It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. 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.
Help your own emotions. Help your own emotions.
Help your own emotions. To stay in joy.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Wednesday, 02/11/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. Couple of
important focus topics I wanted to discuss, something
that I've been keeping an eye on around
Tulsi Gabbard that I mentioned briefly,
but I found interesting how it tied in
or possibly connects to some other stories we're
gonna discuss today. But, obviously, I'm sure nobody
missed the very embarrassing display from Pam Bondi
in front of Congress.
It just it it never fails to
you know, the the exercise in futility that
it is, that we always discuss, It's it's
just this never ending game
that just continues to cycle around.
Obviously, the points you've made are that there
are questions being asked
that are relevant.
Even if the people asking them have ulterior
motives
about what has been done and who they're
asking questions about. And the fact that we
can't get straight answers, to me,
more than anything, screams that
almost like a coordinated effort to, like with
the release of the files, it seems, to
make sure that nothing actually changes or there's
no real accountability
but a big show.
But that's, of course, from the nonpartisan,
they're all in the same club kind of
perspective. But, realistically,
it's pretty obvious that this is not going
the way they thought it would. Right? There's
a very embarrassing cycle happening right now where
people are grappling with the reality of what's
being shown,
hopefully, beginning to see that from a nonpartisan
perspective. But if they're within the partisanship,
dealing with the the fallout from that. Because
you have to understand, this connects the stories.
Almost I could anyone we wanna discuss today,
I could show you how it connects to
both sides of the paradigm.
And it's beginning to break foundational things that
people believe about our country, our government, which
I think are good things. We need to
get beyond the illusory reality of what this
is. But what's what's what it's causing is
this kind of cognitive dissonance in people that,
you know, that
they battle between what they care about more.
The team, your community, and in the sense
of, like, the political side of things or
the truth.
You know where I stand. And I think
if people are out there weighing their personal
connect you know, anything anything, honestly, in my
opinion, other than what's the truth is, especially
those out there fronting to be
only caring about that, if they're framing it
as that's more important, trust the team, follow
the plan, verse the
truth, I think that speaks volumes about who
they actually are.
So we're gonna talk about Tulsi Gabbard
and an interesting overlap,
to the both the twenty twenty election conversation,
but also kind of what's going on right
now with the larger Epstein conversation. But being
accused of stonewalling
in a apparently, for eight months now, I've
only been seeing this for so many months,
ever in regard to a massive top secret
classified,
you know, complaint, apparently,
which is it it it could mean a
lot of different things. We'll go into what
that could mean and and the the lariat,
but we don't know, ultimately. But, apparently, it's
been sitting in their safe for eight months.
And this is high level stuff that they
have to go through clearances, and this is
how it suggests how important it is, and
yet they're dragging their feet.
We'll also talk about the conversation of El
Paso and this another interesting sort of look
over their story that, as far as I
can tell, turns out to be nothing more
than their own incompetence causing a problem. And
they go, hey. Let's pretend that was the
cartels or however that works out. We'll go
over that story as well. But
consider that the corporate media and the airline
pilots and other members of congress are all
lying to make Trump look bad. That is
actually possible, but it's about weighing the amount
of evidence that we have.
So let's start today.
Let me let me know in the chat
if you guys are hearing everything okay. I've
just getting some weirdness back here in regard
to the chats and and different things. It
does appear we're live, but just wanted to
double check. Give me a thumbs up in
the chat. We're gonna start
with the El Paso story.
Just because it's it's really honestly, I feel
like this is one of those stories that
is being manipulated,
maybe rooted with something that did actually happen
or something like that, but I honestly don't
think it's working.
Like, usually, what I deal with these stories,
like the drones or the fog or you
know, there's something interesting within it. And I
find far too many people who I would
expect otherwise fall into it or enjoy it
or, you know, get taken into you know,
fall for what it's supposed to do, distract
you.
I don't feel like this did that as
much this time. I think the usual suspects
are out there who, you know, screaming what
I think is the false story. But most
people
left and
right just not hearing about it. Even when
usually this kind of story would have taken
a but maybe that's just, you know, my
what does the what I'm looking at, and
I'm not getting into the full picture. But
interesting to think about. So here's the story
to start with in regard to the El
Paso sort of high alert story. Nobody knew
what was happening. Was it an invasion? Is
it a border crisis? You know? And it
turned out to be something about drones. Then
it became about cartels and drones and the
border, so it went right back to that
sort of scary, are we being invaded? And
lackluster is the word for the way it
ultimately ended up. So here's what this was,
Flight Radar. The FFA has issued a a,
I I don't know. Is it pronounced NOTAM
or is it just n o t a
m? Halting all flight operations
at El Paso International Airport for ten days
that they'll start it. So, basically, ten day
complete hold on airspace around the area.
The reasons given is they wrote this is
what you know, it's been roundly cited, temporary
flight restrictions for safe special security reasons.
And that obviously makes it sound like there's
something serious going on, but if we understand
what they're ultimately telling you now, those special
security reasons are that the Pentagon and, ultimately,
Trump's administration are conducting drone operations without coordinating
with the FFA, which,
if you ask me, sounds like exactly what
you expect from this current administration. But let's
continue. This is the first report.
Secretary Sean Duff follows up so many hours
later.
Here's the FFA saying the temporary closure of
airspace over El Paso has been lifted. That
wasn't ten days later, obviously. There is no
threat to commercial aviation.
All flights will assume as normal. That's a
weird thing to say when there's been flirting
conversations about, like, invasions and border crises and
and who knows what else. Iran drones and
aliens and whatever else the core the mainstream
alternative clowns out there are throwing into the
conversation without evidence.
Consider.
Discuss anything.
But those people throw out claims and facts
and, rather,
you know,
absolutist statements with no evidence. But this
being open to the way they frame that,
it's sort of like them going, it turns
out it was a nothing burgers, the way
that statement kinda feels to me. Because remember,
they're they're the other the FFA is the
side of this one of the elements involved
in this. This person then just snarkily responds,
you swiftly by swiftly, you mean three hours
later?
Which I think is important. It shows you
that there was a dis disconnect. You have
this, like, special security moment, and it took
three hours for them to clear to basically
figure out what was going on and bring
it back to normal. And it says, so
these drones were detected and just loitered for
three hours waiting for DOD to respond? Because
realize it wasn't really drones as far as
I can tell. So that's a good point
to consider as well. If it took three
hours, what were they doing? Just kinda sink
hanging around, not doing anything? Were they bombing?
So the story doesn't connect, obviously, with the
cartel drones and what they were you know,
maybe, you know, other than maybe a spying
conversation, which I wouldn't dis disregard.
But let's also remember the obvious connections to
the cartel
from the US government and Israel and plenty
of other conversations we'll get to in a
second. If the threat is over, why is
the TFR that was published with the same
parameters
as over El Paso still active?
Miscommunication
because they're not talking to each other.
So here's a report from CBS. Now this
is broadly what was reported. There's other reporting
with slightly varying because a lot of this
is sort of peak statements, right, from congressmen,
from airline pilots, and so it ends up
sort of being what they claim. Right?
But you'll
get specific partisan coverage, which is just there
were cartel drones, and we stopped them
with, nothing other than,
I guess, just narrative control for the people
involved. And remember, that's only part of the
people involved. Think Think of it like this.
You've got the Trump side of the administration,
and then you've got basically everybody else involved
in the conversation. And pretty much everybody else
that I can see is saying that it
ultimately was a miscommunication.
You've got the Trump loyalists and their side
really, as far as I could tell, the
Bannon types. Not even I haven't seen
Trump's administration
art just, like, if I could have missed
it, by the way, but saying explicitly that's
what we know it was. So you get
the typical media people carrying that narrative.
So airspace closure followed spat over drone related
tests and party balloon shoot down. There's there's,
like, three different parts in this that I
find interesting. One of them which is in
involved the
cartel drone conversation, but more so about them
testing their own technologies for the eventuality of
that happening. Or let's be clear. It seems
arguably, based on their reporting, it seems to
happen often. My point is that this wasn't
them saying, here they come, but rather testing
it for when they might in the near
future.
Now so this is from today.
The the unexpected but brief airspace closure in
the Texas border city of El Paso stemmed
from disagreements
between the the FFA, the Federal Aviation Administration,
and Pentagon officials. And to be even more
clear, that's all part of the Trump administration,
but you know what I mean when I'm
talking about the idea
of the military
border patrol minded kind of direction from a
lot of this is clearly, in its own
way, decoupled and disconnected from a lot of
the rest of what's going on. That's why
we're getting these sort of disagreements between local
and federal and all sorts of stuff. And
that's this is not local federal, but it
is sort of one of those deviations, at
least as I see it. And and that's
based on this story, but a lot of
other things we see in the government.
It continues to say and this is, multiple
sources
said this to CBS on top of the
public ones people are discussing, which they reference
in here. The Pentagon had undertaken extensive planning
on the use
of military technology. And, of course, guys, it
is El Paso, so you probably already thought
about this, but it's
they mentioned that it's right near Fort Bliss.
Maybe that means nothing, but
there's just far too many of these weird
interconnected overlaps right now between different stories.
You know? And I don't wanna go into
this now. It's just on the top of
my mind. I just had a really great
conversation with somebody. I don't know if they
want me to mention their name just yet,
but it's the person who won the the
thousand dollar donation,
one on one conversation.
And we had this great conversation about something
that really brings to mind, you know, a
lot of this stuff. And it's basically just
the way that they
the very old
historical
connected narratives that go back to, like, Native
American abuses that seem to connect right back
today to what they're like, even citations of
these old discussions back to their things they're
doing today. It's it's fascinating. And I'm not
gonna go deeper only because I I wanna
she may be very well be working on
this for TLAB, but the interesting part of
this is the
the big picture overlap of these different things.
So Fort Bliss being a conversation in immigration.
Right? And the idea of that seemingly where
they're dumping anybody. People that they know,
my opinion,
might get pushed back or might have a
problem. Like, they're they're sending people across state
lines to places that are, I think, are
more amenable to their agenda, ideologically.
Either way, this has been a problem. There's
all sorts of horrible reports about what's happening
there, what they're doing to people, people that
are dying. It's insane.
So interesting that it just so happens to
be right there. Like, maybe it's nothing, genuinely.
But I think it's worth noting that, and
I do think that there are deeper things
that overlap these stories. Now
and this is a military base that abuts
the El Paso International Airport, which makes it
relevant for plenty of reasons to practice take
taking down the drones. It's what they're saying.
The Pentagon took this planning effort to practice
taking down the drones. The two sources identified
the technology as high energy laser,
which is funny that we
still to this day, it seems people act
like direct energy weapons are somehow not real
even though there's, like, entire programs and money
allotted and
Fox News reports. It's just funny. But just
I wanted to note on that that this
is the same thing we dealt with in
lineup, for example. This is not a secret.
These things are very real. They've been around
for a very long time, and they're not
some secret, quiet, you know, shadowy tech Pentagon
program. They're very public. But
it makes you I think it opens the
door to where, you know, the next generation
kind of stuff and wonder how far that
is. But they're claiming it was laser
tech laser technology to shoot down drones, so
maybe there was an issue with that. Meetings
were scheduled over safety impacts, but Pentagon officials
wanted to test the technology sooner,
stating that US code one three zero I
requirements
were, governing the protection of certain facilities from
unmanned aircraft that had been met.
FFA administrator Brian Bedford on Tuesday night decided
to close the airspace
without alerting the White House,
Pentagon or Homeland Security officials' sources said.
So right here, this is FFA is the
one that shut this down. Now, well, as
it turns out, it's because it that's they're
stating anyway that they didn't know that they
might be drones in the air, which is
actually a very logical and fair thing to
state and very well could be driven by
ideological
interests,
but that they're doing this. Right? They're not
giving us full information. There may be drones
in the air, so I'm gonna shut this
down just to be safe. I mean, that's
almost what you would expect from an FFA.
Like, guess we're talking about a very serious
dynamic with lots of different airplanes and people
and so on.
Then it says Bedford told officials the airspace
restrictions would be in place to ensure safety
until issues with their with them could be
resolved. Now it feels light on the details.
Right? But what I sense from this is
what we keep seeing. There's maybe it is
rooted in some kind of a difference, like,
the the people in that position or Trump
supporter, you know, whatever in the government positions,
and they see this guy in FFA as
some kind of Democrat idiot, you know, whatever.
Not to say that's important, but ultimately that
starts like this. Then all of a sudden,
they treat each other differently. And there's not
a communication because, you know, screw that guy.
He fight he voted for whatever it is.
And so now he's there going, well, they
didn't give me any information. So and maybe
that's even his choice to sort of pretend
like he didn't hear. Who knows? But at
the end of the day, this feels very
simple. And the way they describe this makes
it seem like they ultimately
just didn't communicate, which is what the reporting
comes down to. FFA declined to comment. The
critical bulletin issued issued to pilots and airlines
not to fly below 18,000 feet was initially
set for ten days, which I find weird.
If this was what he says it was,
which it does seem to be the case,
why ten days?
That does lead lead me to think there
might have been more of a sort of,
like, we'll find them. We're shutting down for
ten days out of you know, you get
what I'm saying? Nonetheless, it still is a
valid thing to do if you don't know
whether there's drones in the air. A duration
for a full grounding not used since nine
eleven terror attacks. Also relevant, maybe for something
else down the line as this starts to
connect with who knows what, the FFA noticed
warrant violators risked being shot down.
Earlier this week, the anti drone technology was
launched near the southern border, different story, but
earlier in the week, to shoot down what
appeared to be foreign drones,
which is not new. That's been that's there's
reports of that at the very least. Who
knows if they're honest? Always ask that question.
Not to say that they don't have drones,
but just question them always.
Have been reported plenty of times for a
long time now.
The flying material turned out to be a
party balloon.
So funny. That even though we know they're
drones, it looks like that wasn't one of
them weeks before this started. One balloon was
shot down.
So this very well may be just incompetence
from people, the Bannons of the world that
don't realize they're reading a secondary report about
something that happened a week before and telling
you it was drones and missing the balloon
part. I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me.
The Mexican cartels have been running drones on
the border lately, it says, according to their
sources, but it was unclear how many were
hit by military's anti UAS, unmanned aircraft systems
technology this week. One official said at least
one cartel drone was successfully disabled.
Again, not even referring to this moment when
this happened, but just that it happened in
this general time frame over the last couple
of weeks, which then becomes they were fighting
cartel drones. Don't you know? I'm telling you,
this is the kind of sloppy reporting we're
getting. The grounding of all flights, including emergency
medical evacuation, touched off a scramble among law
enforcement agencies Wednesday
to figure out what prompted the security message
in the so called, NOTAM, n o t
a m.
Sources familiar with the per, discussion said Pentagon
and Department of Transportation officials had been coordinating
on the military drone tests for months.
The FFA had been assured that there was
no threat to commercial air traffic or travel.
Excuse me. Now, again, when it comes to
the point to where they find out it's
happening without being notified,
that I guarantee if that's the way it
went down is a point of almost an
insult to somebody who knows that would be
a threat. Like, that would ultimately be them
just trusting that they're not gonna end up
flying the drones into the areas that they
have marked off for these flights. Why would
you do I mean, this is all hypothetical,
but you have to understand that it just
seems like it very much makes sense
to why that is in line with what
I expect from this administration and why that
will be the response.
And it says two airline sources said airline
officials were told the decision to halt flights
in and out of El Paso Airport appeared
to stem from drone activity and US government
efforts to counteract it. You see how that
can be misinterpreted as we shot down drones?
But what they're saying is we were testing
this drone technology in order to to,
you know basically, it stemmed from activity of
drones, which we were dealing with over the
weeks, and our efforts to stop it, which
we're testing that day. The airlines went under
the impression that the airspace closure was put
into place out of an abundance of caution
because the FFA could not predict where US
government drones might be flying.
So that's what the FFA is saying. That's
what the airline pilots are saying they were
told. Kinda hard to ignore that. The drones
have been operating outside of their normal flight
patterns, the US government drones.
These air the airlines were also aware of
the apparent impasse between the FFA and Pentagon
officials over the issue because the Pentagon had
been using Fort Bliss
for anti cartel drone operations without sharing information
with the FFA.
That seems pretty cut and dry as far
as I'm concerned. But the question I ask
is why, of course, if that's accurate, we
should be questioning that, but that's what we
have in front of us. Why Fort Bliss?
Well, pa El Paso border. Right? But something
more feels like it's relevant. One official said
it was unclear whether anyone would be fired
in connection to the miscommunication over the closure.
That's what the official said.
So that we're making it clear with a
side with a side statement that it's a
miscommunication.
Transportation secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement,
the FFA and DoW, Department of War, acted
swiftly to address a cartel drone incursion.
The threat has been neutralized,
and there is no danger to to commercial
travel in the region. The restrictions have been
lifted, and normal flights have been resuming. Now
the only person that I've seen, Sean Duffy,
I haven't seen Trump, usually expect them to
come out in droves, but it could have
happened.
What I'm seeing is the opposite.
I find that insanely,
I guess, kind of funny because we're in
this calm world that we're dealing with. But
if this had been a different circumstance, that'd
be terrifying. I can't believe you just lied
about that. Like but here we are, guys.
I mean, we're gonna get into the bondy
part of this. And if we're if we
can see the way they conduct themselves in
front of everybody, why would we question all
I mean, I don't even need to finish
the sentence. Every single one of these people
will lie for Trump. I think we can
prove that today, but let's be real, guys.
They would lie for Biden too. Not these
people, but his administration would have. But we
have never seen this clear of a picture.
So here is just a quick clip from
local media. Or excuse me. This is,
not local, but, mainstream media is what I
meant to say, about this general point. Just
makes it it encapsulates the reality. Don't take
their word for it. Do your due diligence.
And you'll see that this is what appears
to be the reality.
Now, a congressional
official with knowledge of the matter is telling
MS Now the cause of the shutdown was
a lack of communication
between the Pentagon
and the FAA.
The official told us the FAA and DOD
are quote not in clear communications with each
other. Going on to say FAA shut down
because of their concerns
about DOD counter drone activity in the area.
DOD says that isn't necessary.
The two need to talk and get on
the same page.
As for the reason behind all of this,
a congressional official is telling MS Now the
US military
was planning to test a high energy laser
that could be used against drones
that was going to be tested at a
military base in the El Paso area.
The source said that the FAA shut down
the airspace
due to safety concerns.
Yep.
Now what really quickly what I was just
looking at before I come back to the
cartel part of this is just interesting. Let
me know what you're seeing on on the
Twitter side of things. It looks like Twitter
is just not allowing our stream or I
was recognizing a very low reach on the
number that in signif that signifies the Twitter
reach, and they're just they're just not there.
I actually just shared the Twitter broadcast link,
and it only shows up as a link.
They're everywhere else. I'm gonna follow-up tomorrow in
the next show, which we will do a
show tomorrow as well, and see whether that's
just happening at t level alone, would would
be consistent.
If if you've been following this platform with
how consistently
every platform, everywhere, of any everywhere. I mean,
I only know of one other person in
anywhere in the conversation that's not Alex Jones
who was censored off of LinkedIn.
Like, directly told, you're spreading misinformation. And we
weren't. We were talking about COVID nineteen shots
and what we were proving at the time.
Any case, just I've said that so you
guys are watching this. Check look for me
and let me know what you see. Because
as always, we have those windows where we're
sharing live on
on the Twitter feed that aren't there right
now. Now
the interesting part of this overlapping story stop
saying that. The interesting part of the story
is that
it it's just just shy
why lie about? Like, unless there is a
bigger story, which I sense
part something in these there might be some
larger point there, but just
not not as certain as my opinion.
But why lie about that in that way?
It just feels unnecessary,
like a lot of the things they're doing.
But the interesting part on top of that
is that these people they're discussing,
the cartels that they're supposed to be in
a battle with. Now I'm not gonna say
it's all or nothing, everyone or all, you
know, but it their the history is very
clear with this, and I've done entire segments
on this before. Just a quick overview.
Here's this is from 2012. Now you guys
have heard of this one. This is actually
pretty the the fast and furious scandal. New
details emerge of how the US government armed
Mexican drug cartels. No big deal. 2012.
2023,
US government is complicit in the drug cartel's
crimes.
You're coping?
Last month, the federal US court found a
former Mexican security chief guilty of colluding with
the Sinaloa Cartel. A US court found the
Mexican government guilty. Okay. So in every other
circumstance where the gov they're telling you they're
working alongside them, consider that they're you know,
or the direct connections to the cartel. But
think about the overlap here, again, to where
we're watching them
claim to work with these groups
and then claim like you're fighting them. But
if you're the one proving that they're working
with them, then how does that make sense?
But at the end of the day,
the US government has a long track record
of allowing, could be complicit with these exact
conversations. Here's one from 2025, which you've seen.
The DEA wandered $19,000,000
of cartel drug money. The cash and crypto.
No big deal? Guess. I mean, that got
very little attention, which is insane with while
you're literally waging a war that you claim
is against cartels and drug cartels and you
this is what happens in 2025.
I mean, there's tons of this. The interception
covering this, for instance, 2020. Prosecution of top
Mexican security official exposes the facade of the
drug war. These are all good reads. This
one, Mexico's former top cop is on trial
in New York. Will The US be implicated?
I'm sure you know what happens. How about
the overlap with Israel? Damn it. Your words
get stuck in your head.
The correct word, anyway. But with the bigger
conversation we're having. Well, they're the ones fighting
against the be evildoers of the world. How
Israel, Israeli
firearms fell into the hands of Mexican drug
cartels or fell into the hands of the
Rwanda genocide convey or fell into the hands
in Bosnia or fell into the you know,
everyone you could list out. Weird. What a
coincidence. Prove it for yourself if you care
to look. It's not some racist comment. Historically,
it's obvious.
Back to this point, how Mexico became the
biggest user of the world's most notorious spy
tool. Now read through this. It's not just
about the country not the government. In fact,
the real point for me is about the
cartels
and how this has been handed by the
government to the cartels because The US and
Israel gave it to them with the design.
This is Pegasus.
And you could literally track this down the
line. Reporters and activists hacked with NSO spyware
despite assurances.
It's a free for all. How high-tech spyware
you have to realize this has gone on
for years and years and year, and yet
they still keep doing it. Trump, Biden, mama,
Bush.
How high-tech spyware ends up in the hands
of Mesko's cartels. You won't be surprised to
find out. It's very simple. Corrupt Mexican officials
have helped cartels in the country obtain the
state of the art spyware, which can be
used to track mobile hack mobile phones, according
to the DEA, the Israeli group, NSO. Now
you have to be clear about this. This
is being done in many ways
through corrupt people in this country. Now you
you can argue that it's not the entirety
of the government. I wouldn't even make the
argument,
but it's more than you think. And I'm
not just saying it's like, this guy sold
out to the cartel,
but rather these people are corrupt profiteering politicians
who will sell you out for a quarter.
And this just was what was beneficial in
the moment, and I argue. And Derek's coverage
on this is break been going on for
a while.
Israeli spyware firm found liable for hacks,
still out there, on top of the fact
that Trump right now has made a deal
with PEGAS. Let me actually see if I
could find
that. Trump just made a deal. We're not
just, but quite recently right here.
Oh, this this is the well, part of
it's with Palantir. I think I'll have that
in another segment.
These are just the ones that jump up,
but they're they're all they're this is very
well covered. We've done we've showed you ourselves
in the show. Spyware maker and so group
is paving a way back into Trump's America.
Trump gives green light for $2,000,000 ICE deal
with notorious Israeli spyware. So literally handing the
keys of this, in part, to an Israeli
spyware company to look at you through ICE.
This company has been caught literally spying on
people all around the world for Israel,
and, of course, Trump makes a deal with
them
in 2025.
We covered all this. It's not shouldn't be
new to any of you, but it should
have been a huge deal to everyone.
Meet the spyware companies on top of that
that will be in Trump's term this second
term. We also covered recently the smartphones worldwide
silently infected with Israeli spyware.
A different point, but the same conversation, and
it was worldwide.
Now
keeping in mind
the corruption we're discussing and the reality of
the long term briefly shown many, many, many
different data points showing the connection there, my
point I'm that I'm making is that they're
not really trying to stop anything. Not really.
Whether they shoot a drone down or not
or wanna stop that drone or not. I
don't believe that these people are in some,
you know, high end battle against the cartels
for the control of the border. I don't
believe that, at least not in what they're
presenting. Because you could show tons of examples
of these, you know, like like the one
from the DA. It's just it's just obvious
what's going on. But consider that corruption. And
not just left and right or not just
left or right, but all of it, the
government. And now in this case, with Tulsi
Gabbard, it makes you wonder like, right now,
I believe we're in the transition. Clearly, they're
trying to transition us into this digital panopticon.
I think at the same time, Americans are
grappling with these changes and recognizing that we
have other options than just following blindly into
the control structure they build for us, and
that's causing people to start questioning things.
And so I think this may could
very well connect to that in the sense
that you now have a story about somebody
who, eight months ago, in May,
brought a story to her
or brought a story forward and said, look,
I've got I'm a whistleblower and has worked
with whistleblowering aid groups, and is saying I've
got some bombshell
I have a complaint about a an a
what's the right term for it? Like an
agency, a D A Y. It doesn't say
what it is. It's classified at the moment.
But a group within Trump's administration or just
the US government rather to be accurate.
A huge complaint that basically
it falls in the category of classified top
secret that has to go through all these
agency checks to make sure that they can
even discuss it. It's
in eight months, it's set in a safe
according to the reporting.
Now typically, a couple weeks is when this
breaks down.
Now we don't know what it is. So
maybe once we find out, it'll end up
being a nothing burger. But the point that
I'm making is that if this with what's
going on, and this person is willing to
go through all of this to make sure
Americans see what she thinks or he thinks
is the most important story in the conversation,
a which is what they're arguing. That this
is a huge deal.
Major criminal implications,
and that she's just dragged her feet for
eight months while all this is coming out,
Epstein and everything else.
Doesn't that feel important? It sure does to
me. And it makes me wonder whether or
not this person has something super important that'll
just tip this over the edge, And this
is just hoping we ignore it. Now this
came out on the on February 2. We're
gonna follow-up with the a group talking about
the how they're stonewalling them on the this
is from the eleventh. But this has been
going on, remember, since last year.
Entitled classified whistleblower
complaint about Tulsi Gabbard stalls within her agency.
Congress hasn't seen the complaint which has filed
which was filed eight months ago with US
Intelligence Community's watchdog office.
A US intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing.
Now, that that's also important, I think. It's
not just some random from the street. There's
somebody who was in the intelligence community, which
is why, obviously well, I guess, obvious, but
why they would have access to the top
secret material.
So a US intelligence official has alleged wrongdoing
by direct director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard,
in a whistleblower complaint that is so highly
classified, it has sparked months of wrangling over
how to share it with Congress, according to
US officials and others familiar with the matter.
Now Now as I understand it, this started
from a different angle, just to, you know,
some reaching out to the government in the
proper channels.
And if this is a complaint about Tulsi
Gabbard, it appears it's more than just her.
It appears, from what I can understand again,
it's all reading between the lines because nothing
is actually being divulged. It appears as if
it's more it's her, but it's more about
the a larger,
more
aesthetic
of it. We'll see when it comes out.
So why would she be the one dictating
whether this comes out? If she is the
one being accused
in some part, why would her office or
any of this administration, for that matter, be
able to go, nah.
Nah. We don't wanna see that. I think
that the extent of conflict of interest and
corruption we've seen
Oh, how and how difficult this might this
very well could
you know, I have very little I'm trying
to be objective here, but I have very
little concern about the national security interest of
the US government. That may seem silly to
some people, but if you've done this long
enough, you understand how often that means nothing.
And I don't mean that sometimes it can't
mean everything. But on top of that, that
I don't think it should be able to
hide from you, the American people that are,
arguably the ones
in control
of our elected representatives.
We know that's not how this works. My
point is simply that I just don't like
the idea of them going well. It's just
proud. I get you get my what I'm
saying. The end of the day
is that this should not take eight months
no matter what we're talking about.
And then if now we're at a point
where they're going, look, just give us time.
It's complicated. That begins to feel like everything
else this administration is doing.
Everything.
And the more it goes forward, the more
it shows you that reality. I mean, nothing
eight months? I I mean, even the Epstein
files were talking about mill and look at
where we are. That didn't I mean, it's
clear
that these people are trying to hide something,
to me, my opinion.
The complaint which is said to be locked
in a safe,
disclosure of its contents could cause grave damage
to national security, said one of the officials.
Okay. What does that mean exactly?
Now I think that was actually a mistake
that they said that. I think that's either
usual response to go just let it go.
Grave damage.
Now that's a big bit different than just
going, well, it's information.
Right? This is a this is top secret,
and we can't just let that information out,
which is, again, I just I have no
respect for that, quite frankly, at least not
where we are in the world today. But
here we are.
Grave damaged national security. Now you understand? Let's
just say, hypothetically, this was, let's just use
Biden so we don't make people think assert
you know, let's just say this was a
talk a seek a document that showed that
Biden was involved with some major, major, you
know, not just you
criminal for him, but all of the government.
Well, we all would wanna see that, wouldn't
we? Especially Republicans. But, well, that's national security.
We can't hurt The US interests.
Okay. Well, what what point does it start
to be, like, the truth and what matters
and morals and law versus just what you
see how quickly or how long ago
national security became covering for our criminal activities?
I mean, that's what we're talking about. Even
if it's not criminal, you're basically saying that
our agenda is more important than you knowing
the truth, than criminal accountability, than the law
being a yes. And we've seen time and
time and time again where that's the reality.
So what they're saying is this is this
could have grave damage to our agenda, what
we claim is the security of this nation.
So wouldn't we wanna know what that is?
If it's somebody saying that there's somebody breaking
the law that Gabbard's involved with, what could
she be saying that would be grave damage
to national security? It has to be involved
with something that matters to Americans.
It says it also implicates another federal agency
beyond Gabbard's. That's what I was talking about.
So it's this is bigger than just her.
And raises potential claims of executive privilege that
may involve the White House. Oh, great. Great.
So they can just go, never mind. Trump's
gonna say, no. We don't wanna do that
because I have power over everything. The complaint
was filed last May,
accusing Gabbard,
her office, of hindering the dissemination of the
complaint to lawmakers
by failing to provide necessary security guidance on
how to do so. So this at this
point, it's essentially them coming forward saying, look.
I'm Melissa Blower.
I'm going to the proper channels.
I'm divulging a crime.
And I'm gonna and I'm and I'm trying
to get this in front of the right
people, but I'm aware since I'm in the
intelligence community that this, speaking of the person
here, that this is top secret. And I
know that if I do this wrong, that
you'll charge me the crime. So I'm waiting
for my guidance because that's what they're supposed
to do. And Gabbard or whoever usually, I
believe the person in the DNI position would
ultimately say, okay, well, here's how this is
gonna go down. And that's where they're waiting.
Eight months now.
But she's just not giving them guidance.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for Gabbard's office
confirmed that the complaint concerned Gabbard, but
dismissed it as baseless and politically motivated. Okay.
Well, we would wanna know.
If it's politically motivated, then then make the
case. You You see, but this is where
you could bury this stuff forever.
So now you got a top secret thing
that we don't get to see that they
claim is actually false and politically based, but
because it's top secret, we don't get to
have that proven to us. And guess what
that those two positions equal, we never get
to know. Always. And here's an even bigger
way to think about this. Let's even say
this is something that implicates
everybody. Trump, and what if it's an Epstein
thing? And Gabbard, and Trump, and and Bill
Clinton, and everybody else is involved. And then
they go, oh, well, politically motivated. Oh, top
secret. And all of them high five and
keep walking down their criminal path.
Gabbard has been an enigmatic figure in the
Trump administration,
sidelined from the major national security matters and
tasked with investigating the results of the twenty
twenty election
that Trump lost.
And And that's what they're writing anyway. I
mean, you know my opinions on this. I
there's very clear manipulation. I don't believe our
votes even translate to the outcome, if you
wanna get into that with me. It's not
I think we've been stolen from this a
long time ago. Not that voting is meaningless
in a representative government, but that they long
ago have made sure that our participation
was only a Maggie steering wheel in The
Simpsons, just to let us feel like we
were somehow involved in what's happening. I truly
believe that and I think each side's proven
in many ways the reality of that but
fails to see it in their own side.
And those of us that see the whole
picture can see that both sides are doing
it all the time. My point
though is that in this case,
she's been clearly sidelined
many ways.
She got really embarrassed when she came out
and said something about, I think it was
Iran, and and he just dismissed her entirely
as the head of the intelligence community. It's
just incredible. On top of that, that that
ultimately she's made herself look ridiculous for challenging
things she said before. I should it's you
know, whether it's Venezuela or anything, I mean,
she's clearly
gone all in with this administration. Or they've
got something on her. Who knows? But at
the end of the day,
you're sidelined.
You're treated like you don't matter. And then
suddenly, you're thrust into this twenty twenty election
conversation, which in reality should not be her
purview.
That's not foreign related until they start to
claim it's foreign involvement,
except that's not what the warrant says. You
see, you get into this whole weird situation.
Some Democratic staffers on the intelligence committees have
tried to learn more about the complaint in
weeks in recent weeks with little success, congressional
aide said. Now right there, I briefly jumped
ahead to this story, which we're gonna get
to in a second. Democrats asked asked top
US spy to explain their presence at the
FBI raid. But I feel like the timing's
connected, it feels.
The lengthy delay on spending the complaint to
congress or sending the complaint to congress is
without known precedent.
That should matter. According to watchdog experts and
former intelligence officials, the inspector general is generally
required to assess whether the complaint is credible
within two weeks of receiving it and share
it with lawmakers within another week if the
determines it's credible. It's been eight months.
That seems crazy.
Make sure you guys can hear me.
It's all sorts of weird stuff happening back
here. I'm not trying to ignore it.
And it goes on to say, an employee
alleging wrongdoing is allowed to share the complaint
directly with congressional intelligence committees.
That's that's that's what Gabbard sort of standing
in the way of right now. As long
as the director of national intelligence, Gabbard, provides
instructions
on how to securely transmit it.
It's quite simple, isn't it? These are other
members of the intelligence community. We're talking about
the the, congressional intelligence committees, House and Senate.
They can be they they are within they
are in the know, guys, to some degree.
And the idea that she would stop her
from doing that, to me, shows you that
some level, Trump down, is saying do not
let that get in front of congress.
I mean, how else do you explain this?
Because the reality should be all she needs
to do is say, well, make sure it's,
you know, class make sure that goes through
the right checks and checks to make sure
nothing's being divulged. But even realize this is
not going out on Twitter. It's going to
other people in the intelligence community.
This is very strange. So it really should
be something she that shouldn't take long. Give
her the right direction. Work with her on
getting it to them and hand it over
so they can actually discuss what should be
done about it. But seeing as how Gabbard
is one of the people being implicated, it
starts to make sense, doesn't it? From my
experience, it is confounding for Gabbard's office to
take weeks, let alone eight months, to transmit
a disclosure to congress. This is,
Bakaj, who's the chief legal counsel for the
nonprofit whistlebloweraid.org.
Amid the limbo, the Gabbard complaint has been
locked in a safe in the office. A
person familiar with the matter told them. Asked
about the safe, the inspector general representative said,
quote, some complaints involve exceptionally sensitive material
necessitating special handling and storage requirements. Think this
case is one of them. Okay. We'll explain
why it's in there for eight months. And
if it's that important and sensitive, then shouldn't
it matter more?
Not to the people trying to cover up
what they do. Some of the material in
the complaint is also, quote, marked as attorney
client privileged
and could be subject to, guess what, executive
privilege. Why would that make sense? Why unless
it's their lawyer involved? I mean, think about
this for a second. You're telling me that
some of this information that she's claiming, at
least, is aimed at Gabbard and people connected,
and that you're telling me some of that's
marked by attorney client privilege,
and that that that would then fall under
executive privilege.
Was that a mistake? Did you just reveal
to us that we're talking about somebody in
the executive branch? And it says, which generally
refers to the power of the president to
withhold confidential information or private discussions from Congress
or the judicial branch, the Inspector General's Office
said. So all you're doing is giving the
ability to say, nope. We're not gonna talk
about that. Never again.
But if
executive privilege is involved because of attorney client
privilege, then I think that's pretty clear. How
else would you make sense of that? Why
would they have the privilege over somebody else's
mean, this just everything today seems so stupidly
obvious. And I can't help but think part
of that's incompetence, but I can't think the
only thing going on. Last year, Gabbard also
fired the acting counsel in the Intelligence Community's
Inspector General's office and appointed a senior adviser
within the office who reported directly to Gabbard.
Democrats said that move violates the law. Well,
you can decide. I think it's obvious. The
reality that you are is that the,
firing somebody
who's supposed to ultimately be the inspector general
that who would who would might, at this
moment, be somebody investigating her. You see how
it works out? No. Maybe they knew this
was coming. But they argue that was against
law in the first place, but so too
is damned everything they're doing. So this continues
forward into the eleventh
where the this is the whistleblower aid group.
They they're now putting forward a statement saying
she is officially stonewalling this information considering considers
lawsuit to enforce her rights.
The whistleblower accusing,
director of national intelligence, DNI,
Tulsi Gabbard, of withholding a sensitive disclosure from
Congress. The whistleblower's attorneys accused Trump's administration
of deliberately stonewalling efforts to allow their client
to brief congressional leaders on the matter and
vowed to file a lawsuit unless the administration
shares the required security guidance by the end
of the week.
I mean, I agree with this. Like, even
if you wanna stonewall this in general going
forward,
this to me feels like they're desperate to
keep this out of the hands of left
and right anybody in in the
intelligence committees.
That says a lot.
The whistleblower's
attorneys accuse oh, it goes on to say,
quote, it is difficult to reach any other
conclusion, but the DNI is deliberately obstructing our
client's ability to directly communicate with the intel
congressional intelligence committees. Not like they'll get that
much more.
They're probably all corrupt too, but at least
it's a larger body of you know, more
people's eyes on it. More people have motive
to try to use it for their benefit.
That's how I see congress anyway. And provide
a a briefing of the contents of their
whistleblower complaint. Now realize, the whole thing about
the Whistleblowers Act and the reality of whistleblowers
in this country, this our government hates whistleblowers.
Whether it's Assange or or a reality winner
or anybody else, these people have always been
treated as criminals despite the law. We should've
shown you a long time ago that none
of these people care about the law. But
so you have a whistleblower here who is
protected and has a crime that they claim
they're presenting.
The fact that the government can just sit
on it for under any circumstance
shows you how broken all this is. The
anonymous whistleblower and, again, also why how silly
it seems to go, hey, government who I'm
accusing of a crime, make sure this crime
that I'm showing gets revealed.
They're gonna go, no. Because I don't want
my crimes to be revealed, to make it
simple as the government, because I think that's
what this comes down to. The anonymous whistleblower
called out the DNI director general for inappropriately
limiting access to their complaint, which was first
lodged in May 2025 blocking wider distribution.
Gabbard is a subject of the complaint. Quote,
it's now been over eight months since our
client requested to proceed to congressional intelligence committees,
a request that is consistent with the law.
In fact, we made it clear in our
response to the general counsel that we are
in, quote, absolute agreement
that all classified information must be safeguarded.
They're saying this for a reason.
This is why the whistleblower, even before retaining
whistleblower aid, the the group we're talking about
here,
proceeded with lawfully disclosing their concerns to the
inspector general, which clearly in this case just
kind of shot them in the foot, but
that's the way you're supposed to do this.
Because had they not, they'd accused them of
of just disclosing you know, basically called them
terrorists.
But because they went through the channels, now
they're able to put their you know, drag
their feet. Stop it.
And that's they've created this circumstance so that
they have control over things like this. If
anything, this underscores their commitment to following all
established processes and procedures. They're saying this because
they've already told them this. They want everyone
reading this to know these people have put
it in front of Gabbard and Trump and
everybody else. We are 100%
committed to follow your direction and withhold any
top secret information. So they really have no
logical reason to not go forward.
Therefore, we ask again that you comply with
our request to provide the appropriate security guidance
and proposed next steps by no later than
Friday. That's Wednesday.
That's February 13.
Please note that your failure to do so
may lead to our pursuing litigation before the
appropriate,
US district court to compel the DNI's compliance
and law.
But even then, they could ignore. But all
it does, it comes to a reality of
showing you just lawless, rampant lawlessness.
And realize if they give this, all that's
gonna happen is it will go in front
of the committee. We don't get to see
it. I doubt we'll ever even from there
get to know what the reality is, but
then it can be discussed more broadly amongst
the congressional committees. And, hopefully, that causes if
there's any honest bone in their bodies, I
doubt it, but ultimately that will create a
circumstance where then, largely probably through opportunism and
profiteering,
that that comes out in its own way,
or even partisan division. I mean, realize this
is how this always works. Everyone's so frustrated
about, oh, they have a political motive. So
does everybody in the political conversation. We all
should know that by now. So when somebody
comes out and goes, they did this or
Trump's guilty. Okay.
Don't you realize that there's more of an,
a the their their, the what's the word
for it? Their driving
their intention
of wanting to make sure that they get
seen for the criminal could also make them
lie, but just as much just as often
could make them point to the criminal activity
that they want you to see about them.
Like, to dismiss things because of that just
seems like such pure stupidity.
But, also, the point, like I just said,
is not to blindly believe them either.
So the reality should be that we push
this to come out through this so we
can actually maybe discuss it. But I think
right now the story is that they're hiding
this in the first place, which shouldn't be
that bombshell seeing as how we're like, the
whole world's watching them do it with the
Epstein files. But I the reason I'm going
over this is because I feel like this
connects to something else.
And as we go into the next part
of it, that's one of them. The twenty
twenty election conversation, even the the the border.
But there's something else to this that just
stands out to me about the weirdness of
all of this. And that's that's where it's
at. I mean, I feel like that I
say those things so you guys keep that
in your mind. We keep a note on
this, and we wait for more to develop
because that's what objective, nonpartisan, honest reporting is.
Our client, it says, with legal counsel present,
desires to meet directly with the intelligence committees,
which I doubt they'll allow, to submit the
complaint or information that is contained within their
urgent concern complaint.
Urgent concern broadly denotes, under US law, this
is what they're framing it as or what
it means, a serious or flagrant problem, abuse,
violation, or failure of law, or exec, executive
order
related to US intelligence activity that is a
matter of national security. So interesting, though, use
it's a national security risk to hide what
they're claiming as a national security problem.
Perfect. Perfect perfect reality of where we are
today. Now this was on the twenty ninth.
So first realized from May
2025,
this is all this has been happening.
So it's not like this suddenly on the
fourth second of February became what so I
think this very well could have been a
response to whatever that is. Just a just
a thought. Just keep that in mind. So
this is January 29. Democrats asked top US
spy, Gabbard, to explain presence at FBI raid
on election facility.
Now it says Senate and House Intelligence Committees,
the very same people, by the way, that
they would be presenting this the whistleblower information
to, called on Thursday for US president Donald
Trump's chief spy to to brief their panels
on why she was present at an FBI
raid at an election facility in Georgia.
Senator Mark Warner and representative Jim Hynes Himes,
excuse me, told
DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, in the letter that they
were deeply concerned with her presence at Wednesday's
FBI operation, saying that The US intelligence community,
quote, should be focused on foreign threats.
Now that's a nice way to say that.
Technically, I think legally speaking, she's not the
it's a a legal reality.
But it says, when those authorities are turned
inwards,
the result can be devastating.
And they for privacy, civil liberties, well, yeah,
you know, wake up. It's where we are
right now.
Oliver Coleman, Gabbard's press secretary, said in a
statement that Gabbard, quote, has a vital role
in identifying vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and
protecting against exploitation.
We know,
through his intelligence and public reporting that electronic
voting systems have been and are vulnerable to
exploitation.
Now, yes,
Except the only problem is both left and
right, Trump and Biden, yeah, you just keep
using the same machine. No big deal. Like,
that doesn't just completely show you the reality
of where we are unless you're a blind
following idiot that's gonna pretend like they wouldn't
change the machines that they told you were
manipulated.
Incredible. But, anyway, the point is not just
that.
Where was it?
Identifying vulnerabilities. Right. So the point is not
just that they keep using them anyway.
Where was it? Hold on. It was the
has a vital role in identifying vulnerabilities in
the critical infrastructure and protecting against oh, well,
yeah. And so the point the secondary point
would be that what we're discussing right there,
knowing that there are is always manipulation, you
can prove that pretty much every time, is
that the only way Xi would legally be
involved is if it was a foreign
exploitation.
And I don't think anybody would really disagree
that that's possible. You know, some will make
it more about one group than another. There's
obvious provable connections to Israel. You could make
justice
you could make some similar cases about China,
Russia.
Let's be clear. This is not a partisan
point. I think all of them are always
trying to influence, manipulate just like The US
does. Every single time, they just basically do
it publicly.
But But so in that point, they're saying
she has a vital role to stop that.
Well, okay. So that that argument stems to
foreign threats. So keep that in mind. It
is highly unusual for Americans' top intelligence officials
to be included in a domestic law enforcement
operation.
A senior ODNI official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, defended Gabbard's involvement, saying that federal law,
quote, clearly assigns the DNI and her office
with the statutory responsibility
to lead counterintelligence
matters related to election security. So, again, even
more clear. Counterintelligence implies
foreign involvement. And it says, but experts said
the law does not extend to domestic enforcement
operations. That's the truth.
The DNI has authorities.
The DNI has authority set out by statute,
and they don't include investigating
past elections for potential fraud.
This is a former lawyer from the DNI,
2009, 2017,
multiple left and right administrations. There's absolutely no
reason at all for taxpayer money
to be used for her to go down
to Georgia.
A former Democratic congressman from Hawaii, Gabbard, was
present when the FBI raided the election office
in Fulton County, Georgia, in pursuit of evidence
that widespread fraud had lost Trump the election.
The warrant,
quote, sought a number of records related to
twenty twenty elections.
The Fulton County government said in a statement,
the raid was the latest in a sting
of actions by Trump's administration
to use the justice department, according to Reuters,
against his perceived enemies, or to intervene in
cases where he believes he was treated unfairly.
Okay. Well, there's some point points he made
here. I can make plenty of arguments. Or,
rather, I can I can point to evidence
where he was manipul rather, the Democrats cheated?
Let's put it clear as possible. I can
point to examples of the Republicans doing the
same thing. But if you wanna just make
that point, then, yes, then there are examples
where you might believe, and I agree, where
he has a a,
right, let's say, to expose that happened. The
reason it never truly gets exposed, like, actually
provably shown to you in a systemic way
is because they all do it, and they
don't want the system to stop. But
what's what I think is important
is that if you're okay with them just
going, well,
like, from the point of sending Colsie Gabbard
to do this about a local election or
rather a national election from a from a
intelligence perspective, which would violate her per purview,
then, you know, because he was wronged,
then your answer will be do whatever you
need because you were wronged. Who cares about
the constitution? Who cares about the law? Right?
You were wronged. So go do what you
need to do to get them back. That
seems to be the shockingly childish mindset of
tons of people in the partisan game. I'd
like to believe it's the the continuing
shrinking
minority.
But think about that for a second because
that's where this comes back to. Right? Where
you go, yeah. See? We that's because he
was treated unfairly and they they robbed him.
They stole the election. Okay. Even if you
agree completely with that, why would you go
so go back and do whatever you want
and break the law. Even if it's this
point like this or any number of things
with immigration. Yeah. They started it, so go
do who cares about the due process part?
Who cares about the constitution? Biden, let him
in. It's just lazy logic. It's not even
logic. You're being tricked, truthfully.
Gabbard last year created an interagency weaponization
working group
of dozens of federal officials to help steer
Trump's drive to root out those he says,
trying to laugh now, misused government power against
him. Well, against him does exist all over
the place,
but my same point applies.
So you that probably bothered the hell out
of you. Watching the clear, provable examples of
people weaponizing
lawfare and everything. That's not to say Trump's
not a criminal. You'd know I I think
we can prove he is. But they also
went on tried to muddy the conversation
to wire us in an ongoing, never ending
legal conversation that amounted to no accountability.
Like always, Clintons, Trump, anybody.
But the same point here.
So he they created a group
to focus on people using the government against
other people. Right? So then now he's doing
the same thing in every possible example. So
if you're outraged about that happening to him,
then you should be like, don't do it
to other people. You should have a principle
there where you go, woah. Woah. Woah. I
thought we agreed that was wrong. Not just
bad when they do it to me or
you or us.
That's what being an adult is, that people
are are are honest, objective people who care
about the principle and not just the team.
Now it says there is literally nothing for
her to do except watch the trucks get
loaded. That's what I found actually really compelling.
Because all they ultimately did was come and
take as it says, the truck's carrying file
boxes and ballots. Sees in Georgia arrived late
Wednesday night at an FBI facility
to which Gabbard does not have access.
That's that's the reality. And so what we're
talking about is her showing up to be
taking her picture with as they grab files
that she can't look at that are part
of something she shouldn't be involved in, but
then get shipped somewhere else, then she left.
Or there's a lot more going on that
we're not being involved in, but this is
what the story is, and that's the breadth
of the story. So why would she be
there?
There is no publicly available evidence indicating that
the FBI conducted the raid because of a
foreign intelligence threat.
Now it's not to say that there's not
possibly that. Well, you know I believe that's
I literally think that's happened to us right
now. But what I'm saying is that there's
no evidence
that that was the case in the in
what they're what they're aiming at or that
what they're actually there for is about anything
for it other than saying that outside of
it. It says Trump, however, on Wednesday, reposted
on his true social platform conspiracy theories, they
write that, alleging for manipulation of twenty twenty
vote, which is
it's interesting.
If we could acknowledge that there's clear manipulation
on all sides,
pointing to a theory that Trump alleged for
manipulation, what does that have to do with
it being I mean, I guess what it
comes down to the point they're making is
that he's alleging manipulation,
which then becomes the
yeah. You know, I guess you know what
I think it comes back to more than
anything is the Venezuelan overlap. The idea that
somehow, you know, Maduro or they Biden worked
with Venezuela or whatever. The and then what
that does is opens the same door that
Biden was doing from a different direction. It
just becomes the international national security threat, border
control, surveillance, foreign invasion,
Insurrection Act, everything.
It's the same thing at the end of
the day. But
foreign in in manipulation, I think, is also,
like I said, very clearly happening. But what
was I it was ultimately,
where was I?
I think that was it. I think one
other point, I think that was it with
the Gabbard foreign
she shouldn't be involved with it unless it
is something like that, but what they're doing
from the material they're presenting in the warrant,
it doesn't even say that.
Warner and Himes told Gabbard that any federal
efforts to combat foreign election threats required,
this is important, that the public and congressional
intelligence communities be informed,
which as best I can tell, they were
not.
So you have to understand, it's not we
want that. This is the process. It's required.
And so I don't believe it's either one
or two. It's either not about four or
anything, and it's about them trying to manipulate
something for the upcoming midterms and going forward,
or something larger they're all covering up.
None of it, I think, has to do
with what they're claiming it has to do
with. Gabbard said they also had dismantled an
intelligence
or Gabbard, they said, which this is true,
dismantled an intelligence unit that was created by
Congress. Who knows if they had the good
intentions?
But it was created to expose malign foreign
influence.
So think about this.
You have them claiming they're fighting that, but
from 2020, like, look at where we are
right now. Look. It was 2026.
He's in power, and he's still I care
whether they broke the law. Do you actually
think that if they proved anything, that they
any does anybody goes to jail with what
we're watching? Do you really believe he even
cares about twenty twenty conversation, or does he
care about keeping you looking anywhere other than
the focal point?
I just you know, it's it's infuriating
that we keep having to go through all
this. But I I believe what we're watching
here is something much larger,
possibly even tied to the Epstein files. I
mean, it's but more this is even a
the get away from even the Epstein files
term. The reality of what the Epstein files
actually represent.
The control structure, the the black belt network,
the the reality of what actually dictates our
world.
Dark power.
I mean, it's what we're watching.
I think that's becoming very, very, very clear
to everybody. And so all of this feels
like it's interconnected in some way back to
what is be slowly becoming
what I mean, you know, the general awareness
of how our world operates. Now asking Grock,
since we're talking about
the,
you know, republican side of the conversation in
essence about Gabbard and kind of ignoring things
they don't wanna see, all sides do it,
Basically, asked what they found. See what see
what was interesting. Then it says the FBI
executed a search.
January 28,
agents seized more than about 700 boxes.
Ballots,
well, you know, images, voter rolls, good stuff.
Nothing in any way connected to foreign anything
other than whether that was where votes, I
guess, cast by foreign entities.
This action was part of a criminal investigation
into alleged deficiencies or defects
in the twenty twenty vote counting and tabulation
process, specifically in Fulton County, potentially violating federal
election laws, such as record preservation,
deprivation of fair election,
under title 52.
The investigation stemmed from a referral to, by
Kurt Olson, a Trump appointed official as director
of election,
security integrity, who previously worked on efforts to
challenge the 2020 results. The unsealed affidavit
cited claims including missing scanned images.
Okay?
Ballots allegedly scanned multiple times.
Inconsistencies
between machine counts.
Proper improper
possible improper insertions.
Discrepancies in the vote totals.
Okay. You know what I don't see in
there?
Is possible for influence. Because Cause that's not
what they care about or not what they're
even talking about. It's not what the warrant
is. It's not what any of it says.
Nothing they put forward said anything about that.
And yet, that's what they yell, sort of
like right now, they're going,
Cartel drones! And yet, the facts that you
can read do not say that.
We're in a very weird time. And then
Crock will tell you, no public findings of
widespread fraud or evidence substantiating Trump's claims of
election fraud have been reported after this raid.
Now that's not to say that there wasn't.
My point is that if you did this
for the purpose of finding this out, what
happened? Is there any more information? It's I
mean, gosh. This was January 28. This is
February 11. Do we know anything?
Of course not. Because that was not what
it was really about, I think. And at
the end of the day, we if you
claim it's foreign in full, Gabbard can be
there if this is about something foreign. Your
information, your warrant, what you're presenting had nothing
to do with that. I think Gabbard's being
used, quite frankly.
Not to say that we should I mean,
I've had I've been skeptical her entire career,
but I was hoping because of the moments
there where she was doing what I thought
was the right thing, standing up for the
right things. Clearly, she's thrown that in the
gutter.
But that is not the same as saying
that she's just as bad. Who knows? But
I think right now, she's being used. The
Gabbard presentation.
Or she's always been a part who knows?
But truth is, this is pretty bad.
Whatever that turns out to be, the bigger
picture we're seeing. Now here's what,
Leavitt had to say about when they asked
why she was involved in this
raid.
Clinton's face have Chelsea Gabbard involved in a
domestic law enforcement search in Georgia?
Chelsea Gabbard has been tapped by the president
of The United States to oversee the sanctity
and the security
of our American elections. She's working directly alongside
the FBI director, Kash Patel. This is a
a coordinated
whole of government effort,
to ensure that our elections, again, are fair
and transparent moving forward. I don't see anything
wrong with the president tasking a cabinet member
to pursue an issue that most people wanna
see solved.
Maybe you don't, but I know many Americans
do wanna make sure our elections are protected,
and that's what Tulsi Gabbard is focused on
doing.
See?
Okay. Well, so what are we talking about?
If it's about elections being secured, then she
shouldn't be there in the first place.
This this doesn't make any sense, but, you
know, leave it as just gonna repeat what
she's told.
Here's what Trump had to say. We have
a director of
national and international
intelligence.
It's a very weird thing to say.
So globalist, if you want my honest opinion,
because that's what it's about. It's not about
national security or national intelligence. It's about global
intelligence, what he's telling you. It's just everyday
your show these people are exactly what Jane
Jones ever they've always pretended they're fighting. They're
just calling it something else because they think
you're that stupid. They think we're all that
stupid. Guess what? They're wrong. Tell
see Gabbard who's do
national and international
intelligence.
Tulsi Gabbard who's doing a great job with
Telsey.
Despite the fact that when somebody asked directly,
what about what Gabbard said? I don't care
what Gabbard said.
You're in you know, it's just so embarrassing
to deal with somebody like this who just
act who treats you like you don't matter
until he wants to pretend you're the best
because it suits his interests.
She took a lot of heat two days
ago because she went in
at Pam's insistence.
She went in
and she looked at votes
that Oh, at Pam's insistence.
What's a funny thing to say? Right? I
I don't know. I'm just a guy in
the background. I'm not involved at all. Pam's
the one that made it all happen.
Same thing with I mean, he did the
same thing with Rubio numerous times. Rubio's the
one. He's just constantly trying to buck response
shuck responsibility onto somebody else. You really think
Bondi that you just saw completely melt down
in front of the most basic questions has
any is even capable of formulating those kind
of actions in her pea brain? I mean,
come on.
Bay Bondi did not make this happen. She's
following orders, in my opinion. But I just
think that's very revealing,
and it's weak.
She went in
at Pam's
insistence.
She went in,
and she looked at votes
that wanna be checked out from Yeah. Oh,
so not so not foreign intelligence. Got it.
Georgia. They say, why is she doing it?
Right, Pam? Why is she doing it? Yeah.
You can make it all fun and weird
in your weird voices, you know, because it's
against the law, you know? But no big
deal. Because he's not supposed to be dealing
with you know, it's this is the kind
of stuff they do, but they treat everybody
like they're that dumb. And the people that
know any better laugh along because, oh, Democrats
are so dishonest. Yeah. They are. So too
are the Republicans, though.
Because Pam wanted her to do it. Thank
you. You know what I mean? Because she's
smart.
And she they said, well, this has to
do her position has to do it's really
not so, but her position has to do
with international. I say, well,
the same people that said that See, you're
acting like this is some off the cuff
comment. No. It's the legal reality of the
position, but it doesn't matter because they don't
care about any of this.
I mean, look, guys, the FBI, the CIA,
you think that you're the FBI is supposed
to be domestic. CIA is only supposed to
be for they're not. They're constantly proven to
not be, but they do. It's just how
this works. These people don't care about what
they claim we're supposed to follow. The law
only applies to the people that they are
stepping on, as far as I'm concerned.
But just recognize how embarrassing it is for
him to frame this like it's some kind
of casual, you know, just somebody irritated because
they didn't like that she's supposed to be
doing x y and z, and that's not
what I care about.
That's that's what you want from the president
of The United States? And even more worrisome,
does he not even know?
They've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia has been
screwing our elections. Okay?
So let's assume Russia had something to do
with it.
They say, no. No. Russia didn't have. So
now they're saying Russia had nothing to do.
That doesn't even make any sense. I don't
even know what he's referring to. Nobody that
I can see in the conversation I just
pointed to is you know, it's if he's
trying to mash these together and conflate them
to make it sound like which, by the
way, I also think are ridiculous comments about
Russia, but make these people sound like any
concern about what Gabbard is doing, which is
obviously not correct, is somehow another Russia Russia
Russia camp. That's all he does. All of
them do, except he's just lazy about
it. Like, it shows a lack of a
lack of
a low opinion of your intelligence.
Because if I say Russia, that is perfectly
fine. But you could add China and about
five other countries. And you just see Bondi
over the smiling going, yes. You're so right,
Trump. Because you're sitting right there. Oh, yeah.
Yeah. I know. We're we're on the same
page. Like, he loves having yes men and
women around to make him feel I mean,
that's it's not that's my opinion, but look
around. Look at who was around him. And
in the moment somebody shoves back against
in many cases, lot what you should be
doing. Right? So, well, no, Trump. That's the
wrong this is what we should be doing.
That's actually illegal. You're fired. Who's gonna step
in and do whatever I tell them to?
And that's that's who gravitates toward him.
But she's done a great job, and Pam
has done a fantastic job, and we appreciate
it. I'm sure that's changing today when he's
probably gonna fire her. Probably right then, he's
probably already thinking that. But, yeah, you gotta
you always gotta project strength. Right? That's what
they always do. And for those that are
new, don't pretend like I don't criticize Biden
just the same or left and and repel
Democrat and Republican as the exact same thing
because that's what they are, ask George Carlin.
So
let's talk about
the embarrass oh, I have nothing on the
screen. Let's talk about
the embarrassment that was Pam Bondi and what
this
presentation in front of Congress.
I I mean, I'm I'm just I'm increasingly
blown away with how
embarrassing
is the true is the best word for
it. I mean, you look around the world
and far too many people don't know that
we don't they they look at people like
her and they go, god. Americans are so
stupid.
And in fact, that's not the truth.
Right? It's just it's just sad, but I'd
like to believe that most people are aware
of that. And and the same thing we
do in reverse that I do not believe
that your governments represent everything you are.
But this is just this is a special
kind of insanity we're dealing with, guys. And
what she's doing here and I'll I'll end
with the point. It's
this is
completely
airtight.
There are people out there like the the
the ones you always expect, and they're they're
more embarrassing right now than ever because nobody
feels like what she just did was good.
They just it's just because it's objectively bad.
She embarrassed herself. She was childish. She was,
you know, defensive.
She wouldn't answer basic questions because it's obvious
they were important than that she thought. Anything
that might feel like it makes Trump look
bad, she will run from. Even though there's
a legality here. They she's legally obligated under
under, she it's not purged. It's not, she
didn't get sworn in. I don't believe that
these things. I don't believe any of them
do. But there is still a it's illegal
to lie to congress.
They don't care. Actually, there's a clip I'm
gonna get to from, I think, Ted Lieu
makes the same point about her claiming there's
no evidence that Trump is involved. Tons of
evidence. Maybe not proof. In fact, I argue,
no. I wouldn't even say that's proof, but
evidence galore for sure.
But let's watch this one, and this is
we'll start with Massey
because he's gonna know about this, rightly so.
Breaks down his, you know,
band. He's got his whole setup behind him,
and it's just it's hard to watch.
And to think that they might actually think
that we all one last thing. What I
was gonna say to think that that they
might actually think that this is working
sad, one last thing is that I genuinely
believe that the what the reason that you're
getting this kind of smug, righteous indignation in
moments where she should be in the crying
she's so embarrassed
is because I believe that whoever's behind her,
Trump, whoever else, and she's stupid to believe
them, is saying no matter what you do,
I have your back. And then that's not
what's gonna happen, Pam. I hope you recognize
that throughout history, but she probably doesn't. The
reality is you're gonna be the first on
the bus despite what they were telling you
before because you're making them all look bad.
So let's start with Massey.
My right
is an email that was sent by the
victim's lawyers to the DOJ. By the way,
I forget her name. Look at the congresswoman
sitting right beneath Massey, or I think that's
I think she's congresswoman. Right? Or at least,
I believe she is. Just look at the
way her it's just I she's staring straight
ahead, and it just makes her look like
a lunatic. It's just the I think it's
just the way the camera is and the
angle and that he's not looking right at
it, but watch. It's funny.
That was sent by the victim's lawyers to
the DOJ. It was a list of names
not to redact.
Or sorry. A list of names not to
release.
What did the DOJ do with this email?
They released
this email.
Okay. I'm gonna start over for those of
you that were distracted by staring at the
lady I told you to look at. We're
gonna listen to the because it's important what
he's saying. But it's just funny. She just
has these eyes that are, like, I don't
know, like she's doing a trans.
K. So what he's saying is that this
what we already told you, by the way,
and and anybody who's already checked this out,
they released
unredacted names of of of, victims.
They released
nude pictures of of peep of of, you
know, it's just it's insane. Like, I can't
actually believe that's what happened. And he's simply
calling it out. Like, do do you are
you gonna investigate the person who didn't redact
this name or who did who did who
covered up Wex
less Lex Wester's name? You know, all these
things. And the way she responds probably will
blow your mind.
To my right
is an email that was sent by the
victim's lawyers to the DOJ. It was a
list of names not to redact
or sorry. A list of names not to
release.
What did the DOJ do with this email?
They released
this email
in the document production.
Literally, the worst thing you could do to
the survivors.
So in case you're missing that,
they were given the email was a list
of names that were supposed to be kept
secret.
Right? The list is literally like these names
are the for the victims that we should
and they posted the whole email,
but redacted only one name.
I mean, think about the stupidity of that.
In fact, I find it hard to believe
that wasn't on purpose,
that you post the email that's like, don't
these are all the names.
May again, this does start to lean into
the idea that it's about trying, trying
to do this so that it's so bombastically
bad and but but nothing really that is
criminal.
But that's not actually the case when you
look at some of the points we've made,
guys. And I think that might speak to
similarly
incompetence.
But either
way, step the the very first point we're
at is these people need to be seen
for what they are, but that cannot be
enough.
You did.
And they're getting phone calls. A lot of
these people didn't want to be known. Their
numbers are on there. And we know you
touched the document
because you redacted one name, and you redacted
the lawyer's name, but you left the survivor's
name there. A lawyer's name. Next document I
wanna show you
in that was in the title, the victim's
survivors names. Alright? The title of this one
is child sex trafficking.
Coconspirators
fully redacted.
Think about that.
They were they, like, covered up the co
conspirators. I mean, he said this in the
last files that were dumped. They got they
literally redacted the name of child predators.
That's I mean, even what that one point
should be enough to understand where we are.
And I mean, I I have one last
thing, by the way. Let's not forget the
actual Transparency Act made it clear that none
of this was supposed to be happening.
And they made a decision, I guess, on
their own to just redact basically everybody other
than specific peep. That's that's a they broke
the law, but they don't care.
The way
we're gonna unredact them here,
Les Wexner is in this. Now your assistant
dep your deputy
attorney general
said, oh, well, he appears
hundreds of times in the files,
but he doesn't appear in this file until
I forced you to release it where he's
listed as a coconspirator,
not to tax evasion,
but to child sex trafficking.
Now this is really important.
And the way she responds
either speaks to the fact that she just
can't, like, she she can't understand the point
he's making, which might well be the case,
or just that that's the best she can
do. Because the reality is, yes, his name
is all over this.
That's what she's gonna tell. Yeah. Oh, his
name's all over the place. What are you
trying to do here, you grandstanding manipulator?
The file that they redacted was the one
where he was listed as the coconspirator. He
just said that. Just in case that's not
clear, the point is that they hid it
where it was most important
and then let it out where it didn't
really change the legal standing. You see, this
is what we're talking about.
That's why you got all these party loyalists
right now who are like, where's the crime?
Show me the crime. Even though they were
the ones that were ten seconds ago telling
you everyone's coming down.
Not to prostitution,
not to money laundering, child sex trafficking.
And then finally,
what we have here,
the third
exhibit that I have is emblematic of the
f d three zero two release.
These are the documents that we need that
you're holding on to and over redacting
because they have the names of the men
who are implicated.
How do we know?
Because the the survivors gave testimony
to
the FBI,
and it's in there. And what happens when
you go to the portal at the DOJ
to look at what's behind this redaction?
Another redaction.
So we can't even see them. Right. Meaning
them. Meaning the ones that were told they
were giving access to the completely unredacted files
were not given access to the completely redacted.
Here here we are.
This is just one manipulation after another.
And realize that these are the these are
the victims. This is we're gonna get to
the clip that I'm sure you've all seen.
Right? Where, essentially, they're standing behind them,
and and and she asked them, who who
here hasn't gotten a meeting? Every one of
them stand up, and Pan Bonnie won't even
look at them.
I mean, how can we go from these
the the the Republican, even the TeamSport players
who are out there going files, I mean,
bond, Bongino and cash. Okay. They're all gonna
come down. The files are gonna be released.
Right? We have to do this. How do
you go from that? Claiming why? Because we
need to protect the people who are being
abused.
We need to protect the victims, the children.
That's what they're all telling you. Now you
come to the point to where these people
are now acting like the victims are the
ones making this difficult for everybody.
How can you pretend that you're on the
side of the the thirty seconds ago, the
team saying, expose the Epstein files, to now
siding with Bondi while she refuses to even
look at the people who you were fighting
for thirty seconds ago?
I mean, that is some next level mental
gymnastics, but as I've said over and over,
I don't believe that's the majority of conservatives,
not even close. It's just the team sport
idiots on both sides of the paradigm keeping
us locked into this problem.
And then there's some of these files you've
pulled down from the website that we will
never see.
And that keeps asking. We can't search the
redactions.
So I have several questions for you. Who's
responsible? Are you able to track Mhmm. Who
in your organization
made this massive failure and released the victims'
names? Of course you are, and he knows
that. But the point is, if they don't
ever find we have a legal
this will be logged. That's the whole point
of what they said. So one, who released
the information of these victims who deserves to
be exposed for that? And two, why did
they cover up this person's name who was
a violent predator?
But how much you wanna bet we never
find out? And we're talking about an FBI
agent who was acting on the direction of
somebody.
Cash, Bondi? Who knows?
And we'll never find out.
Are you able to track who it was
that obscured
Les Wexner's name as a coconspirator
in an FBI document?
Do you have that kind
of accountability?
I believe Wexner's name was listed more than
4,000
times about I had Yeah. I already told
you that. This is where he's listed as
a tokenster.
My answer.
Come on. Let me finish my answer.
We corrected that within forty minutes. He was
already you're acting like everybody's trying to cover
up Wexner's name. Reclaiming reclaiming my time. Answer
this question. Reclaiming my time. He was So
it's obvious what she just did right there.
I mean, it's very simple. That's why he
made it clear to explain. No. This was
you his name on an email about going
to a dinner. That means nothing. But this
email where he's listed as a co conspirator
to child sex trafficking,
how can the fact that she can so
blithely dismiss that, like, it was so inconsequential,
it's just I don't you guys know they're
desperate. They're losing. I'm sure you can all
see it now. I've been seeing it for
months, for years.
Clearly, this is coming down. Now let's be
clear. I'm not saying they're all, like, on
the precipice of collapse.
Hardly. I think that these sociopaths are all
just convening to get but at the end
of the day, there is a level of
desperation from certain people, and it goes pretty
high up in my opinion about simply losing
control
because anybody can feel that. And in this
case, I think that's what we're dealing with.
Mister chairman how this works. Can I have
my time here? He was he was Mister
chairman, the general lady can can give her
answer. The time belongs to the gentleman from
Alright. I'm reclaiming my time. My answer. So
I'm gonna put the language of the bill
up on the screen.
Chairman, may I give my answer on that?
If here's the question joke, and I need
to give my answer on that. Yep. Let
let Why? So she can go on and
continue to say that his name is everywhere,
and it shouldn't matter, But it does because
he literally just explained why it does because
that file, that document was legally relevant for
him being a coconspirator for sex trafficking. Does
Bondi not know that difference, which is incredibly
terrifying? Or is she lying about it, which
is just as terrifying?
On the on the screen, by the way,
he's showing the actual,
the the the text from the actual act.
We'll let the we'll let the attorney general
respond, and then the gentleman can move to
the next question. My time. Within forty minutes,
you asked me a question. Within forty minutes,
Wexner's name was added back. Within forty minutes
of me catching you red handed. Yeah. Red
hand there was one redaction
out of the cover
of the record. 100, and we invited you
in. Channel video. We in this See how
that works?
See, we graciously allowed you inside.
How dare you make a big deal about
this because you you were let in the
room.
That's what she thinks is the most important
thing in the world as far as I
can tell. Access, power, influence, which she has
none. She's you know, right now, it's because
she is being allowed to feel that.
You know what I'm saying. This person is
going to be the first person thrown on
the bus when that becomes necessary. Mark my
words. Cash and somebody else could just as
likely be the but you see what I'm
saying. These people are drowning in this BS,
and someone Trump's not gonna be the one.
But just realize how crazy, you know, that
it's so transparent. Was she she said one
thing right there. To give my answer on
that. Let look. Redaction.
Yeah. He's listed as a coke. 100,
and we invited you in. Channel media. We
this guy has Trump derangement syndrome. Oh, that's
what it was. I thought it was before.
So this is how you respond
When he's pointing out an objectively important thing
that he has Trump Derangement Syndrome, do you
think that even works for conservatives anymore?
I don't. It's it's it's like Zionists calling
everyone antisemites. At some point, you start going,
woof. This that you lose the meaning.
Even though there are very clearly people who
are racist against you, there very clearly are
examples of what you but when they overuse
it incessantly, it becomes obvious that they don't
either know what it means or they're watering
down its meaning for their own use. Here
we are with her drowning in these lies.
He needs to get you're a failed politician.
Yeah. I'm a He needs to get to
watch him out. The chairman, please restore his
time and remind the witness of himself here.
Is no credible information. Woah. Woah. Woah. What
in the hell is going on?
Forty minutes.
Syndrome. He needs to get you're a failed
politician. Yeah. I'm a He needs to
What in the hell is happening right now?
There's more of this clip.
Am I do you guys see that? I
need to watch now. The chairman, please restore
his time and remind the witness of himself
here. Credible information.
None. If there were, I would bring the
case yesterday
that he trafficked to other individuals.
Is that your position as well?
My Crazy. Unless I just didn't catch that
before.
Do you guys just see that? Am I
losing my mind? That was that was a
clip from something else. Anyway, I don't know
what's going on. But so back to the
point.
My position is
any victim who comes forward, of course, we
would love to hear from them. +1 800
call FBI.
Did you ask Merrick Garland that the last
four years? Did That's what she always does.
There look. It's not an invalid point as
always to go, well, you know, in a
completely separate context. You didn't care about this
before. I agree.
But in this moment where you're being asked
direct questions about how this should be going
and accountability and you simply go, well, a
couple years ago, you didn't ask that guy
a question. That's insanely stupid. That's so desperate
it makes my teeth hurt. You're literally going,
oh my god. You and, again, the whether
or not these people have political motivation, we
covered that already. They all do. Every one
of them.
So the fact is that they're coming at
you because I'm sure they see that it
benefits their career. I'm sure they hate the
but that does not change the reality of
your situation and what you're legally required to
be doing and the fact that you're covering
this up.
I mean, you can make the same point
about Donald Trump. Trump, what did you do
before? Did you care? Did you call them
out? I mean, any how about Jim Jordan,
all the rest of them? Where were you
guys during his last administration? Why weren't you
calling out the Absene files? Yes. They're all
guilty if we can get past how silly
this finger pointing is. All she's doing is
desperately deflecting from the reality. She does this
multiple times. I'm I'm convinced her entire binder
down there is full of just information about
how to deflect from what the questions are.
Every one of them is like, well, you
didn't do this when you were supposed to.
It's even if that's true, it has no
relevance to what's currently happening. It's just grandstanding.
It's deflection. That's all it is. But using
things they know that blind followers will go
like, yeah. Democrats suck, and that's all it's
gonna be. Do you talk about Epstein? I
am reclaiming my time. I'm glad you're asking
about Merrick Garland. Don't get a reclaiming line.
You don't get a reclaiming line. You don't
get a reclaiming line. You don't get a
reclaiming line when I don't answer a question.
On the line. Over four administrations.
You don't have to go back to Biden.
Let's go back to Obama. Let's go back
to George Bush. She doesn't even know what
she's talking about. It's just so embarrassing. You
can just if you take the time to
listen to her reactions and her statements, it's
it's sad. Not even just the petty stuff,
which you'll see more of. This cover up
spans decades,
and you are responsible for this portion of
it. And that's weird. I wanna know at
what point at what point
did the FBI and the DOJ
decide that Lex Westner was not a coconspirator?
Because our Epstein Files Transparency Act requires you,
please put it back on the screen,
please,
to release the internal decision about whether to
prosecute him or not. That's that's also very
important because
Bondi and Kash Patel were already shown to
have removed their communications,
which 100%
would have been involved in this because in
that act, it makes it clear that was
required to be involved. They deleted it. It's
not there.
And that seems to have very little attention
right now. Massey sure has called it out.
And it's not in the files and it's
not in the files for any of these
other men. I'm of the gentleman has Which
are may she answer? And he's a hypocrite
because he voted against the ban that we
were talking about on deepfake
AI porn. Only two people voted against it,
and you were one of them, hypocrite.
The, the k. Well done, Bondi. Well, we'll
talk about that. I can read you exactly
what his response was, and it'll make sense
to you whether or not you agree with
the point.
But that was your answer?
Right? I mean, think about how insane this
is. Like, there was a 100 valid points
made, and your response is to go in,
you know, well, you're you're ugly, and your
breath stinks. That's essentially what she's doing. Even
if it's even if you agree with what
your point is, it has nothing to do
with it. It's petty. It's small. It's you
going, you suck, and you're done bad things
over here. That has nothing to do with
anything.
Unless the implication is he's dishonest over there,
that's why he might be lying about Wabisco,
then make the case.
I mean, guys, this is the lowest common
denominator.
This is everyone in the world laughing at
us.
That's what this
is. I and I honestly think most conservatives
are cringing like hell right now.
So I'll include this show. DOJ caught covering
up Bondy Patel communications and Epstein files. Didn't
seem that didn't see all the big mainstream
alternative out there breaking down this important story.
I'm sure some of them probably did. This
is a huge story. That's a straight up
cover up. Then look, even if you disagree
with it being important, it's legally required by
the act. They broke the law by covering
up what they said. Even if it's them
covering up how stupidly incompetent they are and
how dumb their questions are, which probably wouldn't
surprise me.
So here is what Michael Tracey posted.
I was very I was this I really
wanted to post something very nasty under this
because just because you just saw this. Right?
So you have to understand. This email that
he's showing
was sent
in regard to people that were I mean,
look. Regardless of the point is these are
the names of people who are victimized by
Epstein.
Michael Tracy.
Grab and and here's the craziest part to
me. That even though it's already public, it's
an email that was put out be either
by
incompetence or by deliberate action
from the Trump administration,
knowing they were supposed to keep these people's
names secret, as they claim they're fighting for
the survivors, as they literally say the reason
this has taken so long is because we
need to make sure that literally this,
right here, doesn't happen.
It's it's almost it's almost worthy of laughing
at if it wasn't so serious.
So knowing that these people were the ones
that were supposed to not be seen because
they're the victims
and, again, even though it's already public, Michael
Tracy decides to take a screenshot of that
and plaster it all over. Even though he's
getting very little reach teams today because I
I think that speaks for itself.
Full list of alleged victims.
As of 2016,
with only one name mysteriously redacted, which if
you care to look, we already know. Do
you know any interesting information about any of
these alleged victims? Financial payouts received, especially. Get
in touch.
I just think that's, you know,
a
investigate anything,
especially if you genuinely think that there's something
to go on and not just trying to
make, you know he seems to be the
guy that comes out and does the thing
that he thinks is gonna be sort of,
you
know, edgy.
And, you know what I mean? Like, seen
as the you know, it's it's, it's more
contentious
just because it drives clicks to what he's
doing. I mean, I frankly, I mean, I've
seen this guy you know, it doesn't even
matter. Just tons of ridiculous takes, but I've
also seen him make plenty of points that
I agree with. At the end of the
day,
this feels wrong to me. It feels manipulative,
and it feels like you're just trying to
exploit this situation to gain more
you know, to be the guy who is
willing to challenge it. I mean, other I
mean, look look, if something comes out and
he makes a big report about things that
he had that could prove that they're well,
then I'll take that back.
I'm just giving you my opinion. I believe
this is simply personal driven, and it also
just feels inappropriate, if you want my honest
opinion.
Now here is
oh, wait. I think we just I think
we are I think I would have yeah.
I had that one already.
So just to revisit the point, I'm glad
I did this. I would have forgotten. Bonnie
calls Massey a hypocrite because he votes against
the AI porn bill ban. Okay.
Here's what he actually said.
Republicans who voted against Melania Trump backed porn
bill.
So it says, Massey says, tonight, we're voting
on the take it down act, a bill
that would impose federal criminal and civil penalties
for publishing
unauthorized
intimate pictures with generated with AI. Now we
just talked did I just talk about this
too and about how clear this was gonna
open an interesting door?
And we're already there, which is, he said,
well, I'm voting no
because I feel this is a slippery slope
ripe for abuse with unintended consequences. Now look,
maybe he's maybe he's lying. Maybe he did
this because he's got some AI porn industry
behind him. Maybe who knows? Maybe he's lying
to you. I don't believe that. I think
what this shows is consistent with what he's
already done, which even when it's difficult,
that you're gonna vote no because he senses
this is gonna I mean, look. Are we
really gonna pretend that we don't see how
easily this could become,
oh, well, that AI image of Trump?
Right? Or that image that exposes the government
crime that we claim is AI.
We really gonna pretend like we don't see
where this goes.
And so he said no. Because if you
read the bill, you can see that it's
clearly going to be it could, which it
almost always is in my opinion is why
I started saying it that way, could very
easily be
turned the right way and used against anybody
the way they wanted to.
Doesn't that make sense? Oh, I hope you
hopefully, you could decide for yourself. Question them
all. That's what we all should do. But
when they come up and make I mean,
especially when her response is, well, you did
this thing over here about that, which you
could read, and it's nuanced. You can read
what he thinks. But that was in response
to very clear questions about why she covered
up the Epstein files. So all that concern
is decide for yourselves what you think is
the appropriate you know, what which side you'll
take in this ridiculous conversation.
I think it's quite obvious what's going on
here. Now I will include the entire thing.
This is the Associated Press post. I'll just
keep this in here so you guys can
watch the entire thing if you want to.
Like, there I I I usually, I'm not
the
I used to get into these quite deep.
Haven't for a long time as I've told
you many times over the years because I
felt like they're exercising futility, the the game,
and the grandstanding, and it lies everywhere. But
this one, I found interesting for numerous reasons.
One, because it's showing kind of the breakdown,
but almost more
almost
beaten almost everyone else but Bondi, if that
makes sense.
The way this is going is so weird,
especially if you followed all of these things.
One, it could just be like I'm highlighting
that this is just getting worse and worse.
Like, the that what congress is and the
quality and the caliber of person that ends
up here. Just worse and dumber and more
ridiculous and more cartoonish and more politically biased.
It just gets worse every moment. I think
that's because of you know who and different
people buying into the situation and buying our
political situation.
But
the way they act around this, whether or
not that's the case, to me, exposes that
there's an effort to keep this in the
ridiculous,
to keep this in the abstract and the
bombastic
so none of them can be held accountable.
That's what I think.
So here is Jay Paul,
asking some questions. Now again,
I think
her in particular. I can tell you plenty
of things that I don't I think, again,
I don't always get qualified. I know you
guys know this. But for those that are
new, I think it's important. I just think
that their left and right are the same
thing. And I don't believe that any of
them should be trusted, which means then you
should equally consider what all of them have
to say, and question it, and be skeptical.
And this one, I think, is sound.
Because what you're doing is going, look. Here
are the victims. Now, I mean, guys, if
it makes you feel better, imagine this was
Lindsey Graham or whoever you think you like
on the conservative side making this point and
saying, you are survivors. Has Bondi contacted
you? No? Okay. Well, that matters. But just
because she's the one doing it, it becomes
partisan, I guess, that the victims are telling
you that the government has failed to talk
to them? How can that possibly be partisan?
Read the comments. You'd be surprised about the
stupidity out there today. But here is what
the conversation was like, and I think this
one's powerful.
To the survivors in the room,
if you are willing, please stand.
And if you are willing,
please raise your hands if you have still
not been able to meet with this Department
of Justice.
Wow.
Please know for the record that every single
survivor has raised their hand. I mean, how
do you even come to terms with that?
So you're you're wanna pretend that these that
they've been investigating all this, And the people
right there that you guys told us 2024
were the ones that were gonna be sure
you were gonna save them. Are they gonna
expose the Biden administration? Okay. And now here
they all are going, they haven't even talked
to us.
I, you know, I'm only stressing this so
hard because there are still people like I
keep saying that I have I see that
I don't believe are manipulative. Don't they're not
some
operative that still seem to fall for the
narrative.
How do you make sense of that? At
the very least, you have to realize I
mean, if you wanna pretend it's somehow not
at least, Bondi is actively not doing her
job. Somebody has to start calling this out.
It's just sad. It's obvious.
Again, why I think most conservatives are coming
very uncomfortable in terms with the reality of
where we are. But now don't fall into
some other path. Don't jump into the America
party. Take a beat and recognize that they're
all like this, and let's figure out a
way to get around that somehow.
Attorney general Bondi,
you apologize
to the survivors in your opening statement for
what they went through at the hands of
Jeffrey Epstein.
Will you turn to them now
and apologize
for what your Department of Justice
has put them through with the
absolutely unacceptable release
of the Epstein files and their information?
Remember that little part right there. It'll be
relevant in a second about their information. You
know, we're talking about the unredacted personal information.
Congresswoman,
you set before
Merrick Garland set before chair twice. Here we
are again. Attorney general on Right. No. Can
I finish my answer? No. I'm gonna reclaim
my time because I asked you the answer.
Question Attorney general response to your question. To
answer, which is will you turn
to the survivors? This is not about anybody
that came before you. It Now come on.
We we can all be honest about this
and realize even though it's about an apolitical
thing, a Epstein and survivors of of sexual
manipul okay. But doing it this way, yeah,
clearly, there's a political motive. Clearly, if you
know that you're setting her up to look
like she doesn't want to and she does
and what she falls right into,
why wouldn't you just go, well, yeah. I'm
I'm here for you. Because she knows they
hate her right now because she's ignored them.
But nonetheless,
even though that's all important to see, it
still is politically motivated. That doesn't mean it's
not important.
It's about you taking responsibility
for your department of justice
and the harm that it has done to
the survivors who are standing
right behind you and are waiting for you
to turn to them and apologize
for what your Department of Justice is. Members
members get to ask the questions. The witness
get to answer in the way they wanna
answer the attorney general That's not accurate, mister
chairman. Because she doesn't like the answer. So,
mister chairman Why? I have asked Didn't she
ask you? Merrick Garland this.
I'm reclaiming
that in my See, I I actually believe
Jim Jordan is fully playing a part in
all this. I mean, as far as I
understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, the
reality of this is that if you ask
them a direct question, they have the right
to respond. But if you ask them a
question, yes or no, were you present? And
they go off for five minutes about something
completely un then then you can go, no.
No. You're clearly not answering. I can reclaim
my time. Look it up. It's pretty simple.
But for some reason, Jim Jordan acts like
her completely deviating from the response as though,
you know, because he's on there. There's a
there's a Republican thing. Same as the left.
They're all doing this. That's the reality. Left
and right, they're all the same thing if
you really break it down.
But what they're doing here is her trying
to pivot into Garland again because I guess
the only response to all these valid points
is that you didn't ask him about Epstein.
Okay. Fair. Now move forward. We've acknowledged that.
I agree. That has some relevance. Now back
to the fact that you're not doing your
job. What about Merrick Garland in a question
from years ago? It it it's it's actually
hurting your case.
Merrick Garland this.
I am reclaiming that time, and when I
I will continue to do that. Don't determine
if the gentleman is reclaiming time. Get in
the gutter for her theatrics. The time belongs
to the the time belongs to the gentle
lady. The gentle lady has seventeen seconds. Thank
you. See, I'm pretty sure somebody gave her
certain things like
that. Explain for me how that was getting
in the gutter with her response. You know,
it's it's her you tried to jump in
to say something different, and she'd ran your
time, and you guys went back and forth.
He goes, I'm not gonna get in the
gutter. Well, Bondi, that was an inappropriate time
to use that little pocketed thing. Didn't work.
But it just shows you how out of
her depth she is.
You're not gonna answer this question. So let
me just Chairman, I'll direct it to you.
Massive No. I'm
answering a question. Will you restore her time?
The witnesses that are up in the line
with this woman. Stop the time. The actress.
Let me have my General lady the general
lady from Washington controls the time. The general
lady has seventeen seconds. You can you can,
proceed with your final seventeen seconds. What a
massive cover up this has been and continues
to be
Donald Trump made the release of the Epstein
files the center of his political campaign because
he thought it would benefit him. Then you
got into office, attorney general, claimed to have
a client list, only Regular order. And say
that there was no list. Your deputy, Todd
Blanche, met alone Time with the gentleman. With
Lane Maxwell. And then the gentleman has expired.
To a minimum security prison. And now you
continue
to honor the gentlelady has expired. That you
would turn around to the survivors who are
standing right behind you and on a human
level. Chairman Collins recognizes
the gentleman I'm what you have done. Time
is time is delightful. The gentleman is Yeah.
Yeah. Bondi Culler. Now what she's doing is
grandstanding and she's trying to make it a
big clickable point. That's why it's on Twitter
today. But Bondi calling her unprofessional,
it's just it's just priceless. You know? I
mean,
you're it you're it's like you're with Bondi,
you're like you're dealing with a 13 year
old girl. That's the level of maturity and
the level of response. That's not just my
opinion, and I I hate left as much
as right. It's obviously what she's doing.
I think it speaks to who the reason
that she's there. Right? These are people that
are there because
they will go along to get along.
Oh, and then this is just funny. Let's
just see more examples of this. This is
exactly what I was just saying, by the
way. This is her response
showing you the level of maturity that she's
dealing with.
There is no evidence that Donald Trump Wait.
Hold on. That's not the one. It's this
one. That one's good. We'll get to that
one next because she's lying about that. Her.
You can let her filibuster all day long,
but not on our watch. Be clear. Not
on our time. No way. Be clear. And
I told you about that, attorney general, before
you started. You don't tell me. No. I
did tell you because we saw what you
did in the senate. Lawyer. Not even a
lawyer. Maybe we'll be in order. Time that
I should get back at least 45¢.
She was just a small person.
You don't tell me anything. Well, what he
was saying was, I told you this before
we started that we weren't going to allow
this. He was not trying you know? But
she's so defensive.
But on top of that, you're just a
bad lawyer.
Okay?
That's the best you could do? At least
have a good
insult. I mean, I'm just it's just I
really genuinely
this is so embarrassing for this country in
a thousand different ways.
Here is
oh, this one is interesting because what this
this is the same one we just showed
you. Remember I told you to remember that
statement about the files, you know, they put
out the way that you did or, you
know, whatever she said. Right? Basically saying
that the way you put these out and
the information that you didn't redact. Right? The
the names, they're talking about the file, the
same thing. It's all it's all the same
exact clip I just played for you. And
this person, who has a 100,000 followers, almost
200,000,
says, holy hell. Jay Paul tells Pam Bonny
to apologize for releasing too many files.
See, that's a a willfully
dishonest way to frame something, clipped it to
where it's twenty nine seconds. So if you
hear just this, it kinda sounds like maybe
she means that. But it says the democrats
don't care about the victims. They care only
about getting Trump.
As you refuse to even discuss or talk
to the victims. I mean, guys, these kind
of people need to be seen for what
they are.
They know what they're doing. I'm convinced of
that. This is about trying to protect the
team no matter who so you don't care
about apparently, you don't care that Trump's team
will be out there working with rape people
raping children. That's okay. Because we don't really
care about Epstein's files. We just cared about
using it to feel like we were in
the lead or making Democrats the bad guys.
Or you've somehow convinced yourself that's only on
the Democrat side,
yet while your team covers it up. But
that's okay because I don't wanna look at
it. La la la. I mean, this is
just dishonesty. That's all it is. This is
them just lying to make it to barely
deflect a couple of views away from the
reality of what's happening.
It's not working.
Here is an example of Kim Bonney, I
agree, getting caught lying live on TV. He
did it for the thousandth time, but he
makes a very clear point about it. Now
he is politically motivated. I guarantee it. It
doesn't change the fact that there's
a mountain of evidence.
Proof is a different word, but evidence,
something that turns out to be falsified is
evidence.
You've got a mountain of evidence mentioning Trump,
rape, and sexual manipulation, torture, all sorts of
stuff. And so for her to say there's
no evidence, either show she doesn't understand what
the word she's me that she's using and
what it means, or that she's lying under
oath or rather, you know, whatever it's called
in front of Congress.
I hope he brings it. I hope he
does.
There is no evidence
that Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone
knows that. This has been the most transparent
presidency.
He's the one who asked that those files
reclaim my time? He really I got your
answer. Right. You mean the ones they released
that were redacted entirely before we forced them
to do more and they lied and said
there was none? Then released a little bit,
redacted, then lied again, and then forced more.
Yeah. Look at how transparent that was as
we were literally, like, pulling his teeth to
get this to come out. It's just just
a desperate
reimagining
of what actually happened.
It's just crazy how much dishonesty is going
around right now. You said there's no evidence
Trump after Trump after Trump
Trump. Legislation.
This this is Time. This is time. Time
belongs to the gentleman from California. Okay.
I'm gonna put up
another document
from
a witness who called the FBI's National Threat
Operation Center because I believe you just lied
under oath. Let's be clear before he even
shows this one. The one that I've shown
you already that I it's very clear. You
could still look it up unless they removed
it today, is is a signed document in
front of a court
under threat of perjury that that she was
raped. And other people were there that saw
that. Another person were raped. This was it's
like three, four pages of different signed discussions.
That's the best piece of evidence I've seen
so far from this. Now what he's pointing
to, I do is also evidence, but it's
more
from the interview point, which is still very
important, but this one's a little bit better
caliber.
And I that's why I asked, why isn't
that one anywhere in this conversation? I think
you know why. I think it's always about
these people making their political wins but without
expecting anything to actually change.
That's my gut anyway. Because otherwise, why wouldn't
that be the one that's in plain view?
It's very prominently discussed. It's a very important
document. But nonetheless, this one's important too, but
it's not the it's less,
less likely to amount to accountability.
There is ample evidence in the Epstein Don't
you ever accuse me of a crime. I
believe
I'm gonna put up
another document
from
a witness who called the FBI's National Threat
Operation Center
because I believe you just lied under oath.
There is ample evidence in the Epstein Don't
you ever accuse me of a crime? You
just lied under oath, and this is all
on videotape. You said there's no evidence of
crime. I'm showing you here is a witness
statement. You're a liar.
What did you just lie about?
You you he didn't I mean, listen to
this again. This is what's so incredible to
me.
This this is Time. This is Time. This
is Time. This is Time. This is Time.
Time belongs to the gentleman from California. Okay.
I'm gonna put up
another document
from a witness who called the FBI's National
Threat Operation Center. Wherever she said there is
no evidence.
Because I believe you just lied under oath.
There is ample evidence in the And he
just said, but there's ample evidence. Okay. Right
there. There's no evidence.
That's her that's her stance. His stance is,
well, there's ample evidence.
Okay.
So
he's saying that she lied under oath. Epstein
Fox. Don't you ever accuse me of a
fraud. You just lied under oath, and this
is all on videotape. You said there's no
evidence of a crime. I'm showing you here
is a liar. A witness
liar.
What? Did you not say that? I mean,
ten seconds ago. Like, I mean, I just
have to really stress how this is you
know, imagine how she must feel. This is
like a whirlwind
of negative attention when she feels like they're
I mean, maybe she believes they're hashtag winning.
I don't know. But, I mean,
you're just deflecting and lying and, like, that's
gotta be wildly uncomfortable. And I think she
deserves that, quite frankly. Bateman who called into
the FBI's threat operation center,
He drove Donald Trump around in a limo.
He overheard what Donald Trump said to Jeffrey
on his cell phone. He was so angry.
He was gonna stop a limo and hurt
Donald Trump.
And he met a girl who said she
was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
She later had her head blown off and
the officers at the scene said that could
not have been suicide.
No one,
no one
at the Department of Justice
interviewed
this witness.
You need to interview this witness
immediately.
Epstein should rot in house. That's super important,
guys.
This is what I was saying before. Same
point with the other. If if if and
we don't know about all of it. But
in the cases we do, if nobody followed
up, which is the case here, then what
are we talking about? There was no if
you haven't even speak you haven't spoken to
the victims themselves.
No one's followed up with these pieces, so
you can't claim, as Kash Patel repeatedly has,
that there is nothing to go on. They're
lying to you guys. It's all right in
front of you, and it's not whether the
Democrats point to it or not, you can
look for yourselves. What are we doing here?
So should the man who patronize this operation.
And as we sit here today, there are
over 1,000
sex trafficking victims,
and you have not held a single man
accountable.
Shame on you. If you had any decency,
you would resign right after this
Yeah. And, you know, as always, they get
the the grant, you know, which I don't
disagree with, but, you know, it's about making
the moment. But I don't think they even
care. I really don't. At the end of
the day, they're covering this up. Now, Ted
Lieu and all the rest of them, like,
we'll see what you do. What's gonna happen?
Ted, is someone gonna go to jail? If
somebody does, then I'm gonna hold you accountable.
Why aren't you doing anything? It's the same
point every single time. I mean, I this
is how infuriating it is for those of
us to stand back from nonpartisan perspective and
watch the continuing hamster wheel.
No one it's like, right now, I'm glad
that you're getting a lot of attention from
people going, where is the arrest? Zero. All
of these categories because you just can't miss
that.
But now, hopefully, you can stand back and
and look at the one before. I'm sure
you guys were already doing it to Biden,
but go before that. Go before that. Look
at the last Republican administration you thought you
like. You'll find the same story. So watch
now as I mean, I hope I'm wrong.
And with these cases, I usually do because
I want there to be arrests left, right.
I don't care. People deserve to be put
in prison for what's going on here.
But when, hopefully not, but when it inevitably
does not happen, then the Ted Lues and
Donald Trump's and Bondies of the world are
all equally accountable, guys, because it's right here
in front of them.
So as thank you, alien invader, for making
sure I saw this because it still hasn't
stopped.
Yes. It went down yet again. And what
was it last time? I think it was
1,500 something.
Either way, just this point alone proves it
to you that just today or rather, from
the tenth to the eleventh,
it was 1434.
1434
results for Donald Trump.
As of today,
1,432.
This is not some trick. This is not
some kind of manipulation or some kind of
adjustment or an archive. This is
them continually,
day by day, removing more information from these
files. Both Trump, Rockefeller. I mean, there's tons
of things people have caught. Probably more than
we can't even read that we haven't caught.
They're slowly we're lose
removing all of this.
Let's check it again. We'll see if it's
gone down since I've started the show.
As always, this is included in case you
wanna check stuff for yourself
as you should and not trust people online.
Nope. Same right there. Well, keep it. Keep
a check. I mean, there's no misunderstanding of
this. They are removing information about Donald Trump.
They are removing information about Rothschilds or whatever
the ones we've proven. That's not debatable. Probably
about tons of other stuff.
Here is Nader asking a like like, the
most uncomfortably straightforward question. It's just he's so
awkward. But it's just straight exact question and
the way she responds.
I just you have to laugh at how
stupid this is. As, DD Geopolitics says, Pam
Bonney is a psychopathic spoiled brat. This theater
from her is really tired.
Go, girl. Give us nothing is what he
what they wrote.
How many of Epstein's co conspirators have you
indicted?
How many perpetrators
are you even
investigating?
First,
you showed it. You I I find it
How many have you I guided it. Me.
I'm gonna answer the question. I answered my
question. No. I'm gonna answer the question the
way I wanna answer the question. Oh, you
did the question the way I Oh, they're
theatrics. You see what I mean? Who were
in the files?
Your theatrics are crazy.
The the one doing jumping jacks and waving
her hands, you're theatrical.
You know what I mean? Like and I'm
not saying it's not the same way on
both sides, but just think about how she's
clearly been coached and she just doesn't know
how to apply it. You're just, you know,
reacting to things that don't meet what the
point is. It's just crazy.
It's sad. And what's alarming is that this
is the attorney general of The United States
Of America.
Let that sink in for a second, guys.
Now just watch this again.
How many have you indicted
have you in How many of Epstein's co
conspirators have you indicted?
How many perpetrators
are you even
investigating?
You realize how wildly relevant that is? Are
you looking into anybody?
Because you have to understand, despite their action
claims from cash and oh, it's over. It's
it. That's it. There's no more. You can
quite literally prove that's not true. So they
should be investigating plenty of this, like the
one Nassey showed, like the one you just
saw, clearly.
So to ask point blank are you and
for her to respond like that, how do
you not see that as desperate?
That's like that's like saying, what place do
you work at?
Dog, not gonna stand for this grandstanding. It's
like, what? Okay. What what's clearly, that's a
sensitive question, and it's obviously important.
First,
you showed it. You I I find out
How many have you I guiding? Excuse me.
I'm gonna answer the question. I answer my
question. No. I'm gonna answer the question that
way. I wanna answer the question. Oh, you
answered the question the way I asked it.
Chairman Jordan, I'm not gonna get in the
gutter with these people, but I'm gonna answer
the question. How many of you in life?
Coach, what are you talking about? The gutter?
It's a very straightforward question. And you not
you weren't gonna answer it and at which
you will see. She she was gonna go
into her notes and what she was gonna
say to deflect.
She will not answer that question. Again, the
time velocity Framing my time. The time delay
I think it's very interesting. Framing my time.
I think it's very interesting. And my time,
you can reclaim your time. About they indicted
him. Time, mister chair. The president said they
indicted him too. We know Jim Jordan is
not doing his job because she's not responding
to any question. She's just choosing to speak
out loud, and that's that's their tip's not
within decorum. She's supposed to be I don't
even mean just what's polite. There's a process
here. Now look. You can I don't care?
Disrespect them. Speak whatever you want. They're just
I don't like I care about their the
point is that she is doing this to
make it sound like they're the ones doing
something to her, when in reality, she's just
yelling over the questions, not answering anything, and
Jim Jordan's letting it happen even though his
job is to maintain that decorum.
Right? There's a point blank question she has
a right to answer. But when she goes
off or doesn't even respond to a question,
then they have a right to reclaim their
time. That's how this works. Care about it
or not, it is the reality of it.
Sherman, please stop the clock. Stop the clock.
Time. Here we go. We got you. The
time
aligns up. Smiling. It's not hard to see,
guys.
They're they're they're dunking on Democrats. Okay? I'm
the gentleman from New York. We will give
you a few more seconds. We will do
that. But when you ask a question,
the witness can say, you may not like
the answer, but she gets to answer. Question
was Yeah. But yeah. But see, that's not
actually accurate, especially when what you just saw
was her not responding to any question. He
had gone on to continue talking. She stopped.
He made another statement, and then she went
into something else and then started talking about
something that related to nothing that was going
on. But we don't even need to make
it that specific. The reality of this is
that there is a moment at which you
can go, okay.
She's talking about the weather. I'm gonna reclaim
my time. That if you look it up.
And he damn well knows that.
Because how many of Epstein They don't like
the answer, chairman? My time. Because it's honest.
Be clear? So he What's honest? I mean,
you haven't even answered the question. You see,
what she's trying to say is because I
said you didn't ask about Merrick. Yeah. Mic
drop. That's what she thinks she's doing. It's
not honest. What you're doing is very dishonestly
evoting the question. But, I mean, maybe she's
just realized how obvious that is.
He asked a four minute question. Restore forty
five seconds, mister Napoli, mister Foreman. I am.
Okay.
Very quickly.
Tell me when I get through this clip.
She just claimed he asked a four minute
question.
Let's go back to the beginning.
How many of Epstein's co conspirators have you
indicted?
How many perpetrators
are you even
investigating?
Well, I think that was about ten seconds,
and correct me if I'm wrong.
First. Okay. Okay. Back back here. We'll see
what you let's do it again. How many
of Epstein They don't like the answer, chairman
my time. Because it's honest. Be clear. So
he asked a four minute question. Restore
I mean, it's just I don't maybe that's
a note she was given, and maybe it
was about somebody else. I I honestly don't
know. It's just it's just insane. This is
it's embarrassing.
Forty five seconds, mister Nava, please, mister Corbyn.
My answer. You can let her filibuster all
day long, but not on our watch. We
say Not on our time. No way. Worries.
And I I did tell you because we
saw what we saw what you did in
the senate. A lawyer. Not even a lawyer.
Mittie will be in order. I mean, I
should get back at least forty five seconds.
We will give you a few more seconds.
I said that already. Forty five seconds. Okay.
I will I'm timing right now.
Alright. My time. The answer to my question,
how many of Epstein's focus on is is
she indicted
is zero.
Well, yes. We already knew that, Nader. You
didn't need to push all the get that
point out. How many But I do find
it funny because, you know, he's just frustrated
by dealing with all the childish nature. But
Jim Jordan does the same things when he's
the one asking questions, but that was still
funny. You know? But, I mean, come on,
guys. I mean, it is
what this is
it it it's demonstrating that we are not
serious. That if we don't do something about
this as the American people to actually, you
know, whatever that may look like, I'm not
calling group violence, Or they don't do anything
to actually change the way this continues. We're
a joke. This is what a Banana Republic
looks like. You may not feel that way
because you've been raised with this jingoistic mindset
of the greatness of this country. At one
point, yes.
That has long since been the reality, and
that's not because it's hate America. It's because
people like us that are telling you that
are the ones that are fighting for it.
The actually.
So here's a couple of clips that I
thought stood out. I I couldn't find these.
I just grabbed these from the the live
feed. And I think these really stand out
because this is one of the ones I
saw. I mean, and I didn't catch most
of it. I saw I was I watched
a good chunk of it, and I was
looking for good clips.
And I'm telling you that this stands out
as one of the most basic basic questions.
I'm not familiar with this congresswoman.
Who knows whether she's just super partisan? I
mean, I think they all are. But the
way she asked this is very straightforward,
very specific.
Like, you know, as always, kind of a
call for nonpartisan response and so on. But,
you know, who knows whether it means that
or not? But the way she answers is
very telling. That's no different than what you've
already seen, but I do think these stand
out. Because this question,
and like like the one with the survivors,
it's important.
And it's it's
it's not just dishonest and desperate to not
answer it. It it's a it shows a
lack of
compassion, a lack of concern for any of
this.
The law, the people that were raped and
tortured and everything else, but no surprise, they're
cheering on a genocide. So wouldn't surprise me
to see any more or even more.
So this one first and it was,
what's her name?
Hold
on. I'll just do real quick on here.
She resonated
Miss
Blint?
Not familiar, but here's the clip.
Resonated so deeply with so many Americans. And
the other reason, I think, is because it
has revealed
a two tiered system of justice, and the
powerful are protected and the survivors rarely
get any accountability.
And the Epstein files contain evidence of a
multi decade international criminal conspiracy involving some of
the wealthiest
and the most powerful people in the world.
There's evidence of financial crimes, political corruption, sex
trafficking, and of course, horrible
sexual abuse.
And I wanna remind everybody,
this isn't a game.
These are real people,
people who have suffered,
who are sitting here with us today,
and they deserve answers,
and they deserve accountability.
And I'm here to try to get some
for them.
Now I've seen some of the unredacted
Epstein files. And, obviously, as you know, president
Trump's name is all over them, but so
are the names of other senior Trump officials.
Howard Lutnick, secretary of commerce, John Phelan, the
secretary of the navy, and Steven Feinberg, the
deputy secretary of defense.
These men were appointed by president Trump to
senior positions in his administration.
All of them have clear and confirmed ties
to Jeffrey Epstein.
Attorney general Bondi,
yes or no, has the justice department asked
secretary Letnick about his ties to Epstein?
Excuse me.
Secretary Lutnick,
has addressed those ties himself. I'm asking you,
has the justice department specifically
asked secretary Lutnick about his ties to Jeffrey
Epstein? He has addressed those ties himself.
Has the DOJ So just so it's not
being missed.
The question is clearly about whether you have
investigated
this. Have you have you spoken to Lutnick
on an official capacity?
Right? You're, you know, show up. I think
she says in a second, you know, you
you lie to go into the island. You
can now prove that you were there. The
island of all.
What about that? What do you know? Who
were you involved with? Nope.
According to the record, none of not a
single moment that's happened. Now she goes on
to ask about the others.
Have you and she go and and her
her response will speak volumes. But recognize the
point is,
is Bonnie actually saying that her investigation
is concluded by listening to what Lutnick publicly
stated?
So his tweet is enough for you, Bondi?
Well, probably because that's who she what she's
being told to do. Ignore. But that's the
attorney general of The United States Of America
basically going, well, he he said it out
loud.
I just well, watch the next two.
Asked secretary Phelan about his ties to Jeffrey
Epstein. I don't know whether he has addressed
those or not. Has the deputy Right. So
it does so I who I don't know.
Maybe he's spoken out about them. I don't
know. So that's a clear answer. No. I
have not. Because if I don't even know
if he's spoken about it publicly, then clearly,
I don't even you haven't asked him any
questions, but a response isn't is deliberate.
Like like, it's enough that you would be
able to hear what they have to say
out loud. Would that be enough for Biden's
administration?
The, sec has deputy secretary Feinberg
talked to Department of Justice about his ties
to Jeffrey Epstein?
Yes or no? Has the Department of Justice
talked to secrete The answer's no before I
I'll let it play out. The answer's no.
They have not. And that needs to matter
to everybody. They are not investigating any of
these connections, let alone the people directly tied
to Trump. You we all know that's not
gonna happen,
But they're not investigating anything. Nobody's being investigated.
There's no criminal activity. There are investigations ongoing
that needs to register with everybody. Now look
at the way she responds to this. Terry,
deputy secretary Feinberg
about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Yes or no? Has the Department of Justice
talked to secretary, deputy secretary Feinberg about his
ties to Jeffrey Epstein, which are clearly spelled
out in the files. It's a very simple
question. It's not a trick question. I'm just
asking you.
Yeah. I I'm stunned that you want to
continue talking about Oh my gosh. Absolutely. I'm
starting to be burning my time. I'm asking
you not a trick question, a simple
question.
Okay. So what is clear is we have
evidence. Do you know who Cree Caitlin is.
Senior? We have evidence
God. It's just insane.
Now, again, here's a good example. She was
deliberately not even responding to the question.
Right? Have you interviewed him? See, you guys
just wanna talk about all this stuff. That's
when you go, no. Okay. Done. You're not
you're you're deliberately grandzuke. That's what Jim can
refuses to to enforce right now. But what
she's now pivoting into in her little book,
okay. When when Belin starts talking, call her
out for not caring about this beat this
border patrol agent that was shot. Okay. Let's
just say she's the worst person in the
world, doesn't give doesn't care at all about
any American being shot. That has no relevance
on whether or not you investigated these people.
Your objective is to go, oh, she's a
bad, dishonest person. Therefore,
I should ignore the valid question that she's
asking.
Does this work for anybody?
Trick question. A simple question.
Okay. So what is clear is we have
evidence. Do you know who three Caitlin is?
Senior we have evidence that three senior officials
within the Trump administration have ties to Jeffrey
Epstein. And what I can do
mean. I can conclude
Oh, sorry. I was muted. Just very quickly,
the point is
I can help you, Bondi. A tie?
I don't know. Having your name listed in
the Epstein files, having meetings with Epstein,
financial
business overlaps, joining him on the island,
all provable for Lutnick, by the way. How
does that work for you, Bondi? Are we
clear on what a tie is now? Because
here, she's gonna go on to go, what's
a tie? What tie? What do you mean?
That's the best she can do.
I
can mean.
I can conclude What does from what you
are saying
that you have not talked
to them. What does ties mean? I think
Americans
would be shocked to learn
that you are not interested in talking Yeah.
With these officials who have ties to Jeffrey
Epstein. What is ties the world
across the world
Can you define that? Who've been exposed I'm
lost in in the files
have resigned their jobs in disgrace, and that's
a good first start. And that same standard
not saying the word Chris. Same standard
should apply here,
and Americans want accountability. Who is Chris May?
Was
the president
aware please stop talking. It is not your
time to ask questions.
It is not your time. I'm reclaiming my
time, mister chair. One second. Time belongs to
the jelly from Vermont. Was the president aware
of secretary Lutnick's ties to Epstein when he
chose him to lead the department of of
commerce? Well, he was about Acosta, and that
didn't matter. So I'm gonna go ahead and
argue yes. But either way, that's a very
relevant question. If it was, was Biden aware
before he brought on somebody who was, same
point, it matters to me for all of
it, anybody in the government, but apparently not
for the attorney general of The United States
Of America.
Was he aware? Chris Malan was a border
patrol agent. Okay. So I'm going to conclude
that the president, in fact, did know about
his ties because he was the next door
neighbor. Shame on you. Oh, for goodness sakes.
This is pathetic. This is pathetic, mister chair.
Be in order. I am not asking trick
questions here.
The American people have a right to know
the answers to this. These are senior officials
in the Trump administration.
This is not a game, secretary.
I'm attorney general. My apologies. I couldn't tell.
So my opinion is that was
set up on purpose, just by the way
your face went looked. And if you don't
understand why that matters, and I it's so
funny because I can picture Bonnie thinking she
caught her in a mistake.
Secretaries are people that are working for the
administration. Right? Their job, they are they're an
under an attorney general is not supposed to
be bound by what the president tells them
to do. They're supposed to be an independent
position. You know, there's they would investigate the
president. No. Not here. She works for the
president. That's why they refer to you as
her boss, and she doesn't even doesn't even
flinch.
But that was well crafted, I think.
That made it
clear. By 2008,
we knew
that Epstein was a convicted sexual abuser. And
we now know that Lutnick went to Epstein's
Island in 2012.
How was that not a deal breaker for
the president? Yep. Why aren't you asking questions
of the commerce secretary about what he saw
when he was at the island, which he
lied about
not ever going to. Why are you not
asking these questions?
And I see that my time is almost
expired, so I will say this. Game. Do
the right thing,
attorney general. Meet with the survivors. They have
been asking for a year. Meet with the
survivors. Do the right thing. I yield back.
Kelly yields back. The gentleman
Pretty crazy. Let me ask you a question.
Hypothetically speaking, if was it Bill Boslett, whatever
her name was? Let's just say, hypothetically, right
now, you knew that she was in the
files.
Right? That she's guilty. That she went to
the island. All of it.
Would that make her questions any less relevant?
Would that make her point any less important?
Yeah. I mean, clearly, it's gonna be in
her benefit, especially if she can deflect from
them, but it still matters. This is what's
so frustrating is that we we get it
as partisan game that
completely derails the conversation, even if that's not
the majority.
And but it still has that effect. That's
I think we need to keep thinking about
that because the reality is these are all
relevant questions from everyone. We need to know.
And if it takes them think about the
funny part of this. They'll check and balance
part of the way the system was designed,
in a way, is showing itself in this.
Where they're they wanna throw it at them
and then throw it back at them. And
that's how it's kinda supposed to work, is
that where you you check their own opportunism
and profiteering. And, ultimately, the each side I
mean, it's not obviously, it's not working where
we are. It's clearly not perfect. And it's
only if we are able to maintain it,
you know, keep something, or maybe, hopefully, drive
in a direction away from government. But the
reality is you can see them sort of
using that. And if we can get this
to a place to where they all are
trying to hold the other one accountable, even
if they're guilty themselves, we can harness that.
Now you know my opinion. I wanna get
well past a point where government exists at
all. But while we're here,
maybe.
Here's here's how she followed up to this.
I think this is equally embarrassing and and
relevant. Absolutely, madam. Thank you. Thank you.
I I was curious if you, congress For
the record, this is literally right afterward. This
is half a second after I ended that
clip.
What happens is she asked one of the
other members of congress on the Republican side
to just, like, throw her 30 from their
time, which they did. Not unprecedented, but it's
just I find it weird just to be
like, yeah. Here. Go. Yell back at her.
You know? It's a partisan game for all
of them. But just recognize this was directly
after the clip you just saw. This is
her direct response to what she was saying
about Lutnick and and whether she's asked those
questions.
Woman,
I I was curious
if you, congresswoman,
asked Bill Clinton that.
Didn't hear didn't see one tweet. Not one.
I didn't see one tweet when Joe Biden
was in office about Bill Clinton.
Didn't ask Merrick Garland anything about Epstein, not
once,
when he was Weak sauce.
Yeah. It is weak sauce. That was her
responding.
It's the same response.
You didn't you didn't not not one not
one tweet.
What are you talking
about? Tweets?
Seriously?
You're a child.
You're a child in the room. The idea
that you're even deflecting to the fact that
they didn't tweet. Yeah. They're all criminals. Good.
They're all broken. They're all deceptive. Now answer
the question.
This is my point in the past about
looking at them as just one thing. That's
what I mean right there.
It's the government and us. That's what we're
dealing with. Even if that's not how they
see it themselves. So when this kind of
thing happens
from as a as a perspective
from us,
our response needs to be, we don't care
about your petty BS.
Answer the question, Bonnie. We wanna know what
the reality is. And you, Basslet, were you
there? Answer the question. How about you? You
know, the re not that we ever had
that opportunity, But my point is is through
our efforts, we can demand
that kind of response. We don't wanna hear
about why the left wouldn't let you or
the right wouldn't do this. We want responses.
And if you don't, then you're all gonna
go somewhere else. We're all gonna find new
people, which, again, I doubt that'll be a
lot. But it's a starting point to just
mentally rearrange how we deal with this. I'm
well aware that that's the power structure will
never allow something like that. My point though
is for you to change the way you
mentally engage with this stuff.
And also, I want the record to reflect
that, you know, with this anti semitic culture
right now, she voted against a resolution
contempt condemning Oh, really?
Is Jewish. And she just and she said
she basically just called this Jewish woman anti
semitic. Now I actually believe this is Bonnie
just stepping into it.
That she that she didn't realize that this
was her background and just used the point
that they know they can throw at anybody.
You're anti Semitic. She was one of the
ones that signed this bill. Therefore, you hate
Jews.
Here's her response.
Wanna be clear? Do you want to go
there, attorney general? Or do you want to
go there? Are you serious? Gentleman talking about
antisemitism
to a woman who lost her grandfather in
the Holocaust? My time. I'm feeling worried. Really?
The The committee will be in all the
time. Talk to Jared Wise about antisemitism.
I just
not gonna that's not gonna work for you.
Right? I mean, at the end of the
day, the point is is clear. Because you
have somebody in the Holocaust or family member
that died does not therefore mean you couldn't
be capable or, you know, whatever.
But it's typically an a a ridiculous well,
look. Let's put it this way. From my
argument in regard to Zionism and and Jew
Judaism and everything, the point is the Zionism
is the central argument that I'm also always
highlighting and the the evidence by the fact
that they will attack a Jewish person who
does not support Zionism.
So the typical point would be that, like,
with the protests, that if you're Jewish and
you're out there protesting to call you antisemitic,
it doesn't make sense.
Under the under the argument we're talking about.
So you're saying they hate themselves? I guess
that's possible, but it's never really about Judaism.
It's about Zionism. That's what this comes down
to. But as a different conversation, you guys
have heard me talk about this plenty of
times. The my my
oh, how do I keep doing that? I
end up with nothing on the screen? I'm
sorry about that.
We'll get into this next.
But to call to use that out that
claim, I think, was about trying to do
it on the mic drop and make it
out to be you're all just you all
just hate Israel, and it just makes them
look stupid. Right? And now, like, people can
hate Jewish people and be whatever they want.
At the end of the day, it is
about the idea that I think she's just
trying to deflect in the question. That's the
only point I'm trying to make. I think
that's self evident. Now here about Lutnick,
commerce secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledges meetings with Epstein.
In case you hadn't seen that, they're not
making that up. This was in the files.
He lied about going. It's now come out
that he was working with him. We already
knew. Financial, we knew. More came out. But
the fact that he lied about going to
the island.
The fact the idea that that's just a
nothing story, like, no one like, from the
Republican side, that's huge. Can you imagine if
any Democrat was recently exposed to be there?
It would be the story of the century.
But not Litnick, who's tied right into the
administration and connected with every bad part we've
always been fighting, from technocracy to Zionist to
globalism to, you know, you name it. But
no big deal because he's our guy. Hashtag
winning.
Next point.
Shadow of Ezra
highlights Pam Bondi,
I guess, embarrassing yourself about the financial side
of this. I just this last point on
these clips, I just thought this was humorous.
And what's bad about this, again, it shows
kind of like the this is something that
was written down probably by Trump. When they
start saying this, tell them how great the
economy is because because
that'll go over well in a hearing about
child sex trafficking, right, and covering up of
the Epstein files.
I I or I she just thought this
would work. This is just it starts right
where the clip where she's saying this, but
it's it's hard. If you watch the full
thing, it's embarrassing, and everyone's laughing at her.
It seems like I'm gonna be Oh, I
got it, actually. I was gonna play that
song. I'll play in a second.
In spirit is of you and Oh, sorry.
How many I haven't I'm not removing these
in time.
Oh, it's right here.
The Dow the Dow right now is over
the Dow is over 50,000
doll I don't know why you're laughing. You're
a great stock trader as I hear Raskin.
The Dow is over 50,000.
In which what's funny to me is right.
So she just lurches into this idea about
how the cut the you know, what first
of all, even if it is, what does
it have to do with anything?
The idea is that Trump's safe, and it's
not even the reality.
What you're pointing to, if those are even
accurately represented in this broken system we're in,
has very little bearing on the vast majority
of Americans' lives.
Four zero one k's are great. Everything yes.
Great. Great. You do not realize that most
Americans don't even know about like, most Americans
do not have those things, and a large
portion of that doesn't even know what those
are, quite frankly. The reality is this is
not the world we live in. She's talking
about the point o 1%. They're that everything
they do benefits right now. I mean, it's
even there was even a a a political
campaign argument from somebody recently about, hey. How
remember when MAGA told you they were the
the party of the people, the working class?
You know, it's like you must realize that's
so obviously not what it's showing right now.
To the point to where you're able to
make that argument to an audience that's gonna
go, you know what? That do mean it's
very clear
that we're being played. It's not just by
the right, but it's beginning to dawn on
everybody and all this. But here she is
deflecting into the financial side of things, and
people may chuckle about it. It just feels
kinda sad. And I want I mean, I
want you to really think about that. What
even if this is true, what does that
mean for you? Does your day suddenly change
because the Nasdaq is better? For doesn't for
most people.
And right now, the S and P at
almost 7,000
and the Nasdaq
smashing
records.
Americans' four zero one k's and retirement savings
are booming.
It's even the way she's reading that, are
are you, like, are you in some kind
of an advertisement?
It's
what a weird thing to do to just
pivot into, like, Trump's the greatest about financially,
when it's not even the actual accurate representation
of where our financial we at in this
country. It's just not.
Every most conservative is the one going, I'm
I'm paying more for everything. My life is
worse right now.
Just sad. That's what we should be talking
about. We should be talking about making Americans
safe. We should be talking about what does
a DAO have to do with anything? That's
what they just asked. Are you kidding?
You realize that I'm pretty sure she's referring
to the victim sitting behind her.
So
the question is not whether these things matter
to people. It's about why you're saying this
in a hearing about Epstein files being covered
up.
You just literally said in your statement
that we need to be focusing on these
things. Why are we focusing on this? That
was her
room of people and an entire
administration
built on this happening, that we shouldn't even
care. We should be focusing on things that
only the elitist in the room care about.
I mean, you can't get more specific than
that. That is everything. I mean, I should
that is a the microcosm of everything I've
been showing you.
It's very clear.
So last few points here.
Some personal you know, here's Owen Shroyer for
whatever that whatever that means for you. It
continues to get worse. He writes, clearly, everyone
in the room knows the pressure and has
no idea how to handle it. It. I
agree with that. Bonnie keeps cheerleading. Members of
Congress don't ask the right questions. No one's
even talking about the Epstein files. This hearing
has been a clown show. Not really true,
though. There's most of them seem centered around
files that people wanna point out, but I'm
glad to see people I mean, he's saying,
Bondi's crashing out right now, ranting about Trump
impeachment in 2019.
Now he's a different case, seeing as how
he's sort of like this I don't know.
I don't trust it right now, but, you
know, leading Infowars. But at the end of
the day, he he's peep most people seem
to argue like he's sort of being, like,
the faint feigning
anti Trump, but really continuing to you know,
decide for yourself. I'll call out what I
think is correct and what I agree with
whoever says it. And I think what's important
is that they're from this perspective is that,
one, we all see that she's melting down,
which should be obvious to anybody. But two,
that the members of congress aren't even asking
the right questions. Not really. Some of them,
a few,
most of them are just about broader overlap.
You know, Trump, like, not actual legal accountability,
which is what this is about.
And then he added to this saying, look.
You could be the biggest Trump supporter out
there. That's fine. But if you can't admit
that this Bondi hearing and her handling of
the Epstein files, which means Trump's, if we're
gonna be honest about it, has been a
complete disaster, you're just brainwashed and indoctrinated as
the radical left that you attacked the last
eight years. Well, good. Where were you four
years ago when that was what we should
be saying about everything going on or every
other part of the conversation?
You know? Well, maybe maybe if he continues
to call this out from a nonpartisan place,
it's not what he's doing now, but I
will continue to say, good. I agree with
that. That's just from my perspective. Like, I
will support whatever I think is accurate and
correct with good intention.
Greg Glenn Greenwald says when Trump first started
telling MAGA that to hate Massey,
the reason he gave was he was a
grandstander who gets nothing done. Well, now see
he's now getting things done. Did as much
as anyone to force the release of the
Epstein files, yet now many hate him even
more.
Obvious point. And you know what that shows
you? This person says, oh my god. Massey
is a child. He's
tried pressing Pam Bondi. She didn't hold back
and ripped his fraud to sheds. See my
point? This is the kind of clown that's
out there cheering for the stupid things that
she said.
You're a hypocrite. Where were you the last
four years? You see, that's a that's the
kind of meaningless like,
whether that matters anywhere else, this does not
matter to this point.
You're literally going you're hiding from the fact
that Bondi covered up Wexner, that Bondi and
her team released
survivors that you claimed 30 ago you were
fighting for. But now your only thing is,
oh my god. He voted against this bill
she called it out for. What a dunk.
Except if you look at what he said
about it, he told you that it was
gonna be used against you. But keep following
the team because that seems to work out.
Here is Simon Godek pointing to one of
these kind of one of the people that
we're making fun of. Cat Turd says, on
our podcast tomorrow, I'm gonna go TF on
our fraud on fraud on fraud, Thomas Massie.
On his political life and his personal life,
the gloves are off. I'm gonna expose this
scumbag. Catcher could spend his podcast going after
Howard Lutnick who downplayed pedophilia and lied about
his ties to Epstein. Instead, he's exposing the
guy who pushed to make the files public.
Tells you everything.
Speaks for itself.
Now here's Kash Patel telling you how they're
gonna blow this thing open and investigate. Oh,
you know what?
Not even worth grabbing it. I was gonna
make I was kinda making a joke. The
point is, here's Kash Patel saying, it's all
over. No more to be seen. The I
said, so guess that's it, guys. Most transparent
administration in history. They incessantly repeat about each
other. Most transparent,
don't they? Bondi Cash all around while zero
action has been taken in stark contrast to
other nations right now.
This was about pacification.
The hopeful part is that most seem to
see it.
Demand arrests.
Here's the episode I recently did making that
case. Is this about
accountability
or pacification?
Right? Remember these binders that said the most
transparent administration in history that were full of
a bunch of deceptive claims and redacted information
and things that we already had, and then
they acted like that was it? Remember? Oh,
it's it. That's it. There's no more. Or
it's all porn. Sorry. Can't give it to
you. And all these clowns in the picture
lied about it, stopped saying anything about it.
And then when it actually came out, they
were silent for three days until I mean,
you just can't be
it takes a special kind of stupidity to
not acknowledge what this is, guys.
Partisan manipulation.
Oh, let's not forget, Maxwell
went in front of congress
and is literally claiming that she will
give it all up if she gets a
a complete pardon
and offers to clear Trump's name.
Well, here's what's interesting. It lingered for a
little bit longer, and she comes out and
says, well, guess what? I can now clear
the name of Donald Trump and Clinton.
Oh, that might not actually help her if
you think but it's that she's saying basically
that I can clear the name of Clinton
and Trump, any who are innocent of any
wrongdoing. So this to me is her going,
I want out of jail, even this club
fed that I'm in.
Everybody I'll I'll claim everybody's innocent if you
just let me out of jail or however
you wanna frame it. My point is I
actually think this is gonna come to pass.
I said that a long time ago just
because of the circumstances, but the more it
gets clear, I think this is gonna be
used
hypothetically, right, this is my opinion,
to argue that this opened the rest of
it up. This was all it was all
about this. Trump's been playing it like a
master, and he worked it to where Maxwell
admitted, okay. And all of them will support
it because it clears Trump's name even though
it doesn't. She just states something out loud.
She was already given an agreement. She was
already working with them in the past with
Blanche. That's why she's here.
They're already working together, so they should be
questioning anything that comes out between them. At
the end of the day,
the evidence in those files should be investigated,
whatever she has to say. But if this
works out to where she gets out of
jail and she clears their names and we
all move forward, that's not moving forward. That
is an obvious coverup, but this is where
it seems to be going. Do you believe
Clinton is guilt, innocent of any wrongdoing?
Do you believe Trump is innocent of any
wrongdoing? Guys, you could prove that's not true,
whether it's an obscene case or not.
Now I'll include these or this one here.
Oh, I added added at the end. So
the bottom line is just to finish with
the idea that this may will come to
pass. Right? Where
Maxwell gets out of jail. I mean, don't
we already kind of feel that coming? Trump's
alluded to it more than once.
Well, keep calling it out, guys. I mean,
I I think you're I think we're at
a pretty powerful point right now where
whether it's independent media setting the tone
and causing corporate media and the government to
respond to what we're discussing
or just the fact that this very story
wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for
people in the independent media.
That's a positive note. However you want I
mean, even if this gets put back to
bed and then, you know, the fact that
we're even here shows you an incremental change.
I just hope people can start to see
that, start to look beyond the partisan blinders,
and maybe we can find something to actually
have some real
meaningful change.
But seems that we all want that,
majority of us anyway.
But thank you for tuning in today. I
appreciate your support, guys. As always, there's links
and support
mechanisms down below if you wanna support this
platform.
My oh, you know what? I meant to
start with this today, and I forgot. But
those of you that are tuned in now,
my plan, and I'll I'll mention it a
couple shows going forward. Here's my my general
outline
going forward. I can't promise it's gonna stay.
Maybe I've realized there's a better path or
wanna, you know, more time. Who knows? But
my goal
is to essentially work
was it I think it was a plan
was to take off Sunday, Monday, and then
work Tuesday for the rest of the week.
And the reason my point on that
is about multi one of two things is
about trying to keep the continuity of the
conversation, which I do think is important, where
I can do a show, you know, I'll
I'll be doing a show tomorrow
where you guys can come you know, the
whole point of the way this really was
originally designed is just life gets in the
way. And so we can have a continual
conversation. Right? So we can have this continual,
you know, this will fall tomorrow and fall
the next day. And then I'll have some
days, and I'll probably end up working there
anyway if something happens.
And then counting, like, Tea Lab Tuesdays
variable depending on whether I do a show
or not because I'm technically going live that
day. And so that'll be the plan. And
then also giving me at least a two
day gap, which I also think is very
important. That's the second thing. Is it I
often point to this, you know, whether it's,
like, I talk about, like, putting your stuff
in the in your phone in the pouch,
keeping it completely blacked out. Even if you're
just sitting there watching TV or doing whatever
you're doing, just don't be a slave to
it. Keep it blacked out and engage with
it when you wanna engage with it. Let's
change that culture. Okay? But on top of
that,
that the the when you immerse yourselves in
this,
you know, that, you know, I feel like
I'm good at putting it away. That's not
always really the issue, but it's about falling
into, you know, the narratives, the manipulation. Like,
there's so much weirdness out there and so
much psychological stuff and technological stuff that I
just I'm trying to be overly cautious about
being as objective as possible. And so having
that gap, I think, is important. And what
I try to do is completely pull away
from it as best I can. And so
it kinda clears you out. And then you
come back in, and then you kind of
engage what's there. You're not being guided by
the other points if you see what I'm
saying. But as I said, that may change.
That's just kinda where I've come to right
now. And I'm just kind of at a
gung ho moment where I wanna make sure
we're getting as much content as possible, but
I wanna make sure I don't just work
myself out and then take too much time.
You know, it's always as always, guys, I'm
just speaking from the heart. You know? That's
just it's important to me that you guys
know where my mind's at and what we're
trying to do
because that's why you're here. I'd imagine. Because
we're real.
So thank you for tuning in, and I'll
see you tomorrow. Plenty more to talk about.
Send anything else. You know, call the office,
send in DMs, tag me in Twitter, whatever
you think is important. Try to include it.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
My father told me when I was a
child,
people in authority lie.