this outside
of the team players,
it is, like,
poll after poll after poll, left and right.
People do not want more war. They clearly
don't wanna attack Iran.
Came up with Charlie Kirk.
Came up with almost all of these people
where they came and they said, Look, that's
not in our interest, man. That's not America
First. That's, arguably, one of the reasons why
Charlie Kirk began
his awareness of Zionism, and then he died.
If we can't get our military assets fully
in place in five weeks to attack Iran,
a regime with virtually no navy, air force,
massive internet internet
internal unrest that they literally just told you
they created, then we have a very serious
problem. After all, we're not talking about Russia
or China. Right. Because we can, we should.
Right? Might makes right. Right, Mark?
They're weak. Let's take it. Right? Greenland can't
defend it. Let's just take it.
I mean, it's so shockingly counter to everything
they moments ago pretended they were because they're
taking the mask off, guys.
They are not you.
Ahead of US Iran talks, Netanyahu tells cabinet
conditions could lead to regime change in Tehran.
Okay. So we have this conversation happening. We're
going to start talks, and Trump's telling you
we're gonna find peace. And he's ended his
75,000
wars since he became power in power. Right?
Can't we all tell? He's ended every war
ever existed.
The day before US and Iranian officials are
set to hold talks in Oman, Israeli prime
minister Netanyahu convened a meeting of his security
cabinet and told his own top officials that
certain conditions
are in place that may, in fact, lead
to the downfall of the Iranian government.
So let's go to those talks for peace.
K? Let's let's go into these talks with
the pretend me you know, the idea that
we're gonna find some middle ground while Netanyahu's
like, it's all coming down. Get ready.
I mean, it's just it's just funny about
it is the nefarious reality of who these
people are are just right on their shoulder.
Like, it's just you can see the villainy
in their face today and the actions they're
taking. They're not it's like it's like because
they bought into the way they view the
world and the way they think they've influenced
enough of the pulse the The US, really,
political conversation.
It's like they just
decide to go forward. Let's just tell them
we hate people. Let's just tell them we're
vicious, you know, military minded financial manipulator. Like,
let's just come out with it because some
of them feel that way. And let's let
those million follower people pretend like that's what
everybody thinks. Like, I'm not sure, but we
have to admit that they're just being pretty
brazen today.
Netanyahu also told the Knesset Committee that the
coordination between The US and Israel is as
high and as close as possible. Now you
could imagine a world where they'll say that
just to make you think that and not
necessarily what's happening, but I get the sense
that's where we are. Earlier this week, Netanyahu
met with Steve Witkoff
and Jared Kushner, you know, because we elected
them and they're in charge of American policy?
Apparently so, which they weren't elected in case
you didn't pick up on my sarcasm, who
will be leading The US talks in Iran.
These two people. People who are very clearly,
shockingly, aggressively pro Israel, who have very clearly
told you that they want to I mean,
over the years, look at their conversations about
Palestinians and then pretend like this is gonna
be a balanced
outcome.
The Israeli position is that any US deal
with Iran must include limits on ballistic missiles
and address their support for allies.
Wow. How quickly that shifted. You can't have
nuclear bombs. Oh, now it's well, you just
can't even work with people we don't like.
Otherwise, you're a terrorist.
Well, that's not allowed, guys. That's just not
how the we get the the reality of
international law works. But if you haven't caught
on by now, they don't care about
that. Elon Musk highlighting what Glenn Beck said.
And, of course, let's not forget, Glenn, I
support the current thing. He put his thing
in his just like he made fun of,
the Liberals doing. I support the current Shah.
You know, the one that nobody supports because
that flag is the Shah flag. That's what
he's doing. He literally changed his icon to
the Shah, somebody who only is supported by
elitist globalist manipulators, but he's the one fighting
all of them. Listen to Alex Jones. The
truth is that they are supporting the current
thing just like the left did because they're
all the same thing, just with a different
motive.
And he says, by passing this one act
now that was just my way to connect
the two conversations. I wanna include this as
well.
By passing this one act, the GOP will
save the Republic
and rescue the GOP, because we clearly live
in a Republic, don't we? See how these
things are just embarrassing? Like, can we all
just not stand back and go, come on,
man. Maybe maybe you could stretch democracy, which
nobody should want if you understand how this
country was designed.
But if we're gonna pretend that like, it's
not a democracy, even that, by the way.
We live in a pluocracy pluocracy, an oligarchy,
an authoritarian dictatorship, if you want my honest
opinion, just flavored with different window dressings. But
a republic? Well, yes. They say this because
they're tapping into the mindless people that follow
them, who want them to think that what
Trump is doing is about saving the freedom,
republic, liberty,
patriot, whatever the words are, while they're literally
nailing your coffin shot. I mean, come on,
guys. Republic?
I mean, this is what is I'm try
I've this is in my mind because of
how I started. We have these moments where
people are saying things that are fundamentally not
true. Now if he said the republic we
should want, well, that's different.
These are grifters, man. They're out there trying
to keep you gaslit and in the shadows
so you don't see what's going on. Now
I'm not claiming I know he knows that.
But remember, there's a lot of people out
there, these are high enough people though, I
think that's the case,
that do what's in their interest,
are manipulated,
are funded, are lobbied, are threatened. But overall,
the save act is what he's talking about.
We need digital IDs to save the republic.
That's not what they're framing it as though.
If they fail, we will fail. Every time.
All or nothing. If we don't pass this
one act, the whole thing goes away.
Really?
I I mean, guys, we should laugh at
people like this. 80% of all Americans want
this. That's so shockingly not true. You need
ID for everything except voting. Well, guess what?
You don't need the SAVE Act with digital
ID, real ID compliance
to pass that bill or to accomplish that.
You can literally have the SAVE Act without
the real ID compliance, and it would accomplish
the same thing.
But they don't want that. But here we
are. Pass the Save Act. That's Bennet Johnson,
of course. Same thing. All on the same
team. And Elon says it must be done
or democracy is dead.
But he just said republic. Are you guys
confused? You didn't get your notes together. The
truth, guys, is that the Save Act is
not about what they claim it is. We
already covered this. Don't forget the Save Act
is a way to trick you into calling
for digital ID. We can have this exact
bill without real ID compliance baked into it,
which is right in front of you. Look
for yourself.
I mean, it's just it's it's frustrating.
Because remember, the if you forget this conversation,
they have Real ID compliant identification as the
primary. And in multiple ways, the things they
have, like, I birth certificate, drivers, those things
are already being phased out right now in
this administration.
Biden was already starting it with his mobile
driver's license. And if you read what it
says in there, it comes to a point
where that will be the required reality.
And then that's digital ID, guys. Real ID,
ID twenty twenty. It's all the same conversation.
And it's not just digital ID or just
digital ID. It goes into surveillance. It goes
into tons of stuff. But listen to Glenn
Beck because illegals are stealing our elections even
though your government's been stealing them from you
a lot longer than that.
Scatter you've just gotta get past this
naive
two party illusion game.
But in regard to Israel, drop site news,
the US government has moved forward with new
arms transfers to Israel worth about 6,670,000,000.00.
Because that's okay, though. Right? Let's let's I
mean, you know, it's just so frustrating how
much is happening and people are being pulled
into these conversations.
That's separate from 3.3. We already made this
point the other day, but realize this is
continuing.
In the midst of everything that's happening,
billions and billions and billions more. And they're
sending these bunker bomb bunk bunker busters. You
wanna explain me why that makes sense? In
an area that's basically carpet bombed?
What do they need these for? To get
through the tents? No. Because they've been using
them from the very beginning to bomb tents,
to bomb locations full of
children. The whole world knows this.
And, of course, this is what a ceasefire
looks like in Israel.
This is what's happening right now.
People
running, screaming.
Right.
It's not a joke. I mean, this this
is literally what's been going on ever since
they claimed ceasefire. And they're still encroaching and
stealing territory because they're moving the the yellow,
you know, yellow markers further.
But just keep an eye on what's going
on, guys, because that's not stopping.
And it will continue as they reimagine the
world for you and start with Gaza.
Now I wanna make a point about this
show we did. Now it's interesting to me.
I know most of you probably catch the
point here, but
this was called the America first in quotes
global order.
And we talked about the astroturfing of the
Iran protest in case I should have mentioned
that, but remember the major article that came
out showing billions of different basically, they astroturfed
the entire conversation in Iran about the Rashaw,
and it was proven.
Tons of fake bot accounts just got exposed.
But they but if you know, if you
need that, clearly,
he must be popular if they have to
fake his support. Right?
But the point was America First global order.
This conversation,
basically, a lot of people took it as
a the the actual meaning of glow an
America first global order, which in a way
is something that maybe what's funny is a
lot of Republicans might even go, yeah, even
though it's still globalization.
But the point was that it's not America
first.
That that's what they're calling it. So if
you don't know that about the way I
use these titles, the quotes, outside of a
outside of the context being something that was
actually quoted, it tends to imply something that's
not actually the case. Right? So this case,
the America first global order was meant to
be, like, a contradiction. And so if you
look at it, even them saying an America
First style, it's not that. What they're doing
in this country is not America First. But
just wanna make sure we saw that. Now
on that point of the larger global discussion,
a couple of additional points before we get
to the Epstein conversation. I thought well, these
all overlap, by the way. And thank you,
Isabella, for including the links to these.
That's what honest people do. I shouldn't say
it like that, but, you know,
responsible,
I don't know. People that do their job
well. Isabella says, in case you missed this
one, the World Economic Forum's,
Borges Brende, one of the top people at
the World Economic Forum, you know, where Trump
just went, was plotting with Epstein
about replacing the UN with Davos.
No. It's a supplemental point.
With everything we've just seen, it feels like
it makes a lot of sense to me.
But it's still it's still opinion.
But what's interesting, here's the email as always.
It it's simply talking about the trilateral trilateral
commission, which is connected but not exactly the
same thing. Is a nongovernmental,
you know, basically talking about what it does
and bringing people together, society. And at the
end of the day, it just says members
are also committed to supporting rules based international
system, which is highly unlikely from what they're
saying, but bringing it into the twenty first
century, making Davos a permanent place for discussion,
not one trick pony. So that's them discussing
this. And it says, we need a new
global architecture.
World Economic Forum, Davos, is uniquely positioned, public,
private, best, Borgia.
That's from Jeffrey Epstein to is it Borgia?
Borgia? Brende?
So they're just discussing how that was the
case. Right? And then we saw the transition.
We saw the Klaus Schwab and and what
they say right there, public, private. That's the
the whole point, guys.
As she says, more here from Borgia.
Unclear who he's talking about, but after highlighting
Trump,
after after but after him maybe we already
talked about them claiming Trump was, you know,
crazy and very dangerous. But this is after
highlighting Trump as borderline insane. They go on
to discuss the need for new global architecture
and the rise of a new class of
people, and they described them as useless.
These are this is the very same eugenics
kind of conversation. The point is that even
whether Trump or not, maybe the Trump team
is the one that took over and took
this for me. There there are different vying
groups. I'm just speaking off the cuff. The
point is regardless of whether it's all the
same thing and they hated Trump or they're
different factions,
I think the same thing is happening.
And here, we're seeing them discuss this before
with Epstein in 2018
about making Davos the new UN discussion.
Of
course, that overlaps with what we're seeing today.
Trump goes to Davos again,
and, you know, Letnick and the rest are
like, globalism is dead. And then he literally
goes on to outline his globalist plan. It's
not my opinion, guys. He literally discussed it
this is only one part of it, by
the way, his board of peace,
a global discussion, which includes multiple countries in
the world. So it's not national. It's a
global discussion, and these his his
board of peace icon is basically identical to
the United Nations, and it's not just The
United States. But it is the Tech Nate.
That is the image they used, which is
not accident in my opinion.
But I said, Gaza's board of peace seeks
to reimagine the international order. So if you
understand this, you could argue that either this
is Trump being a part of that and
they're all just gaslighting you about the division
or that he doesn't even know he's doing
that. Both make sense to me. Or I'm
wrong, and that's not what's happening. But realize
that you have this plan being laid out
about this transition. We saw what happened during
COVID with Davos and Schwab and the way
that they were telling you this, We need
this new public private dynamic, we need change,
and that didn't work. And now you got
Trump going at it from a different angle.
Basically doing the same thing and even introducing
it at Davos. Remember, this was introduced
at Davos. They they laid out their new
global plan at Davos while they told you
globalism was dead. This is the point, guys.
These things are obvious if you just have
the wherewithal to look and pay attention.
So,
additionally,
Adder
what's that? How do you say that? Abderhamen.
The account says the very same people who
funded Gaza's destruction were given the keys to
Gaza. Mark Rowan, in these four clips you
can watch, is an anti Palestinian
ultra Jewish Zionist and a long time Israel
lobbyist who's not only a Trump donor, but
funds politicians to ensure their controlled support for
Israel.
More Mark Rowan videos, who for years has
been funding politicians through his Apollo global management
firm.
Jewish Zionist Israel funders Rowan, Kushner, Whitcough helped
Israel destroy Gaza, and now they're financially benefiting
from it. It also mentions this, what's his
name again? Adam Hoffman, this 25 year old
goof guy this this young you know, it's
just funny to me. He's he's a Doge
guy. Like, it's just ridiculous how this is
all going down. He's apparently one of the
main people involved with the signing of what
happens to Gaza because that totally makes sense.
Right?
It's just this we're being manipulated, guys. The
point for me
is, first of all, that the guy involved
with this, at,
Mark
Rowan,
is a very clear Zionist Israel connected person.
But that's not an alone. I mean, Zionism
very clearly should be something alone enough to
go, okay. Hold on. And I'm not talking
about what people believe it is, or even
if I'm wrong about that. I'm talking about
whatever it is, what that organization in the
government of Israel is doing in the world
right now. You can't pretend like that's not
a part of the conversation.
So whether or not you think it's a
home for the Jews or whatever, then realize
Israel's taken that and they are using it
to kill people. Either way, that's not the
reality of it. The point is that Zionism
in the world is conducting genocide. And so,
when you find out somebody's a hardcore Zionist,
of course that matters. But you can
be objective about it. Wait to find out
who they are, talk to them. But my
point is that alone, if that makes you
go, okay,
why would a ultra Zionist Jewish Israel supporter
be the guy deciding what happens in a
that doesn't make any sense.
But then,
shout out to UpScroll, which I just made
a new account there, which I'm you know,
as always,
there's so many accounts out there, and you
wonder what the new one will be and
how it will go. But, Janice Girl asked
me was saying, hey. Come join us on
the platform. So I went over this I
set up an account. It's only on the
phone, which is frustrating, so I can't show
it on the the desktop. But it's like
always t l a vagabond. That's my account
there. But just use this to shout her
out on here. Here's her account on upscroll.
Arets pro Trump billionaire
on Gaza Board of Peace
linked to Jeffrey Epstein. Well, what do you
know? Alright? So it's not just that he's
Zionist or Israel connected. He also happens to
be in the Epstein files. And he also
happens to be tied in with Trump's Gaza
Board of Peace plan, which is the new
UN Davos dynamic, at least as I see
it.
He's a billionaire private equity founder appointed by
Donald Trump to help oversee Gaza's reconstruction.
Okay.
Here's what drop site news has to say
about it. Newly released February 2026 DOJ files
show years of direct contact
between Mark Rowan,
CEO and cofounder of Apollo Global Management, and
a Trump appointee to the Gaza Board of
Peace, and his connection to and long years
of con conversation with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey
Epstein, undercutting his long claims that he never
did business with him. Emails and call records
show Rowan consulting Epstein on Apollo's internal tax
and accounting matters, sharing firm documents, meeting him
at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse as late as 2016,
well after he was an established sexual predator,
and discussing
a potential $19,000,000
sale of Rowan's private jet. Rowan took over
Apollo after cofounder Leon Black resigned amid revelations
he paid Epstein more than a $150,000,000.
It just circles around. Let's get the new
guy in place and keep the whole thing
going. They think the same thing with Epstein,
by the way. You think they missed a
beat? No. Epstein is either in Israel somewhere,
get dead somewhere, you know, whatever, but the
whole thing kept going,
evidenced by the fact that it's currently being
covered up by the US government.
But beyond Wall Street, Rowan is shaping Trump
era higher education policy, backing a donor driven
compact crisis, says,
say
what is that?
Coerce?
I think that's a typo. Say coerces
oh, I'm sorry. No. I read it wrong.
I thought that was the name of the
university. It says,
backing donor driven compact critics say coerces universities
into adopting pro Israel political conditions, which is
exactly what we just saw throughout the the
Columbia and all the rest, and Trump doing
the same thing. Epstein actively pitched himself as
a paid deal adviser
on Apollo related transactions.
In January 2016 email, which is right here,
included as always,
he attached the image.
Epstein proposed, in January 2016, a 25%
success fee tied to the value generated by
a deal, spelling out that he could earn
as much as $75,000,000
and wrote that any arrangement would require sign
off from Mark and Josh, referring to Apollo
leaders, Mark Rowan and Josh Harris.
So at this point,
it's important that we ask,
we get to the next stick segment here,
you know,
just the interconnected point that these things do
not prove somebody's a criminal.
But at the very least proves that they're
pretty morally ambiguous to work with a sexual
predator
who they admit today. Like, most people were
aware of that. I mean, they were all
aware of it at that point. But even
today, that there was people that were, you
know, what's I keep forgetting her name. It's
like, we all knew what he was doing,
that that famous what's her name? God. I
can't remember her name right now. Don't even
know the chat if you remember that. She
sat on an interview, like, in front of
everybody. And then immediately was called out for
then why didn't you do something about it?
The point is that you have a guy
like Mark Rowland who's tied in with all
sorts of these larger discussions, the Gaza board
of peace, the idea of the technocratic change
over there, and he is somebody that's also
in the Epstein files tied to Israel, Zionist
as well. And the idea of it going
all the way back to the conversation of
the UN and Davos from like, there's a
coordinated game happening here. Now some of these
pieces might not not necessarily
be relevant or connected,
because we're just kind of seeing what we
can see as this goes forward.
But everyone seems to be able to recognize
the outline,
And we're being lied to, guys. And I
think this is an important moment to make
these cases because these people are hoping that
we let this go or that we don't
have any,
actionable
way forward.
And I think right now, we know that's
not true.
So before we go forward on that, I
think the overlap of this with the child
sexual abuse and what, you know, the whole
child predator that Epstein was and what they
did,
it's an interesting overlap. We just talked about
the Pizzagate conversation as Ben Swan brought this
back out, rightly so, because he was right
about the way he covered that and the
fact that it was misrepresented
as the Pizzagate conversation. It all came about
with the comp pizza conversation, which was really
a cover for the larger story.
Now, it was related in plenty of ways
in regard to the email, but the way
that that went down and the name that
it was given was meant to make it
ridiculous.
Now recognize that people like Tucker Carlson and
lots of others didn't do really anything about
it back then because it was so uncomfortable
and so completely, like, you know, it was
purse your persona on grata. You're not supposed
to point to that.
That's why mostly independent media were covering it.
And and and the honest versions of it,
like what we did, was simply going through
the facts
and making fun of people like David Seaman
who were out there recycling the pizza code
words and acting like that alone was enough
to do everything. It was not. They were
important, but it was not proof. It was
evidence.
And we and then the reality of Silsbee
and Clinton, the trafficking in Haiti and and
a lot bigger conversation. That's just the one
that was proven because of the state department,
the media coverage.
So I think it's interesting. Now I haven't
watched this yet because it's an hour, and
I only saw this later. And I will
because it I I get I've actually appreciated
some of the different coverage that Tucker's been
doing. I still am very skeptical, but because
I'm an honest person and objective, if Tucker
kept doing the right thing for the next
six years, I wouldn't keep calling him a
manipulator. Like, I'm just like I'm doing with
Massey. Massey, I'm I'll be skeptical and question
them forever because that's what we should do.
But I'm gonna point out when they do
things that I think are good. Now I
my worry here
is that this, especially since I haven't listened
to it fully,
is
what the as Steve calls
the safe dangerous.
Right? Where this is a conversation that has
been so thoroughly laid out that they can
step into it and then go, look. Turns
out it was all correct. I mean, like,
the most
after the fact way. But if it's honest,
then he should do that. Right? Let's just
say he saw it and was like, I
can't believe I've never seen this before. We
need to point to this. We should appreciate
that. But we should ask whether it's the
other way. Consider whether this is some way
to use the truth to lie to you.
I'm honestly not sure where I stand on
it.
What's frustrating to me, to be honest, one,
is that it's happening now after it's been
there for so long.
Ben Swan is not a small person. He's
a mainstream reporter when he put that out.
And you're telling me Tucker didn't see it
then? That he didn't know about it then?
No. It was a choice to either ignore
it or knew about it and didn't care.
So that matters. Right? But secondarily,
that he brings on Ian Carroll.
Why would you bring on some like, what
why wouldn't you go to Ben Swan? Why
wouldn't you go to people like myself that
have literally been covering it since day one
and have been over you know? But you
know why, guys. Because that's the connection to
the larger audience. That's the token element that
gets put in lieu of people like us
who are actually in there doing the work.
Now, I'm not even saying Ian Carroll's not
doing the same thing. Question all of them,
whether he knows or not or maybe I'm
wrong. The bottom line, though, is there are
chosen elements in this conversation that are allowed
to be the ones revealing things. That's how
this works, whether they know that or not.
It's been consistent my entire career doing this
when we've been shockingly well ahead of stories
and plenty of other people I know around
me have done the same thing and they're
never the ones that get seen for that
work. Now, as we've said our entire careers,
it's not about credit other than the reality
that we all want credit for our work.
Of course, we do. It's about making sure
one of two things happens. Well, really, just
the main one, that if you're doing this,
that you do it in a way that
provides source material so people can prove it,
not, as we'll come to in a second,
stuff like this.
Where now that this is going back around,
you get groups like this. Wall Street Apes,
who was, again, a lot of these platforms
just recently caught lying and sharing fake information,
who shares this guy's video about the pizza
code words and how it means it's the
same story.
And if you watch it for yourself now,
look, there's it's it's a point to the
story.
But this, without any source material and showing
you one email one claim, it's as if
this is every oh, my god. That's a
crazy that's the smallest,
most meaningless part of the story. But it
does have meaning.
But it's the most meaningless part of the
story, if you understand what I'm saying. Because
the reality of the evidence goes so far
beyond the subjective use of those words, which
you know my opinion. I do think they
were used in that way.
But you have to understand how much this
will not reach people beyond
your circle.
The people out there, the the random woman
living on the corner, the people family that
lives down the street, they won't care about
this. They'll look at this. They'll think you're
crazy.
That's by design. Even though an honest person
should be able to look and consider, but
not everyone does that. We know that. That's
what we deal with every day.
So it goes into all of this. What
is Pizzagate?
Disgusting governmental cover up. Yeah. I mean, again,
I really hope this is well done. Please
let me know what you think. I'll I
will be watching it.
But, ultimately,
you know all this stuff. We just literally
covered this in February third conversation going back
over it. It was entitled the Epstein files.
Is this about accountability or pacification?
I'll also include
the tag to the long what is it?
13 pages of work going over all these
years discussing the the, you know, the again,
the one of the main ones, the Clinton
Silsbee trafficking scandal and the media cover up,
the true origin of Pizzagate, really just as
the focal point became that story. And and
all of the other conversations about how this
was used, how there was a disc the
name and discrediting it, the old you know,
all of the story.
A lot of work. The point though is
that Tucker Carlson is the easy share, and
I get it because people will be more
receptive to that. But it matters if that
ends up being something that's a limited hangout.
Consider all of these things.
Now one point I wanna make to go
beyond this is he talks about the elites'
demonic ritualistic child abuse. I really want to
believe that the people like this have good
intention and are genuinely trying to reach the
truth.
Endless examples from, really, both of these people
will show you that you have every reason
to doubt that. But I will still hope,
just like I hope for Trump and hope
for anybody else because we should.
But
if this is honest,
the elites and demonic rituals to child abuse
oh, he's even going over these ones.
How interesting. I've gotta go through this. I
just I'm skeptical. But
the elites' demonic rituals to child abuse. Now
demonic is a the word there seems to
be
important.
It does matter, as I'll show you in
some of the conversations. But in this point,
it's not necessary, and it's not necessarily every
part of the conversation.
So think about that. But either way, the
point is that this is something that's been
around for a long time. Oh, this you
can watch this. I'm not I've I've seen
this guy floating around, but it's all these
kind of, like, you know,
Pizzagate was a 100% real
was the point the the post. Why? Because
the word pizza was used, and it's clearly
not what they meant. I mean, that's the
gist of this this this kind of in
the mainstream alternative media work. It's it's sad.
But here's Tucker Carlson talking about the abuse.
Right? Well,
this kind of work from Derrick Bros and
the last American Vagabond about the Utah ritualized
sexual abuse investigation has been going on since
this first post went out.
Oh, wait. No. This is the last one.
Let me go let me go back to
the very beginning.
And this started when the Utah sheriff's department,
which was a pub it was a large
story right here,
investigated
ritualistic,
in some cases, satanic
child sexual abuse.
06/08/2022.
And this was a pretty large story. Derek
covered this intensively. We cover we continue to
follow-up on it all the way until the
last story. Now Now what I'm trying to
highlight here is that if we were interested
in this stuff, this would have been something
that people like them would be covering. I
don't remember them covering this because it wasn't
the mainstream story. It wasn't the one that
everybody wanted to hear about. That should make
you wonder what their intentions are.
And I'm only being this to be objective.
I'm not trying to attack either of them.
I genuinely want to believe that they're doing
the right thing, and I genuinely hope for
that.
This one, the last one he we just
put out, ritualistic
sex abuse
charges dismissed against admitted child abuser David Hamlin.
April 2025, dismissed.
If you go through this, it'll make you
throw up
how obvious the evidence is.
And I wonder why no one's talking about
this. Right? How about Derek's incredibly important work
that he's been doing for years around the
finders,
which is very real and wildly important. I
don't see them talking about that. Why is
it just the carryover story now that it's
been proven that everyone else did all the
work?
That should bother people.
Now another story
in Derek's excellent work on this, which is
not as,
damning and provable in the sense of the
actual child trafficking, sexual abuse part of it.
But there's an interesting story to be read
here about Bethany Christian Services and the idea
of abuse
and illegal action around and even to the
degree trafficking, but not necessarily sexual trafficking, but
just the idea of the you the financial
manipulation around the child welfare
conversation. Now, I'm not saying that that's the
case necessarily with like, there are there's there's
allegations, to make it clear, about them coming
from families. And Derek's work does make a
very good case about this. But being fair
and objective, it's not to say that they're
proven to be that. Okay? But what's interesting
to me
and here's the three part,
series Derek did. A Christian adoption firm with
accusations, manipulation, negligence, and trafficking, part two. Bethany
Christian services, mothers speak out, part three. Meet
the organizations
exposing the truth about adoption and supporting families
in need.
Now this wasn't you know, this isn't the
kind of stuff that everyone's clamoring to hear
about, guys. Not I mean, other than maybe
some circles in the right wing part of
the conversation, but it doesn't get much
conversation
even though it's important. The point is we
do the work because it matters, and we
believe in it.
Somebody needs this out there. The voice need
somebody needs to put a spotlight on this
stuff, whether or not it's gonna be the
big attention grabber. Right? But the point of
bringing this up today,
Home of the Brave points out, Betsy DeVos,
who, by the way, is a major part
of this as he goes into this part,
the DeVos connection and and the the family
behind this.
Betsy DeVos, secretary of education in Trump's first
term,
has the, has the Jeffrey Epstein stamp of
approval, as they frame it, after she made
it harder for victims to report sexual misconduct
on college campuses.
Here's Jeffrey Epstein res regarding this, saying under
the new guidelines, they would have to have
thrown out almost all the claims against me,
if not all of them.
That's Jeffrey Epstein
saying that. Saying good thing she did that
because that covered my ass. That's what he
just said.
Now, you don't have to argue that that's
part of the design, but realizing it's interconnected,
it should make you wonder. And then just
simply using this to consider this overall point
and and the larger conversation about this and
what they're doing. And this isn't just about
this one,
group, but just right now what's happening. And
I brought we're gonna end with this point.
I do have the time for it today.
By the way, I forgot to play that
video yesterday, so I I do that sometimes
on the way out. But I will play
it as we get to it after this
next segment. And that's about the idea of
of ICE
and what's happening with children today.
Look. They might not be connected.
But with what we're finding out about all
of our government, we should really be wondering
whether there is something going on there. Now
with this Bethany Christian services, you'll find out
right now that they've got multiple contracts for
migrant children.
76,000,000.
And these were and these were continued through
Donald Trump's administration. Not that this necessarily is
nefarious, but just it might be relevant later.
Bethany Christian Services, multiple contracts. This one's $1,823,000,000
going to 2025.
Here's another one, All
DHS. 20 twenty twenty 6, 14,000,000.
And this this is
where was this? Oh, that's right.
The
flow of migrant children.
Now what what again, if you know the
way that we see this, and hopefully the
way that you understand it to be the
reality, which is that left and right is
more of an illusion than anything else.
Not in the sense of the individual and
your political beliefs, but the way the government
operates.
And my point is to highlight
the increase in the migrant children flow. And
recognizing that the argument the reason I say
that is, of course, they're gonna say, wow.
That's all under Biden. Yeah. That's fair. That
was. And that's my point. Yes. He's just
as bad. If you haven't caught on by
now. But realize that in 2025,
it
there almost mirrored 2023.
So you could argue that it was tapering
down because he was dealing with what Biden
was doing. Okay. That's usually what you're gonna
get. But
look at where 2026
is.
It's February, guys.
That's almost a quarter of it. That that
is I guarantee you this is going to
explode this year and probably more than ever.
I shouldn't say guarantee. That's my opinion, obviously,
but I really think that. And so what
I'm trying to highlight is that Biden or
Trump left and right,
that number seems to be increasing continually.
Now, there are points that you can connect
here that show you it's not about just
the flow of immigration.
That makes me very worried about what's actually
happening and whether or not these missing, unaccompanied
children are just
vanishing into the wind. We saw that with
Syria. We saw that with a lot of
locations. Right? Now, for those out there
already assuming that we make this only about
one side, let's not forget that we already
covered this. The Biden administration's legacy of migrant
child trafficking.
I'm hoping I'm blowing someone's mind right now
who thought we were hating on Trump. Well,
guess what? It's the whole picture, guys. And
realize this was an important story. I Derek
wrote this article. I covered it in the
show. 11/23/2024.
HHS's human trafficking problem. Oh, I'm sorry. This
was the same conversation continuing, and we did
make the point about the the let me
see the the date here. Yeah. Okay. So
the point was
we were discussing
the the Biden discussion and leading into the
Trump administration, because it's 2024.
But what we need to understand is this
problem has existed
across left and right administrations.
But the point is that under Biden's, there
was a bunch of missing children. That that
then there was a bunch of very weird
overlaps with the places they ended up. And,
you know, we've been covering this our my
entire time doing this. The c the children's,
the I think it's the CPS in California,
child protective services or whatever it's called anywhere
else, the just the the welfare, you know,
child protection system in the country is rife
with abuse. They'll admit that in their own
reports.
That there's far too easy of a connection
between human trafficking and where these kids go
through these systems. They'll tell you that.
Probably because some of them evolved genuinely wanna
do good by children. But at the end
of the day, the system, they're being manipulated.
And here, you can see this through Biden.
You know, I believe you can see it
continuing through Trump.
But consider that, and we'll end with that
point today. Now before we go back to
that, let's get into some of the meat
of the Epstein files that are on top
of what we are discussed and the reality
of the DOJ covering up.
Everything, but in particular,
Kash Patel, Pam Bondi's conversations.
So I wanna start with what Mel said
here. And I've been saying this almost every
show lately, and just finding another person framing
it in in a similar way to, you
know, use it as a new point. But
I because I you get my my meaning
as I want this to be I want
this to be continually in your mind.
And I I'm sure all of you
are likely on this path already because I
you're you're not stupid. All of you out
here watching this, you guys are very intelligent
people who understand the two party illusion, who
understand how these things are used, the psychological
play, you know, all it's it's constant.
We you're also smart enough to know that
it's not something you should assume is always
the case, but it could be the case
and to be objective about that. It's likely
why you're here.
But that we need to continue to think
about this in the sense that it's a
larger
long term play.
And I think right now, you can almost
prove it because as as I think it
was was it this guy? I think she's
quoting this guy down here or this person
asking I'll just read it first. You know,
why are there no arrests?
Can someone help me understand what's going on
here? I don't know if it's genuine or
not. I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with
them. It's, I think, about 200,000 followers.
We're getting these massive Epstein file dumps
with names paraded everywhere, detailed accounts of rape
and pedophilia. Well, yes, but they're subjective. Let's
not forget that. Some of them, anyway. Some
of them are not. I showed you those
as well. Like the one that's literally an
a a signed affidavit in court under the
threat of perjury that says, this is what
they did to me. I was raped. They
and that matters.
That's why we're gonna go over Todd Blanche
again and the reality that he's straight up
going, what what do you mean? There's nothing
to investigate. That's insane, guys. There's tons of
that stuff. I just showed you the imagery
of, of,
anyway, there's so many. I don't even wanna
go back through it all. Go back to
the recent shows. So many examples
of actual,
like, investigative crimes.
But my point is there's tons of subjective
information too that a lot of the Republicans
are out there going, we can prove everything,
and probably by design. So it ends up
kind of mudding the water. So you come
in honestly and go, but wait a minute.
That's just an email. I can't even see
who sent it or who it went to.
And all of this is them going, here's
my opinion. And that's supposed to prove something?
You don't need those to prove he's tied
to Israel, guys. You don't need those to
prove that there's other evidence I should've said
it like that. You don't need those to
see
that there's there's enough evidence.
Trapping myself in the way I said that
about Trump, about all of them. Anyway, continuing.
Basically, simply saying zero arrest, no handcuffs, no
perp walks, no accountability. What's actually the end
game here? Right? And this is what Mel
has to say. And I agree with this
exactly.
Sure. I'll explain. The emails released so far
haven't provided any prosecutorial
evidence for a crime. Now I disagree with
that. I agree with the general sentiment of
why this is difficult, but let's not forget.
There are very clear examples, maybe by mistake,
maybe by larger plan that do
have potential for prosecutorial evidence. Now what what
I my reason I say it like that,
and this is what we should be demanding
right now,
if these are things hypothetically that they've investigated
and through their due diligence realized that there
was nothing there,
they should be look. You could stand up
and ask. What about this affidavit that says
Trump raped this woman that was signed in
a court of law under threat of perjury?
What about that one?
Well, force them. What happened? Did you investigate
it? Yes or no? What was the outcome?
Because if you're claiming that everything here, there's
nothing to go on, then that either implies
that that's fake,
and then let me know why you think
that's fake or that this was investigated and
shown to be a lie. And if that's
the case, then prove that. You see, but
there's so much to go on that would
take forever, which is probably the point. But
we deserve that.
Because there is actionable evidence in there, in
my opinion, like I just showed you, even
if it's only a couple of them.
But that being said, I agree with the
sentiment, the larger point, that right now the
point of what they were doing, I think,
was to put it out with only subjective
information.
She goes, yes. I know what they say.
And, yes, I know what they mean. But
none of this is enough to convict in
court. Some of it is in my opinion,
but at same point.
Now it could just be that she didn't
see that or maybe she disagrees with me.
I respect what Mel does. And it goes,
and that's by design. You need to understand
how the Epstein prosecution
actually worked to understand what these files are
actually about.
She says when Epstein was rearrested in 2019,
he was recharged with his crimes from 2001
to 2006.
All of the real evidence collected was in
pursuit of those crimes.
2001, 2006.
All these 2009,
2019
emails
from those from in between those dates released
thus far,
she writes are, like, 80% b s. Or
at the very least, they could be.
Meaning a lot of them are just subjective
statements and emails, and that's by design, I
think.
She says the other 20% is showcasing networks
and showing us the bare minimum required by
law. I do think that was the plan.
She goes, does this make them useless? No.
Most definitely not. You see, that's where people
get confused. By saying that's the case does
not mean that we should ignore them. It
just means we have to stop pretending like
words on paper prove everything because we already
have an opinion.
It's used against us. It's against people that,
you know, aren't objective, I guess. And and
she goes, the average normie knows more about
the elite circles, elitist.
Let's make sure we stop calling them elite.
Elitist circles that rule our world
to that rule our world than they ever
have.
Oh, they know more about it than they
ever have. And it says that's serious progress.
I do agree with that. Right?
That that they, you know,
see the bigger picture to a smaller degree
or to a larger degree rather. But, you
know, that I think that is a positive
change. But if nothing happens,
it's almost the why I think this is
going on. So then you can go, okay.
Well, you knew and did nothing. Therefore, now,
not only is that the norm,
so you now later, you're gonna get the
Israel excuse. Well, you didn't care when they
were raping children. Right? This is how that
tends to go.
But
it's both, I think, to a degree.
That overall,
that is a good thing, but if we
do nothing, that it will hurt us. And
it says, but you also need to read
this non prosecution agreement and really absorb the
implications.
Alex Acosta, Trump's first administration,
gave immunity to Epstein and all his associates,
both named and unnamed.
I I mean, so here's the point. If
that's the the full breadth of this, which
I think there are openings beyond that, but
the idea that if you give
so none of this is me for any
reason at all.
Since you've already given Maxwell
a proper agreement, given her limited immunity, and
she's already serving whatever she says. Trump just
again said today that he's allowed to give
her a pardon. I don't think this is
going where you guys want.
But on top of that, that if every
associate connected, named or unnamed,
has immunity, then what's ever gonna happen in
the first place?
And so, you know, we fall into this
trap.
And they act like
it's accountability, but they've already set this up
in a way where it's not possible is
what you're saying. Yes. I know Gislaine Maxwell
was still prosecuted, she says, but you have
to understand that her case is literally headed
all the way to the Supreme Court over
this non prosecution agreement.
Don't expect anyone else to be charged until
that's litigated. Till then, keep on the pressure
and use the court public opinion to shame
those who have yet to be held accountable.
I do agree with that, but it can't
be in lieu of anything else, which I
think she's saying the same. We need to
make sure that we're driving this for accountability.
Like, there's lawyers out there.
Go after this. Grab the thing you think
is important and go as far as you
can with it. Take that affidavit. Bring it
to court. Find out what happened. Right? Find
out who that person was, if that's revealed,
probably not, said Jane Doe. Find out what
the outcome was. That was presented, so there
had to be something. If nothing ever happened,
that answers your question.
So on top of that, here's what you
get from people in this conversation right now.
I couldn't even believe this, by the way.
You can watch this guy scream at you
if you want. Former FBI deputy director Dan
Bongino claims Epstein files back files backlash is
just antisemitism.
I mean, can you
what it must take for somebody to be
in, you you know, their years of their
podcast just yelling about the Epstein files, and
that's all. We're gonna bring it all down,
deep state pedophiles and democrats and and then
leave the administration when you actually have the
ability to do something about that because you
weren't gonna do something about it. Then go
back to your show and act like they're
not doing anything about it. And and then
claim that the backlash about the information released
is just because you hate Jewish people.
I I mean, I can't I mean, these
are,
parodies of themselves.
Like, this is this guy is a clown
shoe. Like, you need to make fun of
how dumb the what in the world are
you talking about? Antisemitism?
So aren't you guys the one telling us
that he's not connected to the Messiah? Are
you the ones telling us that there's no
but then we hate him because he's Jewish?
But wait, you it's just it's insane.
No, Dan. We hate him because he raped
children. Maybe you should care about that.
I shouldn't even say it like that. That's
more of the, you know, bombastic. But I
do believe that's the case. But what we
can prove, just sexual trafficking
of many different ages. All sorts of,
what's the different terms?
I don't even know. You know, the the
specific pedophilia applies to a certain age group.
But you can list up the different age
group names and he fits in there in
regard to Epstein and everyone else they're connected
to and all these people trying to hide
from what's happening. But here's what you get
from even CNN.
Now I'm making a joke here to a
degree, but because CNN is talking about this,
but you get this round the clock coverage
of, oh my god, Trump's racist thing.
Now I'm very much of the mind
that that was done for exactly why this
is happening. Like, there's even somebody making an
argument right now that Trump, when in a
position like this, makes a racist comment in
order to get people to lurch at it
so you stop paying attention. And they I've
they've I've they pointed a couple examples out.
I'm like, that's actually pretty clear. So in
this case, there's that the video they put
out with, like, the in the jungle lion
king thing, and it shows I mean, look.
Regardless of what you think about it, it
clearly puts people in, you know,
Hillary Clinton is the hedgehog. You know? And
it's like they're just it's it's a
belittling point since Trump is the king lion
and the rest of them are all pandering
to him. But if you wanna call it
racist, call it racist. You I mean, it's
at the end of the day, it's meaningless.
It's a feelings conversation.
Trump's a disgusting idiot person. So is Biden.
They're all bad. They're bad villain people.
To claim that you care like, oh my
god. He said a racist thing. Like, are
are we not I mean, it just seems
so like kindergarten to me. I understand these
things are important in a larger sense. But
for you as a person
to be outraged to the degree of going
out and screaming about it because Trump posted
a video, it just it's just let's get
our priorities straight. And this is my whole
point, is that right now
this is CNN. Disgusting. So racist. Shocked Wolf
Blitzer refuses to show Trump's post on air,
but sure as hell talked about it, discussed
it, and broke it down. And then you
get the Republicans out there going, that's not
even what he meant. We're just all debating
a meaningless conversation.
That's how this works. So back to the
clip I started with. Let's play this again.
Here's the retired FBI agent telling you, as
we see
I I think I have no. I I
think I just have this in lieu of
that. The Blanche clip that's going around. More
than once now, he's made it clear that
we're not going to follow-up. There's no more
investigation. It it turns out they're not even
gonna release any more files.
There's
maybe 50% that's been released.
They're breaking the law, guys. And this FBI
guy, I just saw him recently the other
day for the first time. Here's his actual
account, at least on Twitter. I think this
is him. Steven Lazarus.
I just I appreciate the way he's doing,
and I think it has some weight seeing
as how he is former FBI, but be
skeptical as always. But I I just like
that he's challenging the statements. But I think
I don't think you need this. I think
everybody is pretty aware of how obvious this
is. Just my opinion. I mean, that in
a, you know, general sense. But here he
is again, breaking down how they're lying to
you about what's actually happening.
It states,
ladies and gentlemen, the deputy attorney general of
The United States. Oh, it is not a
crime to party with mister Epstein.
Fair point. I was at a birthday party
last weekend, and there was cake, balloons, and
presents.
Some paper
hats. Pretty tame stuff. I'm sure that's what
he means. Is the public going to learn
about
men that abuse these girls? Like, what does
that mean?
Allow me to explain.
It means men who engage in sexual activity
with girls who are either trafficked or were
too young to grant consent or both. Hope
that helps. I'm
crime to email with mister Epstein. Again, fair
point. Sending an email is not a crime.
You know what it is though? Evidence.
Some of these men may have done horrible
things and and if we have evidence that
allows us to prosecute them, you better believe
we will.
Some of these men may have done horrible
things.
What makes him say that? Could it be
the hundreds of victim statements, the thousands of
pictures and videos,
and the mountain of shockingly specific witness interviews?
There's this built in assumption that somehow there's
this hidden tranche of information of men that
we know about
that we're covering up or that we're not
we're choosing not to prosecute.
It's not hidden. It's literally on the Internet,
complete with names, dates, and details of the
sexual abuse these monsters heaped on their victims.
But but I don't think that that that
the public or you all are going to
uncover,
men
within the Epstein files that abuse women.
At the risk of repeating myself, that ship
has sailed. The DOJ released the documents and
now they're telling us not to believe what
we see with our own lying eyes.
Folks, this is not about politics.
It's about whether we want to be a
nation of laws or a boys club for
billionaires and powerful politicians.
As someone who took an oath to uphold
those laws, I know where I stand.
Share your thoughts in the comment.
Yeah. Well said. Right? I mean, if you
continue down this path and nothing happens despite
what we can see, whether you think it's
actionable or not, it's a different point. Because
I do agree with that. I think it's
important to highlight, but there are some that
we can go after. The point is if
this continues with all that is being laid
out, provable redactions of people that are saying
murder that person and cannibalizing children, even if
it's subjective. Like, these are things that bottom
line.
We let's just even take it to the
easiest way to frame it. Just take the
Trump discussion about the affidavit, the information that
we can prove. If they go forward,
if we all go forward and nothing happens,
that becomes the status quo. I wanna say
that again. Because then they can point back
and say, well, you know, we this is
this is the reality of where we are.
The Overton window shifts. You know? And and
it might not be immediate.
They're not gonna start walking out and going,
hey. Let's rape children. It's not how it's
gonna work, but it will slowly gravitate in
direction where they get away with crimes.
And I think we're already there. Yeah. So
what he's saying is if we do nothing
right now, this will establish the new reality
we're going forward in. And isn't that what
I'm talking about everywhere else? Maybe this is
part of that.
Well, I've checked him out here if you
wanna follow him.
Now here's an interesting clip I wanna start
with. Now I do wanna I'm glad I
remember this too. So back to the
James O'Keefe
point.
Like I said, I have skepticism around him
personally, around the entire thing, but I've always
shared his work because I find value in
it even if I know some cases it's
sort of selectively edited. But I do wanna
take back what I said last time seeing
as how my my sentiment was kind of
like, well, it feels like it's set up
in a way to be critical, but it's
not it's like almost pulling away from Trump.
But he did say in that first one,
I'm gonna go after those that said they
were and good on him. Because here's at
least one clip that I found of Bondi,
which tells me he does seem to be
going after them. But if I if it's
not
well, I'll just leave it at that. So
we should be skeptical. I could go off
in ways, like, if it doesn't turn out
to be this way, but be skeptical as
always. I know you guys agree with that.
But check this clip out. And this is,
from,
Pam Bondi on 04/28/2025.
And you've heard this already. Now I wanna
say before I play it that you could
easily just argue that Bondi is just saying
this because that's what she's saying to everybody
else. Doesn't make it that that's the reality
and the rest that's being said is now
a lie. But I think regardless of this
of the statements,
her telling you I mean, even the way
they've conducted this. It's a hoax. You know?
There's a there's a truckload. Now we can't
release anymore. Here's three more million pages. You
know? They've lied to you. Like, patently basic
obvious lies. Here she is, speaking to somebody
and admitting that it's all children. That's why
they can't put it out, which would be
very contradictory to there being no crimes and
nothing to investigate.
Scene files are gonna be released?
We hope soon. I'll be able to realize
them.
Okay. So Any dates?
No. You know what it is? There are
tons and thousands
of hitting those. Yeah. And it's all with
little kids, so they have to go through
every one. So look.
So interesting. Right?
So go through every one. All these videos
of little kids. Tens of thousands. Well, if
there's tens of thousands of child porn videos,
which is what she actually said in the
first place with the truckload and all of
that, well, then then then what you're saying
now is not just illegal and dishonest, but
it's vile and disgusting.
That's what people are upset about.
So shout out to them for actually continue
if they continue, I'll keep I think that's
fantastic.
Whether it's left or right, going after the
person who is in in power and lying.
Hopefully, we see Cash Patel getting caught. Hopefully,
we see Donald Trump getting caught in these
kind of videos.
I doubt that'll happen, but I really hope
for it. So I just wanna make sure
you heard that and that because I, you
know, I was skeptical. I wasn't saying I
knew that, but I now credit to him
for actually going after these people.
But he oh, it says, that was ten
months ago. No mass arrest, no major prosecutions,
no public accounting. If his administration had evidence
of crimes at that scale, people should already
be in court.
Everyone sees this, guys.
Now to that point,
we just talked yesterday about The UK Palantir
connection, both of the Epstein files, but just
the general sense of Palantir and Peter Thiel
basically working its way in through Mandelson, I
believe, in The UK, which is an Epstein
connected element, so is Peter Diehl. It's just
very clear how this is all working out
in my opinion.
The Met Police begins searching. Oh, it's right
there. Peter Mandelson's home.
Right.
Now I am of the mind that this
is,
I don't believe these that the UK government
is truly I mean, I I I I'm
gonna hope for the best like I do
with every situation. If they really go after
this and put politicians in jail, I'll be
proud I'll be happy about that. But
I get I kinda get the sense this
is gonna be about getting Mandelson out of
the way, firing him from his powerful position,
and then nothing else happens.
I hope not.
But either way, as people pointed out, at
least they're doing something. At least they're pretending
to do something. And meanwhile, Trump wants you
to move on and forget, which is what
he just said.
Can't we get into something else? You know,
DOJ and
how do you not sense a concern there?
I mean, if you were in Trump's shoes,
you could say a 100,000
other comments that would probably even go to
the same direction that aren't just like, forget
about it. Move on. It's just it's clumsy.
It's jarring. And it's the opposite of what
he told his people they were gonna get.
So on the Epstein stuff and some important
continual points on this, Epstein files released last
week includes hundreds of pages of docs that
lays bare the behind the scenes chaos at
the FBI early last year over the review
of the files. Now he goes on to
do a whole thread here. This is where
I saw it first. Wanna shout him out.
Here is the actual article.
Epstein Files review was totally chaotic.
So what I find interesting about this is
one that it speaks to
if this is accurate, it could be the
cover. There's always question everything. But it speaks
to the
incompetence of it all, which we know is
there. Who's to say what part is what?
You know, how much of it is that
or just them using that to hide their
crime? We can't look at people like Bonnie
and Cash and not recognize just at a
they're boiling over with incompetence.
And and so and so thinking about how
this went down. They're scrambling to get this
done, being driven, you know, like, Trump is
just driving them to get this done because
he wants to have this happen the way
he wants it to. They're not good enough
to do it the way they're supposed to.
So as we go through this, you're gonna
recognize at least an argument for why the
redactions were wrong and why they missed certain
things. But some additional points that really stand
out for, you know, implications of of bigger,
you know, crimes, criminal activity. And then, like
I've always said, they would always rather be
seen as incompetent than criminal.
So always consider that this is all just
a way to, like, a last ditch effort
to go, yeah, we're clumsy idiots, and that's
but that's not criminal. Right? So ignore that
we just cover this whole thing up. One
important document is an eight page timeline
that, this one here yeah. Right there.
That summarizes the FBI's collection and review of
the Epstein files between March and the end
of twenty twenty five in April, a couple
months before the DOJ and the FBI concluded
that no further
disclosure of the files would be appropriate or
warranted. I mean, they said that, and Blanche
just reiterated that. That should not be okay
with anybody.
Continuing, it says, one of the enduring mysteries
that for us, that and frustrations
one second.
Okay. Continuing.
One of the enduring mysteries and frustrations about
the release of the Epstein files are the
unexplained swaths of redactions. So it goes into
sort of, like, how they did this. And
one of the main parts it reveals is
that it was indeed some kind of program
they were using.
We know the document reviewers of the DOJ
and FBI were told to black out victims'
identities and their personal information, which they failed
to do in many instances. But the DOJ
has not explained its rationale for redacting the
names of public figures, which is a crime
based on the Epstein Transparency
Act. Government officials, public figures, other information from
the documents. The redactions have been so haphazard
that the even the JP and JP Morgan
was was blacked out. See, to me, that's
not hap that's a rapid, like, we're we
need to get rid of this one guy's
name.
So instead of going through every page and
removing it, we'll use the AI thing to
just get removed, but it makes mistakes as
we can see. I was just laughing at
I mean, we'll see this in Grok and
plenty of others where they're just, like, blatantly
giving you false information. Or you'll say, like,
you know, what's going what, is this correct
or something? And they're like, no. That's a
bunch of animals. You're like,
that's not. It's people. And it's what are
you talking about. And then you follow-up and
they go, oh, my mistake. It was it's
like like, I mean, I'm just making a
point about, like,
crazy mistakes,
which is either just a kind of a
glitchy moment or they're just, I I don't
know. But or because, like, in South Africa
point, Elon Musk made it lie to you.
And that caused it to freak out. And
it was like, what's the baseball score today?
And it's like, South Africa genocide. It was
doing that. And then it even said later
that it was made to do that. Like,
it's just crazy how this works. But in
this case, I think it's obvious this was
an effort to do that. My opinion.
And in doing so, either by mistake or
just by overzealous redaction, just ended up blocking
out tons of other things.
I don't know why JP would make sense,
but I'm sure there's something else. Maybe there's
somebody named JP in there.
Goes on to say, her email show that
during the review of the files last March,
reviewers were begging for guidance on what should
be redacted from one of the Epstein case
files. And it says here, multiple times really,
but it says request for guidance and redacting
photographs,
who is protected under this transparency task? What's
interesting, by the way, is you note this.
That's a little
marker which would suggest this was typed and
not sent.
That's interesting.
So wonder why that would make sense. But
it goes on to say, as mentioned before,
we need guidance to redact one of the
items.
And it says the the items contain photographs
of multiple individuals to include subjects of investigation,
and it says needs clear and specific guidance
to redact these photographs.
Some photographs, get this guys,
depict
victims,
unknown identified females and males,
former US presidents,
secretary of state,
and other well known celebrities. Okay. Wait a
minute. What if if we have former US
presidents,
secretaries of state, and well known celebrities, why
aren't we seeing that in the files? Some
of them have been shown, most of which
we already knew were there. What secretary of
state? What US presidents are we talking about?
I mean,
I find this interesting. I mean, they what
it shows you is they've again, in case
you forgot the main point, under the Epstein
Transparency Act, they were required to be removing
victims' names and illegal activity. And, And, of
course, as always, whatever they wanna be, national
security. But that is not that.
And especially not removing their own conversations, which
we'll get to in a second. The software
does not have a, IA facial recognition to
assist with the identification of some public officials,
well known or not. Says I am sure
that meant AI, but, you know, wonder
here whether or not this was faked.
For I mean, why would it be typed
out like that? What would that mean if
it was?
Just a thought. I mean, you know, if
you for the podcast, it's got that little
cursor in there, which we
remember?
What's
his name? The CIA guy Ryan something? What's
his name?
Sean Ryan. Remember that that he came recently
did a show where they came out claiming
they had these emails about the Iranian,
bombs and the sniffing drones and all that.
Remember that? And then it got shown that
they lied about that, and there was a
cursor on there, which means it wasn't a
sent email, that they likely typed it out
themselves, and everyone just moved forward really quickly
and stopped talking about it. Yeah. They're lying
to you guys. These people are not on
your side. Reviewers were unclear on what could
be could not be released publicly, such as
victims' names.
What how would that not be clear to
them, by the way, which is pretty interesting?
Quote, as we were not provided with a
list of names to be redacted,
get this. Here's what they decided to do.
All names, phone numbers, date of birth, email
addresses were redacted, except for those related to
Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell. So what a convenient
thing to do. Literally, everybody's names were redacted
because, well, we didn't know what else to
do. Really?
Come on, guys.
That's insane.
You so the whole point of this, from
everyone's perspective, was to get the people who
were guilty.
But guess what they did? They they
they redacted every name.
As they say, we we did see some
they didn't. There were plenty of mistakes. But
it says, as we were not provided with
the list of names to be redacted, all
names, phone numbers, date of birth, email addresses
were redacted, except for those relating to those
two.
Attorneys' names and other organizations were also redacted.
Sensitive law enforcement,
none of that was what they were required
to do.
In fact, it was very clear that's why
Massey's calling them out for this. So is
Ro Khanna.
Quote, some photographs depict victims, as we just
read, unknown identified females, males, US president, secretary
of state. The next day, a senior agent
from the FBI's criminal division in New York
sent an email looking to recruit
200 people to come in through the night
to redact victims' names
and, PII.
So this is, of course, what they were
saying. Cash then goes, we were here throughout
the night. No. I doubt he was or
was involved at all. This is one night,
which is funny how they just they're such
LARPing,
performative theater administration.
But so they bring in 200 people. So
here's the thought. What Bondy or the rest
of them?
I'm of the mind, you can decide for
yourself, that these people are not really in
charge, whether they are told they are or
not, that they're just people in the in
the window dressing. And they and I think
they're becoming uncomfortably aware of that in a
lot of ways.
So the question would be with the bondy
kinda situation, you know, is that just incompetence?
Or in this case, is when 200 people
come in, is that Cash doing that? Or
are there in FBI elements that are the
ones doing that? Or are they the ones
that cover things up around certain conversations? Is
he even involved in this? Like, I I
I I'm not saying anything other than considering
that. But isn't that an interesting thought That
this would change a lot and the cash
has marched out there to say whatever he
can, that's why he keeps making stupid comment,
that he's not even truly doing this? And
at the end of the day, the people
doing it are the ones that they claim
that the, you know, deep state, internal,
whatever we talk about.
Training to dozens of field agents on how
to process and redact the documents using Adobe
Pro. They literally brought in people who had
never done this before and then trained them
rapidly on how to do this. Gee, I
wonder why there were mistakes. Some of the
redactions after the first release, the redactions weren't
saved in Adobe. Whoops. Remember that's what we
first saw where you could just do something
and remove the redaction.
That's ridiculous.
What's really interesting, it says, is the flurry
of email or queries
prosecutors and FBI personnel received during the review
of the files.
For example, on 03/11/2025,
an email was sent that said FBI director,
Kash Patel, wanted to know, among other things,
quote, if there are any images of individuals
on any videos which should be considered for
prosecution.
Gotta love that due diligence. Right? Anything I
should do over there, guys? Anything I should
know? Alright. Keep going.
Great job. The idea for me here is
that this is something that could have easily
been lied about.
Right? And he comes up and goes, there's
no evidence of trafficking. Well, you're an idiot,
man, because there's lots of evidence of that
that go well back before these files. And
there's also evidence in the files. But he
said that. So was he lying or was
he just played?
I think it's really worth considering that right
now. And with everything else we keep seeing
about that one in particular.
But so he asked them on record, and
this is maybe again with the next conversation,
why they wanna cover up their communications that
make them look like complete fools
or criminals.
But I just think that's funny. If there's
any information any individuals that we should know
about, yeah, man. There's tons, and we're all
talking about it. The lengthy response sent two
weeks later said, in part, that agents and
prosecutors reviewed videos and photographs for evidence of
a crime,
but didn't find,
quote, any evidence that anyone other than Epstein
and Maxwell participated in the sexual abuse of
victims in the case. That's a flat out
lie. But, of course, this could be because
he was lied to.
Just that affidavit, which I'll point to continually
because it's the I think one of the
best pieces of actual evidence that you can
prove because it was put through a court
of law,
that ultimately, that is exactly that. That is
evidence of anyone other than those two being
involved. Exactly that.
Or tons of other subjective evidence, which is
still evidence.
You see, what he says there is not
proof. He says evidence
of a crime.
Everything in those files is evidence of a
crime. For the well, I shouldn't say it
like that, but the ones we're pointing to
anyway. Because some of them are just emails
and random conversations.
But think about the fact that they're saying
this right now. That's Kash Patel still to
this moment. That's
Todd. That's Blanche right now. That's Trump right
now.
It says a separate email said more than
1,000,000 videos and photographs were extracted from Epstein's
devices.
Other questions in separate emails sent down the
chain were, quote, are there images of third
parties besides Epstein, especially men?
If there are depictions of third parties, please
briefly describe them generally based upon your view
so far. Anything of particular interest, for example,
public figures, recognizable?
I mean, this seems like you're phoning it
in, man. Hey. Let me know what I
should do over here, which makes perfect sense
to me. Epstein's back back again. This is
just insulting. So you've got these FBI agents
back there
going through all of this, which is very
serious,
very important,
and they're joking about it. Now you could
argue it's just because this is what they
do. Right? I mean, who are we to
judge? They deal with horrible things every day.
Maybe it's letting off steam. But it says,
for FBI personnel whose jobs entail the handling,
basically, anything Epstein related, they were pulled into
generating responses filled with dread and comedy according
to the internal messages they reviewed. One of
them, for example, Epstein's back, back again. Like,
this is, do you hear Backstreet Boys? One
person wrote in the message, then it says,
quote, Epstein requests have come in again. Might
be time for me to leave.
Now I'm not gonna make too much of
it. I mean, really, these be people just
kinda going, oh, I'm just tired of doing
this. Not to say that they don't care
about it. But it's interesting with what we
have been given with how this has been
handled the entire time. The the FBI agency
that it is
makes you really wonder whether they just couldn't
care less about this. But it goes on
to say the Epstein files also show
FBI agents weren't shedding tears when the DOJ
and FBI initially made the decision in 2025
not to release any of the files that
agents and prosecutors had already reviewed.
So, basically, it's I'll get it finished. It
says the DOJ FBI Epstein memo, quote, that
was leaked last night has been officially released
by the DOJ.
It says the person included the link in
the email said, hopefully, this means it's finally
over. Okay. Let me ask you something. If
you're the FBI and your job is to
put criminals in jail, so you're told we're
told, and you've got 3,000,000 more documents of
terrible things and plenty of information of crimes
that you're redacting. And you're like, God, I
hope this is over.
You know what I would hope if I
was in that position that I'm putting people
in jail for crimes. I would hope that
my effort led to actual accountability.
But, yeah, maybe that's just us.
Now again, I don't wanna overblow the point
about that because there's I don't wanna pretend
that everybody in these positions are all against
you. I don't believe that. I think plenty
of them believe they're doing the right thing
or at the very least are just there
to do a job.
Question all of them. Not a pass.
But I feel like where this leans is
not good. Right? And I think it's obvious.
On top of that, hackers break in Epstein's
personal email accounts. Why? Because they literally had
passwords and files in the in the files
they released.
I mean, it's just again, part of me
is still going, like, is this all part
of some grand plan? It can't just be
this incompetent, then I go, yep. They are,
though. I look at cash and I go,
yeah. Yeah. I guess that does make sense.
Passwords for several of notorious sex offenders accounts
were revealed in the the cache files.
Part of me also wonders, maybe this is
gonna be a thing they use to argue
why it's been messed with. Here, they got
access to this, and that's why it's different.
I mean, that doesn't really make sense because
we're talking about files that aren't necessarily on
those servers. But, something about this just doesn't
add up. Right?
Now this one I do think is really
it just it really I I was actually
I sent it to somebody else earlier, and
I said I laugh like amateurs. You know,
like, these be you can't stop putting yourselves
in these positions.
The DOJ omitted communication from Bandy and Patel
in Epstein files. Now there's nobody else that
would have made that choice, guys.
This is their internal communication.
Trump does why would it matter unless that
implicated Trump or somebody else? Now it's obviously
my opinion, but come on. Think about the
logic of this. The the a watch group
a watchdog group, more than one, by the
way, is calling this out, is asking the
Department of Justice to explain why it has
included,
has not included communication from top Trump administration
officials in its release of over 2,000,000 pages
tied to Jeffrey Epstein according to a complaint
filed Friday. I'll include that for you, actually.
Here's the actual complaint itself. So you have
the documents to go through.
Now it says the DOJ
impermissibly,
that's important, narrowed the scope.
So illegally,
they narrowed the scope themselves
of disclosed documents that were required under the
the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The complaint calls it deeply troubling that no
communications, none, from attorney general Pam Bondi, deputy
attorney general Todd Blanch as well, and Kash
Patel appear in the ream of documents
despite their involvement in releasing them. You could
also argue they kick them all over into
the other 3,000,000 and just pretended like they
haven't gotten to it yet. That would be
something they do and act like they wouldn't
be obvious when it comes out. But
you know they're in this communication. They're involved
in this. All three of them are key
to this conversation.
It says they have been at the very
center of the DOJ response or lack thereof
to congressional and and public calls to calls
for production of these files. If DOJ were
adhering
to the broad scope of the of the
transparency
act, the Epstein library would be replete with
their communications. That's an absolute, guys, and it
is not. The obvious conclusion is that these
communications have been withheld, destroyed, or redacted to
the point that they are not retraceable in
their files.
I just think that's wildly obvious. So my
gut tells me it's because they're
showing things I mean, like, okay. Like, I
can see this in a world in which
that's this is their purview. They're the ones
handling this to a degree. Like like I
said, like, they're they have the position. So
that they wanted to go in and make
things happen, I think they could. I just
don't think that they really have the influence,
let alone the control.
But so you have a situation where they're
realizing probably that our communications, as they search,
show up in this thing. And so then
they look and go, man, that's us talking
about things that make us look so stupid,
that that show that we don't know what
we're doing, that show that we don't understand
what Trump is doing, that show that we
have no influence over the FBI, that show
that Trump is laughing at, whatever.
And if that goes, get that out of
there because that we can't let that out
in hopes that nobody even realizes.
I mean, to me, Occam's razor, that makes
the most sense. Because I don't see how
else it would be unless it is them
in real time
covering things up and being too stupid to
realize their communications would be included in this,
which would also make sense to me. But
whatever it is, guys, this is clear that
they withheld their communication. And you have to
realize that if they're willing to break the
law just for that, then I mean, that
that's in either just they're that bad at
this or there's something very serious right there.
It says the files were heavily redacted.
Oh, Friday's release, it says, is the basically,
they're reiterating that the release they just put
out, that's the last of it. They're claiming
claiming no more is coming. The files were
heavily redacted and included unverified information from the
FBI tip line. That's true. Including some claims
that implicated president Trump and Epstein's crimes. I
just wanna reiterate that. That is the reality.
There are a bunch of things in there
that are not proven but are still evidence
and very well may be true, but should
not be pointed to as proof,
even though that's what most of the mainstream
alternative media is doing.
Now Blanche
assured reporters that the DOJ, quote, complied with
the act
and, quote, did not protect president Trump. I
mean, that just of course you have to
say that. We all know you didn't do
that. We didn't protect or not protect anybody.
Oh, you mean other than the victim's face
that you let out or the nude pictures
of that victim that you put out or
the fact that you oops. Didn't redact her
address and phone number? Oops. Yeah. You didn't
protect them, Todd. You know that. But you're
lying right there. You also very clearly redacted
Trump's name all over the place. You also
very clearly are not going after all of
his you it's just insane. Like I started
with. What else are they gonna do? They're
gonna come out and go, that's not true.
Because if you say that is true, you're
gonna be marched into jail. The Epstein Transparency
Act, I doubt that to be honest, but
at least that's what should happen. The Epstein
Transparency Act sweeping language was designed to maximize
disclosure
minus
narrowly taro tailored exemptions for victim privacy, national
security, and to protect ongoing investigations.
Right? That's what we're saying. There's no place
in which those things fall into it. They
might try to argue that, quote, this is
a tired narrative.
Guess what that is. That's the DOJ response,
which
is exactly what I would suspect.
That's DOJ. That's bonding. Right? So they come
at them and go, hey.
You have communications that were inevitably involved that
aren't in this, and that's a violation of
the act.
What a tired narrative.
That's actually their response.
They are playing into the partisan social media
game with everything they do. Guess what, guys?
That's not gonna work. Unless you're on Twitter.
Tired narrative? You mean the fact that you
literally didn't do that and that's on the
record? You can prove that? Oh, you're such
a tired narrator. That's just a desperate effort.
I mean, everything I'm seeing these days is
just like, how is that not desperate?
It goes, quote, just because you wish something
to be true doesn't mean it's true.
Okay. It is, though. You can prove that.
The department produced more than five point 3,500,000
pages in compliance. It's actually less than that,
which is funny that they can't even get
their numbers right. I guess they just lie
as, like, breathing. But it says, with the
law and in full transparency has disclosed to
the public to congress what was not responded.
Okay.
So you that's a tired narrative
because you want it to be true, it
doesn't make it true. And then you go,
we laced all these documents. Well, yeah. And
within those, we're not the conversations between you
and them. Are you disputing that? Or I
mean, think about how they're doing this.
You lit by saying you wish it was
true means you're implying it's not true, but
then just simply go look at all these
things we released, which does not prove what
she said was false.
Again, belaboring these things are sometimes important, but
are we I think we're at a point
where this is just embarrassing.
But I know there are people that disagree.
So if you can't stand here and recognize
that this is a complete deflection, like, okay.
If they did include them, they'd be like,
what are you talking about? They're in the
files.
Okay. That's one obvious.
They would say, you're wrong, and they're in
there. They're not. We can prove that. So
why wouldn't they just go, well, we decided
to investigate them more because of x, y,
and z. They'll come out with the next
bat or whatever. Something other than, oh, you're
dumb and tired and you're a liar. Shut
up. I mean, it's a bench that's basically
what it amounts to.
I don't know what that is but incompetence
because, my god, that's pretty sad. But here
we are where they're covering up not just
the Epstein files, not just traffickers and pedophiles
and sexual manipulators, but their own conversations about
all of it.
That's the that's the world we're in right
now.
So let's end with the ICE conversation.
I was gonna play this yesterday, but let's
play it now. Now this is just somebody
speaking on this. It's not meant to be
some per you know, this is not anything
other than her experience and what she's seeing.
I alone have proven enough on this show
for you guys to recognize that there's something
amiss here. There's something darkly wrong with what's
going on in this country.
Exactly what the Republicans were pointing out, but
now they choose to pretend like it's not
there because it's implicating their own team. I
mean, the team sport players. I think the
majority of left and right are very uncomfortably
aware of what's going on and calling it
out. Here's what she had to say.
And and we're gonna get into the overlap.
Remember the overlap of of the
trafficking conversation? And this is what she's discussing.
Where are these children? Now that's just to
segue into what ICE is doing, but we
should really be thinking about whether there's something
going on here if we know they're covering
up for it over there.
I'll just I'll just play the clip. This
account gives a lot of her opinion about
it, but read it for yourself. I mean,
I agree with most of what she's saying
here. Here's what the person was saying about
what's going on to migrants.
Good morning. I was asked to help locate
a fourth grade student, Elizabeth Zuna.
I met her father, Luis, in the hallway,
and he told me that Elizabeth and her
mother had been taken by ice that morning
on her way to school.
Elizabeth was able to call her dad and
an ice agent said they were going to
bring her to school.
Several staff members including myself waited outside the
school building for a vehicle to approach and
drop her off.
No one ever came.
That morning turned into hours of phone calls
desperately trying to locate a child. We did
everything we could to keep Elizabeth's father calm
and allowed him to remain at school as
we search for answers.
By that afternoon, we had learned that Elizabeth
and her mother were already taken to Texas.
Now imagine you're the father. Right? You don't
know what's going on. And you're in the
school. What the hell happened? How can you
how dare you allow my child to be
taken? Well, it was the police or ICE
or the government.
And that you're
waiting, knowing that how it's always gone that
somebody will tell you what's going on. Somebody
will say, hey. We arrested him or this
was going on. Nope. ICE has never done
that. There's been cases where people had to
literally go of their own volition to find
out what happened to a family member. And
one case where they found out, oh, look.
The guy's driving his car still.
Not a joke, by the way. This is
so very wrong. It it it turns my
stomach.
In my profession, I have seen many people
break down in grief. But the image of
Elizabeth's father was Lawyer, I believe. Stayed with
me forever.
I watched him sit in his car, bury
his head in his hands, and cry uncontrollably.
Imagine what you And those are images you
did not forget. That's Tracy Zhong, a social
worker at Highland Elementary in Columbia Heights. That
is the same school district that Liam Conejo
Ramos goes to. She says Elizabeth and her
mother are still detained in Texas. She spoke
about them during a press conference with governor
Walls and attorney general Keith Ellison, and there
is an online fundraiser that Yeah. If you
wanna support them, you can.
What I think is important here, guys, is
that there's obvious situations where I mean, going
back to the first plane of people or
The US children, some of the few US
citizens who have already been deported.
Or at least I mean, who's this where
are these people at this point? I'm not
saying I yeah. I'm there's probably some that
are in that country or in that jail
cell. But we have to realize that there's
already been this opening gap like we see
with every one of these situations. The Syrian
war. Hundreds of thousands of children went missing
that nobody ever found.
Some of them died. Yes. Some of them
were trafficked, and that was proven.
And that's your government involved with that, the
people they're working with. And it's now it's
happening again with the people they're doing with
who whoever they're ethnically cleansing in Syria today.
You could point this out about Gaza. Same
thing happened. What do you think happened to
all these children in Gaza? This is always
the reality. So what I want us to
consider is whether or not the same thing
with the same people is happening right now.
I mean, if we can make the argument
that it happened under Biden, why is it
so difficult to think that it happened right
now if you are starting to hopefully realize
that it's no different?
But consider it is all I want from
you, is to realize that they're scooping people
up with no accountability,
no obligation to tell anybody.
And if it hadn't been a father waiting,
if it hadn't been a mother with them,
if there was some other if it was
one
I mean,
a 100 of possible scenarios where you could
have a a child that's taken, and then
them realizing that there's nobody to be accountable
to. Well, maybe the guy is an illegal
alien. I mean, the point in this is
not about whether they're here illegally or not.
It's about through whatever's going on, openings to,
you know, kidnap children, essentially. And I don't
mean that in the sense that it's always
the larger picture. Just them taking children without
accountability.
Get sending them to for profit child services,
which is part of what's happening. I mean,
that's the most uncomfortable
part of this, or I shouldn't say the
most, but the the most the almost obvious
to see rather,
is right now you've got people involved in
Trump's administration,
Tom Homan, for example, who are profiting wildly
off the people they bring in. And they're
shoving profits in their faces of ICE agents
even when they arrest people who are US
citizens and let them go. You see how
this works? And this massive profit machine is
being made off people's arrest, not even their
holding, and also their holding. And then on
top of that, you have people who are
profiting off the removal of children to places
in Texas that are being taken from their
families and sent there, and they're being held
there because there's an up conversation of the
what happens to those children when they get
deported?
I'm not gonna the point is we've done
shows relentlessly on this over the years.
It's so obvious that there's an opening there,
whether it's designed that way for people like
an Epstein,
like whoever else you recognize is being involved
to step in right there and take advantage.
It's a horrible conversation, but it's very real.
And I think people are becoming very aware
of that.
But anyway, so this was just that just
her, you know, one example of dealing with
that. Now let's also realize I showed you
yesterday that right now,
as of today, going back to 2022, for
this, the original article, criminal misconduct by US
border officials, officers,
which is border patrol, ICE, all the rest
of it, has reached a five year high.
Now the crazy part about this
is it ends up being point 1% lower
than the total amount of crime that they're
actually stopping with this enforcement.
And that goes all the way to today.
Department of Employment Security agents have already already
have a notable poor level of compliance with
legal requirements.
What what an understatement is where we are
today.
Indeed, one remarkable fact is that today, before
the recent hiring surge, before the crazy thing
they did with ICE, So it's it's so
incredibly worse right
now. So before that, customs officers and border
patrol agents have committed crimes at a per
capita rate that is greater than the crime
rate for people who immigrated here illegally.
That's not to say ignore those crimes. It's
simply to re realize that if if you're
okay with them breaking more laws to put
away less criminals than what they're doing, that
doesn't then you're
being played.
You don't need to break the law to
put criminals in jail,
But the government would sure as hell want
you to accept that. Now
you can I went over this yesterday as
well? Here's here's, a lot oh, that's right.
I was gonna read this to you. I'll
just skip it for time today. This is
an interesting article, though. It goes into the
difference between the way they frame them. The
the eighteen o ones and eighteen elevens, basically
detectives versus the the street police, and how
they basically mashed this all together today. And
now you've got these street police people out
there who are being given positions that they
don't know how to they they're not the
people that should be conducting these type of
operations. Sort of like having a bunch of
random agents redact things. This is what we're
dealing with today.
Now as well as yesterday, let's realize that
one of the large parts of this, not
the only part, but one of them driving
this, is that the ADL or rather excuse
me. That's what the title. The ICE agents
are, in many cases, trading with Israeli IDF.
It's weird how much pushback which I guess
is not weird. It's very expected, but it's
unnecessary or
the pushback is,
what am I trying to say? It's the
the people are pushing back on it, I
think, are trying to hide this. I guess
my point is that it's one of those
obvious things we've been making today that people
just go, that's not true, and it's very
easy to prove. But I'm talking at the
highest levels of our government. I'm talking about
major influencers in the conversation.
They go, that's a false statement. Well, it's
not, though. Here's Jewish Voice for Peace, ADL's
US Israel Police Exchange. And it's you can
look at The Guardian articles. You can look
at the link. This is a very real
topic.
Here's another one. The Real News Network. Deadly
exchange. US sends hundreds of law enforcement to
Israel to learn the worst practices. These are
provable things that happen. Now does that mean
every agent? No. Does that mean all the
time, majority? Maybe not. But it does happen.
And it's usually people with the ability to
then filter that down through the departments, which
is what's happening.
And ICE very much did. We could play
that clip again and plenty of other people
that have watched it happening in Israel while
they were there. And now they're telling you
they watched them kill children. Here's a truth
out. ICE and Israeli military are two sides
of the same coin. We must resist both.
Now let's go over some of these examples
to finish.
Some of these are pretty horrible. Now first
of all,
this is where they're coming from now. And
this is my point about how they're trying
to evolve the way we understand these things.
It starts where they just pretend like they
don't need warrants until people start going, you
know, about the constitution, though, that you claim
you care about. So then they come up
with a different conversation. There was there was
varying elements between this. Most recently, it was
administrative warrants. So we can basically give ourselves
a warrant through the ice and then go
out. Well, that's not how that works. It's
illegal because the whole point is that they
aren't able to go, I get a warrant
because I want one, and go do it.
There has to be a judge. Now, administrative
warrants can be used in regard to, let's
say, a migrant
who lives at their home and is in
their home, and they've got a a,
order of removal or what the term is.
The point is then they can go in
their home and use that to go take
them. But what they're doing is going and
even then, we should have a conversation about
why that is unconstitutional. But even then but
the point is, beyond that, they're using these
administrative warrants to go after you to burst
into US citizens' homes,
claiming there's a migrant in there. Well, even
if there is, even if they're illegal, it
does not give them that authority.
The constitution says so. Supreme court says so.
But here's Bonnie, and Trump, and Noam, and
all the rest just gaslighting you into thinking
it's okay. Now beyond that, since that's been
pushed in our faces, here is what the
ICE agents want you to believe.
Have a specific warrant to look for anybody?
Ice. Do you have a particular warrant to
look for anybody? Your neck.
So I'm the elected official. My name is
Jake Efra So in case you hear he's
an elected official.
Listen.
There's nothing I can say is confirmed. Hey.
Did you hear that? Before this guy jumps
in, the first thing the other person asked,
do you have ID on you?
It's just it's just so clear where this
goes. You don't need to have ID on
you, but here's what he says, and this
is the important part.
So I'm the elected official. My name is
Jake Efrost. I'm
I am the city council person
right here in Jersey City.
Listen. There's nothing that you're gonna say that's
gonna prevent us from doing our job. Just
letting you know. So you're wasting your time.
You're wasting your time. Okay. What is your
job? Not we're ice. Okay. Clearly, you're marked.
Alright? So Well, that doesn't always mean anything,
does it? We'll get into a story again
in a second about people raping women as
when they're dressed like ice, as I told
you many times already. And by not identifying
yourselves and giving names and warrants and identification,
that opens that door. And then it also
legally allows people the resistance to when you
come and go, do what I say. I'm
ice. Well, how do I know? Prove it.
I don't care if you got a vest
on. By the way, that's your legal reality,
guys. Those are your rights.
The idea that they turn and contort that
into you hating something or being a violent
person is the game, and it's used against
people on every spectrum of the political stance.
But here's what he says. Okay. Clearly, you're
marked. Alright? So I'm just letting you know.
You can continue talking, but we're not gonna
answer any questions. So just stay there. You
can observe. You can do whatever you want.
Just don't interfere. Recall? Okay. What is the
I'm not gonna tell you anything else. Do
you have a warrant? I don't we don't
need a warrant, bro. Stop getting that in
your head. That's it. We don't need a
warrant.
Oh, yeah. You very much do. Well, it
depends on the circumstances. Let's be clear. If
you're walking down an open street, you don't
need that to well, the the reality is
in regard to going after somebody, they are
not legally allowed to just randomly walk up
to a brown person and go, let me
see your ID. I think you're a that's
not how this works.
The fact that people claim that today blows
my mind. Those are the same people who
said that Obama was gonna do that, but
they don't care now. You know? It's just
pathetic.
The truth
is that there is is a legal whether
you're an illegal alien, a green card holder,
visa holder, American citizen, naturalized or otherwise, you
have constitutional rights. All the idiots out there
claiming otherwise are idiots. They're wrong. Look it
up. It's easy to prove. So the reality
then means that you have those rights. So
they're not allowed to go up and be
like, prove who you are.
Papers, please. We always used to remember that.
Right?
But
if they have a like, they're going after
somebody in particular, and they think that's you,
which is how they play that. Right? They
can go, we thought you were this guy.
They've done it before. But then they can
go and they can try to figure that
out. But the reality here is they need
a warrant to go into a private residence
other than the specific example I just showed
you. So as they enter this building,
this is required, especially when you go into
individual residences, which is where they are. This
is it happens every time. And so the
fact that he's screaming we don't need a
warrant is just patently wrong.
I think they actually believe this, though. You
know why? Because of a memo that they've
signed, I already covered this, that says otherwise.
That's it. Why does that make any sense?
Because Trump can sign anything and say that's
now the mandate. Right? That's the law because
I'm in in power.
Even though that's embarrassingly
not what anybody ever pretended America was like.
But here we are.
As I told you, whether Obama or Bush
or anybody else, when you direct you know,
executive order, executive order, executive order, that's rule
by dictate. That's what Trump is doing. He
signed a memo,
or not even him. Somebody else in the
FBI or the ICE agent signs the memo
that says, now you can do this. And
they all go, okay. How's here's how we're
being trained.
The current documentation
shows the opposite of what they're doing.
But we don't need a warrant.
What is your job today?
Are you just looking for anybody in particular?
Yeah. I said you should come learn with
me.
You are.
You have no idea who you took,
So here's what's crazy about this. Right? So
they're wandering around. They end up on the
street grabbing some random person. It's like, you
know, the idea this is what they've done
every time I've ever watched this happen.
And and they they don't even they don't
even know who they're going after.
That is a crime.
You're Just picking up random guys. You're profiling
random guys down there. You profiled a US
citizen.
You don't care.
Yeah. I just wanted no clue. Oh my
god.
And, of course, if there was nobody watching,
then nobody would ever know. And that's the
only reason you need for why this is
necessary.
It's simple, guys.
Now I'm not necessarily saying in this explicit
example on the street. What I'm saying is
we can prove a thousand times over that
they are doing that.
And then you literally just heard them say
something you know isn't true. If you have
any understanding of the constitution, if you have
any belief in this country, then that should
be something you call out.
You're just taking people up. Right? You don't
have warrants. You don't have warrants for their
arrest.
Yo. Stay away stay away from my neighbor.
Stay away from my neighbor. Stay away from
my neighbor. Giving you a fair warning. You're
not Stay away from my A fair warning.
For what?
Doing what she's allowed to do within the
constitution?
My neighbor,
we have the legal right to report I
think they do this because they now believe
that if I go up and say you've
been warned, and then you just stay there,
they can use that to attack you. They've
done that.
Of course. You have to live the right
to work. You gotta stay away from my
neighbor.
So that's
a normal
con
continual example, but a small a a smaller
one. Right? In the context of what we're
actually dealing with. Now here he is. Oh,
sorry. This is this is the don't the
the you don't need a warrant point. Oh,
I thought it was gonna be this one.
I'll show you this in a second. Again
oh, it's way down here.
The one that says, you're now a terrorist.
I'm not gonna play it again, but I
just want you to remember that point. So
she's play something next. But first, this is
the one I was thinking from the other
girl, the the she turned out to be
a social worker. This one is a immigration
attorney.
Now, again, just her statement.
Take it for what you will. You I
you can prove almost everything she's saying in
a thousand different ways, but this is what
she's dealing with and what she's in her
clients in regard to people being taken by
us.
Is.
Michael, independent media, would you wanna say a
few words?
Well
What's happening here today? Just basically is total
chaos.
It's total chaos. This is
I'm an immigration attorney,
and the
the people who are being detained are being
denied access to their lawyers.
We
Which we've seen
endless
amount of times.
Literally being told you don't have that right.
I mean, I've I've got this stuff on
video, guys.
So you don't need to pr that's happening.
Now, whether she's lying about it or not,
you could consider that. But we know that
is happening. How can you be okay with
that?
Not only because they're human beings, but because
they actually have rights, like you do. Isn't
that that's what we actually believe. If you
somehow believe because they're not, you know, born
here or they have a different skin color,
therefore, they don't have rights, I mean, think
about what you're saying. I mean, genuinely think
about that. How does that even possibly align
with what this guy it doesn't, guys. That's
a that's a barely concealed, disgustingly racist view.
That's all it is.
The reality is that this was designed as
ideals, principles that we believe in, that we
can only enforce within these borders. But, hopefully,
if we demonstrate this to the world, that
they will do the same.
And to some degree, it has, you know,
other it has influenced, and now we've gone
the wrong direction.
But realize that this is it's it was
always designed as as just god given. Know,
when we get pretending that god only gave
them to Americans,
just such stupidity out there, but it's willful.
Just to prepare people
for times like this. And we said, memorize
our numbers
so you can call us. They don't even
get phone calls.
Half the time, people can't even determine where
their loved one is.
And they're sending most people to camp
East Montana
in El Paso,
Fort Bliss.
It's disgusting. Multiple
Fort Bliss comes up constantly. And I think
it's clear that they're using specific locations because
they're politically amenable to what they want. They
know they're they don't care about the law
or what they're dealing with. And there are
places that do. There's been places that have
pushed back on what they do. That's why
they gravitate or they they ship them across
state lines to go to a place where
the judge is gonna rule in their favor.
It's what they're doing.
People have died there, and they're sending everybody
now who's apprehended. They're sending them to Camp
East Montana.
Right.
And then what does that mean for their
chances of getting out?
And this is a habeas petition that was
granted,
and they can't find the woman. See see
how this works? Is you might even get
the legal pathway you want,
but they've just disappeared.
Vanished into the wind. Maybe they're in El
Salvador for all we know. You realize how
completely, completely abstract this has gotten. At one
point, we were focused on the plains in
El Salvador. Well, then they went to basically,
don't
forget, and this is important, they they they
went to the they the whole thing with,
Garcia became a focal point, but it be
it came out that they were simply then
shuffling to other countries. So send to El
Salvador, then send to another country. This has
happened more than once. And on top of
that, we have things going internally. We have
you know, this got so broad that people
just stopped there have still been deportations
to other countries illegally and and otherwise.
You see, in in this case, the what
she's describing is a woman who was picked
up, who has rights, who just vanishes. And
she has a court a habeas,
petition in for her benefit that they and
they can't even find where she is. So
the system is saying, let her go. And
they're like, well, who? What are you talking
about? Yeah. Maybe that's her maybe that's an
ace ace ace agent driving her car over
there, but we don't know where she is.
I shouldn't even laugh. It's just it's just
so dark, man. It's like we one of
those you don't laugh, you cry kind of
moments, guys.
That is the trouble.
That is the trouble. They don't know where
she is.
Right. And I've also heard reports of detainees
being released without their cell phones and without
That is a big problem too. And then
a lot of people
earn money in cash, and they're carrying large
sums of money.
And when they get detained,
who gets that money? Right. And their IDs
have gone missing from what I heard as
well. Release people, they won't give back their
work permit or their social. That's what you
see how crazy this is? And now look.
It's her statement, but I've heard this more
than once from from a she's an attorney.
Not that I shouldn't mean she's always telling
the truth, but the reality being that if
you are you know, you're creating a process
here. You're taking what they need, their money,
their phone, their identification, and then what they
do is they pick them up three days
later. Oh, no ID? Get on the get
on the bus.
I'm not joking. And so if you don't
think for one if you think for one
second that's not by design, you haven't been
watching what they're doing.
They're literally manufacturing cases to go after largely
innocent people while mostly allowing and working with
the worst people in the conversation.
The very people they started out talking about,
MS thirteen, they have worked with those people.
They've literally sent them back to Bukele who
has a deal with them.
But, yeah, keep telling us about the worst
of the worst. I'm hearing as well. And
do you know how hard it is to
replace a work permit?
Months.
Months. Yep. Yeah. So that this I'm I'm
just gonna leave it there. We can wrap
this up.
It's just just so damn frustrating.
So to finish up in general here oh,
that's right. I forgot it a couple more
articles, actually.
Yeah. Let's go. Let's go through it. I
I don't I have no time rush here,
but I I for me, I thought I
was toward the end. So these are these
are supports that I wanna include as well,
off the bay off the tail of what
you just heard.
This one is insane to me, but it's,
guess, no more so than what we've already
been reporting on. So this came out. ICE
agents initially claimed that this person had tried
to flee while handcuffed.
And then literally their quote, purposefully ran head
first into a brick wall. Now, of course,
you can picture the Benny Johnsons of the
world going, yeah. What stupid Democrat. They would
hurt themselves to blame the Republicans,
you know, without
caring whether they're true or not. That kind
of stupidity is out there all over the
place.
The point is, of course, it's possible,
but evidence obviously matters. But this is the
kind of thing you're getting from these people
who know they're not being held accountable. They
know it. There's no names, no warrants, nobody's
paying attention. They lie. Look at what happened
with, I mean, the only reason we even
know who shot Goode is because he took
his mask down, which is exactly why people
need to be observing, why they're legally required
to identify themselves.
But this is insane. As Rhein Grim says,
the claim the man smashed his own skull
into a brick wall turns out to a
bit of a lie. You know why? Because
the forensics said so.
A Mexican immigrant was taken to Minneapolis hospital
earlier this month after bones in his face
and skull were broken while he was in
federal custody. Not while they were arresting him,
while he was in custody. Immigrations enforcement agents
initially claimed they had tried to flee while
handcuffed and purposefully ran head first into a
brick wall.
By staff but staff members of the county
medical center determined they could not possibly account
for the fractures and bleeding throughout the man's
31 year old's brain.
They they, said the nurses in the case.
It was laughable.
If there was something to laugh about, he
said,
speaking on the condition of anonymity, there was
no way this person ran head first into
a wall.
They don't care. Now even though you can
have this and even brought to a judge,
made this official, no one's gonna be held
accountable. You don't even know who these people
are. They've circled the wagons. No man Trump
will never. I mean, Vance just actually told
you they have immunity. They don't.
But that's what he said.
I just I'm I'm just so blown away
by the like, not the team sport manipulating
idiots out there, but the conservatives out there
who still somehow find a way to side
with this.
I just don't understand you. If you believe
that you're fighting for the constitution and you're
fighting for, I mean, everything they promised, you
should be screaming about how you're being misled
right now.
I'd like to believe that's everybody honest. If
that's the case, then
I mean,
my god, guys. It's just it's just so
I don't wanna believe there's that many people
who are willing to be who are bad
people, who are out there pretending to care
about good things while out there going, yeah.
Screw them over. I just don't believe that's
the most of humanity.
Now an FBI affidavit
admits
that an ICE agent shot a man while
he was fleeing from 10 feet away.
As d not as DHS claimed while he
was being beaten with a shovel.
Just one of the stories we already covered.
Yes. It came out even further. No. They
didn't beat him with a shovel. No. They
lied about yes. They lied about that. They're
just being caught
one after another lying about major cases, two
of which I've already shown you in this
conversation, actually, three of which president Donald Trump's
top immigration officials have repeatedly made statements. This
is Reuters, by the way. January 28.
In six violent encounters, evidence contradicts Trump immigration
officials. We already did this. I put out
four cases, two of which they don't even
mention in here, which is very public case,
where they're literally caught in court lying about
what happened.
Donald Trump's top immigration officials have repeatedly made
statements that are not true, including two fatal
shootings that we all know about, Renee Goode,
Alex Preddy. Now these are the evidence does
not support what they claimed. Not even getting
into what the intent was or whether they
should have been shot. It's insane that we
can't even talk about. But the reality being
that the what they said, they surrounded us
with their gun drop. No. They lied, guy.
They lied. So if you can acknowledge that
they made that up in the beginning, maybe
you can wonder whether lying about the outcome.
I know. Shocking. Right? Trump officials quickly painted
the two recent,
shot I'll just jump past it. The point
is, pretty and good are clearly
things they lied about.
And then the evidence came out, and they
still lied about it. And they've continued to
push in. In one nonlethal shooting in Minnesota,
court documents emerged showing an incident began with
a case of mistaken identity. We've talked about
that.
A death of a detention center a death
in a detention center that the US Department
of Homeland Security described as an attempted suicide
was later ruled a homicide by a county
medical examiner.
I mean, this is just
beyond dark. These guys are quite literally murdering
people in prison and laughing about it, and
we just keep carrying on like nothing's happening.
And they're getting caught for it, and nothing's
changing. Like, let alone let talk talk about
the Epstein files. We're watching our own authority
figures murder people in prisons, murder people in
the streets, US citizens, and we just move
forward like nothing's going on? No accountability? No
investigation?
K. This should be so jarring that it
shakes us free from whatever's happening.
Quote, it says, they're trying to control a
narrative from the very start. They don't seem
to care when they've even been proven wrong.
So DHS
said Freddy brandished a weapon. He did not.
This oh, and this one's the the we
this is the one that we've talked about.
DHS claims
oh, no. This was that one. The good
good weaponized your vehicle. And the point was,
no. Videos of the shooting taken from several
vantage points, including cell phone, show that that
would basically contradicted what they claimed of both
those cases. Now this is the one I
was talking about. January 15, off ICE officers
were conducting a targeted traffic stop, which was
not actually. They lied about that. No. It
proven.
And it says they crashed into his car,
fled on foot to an apartment building. This
is the whole lie of the shovel. DHS
said at the time that the two men
hit an ICE officer who pursued him with
a snow shovel and broom handle, prompting the
shooting. Court documents told a very different story.
And that's the one he was referencing. They
lied about this. Here's the other one. This
one is the,
the detention discussion. DHS issued a new statement
after their article was published that said Lunas
tried to commit suicide
and then resisted security officials.
The medical examiner, of course, released a report
last week that found the death was a
homicide. We talked about this due to asphyxia
from the neck.
There are people that were in the jail
that said they heard it happen. The death
was one of six deaths since January. But
guess what happened? Nothing.
Nobody was held accountable.
And we know we know they they got
caught lying. We know this happened. We know
that they're lying on record, and nobody went
to jail.
Where are the judges? Where are the lawyers?
Where's anybody who's honest in any of this
conversation? All the mainstreamy normie out there that
know this is right in front of you
and no one's doing anything. Probably because they're
terrified. Probably because they know if they do,
they'll probably lose their job, or they'll get
sued, or they'll disappear. I hate to be
that
that's what I believe, guys. I think this
is where we actually are.
Widespread
misrepresentations
call into question everything that defendants say they
are doing in their characterization of the crackdown.
In one instance oh, wait. Did I skip
the?
Oh, no. That's this one. The last one.
So bottom line,
they're lying about so much that the logical
thing to do is to go,
they're probably lying. And that's just that's the
reality. If they if they're lying 90% of
the time, when they tell when they they
speak next, you're gonna go, well, 90% chance.
Right? He says in one instance, Homeland Security
posted that on Twitter that, quote, rioters surrounded
law enforcement and attacked a van carrying detainees,
an encounter that escalated until someone threw a
rock at border patrol, hitting him in the
head, they claimed. Five days later, Bovino said
in court that the rock had that that
the rock had not hit him. And he
goes, well, it almost did.
Oh, so you lied then. Only this guy's
moved aside because I think with these, they
were a little bit too Nazi ish for
what people wanted.
Vivino lied multiple times, the court found.
Every minor inconsistency adds up. And at some
point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to
believe almost anything.
Homeland Security said in a statement after the
ruling that officers were facing rioters, gangbangers, terrorists,
and that they'd shown incredible restraint and exhausting
all options before force was escalated and they
lied.
That came out in court.
This one, I've talked about more than once,
and I just still can't believe that this
is how it went. And this is my
point. One story shows you I mean, somebody
should've gone to jail for this. October 4,
Homeland Security said that that several drivers,
several, by the way, rammed law enforcement officers
in Broadview,
Chicago, where immigration detention center had been the
site of clashes between protesters.
DHS said one of the drivers
was armed with a semiautomatic weapon. Law enforcement
was, quote, forced to deploy their weapons and
fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen.
The woman, US citizen, was shot by agents
five times.
Remember? This is the guy that said five
shots seven shots, five holes. So they're actually
wrong about this, at least unless he's wrong
about his shooting.
The agent on the record, as they even
say, he later boasted about his marksmanship in
text. Well, literally, verbatim. He said five seven
shots, five holes.
And then, like, mark that one down, boys,
or something like that.
So interesting how even Reuters got this wrong.
But the point is that she survived and
was indicted
on charges of impeding a federal officer with
a deadly weapon.
The officer later boasted, one of the agents
actually rammed her vehicle with his. It's on
video, guys. They said she rammed him, he
rammed into her, got out of the car,
they surrounded her car, and then they shot
her. I mean, think about how insane that
is. On November 20, the government prosecutors
asked the court to dismiss the case. So
you're gonna tell me that you're you're claiming
a a a rabid
Democrat
agitator came at you with a gun, and
you had to defend yourselves, and you just
want to dismiss the case? Does that sound
like anything they would do? They wanna put
a sandwich thrower in prison for twenty years,
and you're gonna go, yeah. Let her go.
No. They lied. They came out in court.
They lied about hitting her. They lied about
what happened. They lied about that she didn't
even have the gun.
It's it's there there's multiple examples of this.
In one case, they claimed somebody had a
gun that was back at their house. In
this case, it was apparently in her purse.
Either way you look at this, they lied
about what happened. Now, I'm of the mind,
like I said before. They look up her
information, they find out she has a a
license, and they just probably yelled the narrative
because they know that they're gonna go that
they might go to jail if they carry
it the way they were. I mean, guys,
they shot this woman. They bragged about it.
They lied about how it happened. The evidence
came out. Nobody went to jail.
I just can't stress this enough. Like, this
and this is on Reuters. It this might
as well be the Epstein files in the
ICE conversation. They're just going, screw you. Deal
with it. This is your new reality.
We're gonna pretend like we care. No one's
gonna go to jail. And eventually, it just
becomes your norm. Welcome to the new normal.
So, at the same time, those people who
are out there killing US citizens in the
streets and lying about it are telling you
you're a domestic terrorist. Guess what? Now you're
a terrorist because I took your picture. That's
what he said. We all saw it. On
top of that, as Jason Baster points out,
well, when I scanned your face with its
mobile Fortify app, it's entered into a 270
m person database, million, I think, and your
biometrics are stored for fifteen years,
even if you're a US citizen.
And there's no match found. No rules. No
opt out. ICE says the app overrides birth
certificates.
See how this works? You think that has
to do with immigrants, guys? I mean, and
why do you think they're scooping up anybody?
They're going after everybody.
You can't see this by now. I argue
you don't want to. This is I mean,
even if you agree with everything that's happening,
even if you think they're doing the right
thing, this should be something you call out
and go, wait a minute. That's not that's
a that's against my rights. You shouldn't be
able to do that. Well, too bad.
On top of that, DHS is now repurposing,
as we recently told you, $55,000,000,000
Navy contract
to build nationwide
ghost network of detention camps, warehouses, tent cities,
and one of the largest detention center expansions
in US history. Where he told us temporary,
just for migrants, not domestic terrorists. Not yet.
Yep. Isn't this exactly what Jones was telling
you was always coming, and now he can't
he can't run away from it fast enough?
Oh, that small Palantir thing. Oh, you mean
those little things for the you know, everything's
a deflection and a sidestep, and it's like
all of the rest of them, and that's
what we need to start recognizing. This matters.
Whether it's Trump or Biden, guys, an honest
person, an adult, can go, hey. I don't
like that even when it's my guy doing
it because I'm not a complete moron. The
reality is this is problematic because, obviously, they've
already been going after US citizens. They've already
threatened to deport US citizens. I mean, what
more do we really need to see, guys?
This is everything we've been telling you is
coming for a long time now.
Now on top of that,
what have we been seeing them do? You
can't observe me. You can't film me. You
did your break. Just you know, what does
he what did the guy say? You you
raise your voice. I I I, what was
it?
You raise your voice.
I erase your voice? I think that's what
he said. Something like that. And it's on
video. Somebody's just saying, you yell at me,
I'm gonna do something about it. You come
up and you fill me, I'm gonna take
your phone. We've seen countless examples. Those are
all crimes. They violate your rights.
The reason it's important, as I've already demonstrated,
is because they're out there breaking the law.
Now, there might be people out there observing
and then doing something they shouldn't be. That's
that then engage with that. The point is
there are people out there simply trying to
hold you accountable because you are breaking the
law, and they're treated like they're terrorists.
In this
case, this person is
literally, you know,
to some degree, cop watching, wrote an op
ed about what this location is doing. This
look the like the Lenoxa Police Department.
So and and this basically is freedom of
the press repi writing, and you can read
the article. It's included. This person got arrested
because he wrote an op ed.
And somebody this person said that the account
says somebody should tell the police in Lenexa,
Kansas that and suggest that they read the
first amendment.
Officers were criminally investigated.
Officers there criminally investigated a local man, including
his tracking his car after he wrote an
op ed critical of the department.
Well, isn't that the tone we're setting? Ozturk,
Khalil,
You say things that we don't like? Well,
you're a bad guy because we frame you
as a terrorist.
This is just so rapidly escalating to the
most benign these are local police now arresting
somebody or investigating them because they wrote something.
That's supposed to be so shockingly counter to
American values that that should be they should
be
they should be charged with the crime almost.
They should be laughed at at the very
least, but here we are.
This is what it looks like to be
rampantly lawless and have that become the norm.
Trump and Biden and the rest are doing
the same. Now on this note, and I
I hate that it's coming from Jake Uyghur,
but he's right. And I did this is
where I saw it first. It's always what
I do.
This is a video I won't play for
you, but Susie is just highlighting what he
said. Masked men are pretending to be ice,
and they're going after Latino girls and women.
Now whether that's the old thing or not,
I can prove this. I've seen this happen.
I've reported on it at least three times.
These men look exactly like ICE in border
patrol. Guys, you can buy these things on
Amazon for basically nothing.
Down to the vehicles they're driving. And all
that means, they put us a little, you
know,
magnetic thing on there.
And it says some have fake DHS paperwork
in their vehicles, weapons. Some have been arrested
for rape.
This is not something to be dismissed. This
is real. I've talked about it more than
once. There are people that are robbing stores.
Now it's not like it's every single day
nonstop, but there's continual examples. And I guarantee
you it's getting worse because it's only getting
more frivolous. It's getting more muddied.
They're pushing back even more about anything. Don't
film us. Don't hold us accountable. Okay, so
what happens if an ICE a fake ICE
agent with a fake car goes in and
does this rapes a woman in her house?
Then what happens?
She comes out and goes, this guy wrote
well, who? What's his name? Well, we don't
know. Well, guess how perfectly that lines up
with what they're doing. You'll never find out.
You that means that the rapist gets away
because of what ICE is doing.
And they're also do I mean, it's just
it's so the obvious point is these people
are breaking the law by not showing their
faces and not identifying who they are. And
that opens the door for this. And then
they tell you you're wrong for caring that
they're doing this while this happens, and they
break the law by doing it in the
first place.
They're rapidly changing the way you view everything.
And they're lying about it, nonstop, everywhere they
possibly can. Back to just Minnesota, as I
showed you yesterday. Then this is just happening
across the board right now from these fake
mainstream platforms,
alternative and mainstream.
Here's a guy. I don't know who this
guy is, John Justice,
twenty one thousand, talk show host or whatever,
just simply saying, Minnesota insurrectionists broke into nearly
60 vehicles downtown this weekend, February 2. This
isn't about ICE. It's about it's not about
immigration. This is about cultural Marxist revolution.
Yeah. I guess what? It didn't actually happen
that way. It the reports from the local
media rather the local, here's the actual report.
You can check it out for yourself.
From the local news as well as the
local people there, the or rather the the
police department.
There are no links to protesters that happened
the day before the march even happened.
You could prove this for yourself, but it
doesn't matter because it works for the narrative.
Right? We can go Marxist, maniac, terrorist. Well,
it's the same thing they did to you
in the trucker convoy. You're all doing the
same thing to each other, and you are
being laughed at by the government pulling the
strings on both sides. But it doesn't matter
because John got some reach there. You know?
That's how that works. He lied or he
was wrong. In this case, we showed you
this yesterday. Here's a video that's going all
around, millions of views. From a person in
Minnesota, this woman wants you to wants you
to know that Sharia Law is taking over.
Guys, I am in Minnesota. Minnesota does not
even look like Minnesota anymore. I was born
here, and it's like everything's changed. Look at
this, guys.
How much is that?
Streets, the the streets, the people couldn't look
at what's funny. That last guy was just
a brown guy in totally American clothes.
What the hell are we talking about? These
people are insane, guys. But guess what? Let's
just say that bothered you and you're like,
Ryan, why don't you care about that? What?
That people have the right to dress and
act like they want? What is wrong with
you? Didn't you you forget where you live
or we pretend we're supposed to be? It's
insane that we think that is indicative of
whatever bad thing Ben Shapiro tells you about.
These people are not evil because they have
a different religion than you. Right? Then we
can't be this stupid. But the point, guys,
aside from all of that, that's not real.
That woman is fake.
Now for this is just the person who
posted this, but we always check this stuff
for ourselves. And whether Grok says it or
not, this has actually become pretty prominent. I've
seen this gone around more than once.
This woman is entirely AI generated. It's not
real.
This clip and this this is what this
they be this is becoming a thing, guys.
So that's an entirely fake thing, which means
she didn't grow up there. She's not real.
Those people don't exist. It's so what ask
yourself, why would somebody make this?
Genuinely, why would somebody make that video? Because
if you have to if your mindset is,
well, they they're trying to expose that, well,
then that's only gonna hurt their agenda. Right?
Because people are gonna go, well, it's fake,
so it can't be real. So the question
is, if if you need to fake that,
then then is it actually what's happening?
She asked that question. Now realize there's some
level of truth to some of these things
in every part in pretty much every part
of the conversation, but it's not the way
it's being framed. And on top of that,
you should damn well better prove these things
before you assume because some guy somewhere said
that.
We just gotta be smarter than this, and
it is being used against us every single
day. But I argue that's probably why you're
here. Because whether or not we're accurate in
everything we think is happening or whatever else,
our track record speaks for itself. And I
believe it's stronger than pretty much anybody out
there. But it's because
I care about this, and we are objective
and nonpartisan. And I'm not gonna yell things
at you that I can't prove for myself.
And if it turns out to be something
I thought I could prove and I'm wrong,
I will always come back and show you
that.
And you're here because we want to know
the truth. We don't wanna get the the
fantasy narrative. Right? Or the what did I
call it through the day?
Information porn or we know whatever the the
idea that you get the thing that we
wanna hear and how we want it to
be served. Get the news served up just
the way you like it. That's how they're
trying to cultivate the new direction.
But
too many of you aren't buying it. And
it gives me hope. Truly.
Because I believe most people are not buying
it. I believe that truly unnerves them to
some degree.
You know, they don't believe that we're yeah.
You know, that ultimately they're powerful.
And then in historical situations,
we
can be passive enough to where it just
blows right over the top of us.
So I'm not calling for violence never am,
but we need to do something right now.
And allowing this Epstein file to just kinda
blow over the top and nothing changes, allowing
the awareness of this to just kinda keep
going, it will change our world in a
very real sense and already is.
So whatever you think is appropriate. You wanna
stand up and protest? You wanna go out
and do your show? You wanna write to
your politicians? You wanna march through the streets
with pitchforks and fire? Do it. But do
not go out there with the intention to
create violence because it will be used against
you. That's I believe that strongly.
But guys,
it's on a knife's edge.
I feel that way anyway.
So if there's ever a time that you
thought it was important to go out there
and do something you've always been thinking about
or start the show you always wanted to
start or just make that post you think
is important, now is the time to do
it.
Thank you for tuning in. Keep fighting. I
love you all. As always, question everything. Come
to your
own
conclusions. Stay vigilant.