You know, there's been a coup
that take a we don't have any resemblance,
to a government that believes in a republic.
We don't have honest money. We don't have
integrity.
We don't even have people in Washington
that even pretends,
you know, that you're supposed to tell the
truth. But I do believe there has been
a coup, and it's been taken over. And
if I want to if I can, I
wanna just put the date in my mind,
and you anybody could pick probably any date
in the last hundred year? But I picked,
I have picked 11/22/1963.
What happened on that day? That was the
day Kennedy was murdered by our government. Wow.
Yep.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Friday, February 13. Thank you for joining me
today. Follow-up to the Gabbard story.
Interesting how quickly that turned around. And, I
mean, well, if you followed yesterday's show, what
do you recommend you check out if that's
the story you're interested in? It's been going
on since May. It's been eight months. But
the complaint turns out to be about Jared
Kushner that we know about and more information
around it. So So if you're interested in
that story, we're gonna get into that early
today and talk about what that means. It
appears that Tulsi Gabbard is involved with
well, the accusation included her because it appears
they were accusing her of,
basically
suppressing this information.
But then it includes
another agency that we don't know about. There's
all these different allegations flying around it. But
I find it fascinating
because of the main point about Kushner and
what he's connected to in the world today,
not an elected entity. And on top of
that, there's an entire part of this that
they made sure, which I think it revolves
around, the part they call gossip
that's not important, but nobody wants you to
see. I find that to be the likely
the most irrelevant part of the story. But
we're gonna get into that today to to
break down the the developments of today from
the yesterday show and just, you know, where
I think it continue to connect to. It
doesn't appear that it connects to I was
considering yesterday whether it connected to possibly the
or was the day before? The,
election Georgia conversation or anything else around that.
It still may have something. It just it
felt weirdly relevant for the timing, but it
appears to just be about what I argue,
my opinion is what Jared Kushner is involved
in, the Israel connection. And it really was
about entities. I think it was from Iran.
This is all really up in the air.
It's claims from people, you know, it's may
very well come out when we get more
documents that is different, but it seems to
be revolving around Iran
and that they were claiming that Jared Kushner
was the person to talk to if you
really wanted to get something done in this
administration.
I mean, that alone and that's actually what
happened. That's the legitimate claim that was made,
but, you know, maybe they're wrong is the
argument you could make. But that claim alone
is insane to think about with an unelected
person and all the power that they have.
It's it's unnerving. And I opened with that
clip for with Ron Paul, which is not
new. That's an old clip, of course, on
on the Tim Pool Show, which is priceless.
But
important to think about what he's saying and
how long that's been obvious.
You know? And this is somebody this is
Ron Paul is somebody who
demands your respect, and he's saying something that
is still regarded in many circles as just
lunacy, racism.
It's just the reality.
Now you I mean, the idea about Israel,
which is what he's referring to in my
opinion, either way, whatever it is, that there's
something else out there that is very clearly
driving the actions, the policy, the mindset of
people that are supposed to represent you. Blame
Russia. Blame China. If that's what makes you
recognize that problem first and foremost, then we
can get into the details and where it
actually points to. But we need to establish
that in this country. This our government is
not acting for the interest of Americans.
As maybe it hasn't since JFK, maybe before
that. But at least consider that and realize
I I've never seen a time in our
history where it's been this clear.
I mean, provably,
on the surface, documentation, whether it's Epstein, whether
it's the international conversation. It's obvious, guys.
And this is a well, I'll get that.
I guess, really, the only things we're gonna
talk about today, I was gonna show you
the vigilant fox, post. We'll start with that
and a couple points that revolve around it.
But I'm gonna talk a cup about a
couple things I find interesting around a scam
post on Twitter. Small point, really just to
make you guys aware of it, watch out
for it, but a point I wanna make
around it, a follow-up on the whole web,
Epstein database searching thing that Ian Carroll put
out, just a minor clarification. I didn't yesterday,
when we talked about it, I didn't have
claimed to have any insight into it. I
just gave my thoughts on it. But I'll
I'll give you some insight on what was
claimed about it and why I still think
it's kind of interesting,
weird, quite frankly.
And we'll get into the whistleblower complaint about
gabbard and what that might connect to. And,
really, the one of the largest parts of
the conversation we're gonna have today is about
ice.
I in the title you saw, the a
marine, a US marine, which it is honestly
insane to me how many military members continue
to be the ones that are abused by
ICE, and that still doesn't change
the conversation for some people screaming to fight
for the military. But what's crazy is that
this is happening at such an obvious high
level,
and we're gonna get into the the congressional
cons lions and seemingly the willowful effort to
just deny what we can all prove with
our eyes and video that are presented to
them right in court or in in congress.
Excuse me. But the this this marine, the
one case we're gonna talk to, The Intercept
reported this, was forced. He's a US citizen,
was forced to take the to give his
DNA.
That's not that's with all that we're dealing
with, every part of this is illegal. But
taking his phone, cloning his phone, all of
this require that requires a warrant.
These people don't care. And even more alarming,
Noam, Barnaby, Trump clearly
don't care if they feel they're right,
which is not how this country is supposed
to operate. Not even what Republicans would argue
face to face the way it should work
out. But behind the scenes and online, it
seems to be we'll defend the team. And
I mean
team sport players. If If you watch the
show enough, you know that I don't mean
the majority when I say that, but there's
tons of them. I think the majority of
conservatives and liberals and everybody else aware of
the lie are very much beginning to call
this out. But I wanna get into the
some of the horror stories that you haven't
seen if you have been following this over
the last couple days. It's just it just
it doesn't even slow down even when everybody's,
like, has a spotlight on it, which to
me demonstrates that they're not even really in
control. This is a a monster that has
been kind of, I mean,
let go, unwrangled, you know, put at us.
I mean, how how to describe it, but
think about what that shows with the kind
of people we're dealing with with Nome and
everybody else out there. I don't think they're
even able to rein this in, which is
even more alarming.
And if we have time, some other points
we'll get to in the end that connect
to some the the point of the extension
of ICE and maybe the surveillance point, some
of the things we'll get into. But see,
I I included a bunch today and and
to see, what I can include with the
time we have today. But let's start with
first, just again, I always like to give
the credit where it's due in regard to
the clip. This was Vigilant Fox. They clipped
this out.
And, again, it's it's not note it's not
noted there, but it is I believe it
was I don't wanna quote the date. It's
not new, and I think that's relevant. It's
from an older I think really just a
site, Ron Paul, being that recognizing that and
saying at a time when it's not something
that, you know, even right now, you'll get
accused of all courts, sort of terrible things
despite that being very provable. Just, you know,
he stands by what he believes. I respect
Ron Paul.
So another clip I wanna start with
that I think is interesting, and I'm not
gonna get into this today, but I just
since this clip is there and exactly what
David I what he's the point he's making,
I just wanted to throw this at you
so it kinda adds to the larger conversation
that's not gonna go away, the reality of
what he's literally telling you right in this
clip. The world's changing, and we're changing it.
Everyone's gotta catch up, and we're gonna like,
they are changing the way the world operates
or they're trying, and it's not in your
interest. It is the great reset. It's everything
we've talked about. It is about a control
structure system that they claim will benefit, you
know, whatever they want you to think it
will in the moment. It'll make this work
better. It'll make you see, you know, you
know, less concern about I mean, I'm trying
to think of the claims they make. Just
basically in your for your convenience. That at
the end of the day, this system will
make it better and you'll be safer and
but in history, how often does that work
out when the government promise you, you know,
COVID nineteen, safe and effective? I mean, we've
been here before, guys. So this clip
is
Department of State,
and this is what, Rubio had to say
about the changing world.
It's changing very fast right on a verse.
The old world is gone, frankly. The the
world I grew up in, and we live
in a new era of geopolitics.
And it's gonna require all of us to
sort of reexamine
what that looks like. Okay. And get this
from the person right there that is aggressively
telling you to support the group that's committing
genocide.
Aggressively telling you to support the people that
are out there breaking the law without blinking.
That's this is the new this is the
new world we have to catch up to.
That's kinda terrifying, isn't it? I mean, let's
not mince words here, guys. These people are
doing terrible things in the world, and they
want you to believe that we're supposed to
follow their lead in how the world's going
to operate going forward. This is why I
find this conversation so important. Yes. It's largely
abstract in regard to, like, the big you
know, where it ends up and who's all
but the reality of it, as I keep
stressing, is not even barely concealed.
They are out there with the statements like
this, which are abstract in general. But then
when you watch what they're doing, who they're
involved with, everything we're dealing with I mean,
quite literally, to make it simple for those
new, everything during the great reset is still
literally happening with a slightly different narrative. Take
a look for yourself. Just look at the
actual objective, the material reality, and then look
at what they're actually trying to accomplish. Not
what they say about it, but what it
will do.
It's obvious.
What our role is going to be able.
And,
it's
what that looks like and what our role
is going to be able. And,
it's we've had many of these conversations with
private many of our allies, you know, our
allies.
And, need to continue to have those conversations.
And and I think Saturday, hopefully, in the
meeting, while I'm there, we'll move to some
end there. Right. Now it's it's a pretty
bland clip. I mean, right, he's just simply
saying, the world's changing. We gotta catch up.
But it was it's I sensed the same
thing David did when I saw this clip.
Here's what David had to say. This is
exactly what I said would happen when Trump
came into office in 2025.
He's the wrecking ball for the old cult
system. Now, if you don't like the framing
or agree with what he's saying there in
regard to the cult system, it's it's just
another framing. You know? The idea of the
changing.
Now, I there might be things that David
and I disagree with on where we think
that goes. But it's about it's like I'm
trying to highlight for people. Just
if you see it, acknowledge that we're in
this point. We can disagree on where it
may go and what their plan is and
who they're working for, but we're here. We're
dealing with this.
They are right now destroying, as he just
told you, the old system
to bring in the new. You know, a
build back better, new normal, or whatever you
wanna call it. All the same little it's
the same idea with maybe a little Trump
flair to it, however you wanna look at
it. He is the wrecking ball for the
old system, and the new system of AI
digital control will replace it. This is this
is exactly what they were talking about, the
need for this. Now because everybody pushed back,
it's clear that Trump is the player. I
mean, we all talked about this in 2016
and the idea that he was sort of
the one set up to have it all
fail around his feet. Feels like that right
now, doesn't it? That's the thought, but worth
considering. It seemed that went different. Right?
Maybe I don't think people expected it to
like, if that was the plan to take
two administrations.
But as usual, I think people pushing back,
it makes these things adjust and change, and
there's multiple variations.
It says this is what Rubio is describing
here. His, quote, allies he talks about are
ultimately controlled by the same cult that controls
Rubio and Trump and are on board with
the same transformation.
It's all theater.
That just takes all he wants is you
to consider that mindset.
And I'll include these, the same things that
I've done in kinda grouping of ones I
think are important if you wanna watch these
shows. When Trump went to Davos, literally announced
his new global organization.
It's it's amazing what people can ignore right
now. And this this one was simply called
Trumpet Davos, Globalism is Dead, Long Live Globalism,
and the one about his new global order
of peace or board of peace.
The older article discussing this of the fake
globalist resistance, ushering in the globalist plan. And,
of course, the larger one, Zionist globalist technocrats
are building your new society whether you like
it or not. And the network discussion, which
I think is very relevant to this. Peter
Thiel, Harnel Capital, the the building of what
they're doing, and it's all literally happening. Now
aside from that, which we will come back
to, I'm telling you, it's not going away.
Hope it does.
Before we get into everything in deep in
deeper, I wanted you to see this just
because I find it so strange for a
couple reasons. One, just be aware of it.
It's not this one's not super prominent, but
some of their others are are pretty damn
being borderline viral. And all they're doing is
going, look. It's and it literally says x.
And it says, look. It's the x wallet
chain. Create your wallet. It's your GROC coin.
Your GROC coin. It has the GROC image.
You might be mistaken for thinking, look. This
is Twitter's GROC thing. This is Elon Musk's
token.
Right? It's out, though. I said scam, of
course, and they blocked me for it.
Just so you can see that.
Immediately blocked me. Now what's funny about this
is they're just trying to get you to
sign up. These are most people these days
are not this stupid. This this has become
sort of like the Nigerian prince email.
Why in the world you would trust some
random here's my here's my information.
These things are constantly happening. Now all the
side aside from whether or not, you know,
the the many scams that are out there,
the part that I think is relevant on
top of that, just being aware of it,
is that this seems to be allowed by
Twitter.
I mean, I I went back actually, you
can go read through this if you want.
I find it interesting. Here's another one, by
the way, and this is what they posted.
X platform introduces x wallet.
Okay? Just to jump cut the chase here,
according to Grok,
that's not a core that's in no way,
shape, or form connected to Twitter. In no
way, shape, or form connected to Elon Musk
or Grok or anything. And it simply and
I keep going at it. I, like, basically
just asked it. I said, well, what's the
what's the appropriate name for your new crypto
to see what it would say? And it
said, no. That's not r.connected. And I said,
okay. Well, so this is not supported by
Elon and Twitter? Nope. Not at all. Not
connected at all. I said, why would they
allow it on Twitter? Why with using the
x name? Don't you find that interesting? I
mean, come on, guys. You think that they
would allow that if they didn't? I mean,
it was okay, but let's just say based
on this answer, which is, you know, it
takes a minute, right? And it's they have
to go through the process. Right. Like, they
just don't arbitrarily censor people for no reason
all the time, which we know is happening,
but fine. Let's play with the game that
they have a process they have to go
through. Like, Elon wouldn't freak out about that
and have it removed without question, without even
going through a process if he thought it
was something he didn't want. But I came
up, like, basically just the end and said,
and yet it's still there. Right? So in
effect, it is being allowed. Right? I said,
yes. You're correct. The ultimate point though is
it takes a minute. So my my last
thing I said was, okay. It's oh, I
oh, I said, is that not a direct
violation of the terms of service? Right? Impersonation,
fraud, scams? I'm just making a point that
I'm hoping that they can admit, but it
ultimately says,
why oh, I said, you know, why don't
you, you know, do something about it? But
the point was, if it's there tomorrow, would
you still be surprised? And it said no.
I find that strange. That's not even the
relevant part. I just found that interesting to
see how they engage with this stuff. But
what I find so interesting, I mean, this
even in itself almost appears despite the low
follower count, which seems to be growing rapidly.
Let's see if it's gone up.
I'm blocked now, so it'll change what it
shows, but not since I looked at it
last. But the point is that these things
are out there getting a lot of rage,
and people are downloading them. It's got almost
almost half a million views on this one.
I just wanna point out, like, we saw
with the YouTube thing and the the bit
the fake
Elon Musk at the Nashville Bitcoin conference thing.
Remember that? I mean, these things had millions
of views, and they were literally cycling through
the same fake AI thing, and YouTube left
it up for days
while they're censoring us. You know what I
mean? And so I I'm convinced, is my
point here, that this is something that's by
design,
whatever that is. Whether it's just to drive
you into crypto, whether it's just extort you
know, to squeeze more money out of you.
I don't know. I'm gonna look I mean,
I'm curious. I might forget about it, but
this is not very important. But I'm curious
to see if this stays up. And if
it does, that has to show you something.
They I mean, this is effectively using Twitter's
name and Grock to sell you or to
scam you out of money.
Even if it's not a scam, which it
clearly is, it they're still using Twitter's name
to make money.
I'd like to believe we could I mean,
I don't even just frame it that way.
We all know that that would not be
okay if it was something he wasn't involved
with and they didn't know about it, which
that's what they're claiming.
Interesting. So be on be on watch out,
you know, the the be on watch for
these things. It's everywhere.
Fake AI reporters and fake infirmity. The whole
thing is getting so insane today. Oh, and
by the way, one example of a million
things I could show you today. I mean,
I just saw another one with a big
account. They're still censoring platforms on their accounts
on Twitter. And this this one's even a
a Q account, which I thought hilarious.
It's apparently a pretty prominent Q account. And
I I you could ask. It's basically was
censored and for no reason. That's literally what
Twitter said. That maybe it was just a
random thing. There was no warning. Just delete
it. Who knows? I don't know. But the
point is that they are absolutely still censoring
and in many cases for things that are
not about violating their terms of service. Now
before we get to everything else, this is
what I showed you yesterday.
This person simply saying nice semantic, you know,
by calling this new bot they have, this
little chatbot, Grok thing that's supposed to be
only about reading through Epstein files,
they call it, web.
It's, right here.
It's called the Webb. Well, this is the
Webb, but, of course, then when they announced
it, it was just called Webb. Right? Now
here's what's interesting, though. This this was a
post that was on two days ago, and
it shows Gary Webb on there. Right? And
so what yesterday, we talked about this. I
didn't say I knew. And like I said
very clearly, I have no idea. Bare just
saw that somebody just put it in front
of me. I just was commenting on the
weirdness of this with not just because of
the name, but because of how this has
gone so far with Ian and Webb and
the way he's sort of, like,
used her work, pointed to the books, promoted
her work, but then went on Rogue and
other shows and acted like it was sort
of like a I don't know. I forget
exactly how he did it, but he was
it was a weirdly dismissive thing about it.
Like, I don't it was weird the way
it was covered. And Whitney made those points
herself. And so what's interesting about this is
that it's just clearly,
whether just intentional or not,
it
suggests that Whitney Webb's name is somehow a
part of this. Now looking at it and
seeing as how it appears, if that was
the if, you know, when this I'm curious
if this first started as Gary Webb and
they put that out as the point. If
that's the case, then I believe that. It
wouldn't I mean, that that even though it
doesn't really seem to make sense that Gary
Webb would be the face of an Epstein
AI bot, I
who knows? Right? But I just have I'm
just curious about that. And I find this
whole thing interesting on top of that in
general. I'm I'm I'm curious to find out
if this started with something not being clear
about Webb. I'm wondering whether that was put
out because people are going, hey. Isn't this
Whitney Webb? That's weird. But
aside from all of that,
I find it weird that it's an AI,
like, whatever we're calling this thing, that we're
using artificial intelligence to engage with something, which,
by the way, the source code has not
been posted. They claim it will be, at
least unless it was done today. I I
don't know why we'd be engaging with this
without knowing where it's coming from. I mean,
he was previously working on something for Charlie
Kirk. He's working with Ben as I understand
it. Like, it's a weird why does that
feel like that makes sense? I'm not accusing
Ian of anything. I've always put forward the
point that it seems as if he, what
he's doing, seems to be acting as if,
you know, the genuine engagement with the information
outside of things that I feel like I'm,
like, suspicious about. My point is, like a
rogue or anybody else, I don't know whether
they are
out there doing a partisan thing because they're
trying to deceive people or whether somebody else
is guiding that. Maybe I'm wrong and he's
right. I don't know. My point is to
be objective. But what's interesting about it is
the involvement with everything else, like the whole
black hole analogy. And I just think that
this is an odd thing to do with
where we're at today. Like I said before,
how do you know you're getting the full
picture? And on top of that, I guarantee
your information is being taken. It's a weird
thing. I mean, anyway, I don't know. I'm
not I don't wanna go too deep on
it because I just found it interesting. But
this is what somebody pointed out that I
did think was telling.
Just their opinion.
And so the I see this is the
other one that it just shows investigate the
Epstein files yourself, which, you know, I mean,
that's already what we're doing. I'm not gonna
disparage the idea of a, like, a mass
search tool, but I don't really think you
need an AI type engagement tool that can
respond to you on Twitter, which is what
it will do if you ask it a
question just like Grok, in order just to,
to search these things. I don't know. It
just feels odd to me, the whole thing.
But you guys can say it for yourself.
And I he said, but this is what
they said. Now this rang true for me
in regard to, like, the died suddenly point
I make all the time, you know, where
essentially they put that documentary out, which if
you're if you wanna go back and look,
many people involved with that came back around
and said they were misrepresented.
I don't trust you or anybody else involved
with that, quite frankly. The thing was manipulative.
That's not to say, as you well know
if you watch the show, that there were
not people dying suddenly. I was breaking that
down long before he made that point. The
reality is that when you made the documentary
titled died suddenly in quotes, if you wanna
search something specifically online,
like, literally, does this exact phrase show up?
You search it in quotes, in case you
didn't know that. And it will search for
that exact phrasing.
So what we were doing at the time
was going, look. Search for the term died
suddenly. Right? And watch. Watch. And that was
kinda the point of the title. Now maybe
they were just not realizing what they were
doing. I don't believe that. The point is
the title being used that way then completely
buried what that was showing to this very
day. You look it up, you're gonna get
the documentary.
So Nick's point was now if you search
for Epstein Webb,
you end up getting this, as he writes,
copycat trash instead of Whitney Webb's decade of
deep research.
Well, something to consider.
Now, be objective, please. Don't just jump to
conclusions because you don't like Ian. Be objective.
Maybe this tool will help people. Maybe it'll
be important. Just be objective. But I am
skeptical, as you've sensed. Just worth pointing those
things out.
And then this was just funny to me.
Now this was on the twelfth. This is
we named Gary the Webb after Gary Webb,
the journalist who broke open one of the
biggest corruption cases in American history. Yeah. I
mean, I could see that connection, but it
does it just doesn't feel like the Gary
Webb represents the Epstein focused thing. You know?
But it says, and use the Internet before
anyone doing real journalism. It felt right. But
I understand that if that was the real
the real beginning of it. This person says,
cool. Why do I have to give you
my name and my email to use this?
Which is not all email and name is,
you know, pretty benign. But, you know, why?
Why won't you just release it for everybody?
But here's what it said. This is the
part I thought was interesting. So we can
sell you out to the government.
Just kidding. Well, that makes you feel better,
doesn't it? So and this is the this
is web. This is the AI grok type
thing. And it says, so
you can create an account that houses your
investigations. Yeah. That does make sense. But I
just thought that was a very strange way
to respond. I don't know. Probably just trying
to be funny. But, anyway, keep an eye
on it. Use it if you think it's
important, but be skeptical. I'm not gonna use
it to be to be very forward. I
don't wanna engage with something that I don't
know where it comes from, what the source
material is connected to, right, or I haven't
seen this or I don't that is with
where we're at today, seems like, a
a risky move.
Now, to Gabbard and the stonewalling of the
highly classified whistleblower testimony, We talked about this
on the eleventh. It was the eleventh.
And what was ultimately the case at this
time was that the and here was the
this was the Wall Street Journal article we
referred to, classified whistleblower complaint about Tulsi Gabbard
stalls within her agency. Now remember, in May,
this complaint came forward. Now this is the
basic thing to understand.
When he's come forward, the reality is that
there the the the whistleblower realistically could just
release it to whatever they want. Right? But
the government will ultimately go after them like
they always do for classified and national security.
Right. Even though the reality of a whistleblower
based on our own laws is that if
you're, like, exposing a crime, then it's not
supposed to matter, but they are all the
criminals. Right? So
this person and and how you're supposed to
as the criminals tell you to guide to
the criminals guiding you to expose their crimes
will tell you you have to go through
them and, you know, go through the checking
process. And so this person going through a
whistleblower aid group came to them and said,
I've got this information. It's a part it's
a person from the intelligence community and saying
it's classified,
so give me guidance
on what I need to do next.
That's what they're supposed to do according to
the criminals in our government. And so the
point was Gabbard was then supposed to give
them guidance. And from there,
introduce that information to the intelligence committees.
And that's what the whistleblower's wanting, to show
that to people, left and the right, so
that can be it it will end up
in the conversation.
Now Gabbard took eight months to this very
day. Hasn't happened yet. Normally takes two weeks
at most, is what I'm told anyway. And
so the question is why. Right? Why would
this sit there? According to the reporting, and
I'll show you directly from the, what was
it? The, the,
the the,
inspector general representative, I'll go to that in
a second, telling you that it was locked
in the safe, and that's because it's important.
Today, she's telling you that's not true. Somebody's
lying. Right? Now what's interesting here, though, is
that the point was that she just failed
to give them guidance. Now that's important to
hear before we read into all this. It's
not as if this the complaint involves Gabbard
only insofar as far as I can tell
right now, is that she's insofar that she's
not doing her job and giving it to
everybody else and basically dragging her feet. Before
that, though, it was about something regarding Jared
Kushner, which we're now finding out today,
and his connection to the Iran conversation, and
then some big part, which seems to be
the most relevant part that they are not
giving anybody to see. It's gossip, they tell
us. Well, then why if why is everybody
screaming national security? Why is everybody trying to
cover up that part if it's gossip and
not true? This again, these people just seem
so shockingly incompetent with the way they think
they frame these things. In my opinion, maybe
that's the best they could do with what
they have in front of them. But the
fact is that she didn't give them guidance.
And so that took eight months. And and
recently, the aid group basically said, look, on
the eleventh, they said, we are now going
to take this another level, you know, whatever
that means to them, some kind of a
lawsuit, if we don't give get guidance in
how to deliver this to the to the
intelligence committees.
And so we and this this is to
start with the independent article, we'll give you
some of the both some both of them.
This is from the thirteenth. That's today. Whistleblower
complaint against Gabbard revolves around intercepted call about
Kushner. So up until this point, people were
the the whistleblower has been trying to get
this information out.
And they and Gabbard and her team and
everybody else are so the allegation goes, have
not allowed that to happen
and have kept it behind and and,
arguably, from their side, essentially,
not important information. It's not relevant. But that's
not I don't think that's for them to
decide when this is something that is essentially
about that event the executive branch. Right?
So it says, the highly classified complaint submitted
May 2025 alleged that the National Security Agency
failed to publish an intelligence report about a
phone conversation intercepted by a foreign spy service
between two overseas intelligence officials concerning Iran, in
which a person linked to the Trump was
under discussion.
So what it means is they essentially a
foreign spy agency, so whoever that is, maybe
Israel, so keep that in mind,
ultimately gave them this information of another conversation
that pertains to Iran,
and they were discussing in that conversation
a person linked to Trump, and that turns
out to be Jared Kushner.
I find that interesting that they're and you'll
see why when they discuss why, you know,
that he's the guy to talk to. That
that's he's not an elected person.
It says instead of complaint alleged instead, the
complaint alleged, Gabbard presented a paper copy
to the president's chief of staff.
See how this works? To directly to Susie
Wiles, who has been accused all over the
place of basically working for Israel. You can
decide for yourself.
And told and by the way, also, even
within congress referred to as sort of the
gatekeeper of Donald Trump. And it says, and
told the NSA to supply further details to
Susie Wiles office
rather than making it more widely available within
the intelligence community. I mean, come on. So
if we're to believe what you'll hear in
a second from these articles, this was something
that was ultimately
not important.
Why would you then go directly to Susie
Wiles and then engage with the executive branch
who this is ultimately about and say, direct
your reports to the people that we're accusing
of crimes?
And and then if it was so unimportant,
why would you even do that in the
first place?
It's pretty clear when you find out that
it's Jared Kushner, this is because, well, hey,
Trump.
Tell me what to do here because we
don't wanna embarrass you because clearly, nobody in
this administration will do anything if it even
mildly makes Trump uncomfortable, even if it's breaking
the law in 14 different ways. It says
the New York Times and the Wall Street
Journal now report that the Trump associate who
was mentioned is indeed Kushner.
But it has now emerged that the participants
on the call were re re
referencing
Ivanka Trump's husband and suggested he was the
person to speak to if they hoped to
influence the direction of future peace talks.
So you have to understand that means that
they're gonna go over there and and basically
try to influence Jared because they know that
that will influence
go major geopolitical
discussions that we're supposed to believe are being
guided by the American people's will.
I mean,
if you follow this show or anybody else
that's been, you know, you you're way past
this, and you know the way our government
works. But there are tons of people who
are just coming to terms with the reality
of how this is working. Like I like
showing Ron Paul's clip. I mean, that's an
older clip from Ron Paul. He's been doing
this a long time and he's literally going,
we're coup. The country's been taking over a
while ago.
People are still grappling with where we are
right now. This is a small example that
our whether it's about an outside force, which
is what Jared represents to me, or just
the fact that our government is so shockingly
lawless right now that they don't care about
anything other than their own
profiteering and control.
And plenty of what we get into today,
even more than just the ICE parts. We'll
show you just that. A luxury real estate,
what is it, impresiaro,
like his father in in law, Kushner has
no formal role in the second Trump administration,
but was involved in Middle East peace talks
at the time of this conversation,
which, by the way, that wasn't well known.
Clearly, it's become more known now with Gaza,
but this is something this it was there
was rumblings, but we're now finding out that
Kushner's played a major role in major geopolitical
conversations and, you know,
deal making with
adversarial countries when nobody has even, other than
Trump,
decided this person's in car. This this no
American people
have made this choice. Nobody in this country.
And, frankly, I think it's become pretty clear
that people are not happy with that on
any side of the conversation. I don't think
he's even very popular on the right, but
I could be wrong about that. I'm thinking
about more last term.
But it says he has also also has
numerous business interests in the regions. Yeah. Conflicts
of interest don't seem to matter at all
to this administration.
Because it's I mean, it kinda does feel
like there's some kind of endgame here. Like,
there won't there's no time for them to
be held accountable in the future or whatever
that means. In response to the latest developments,
the campaign group Citizens for Ethics decried Kushner's
ongoing role in US diplomatic missions overseas,
complaining
about his reportedly recently joining Trump and members
of his cabinet in a meeting with Benjamin
Netanyahu,
which is exactly the point, guys.
I mean, these are this should not be
happening.
I mean, this would be called out if
it was the reverse situation. If Biden's,
son-in-law
with no position ended up in something like
that, oh my god. It would've and it
would've it should be an important deal, not
just when you don't like the person
or, you know, however you frame that. It
says, quote, Jared Kushner is a private citizen
who has billions in investments from foreign governments,
bill got billions from Saudi Arabia due to
his in with Trump's last administration,
just massive profiteering.
He was he has a no formal role
in the Trump administration and is not subject
to any ethics rules.
Neither
or any of the rest of them. No.
Most of them didn't even sign their ethics
pledges, guys. This is why that was so
important.
Might as well bring it up again.
I was actually really baffled by this if
you want my honest opinion, even within this
community.
I can't believe this did not get more
attention. And I still point the Trump administration's
missing ethics pledges. All it shows you is
that everybody on the inside, they collectively
don't care.
Otherwise, this would have been the perfect ammunition
for the Democrats to go, they're all corrupt.
Didn't do that, guys. Didn't even
I didn't even hear a conversation about this
in congress.
Look it up. It's very real. It was
a whole big deal. It means they don't
care about anything. And look at what we're
watching.
Conflicts of interest.
I mean, just everywhere you look.
But I'll include this.
Back to the article.
Wow. Oh, and then and then the last
part simply just says, so why is he
meeting with Israel's president alongside Trump and two
cabinet secretaries? It's a very good question.
Now this is
the New York Times with a couple of
additional points
in, that I think
overall, just a little some additional
context. Intelligence dispute centers on Kushner's reference in
intercepted communication. Now it says this it it
was a discussion last year between two foreign
nationals
about Iran,
which so, you know, it does that mean
Iranians?
You know, this is it's it seems like
each each report, you know, it's like we're
all kinda grasping. It's because they're not revealing
the information.
And if what you understand by what they
said in order to dismiss it is correct,
then there's no reason to keep a secret.
You'll see what I mean.
I mean, basically, what we already said. But
it it goes on to say,
not an unusual topic for Americans stop spies
to study, Iran. But an intercept of that
communication
collected by a foreign spy service and given
to The United States has now become a
flashpoint within the intelligence community and between the
administration and congress.
The reason
is a single name that came up in
the discussion, Jared Kushner.
Now, as always, you know my opinion. I
don't believe people in congress just like right
now with Epstein that they are, like, you
know,
actually wanting accountability. They wanna use this to
make points against their other side so they
can gain more support when they're when the
when the coin flips. Right? It's all it
really means to me. Always remember that. It's
not like, you know, it's ultimately showing like,
you know how we get with COVID nineteen,
where my point was arguing from within their
narrative, right, when you got these lies all
over the place. And sometimes the the important
part was to go, let's engage with a
lie so we can then prove that it's
a lie, not necessarily because we believe that
the lie was true. You see my point?
So that's important to think about. I believe
all of them are trying to deceive you
constantly.
This is just important to see, like, hypothetically,
if the left will say or the right
is using something to throw at the other
side.
And it's true.
Even though their intention is to use it
for their benefit, if it's true, we should
still point to it. It's funny how confounding
it is for people that it all you
feel like you're by pointing to the truth
that you're helping them. Well, maybe you are,
but it's still the truth. Right? So, you
know, it's I think it's important that we
aim for that more than anything
else. Now it says the reason is a
single name they came up with in discussion,
Jared Kushner.
The previously unreported
mention of Jared Kushner in the discussion came
after members of congress were briefed last week
about a classified report filed by a
whistleblower regarding the intercept.
The intercept the communication.
According to people familiar with the material, the
whistleblower has accused Tulsi Gabbard, the director of
national intelligence, of limiting who could see the
report and of blocking wider distribution among the
nation's spy agencies.
Now at first, because there was so little
information, I wasn't sure whether she was included
in the original,
like, top secret allegation
or now that we see it appears that
she's been included now because she's ultimately dragging
her feet on it as the allegation goes.
The whistleblower report was drafted last May.
That alone, I find to be crazy because
it's not like they put this to bed
and said, we did it. It's over. It's
done. They just didn't engage with it, it
seems, outside of very small things. And so
it's been eight months, and the whistleblower group
has been knocking on their door. And it
says, while the Trump administration was deliberating about
a strike on Iran, that's when this all
took place, which seems very relevant to whatever
Jared Kushner was involved in seeing as how
they literally bombed a foreign country. You see,
this gets very real when you understand what
is swirling around Jared Kushner.
At the June, the military bombed Iranian juke
nuclear sites on mister Trump's orders.
Mister, Kushner had subsequently
helped lead negotiations between the administration and Iran
over Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and
its sponsorship of terrorism across The Middle East,
which is which is not the reality, guys.
It's just so frustrating how we have to
go through all of this.
He has also he all he also has
business interest in The Middle East and in
other parts of the world. Now if your
if your point about the terrorism is just
Hamas and Hezbollah and all the same conversations,
then fine. Make those allegations. But then you
bet Dan will better have evidence to back
it up and not Pompeo said or Bolton
told me because that's not gonna work for
you these days. And the reality is
Iran, in regard to funding terrorism,
is not in a material sense happening that
I can prove. Other than if you wanna
think Hamas and Hezbollah and Houthis are considered
terrorists because The US, who is conducting terrorism
over the world, tells you that. Either way,
let's just say they are. Compare it to
what The US and Israel are respectively funding,
and it's a fraction of what they're doing
all over the world, including Hamas, by the
way. So let's let's have some perspective. But
realize that it's blatant. It's
ultimately a lie. That's not to say Iran
good guy. Just simply a lie. Lies and
truth matter to me. But
it goes on to say, he also had
business interests in The Middle East and in
other parts of the world. The episode has
led to clashes over how to intercept inter
interpret, excuse me, the mention of mister Kushner
in the discussion and whether mister Gabbard miss
Gabbard was improperly
seeking to keep the intelligence from being distributed
within intelligence community. Now just the fact this
has become something that people are talking about.
Don't don't wouldn't we all argue that the
American people now have a right to know
that?
But this is where we are today, where
they can just go national security. So basically,
shut up, and we don't care what you
think. That's what's suddenly gonna become everything very
soon in the future unless we do something
about this. So I want you to think
about that is that we let's not even
say you wanna keep the national security part
off the table. I don't agree with that,
but let's find okay. Just engage with this
point. Did you or did you not according
to the intelligence communities? Go behind closed doors.
Even though I don't trust all of them,
my point is there might be some division.
They might well, you know, I that's the
best we can hope for. This point is
that ultimately,
whether or not you
chose to keep this from view for personal
reasons, that matters to me. But That seems
to be the smallest part of what this
gets to. The foreign nationals were discussing mister
Kushner, but some officials who have read the
underlying,
intelligence
or been briefed on its contents downplayed the
significance of the references to him. The foreign
nationals, they say, were commenting on mister Kushner's
influence with the Trump administration.
At a time last year, when mister Kushner's
role in the Middle East peace talks was
less public than it is now, the foreign
officials were recorded saying that he was the
person to speak to in order to influence
the talks.
The talks with Iran about a massive geopolitical
conversation.
Jared Kushner was the guy to talk to.
The intercept also included what officials described as
gossip, that's their word, or speculation about mister
Kushner that was not supported by other intelligence.
So just cut to the chase. We'll keep
reading, though. That's it, guys.
So that Kushner was being spoken about? Okay.
And then gossip that's not true.
Okay. Nobody will explain to me why this
is a big deal and why no one's
letting this out?
Are we really gonna believe that it was
a bunch of not true gossip and that's
the only reason?
And if that's the case, then there would
be no reason to keep it out other
than embarrassment?
And then it becomes, are you genuinely putting
a national security top secret wall in front
of something that makes you embarrassed?
No. It wouldn't any of this wouldn't surprise
me. I just think that's pretty crazy. And
it says some senior official said the information
was demonstrably false. Well, one way to find
out. Right? Well, the whistleblower believed that information
should be circulated. So clearly, this whistleblower from
the intelligence community, so arguably from within Trump's
administration, unless this has been going on well
before May, but it doesn't appear to be.
Right? So somebody within Trump's administration has pulled
away like many of them have and wants
to show you that this is important.
So I I mean, that alone seemed to
suggest that it's worthy of consideration beyond the
people he's accusing of the crime.
While the whistleblower believed that information should be
circulated, the NSA's general counsel, miss Gabbard,
and the intelligence community's inspector generals disagreed.
Well, I mean, guys, we're talking about the
executive branch and the way that they are
seemingly collectively covering this up,
and they're the ones that get to go,
nothing there.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Officials declined to describe the gossip,
saying
that revealing it
would expose the source of the information.
Okay. And here we are again with the
same, we are trying to protect the victims
even though we already now see that was
not what they were doing. They used them
to try to drag their feet and then
act accidentally put their names out so they
didn't even care. So the point would be,
is this even the truth?
Oh, and at that point and on top
of that, fine. If you're gonna try to
protect your source, well, then ultimately
redact the name and give us everything else.
But, see, this is a game, guys. This
is a game called National Security, where they
get to play they can just throw that
out there, and unless nobody pushes back, they
get away with whatever they want. Now realize
the aid group and that they know what
they're talking about. They have access to information.
And this group has taken it upon themselves
and they get whistleblower aid to make this
whole thing happen. I find it hard to
believe that they would go through all this
for something that didn't matter, but I'm not
gonna assume.
It says the complaint, the the complaint, the
investigation of the complaint, complaint, and the underlying
intelligence
all remain classified.
Why would it be classified
if it's, you know, it's the same point.
I just thought it's, to me, it seems
like a pretty weak argument. The whistleblower report
was based on a telephone intercept provided to
the NSA from foreign intelligence services. The whistleblower,
an intelligence official,
whose identity has not been publicly disclosed, said
miss Gabbard's actions improperly limited who could see
the report.
Some people who have reviewed the complaint have
questioned whether she was trying to protect Kushner.
I mean, look.
Whether this is genuinely top secret or whether
gossip was irrelevant or not, how do we
even deny that? She literally went around what
she was supposed to do, went directly to
Susie Wiles, and said, here. This is what's
happening. And direct anything else directly to Trump's
person.
That's not how that process is supposed to
work. So what are we debating here?
Mister Kushner's office declined to comment. Shocker.
Officials from the White House, director of national
intelligence declined to discuss it. Shocker.
Inspector generals are typically
inspectors general are typically supposed to make a
determination about a whistleblower complaint within two weeks.
Now it says congressional officials learned about the
complaint, but not its contents.
Now this is interesting. This is a new
part that I hadn't seen before I read
this. But apparently,
some of the people we're discussing
did get some kind of piece of paper,
sort of like the Epstein files, when a
lawyer for the whistleblower sent a letter to
the intelligence committees in November.
The intelligence committee was expected to provide congress
with a copy of the underlying intelligence report
so that the oversight committees could review it
this week, but it hasn't been sent to
Capitol Hill yet.
A heavily redacted copy of the inspector general's
report was provided to congress. Miss Gabbard's office
redacted mister Kushner's name, citing executive privilege.
I mean, is anybody confused about this? There's
something here.
Whether it's they're embarrassed
or it exposes Israel puppeteering this administration or
something in between,
I think it's pretty obvious. But, again, it
could just be that they're petty, and that
they they felt this embarrassed them. Sort of
like,
Kash Patel and Bondi
illegally removing their own communications from the Epstein
files, which was literally listed as a requirement.
They'd I I argue it was probably just
that they felt stupid. They realized what they
were saying was embarrassing now with everything that's
out, But I could be wrong. Either way,
they broke the law. But that's who we
are dealing with, guys.
That's why this is so concerning to me.
Now here's what Gabbard put out in her
tweet, and I found this relevant for a
couple reasons. This was on the seventh.
Senator Mark Warner and his friends in the
propaganda media have repeatedly lied to the American
people that we hid this complaint.
Okay. Well, there's a very easy way to
prove that's not the case. Right?
But they're still keeping everything secret. So she's
saying it's not true at all. She says,
I am not now, nor have I ever
been in possession or control of the whistleblower's
complaint. Now, this is what's fascinating to me.
You have an entire whistleblower aid group that
is like, we literally sent you this. We
know you have access to it. Somebody's lying,
guys. Now maybe it turns out this is
all big some big facade, and if we
do if report that happens to be proven,
we'll report that.
But I find it hard to wrap my
mind around the fact that this person from
the community, the group themselves, would go through
all of this for eight months and not
even have given him an you see, that's
hard to believe. Or an alternative is that
Gabbard is being played by somebody in the
administration. But it says, so I obviously could
not have hidden it in a safe. Well,
okay.
This is literally what I was showing you
earlier.
The Gabbard complaint has been locked in a
safe Wall Street Journal in the office. A
person familiar with the matter said. Now, of
course, they could be wrong. But here, it
goes on and says, asked about the safe
directly.
The inspector general representative said, quote, some complaints
involve exceptionally sensitive materials necessitating special handling and
storage requirements.
This
case
is one of them.
You wanna make sense of that for me?
So there's two ways to look at this.
Now, maybe they're still wrong about the safe,
but that feels pretty specific.
Secondly, though,
you just told us that you have something.
You know about the case, and this is
one of those secret cases we need to
keep. Then why is she acting like you
don't have anything in your possession? I mean,
guys, I get the real sense here that
this is Gabbard.
I mean, compromising herself for whatever the right
reason is. Same confounding thought with RFK Jr.
Who knows? We could think blackmail, but whatever.
Until we prove that, it was irrelevant to
me. But how do you make sense of
this? Somebody like Gabbard who won all these
people over for standing with their integrity and,
you know, don't, you know, end the forever
wars, and now she's cheering on Venezuela. And
now she's hiding. I mean, I don't know
how to make sense of that either unless
either that she has always been a it's
always been a ploy
or that she's been compromised in some way.
But the objective, maybe it's something other than
those two things. I just think this speaks
for itself.
Now who we're dealing with before we get
into the ice stuff, I think is very
relevant to consider. A couple of examples to
include, but I I mean, this is such
a very relevant point right now. And I
mean, in particular to the people around Trump
right now.
You know me. I don't see this as
a left right thing where it's there the
right I don't see it that way. They're
government to me, And they're all the varying
levels of the same dishonesty and the same
kind of controlling tactics.
What we saw right what we see in
Trump's administration to start with is all over
every other part of our government.
But we have to acknowledge
a a
a unique level or element to what Trump
is doing right now and the people around
him. I personally think it is shockingly clear
that it's what Israel and Zionism are doing
to this country and a lot of other
places, including the most obvious genocide we've ever
seen in our lives. You know, pretend like
that's not relevant to them being dishonest everywhere
else.
But let's go through some examples that show
you who we're dealing with right now. This
is
Randy Fine.
Somebody who is outspokenly
fighting for Israel at the expense of American
interests and has cheered on the death of
children, and I mean quite literally cheered on
the death of children. Bombs away under a
picture of a dead baby. I'm not making
that up. I've shown it to you on
the show. Or tons of other examples.
This is Randy Fine, the guy who has
screamed about election integrity and how Trump was
stolen from him. We have to make sure
voting isn't low. Okay. Well, guess what? Here's
a very real video that I have confirmed
myself of Randy Fine basically stealing votes from
people who aren't there.
Show every single day
In case that's unclear.
Is him looking around.
Shit show every single
watching.
People that aren't there.
Now this has gone this is a real
video from something that actually happened. Now the
only dispute would be whether somehow he was
allowed to do that, but then the reality
when you look into it is that the
laws for absentee voting or whatever they call
it for somebody who's not there
is not met right here, and that is
very easy to prove. So either they're breaking
the law together or he's doing it because
he's stealing he's trying to vote for them
for his own interest. These are the kind
of people we're dealing with.
These are, like, not just hypocritical, but, like,
in a vile, disgusting way,
just completely like, not just dishonest,
but willing to completely front about everything they
want that you want them to be and
then go out there and do anything else.
I mean, there's a thousand ways you could
frame this.
Whether it's you wanted to be something else
and then pretending to be that or in
regard to them just being the worst those
disgusting presentation of, like, what Israel and the
supporters are doing and then gaining garnering support
from people just as disgusting. But I think
it's important for anybody who is not trapped
in the partisanship to see these kind of
examples.
You either care about these things or you
don't. Now maybe on a secondary level, he's
convincing himself that because they're so evil and
bad that I do this and I'm still
on the right. That's the broken logic of
certain people in this discussion. Who knows? Maybe
he's that stupid.
But this is a bad person. I mean,
it just one of the worst. He's the
he might be a a fat Laurel Loomer,
in my opinion.
Oh, and you can listen to what Grok's
explanation is in general, but there's plenty more
evidence out there. Here is Thomas Massie pointing
out some examples about Bondi. And I just
think
it is and not well, technically, it's Donald
Trump making this ridiculous statement, but it's about
the entire team and how either
by design trying to embarrass themselves or,
I guess, just being that stupid. But I
think it's more than that in regard to
who's driving this. But he says, I was
attacked for exposing Bondi, but I noticed something.
He says, I'm fighting aimlessly against a hopeless
agenda of hate and stupidity.
And he goes, well, okay. If I'm fighting
against
an agenda of hate and stupidity,
isn't that a good thing?
He literally I read this. I I didn't
catch this.
I read this to you the other show.
Basically, where he's like, Bonnie did so great,
which is just embarrassing. And then dumb Massey
is wrong and stupid and just, like, childish
ridiculous things.
And he
says, Thomas Massey made a total fool of
himself yesterday when literally he just pointed to
facts and was like, you hover this up,
but you're wrong. I mean, think about how
wild that is that Trump could point to
what he did right there, which everybody if
the I mean,
everybody on that side would have been cheering
for this if it was done against Democrat.
And everybody honest is already cheering for it
because you did cover up Wexner's name. You
did because it was the only one where
it showed him as a co conspirator, and
they all know that. They're just desperate to
hide from this. And so he says, Thomas
Massie made a fool of himself fighting against,
aimlessly against,
a hopeless agenda of hate. So that's quite
obvious. Right? Of course, it's a typo or
just that they're stupid.
He's just he's just vomiting out hatred is
all it is. And they're not even I
I mean, it doesn't even seem like people
are checking these things for typos or that
he looks like a fool. This is the
president of the country. It should be embarrassing
for us that he's not just making ridiculous
claims that make himself look stupid, but that
he's saying things that nobody agrees with.
Here he says,
can you, the people,
vote your way out of this? I thought
that was an interesting conversation. Right? Now this
is I'm only showing this for an interesting
point because of the misinformation
from
the new media and the carryover mails or
or mainstream that are doing the same thing
today and always have.
Now don't forget, by the way, Massey voted
for the SAVE Act. I disagree strongly with
that because of my my my reasons about
digital ID. I think it's important. Maybe he
disagrees. Maybe he's a part of that agenda.
You can decide for yourself. But this is
interesting because what you got was a ton
of people lying about the fact that he
voted against it. I just think it's always
the same point. Whether you support Massey or
not, we should question all of them. But
it's if they have to lie about something
like that, then they're clearly in the,
you know, vulnerable situation.
He did vote for it. So they all
had to lie about that. And who? People
now I don't think these are lies. I
think people like Laura Ingram are being played
by their own broken machine, that they are
just reporting what the Alex Jones clowns out
there say, and they don't even realize they're
wrong.
So he says, nice try. Does it did
you think we didn't know? You know, basically,
that he voted against it, and that's because
what people like Nick Sordo and the rest
are the ones lying about that.
Here's Greg
Price. Of course, you know, with the classic
red flashing light breaking news even though it's
been out for four hours, you know, it's
the same repeated thing.
But he goes, honestly,
can't you vote your way out of this?
Honestly, not if you get news from these
people.
I agree.
Disagree with the Save Act. I think it's
important to think about how many people are
deceiving people out there. Now, on another note,
just speaking of deceiving people, I'm telling you
guys that this platform is absolutely,
aggressively
trying to deceive you constantly.
I just I I actually had this up.
The only reason that's happened, I I actually
closed it. And I was like, oh, where
was that? I wanted to show these pictures.
Right? So
I searched for it. Exactly this first line.
And it's not there.
It's from Massey. You can check for yourself.
Look at the top. And nope. This older
one is there, but not the one I
wanted to see.
Not there.
Oh, it's just a glitch, Ryan? Certainly could
be. And you know we always consider that.
But I can go back to the post
I showed you six months ago of Donald
Trump saying, we need the CIA now,
and it still doesn't show up.
I'm telling you guys, these things are being
cultivated. There is a game to keep these
things from view unless you know they're there.
It's basically the way our platform works.
Blast America Vagabond or our account on this
plat it's we exist
only if you know how to directly get
to us. And then half the time, that
glitches out too or doesn't load. But the
point is that they will algorithmically
stop people from seeing it unless you just
happen to have the exact link and know
directly where to find it. This is a
small example. My point though is that's the
way the world works today. So, yeah, we're
not censoring it. We're existing in some shadowed
corner where nobody knows where we are unless
you have the exact typed out URL. That's
the world. But on on top of all
that, though, as I always wanna point out,
despite all of that, we are still winning.
And you know I believe that. We are
breaking through. We are changing the conversation. Independent
media has literally forced them to engage with
us
with the suppression, with the censorship, with the
financial attacks, with the lawsuits, and we're still
forcing it down.
Remember that.
Now lastly on
this, this I'm sure you all saw this
going around.
Who knows if it's just coincidence?
You know, I usually don't believe that's you
know, I it's certainly possible, but unlikely, usually.
This is the the one I showed you
recently. Trump's approval rating is higher in Israel
than it used in The United States.
It just speaks for itself. Now this says
what we were, this is
it says, what
are we doing here, guys? Are we entering
an era where the gatekeepers don't have to
care about public opinion? Well,
Gallup polls suddenly will no longer measure presidential
approval after eighty eight years. You may be
asking why. You know, why would they suddenly
do that? Oh, well, it's because Trump's been
lower than ever. That's the argument anyway.
Could be somewhat something else, but the timing
was very relevant. Essentially, Donald Trump was shown
to have the lowest approval rating he's ever
had.
And, like, the next day or the same
day just worked on, no more.
I you could decide what you think that
means.
I mean, the point for a lot of
people is that this is an effort from
the whole system
to keep you from seeing what's happening. Even
though we all see it, I think, anyway.
Now on the ice,
and, you know, the the national,
you know, eventually merging with the global enforcement
arm, if I already wanna see it growing.
This is what this is right now in
this country. This is an obvious
national police force. It is an easy, easy
thing to wrap your mind around.
That it does not appear in any way
to go away.
Once they get funding, which they have more
than most countries,
then that will constantly be justified.
When's the last time you ever saw a
program like that go away? Ron Paul will
tell you that. They never take it away.
Here we are.
But here's Brian Allen. We're gonna start with
this one because we just talked about this.
Remember this clip?
So you watch this with me, right? Now,
this is very obvious. It was body cam
footage. I'm not gonna play it again just
for time, but this is four minutes. Body
cam footage
of Martinez and the and the ICE agents
who were in the car discussing
that they were gonna run into her on
video.
Remember, the claim is that they she ran
into them, and they got out and they
defended themselves.
No. No. They discuss it. Let's we're gonna
make contact. They run into her. Then they
get out of the car, and they shoot
her.
I don't I still don't even understand what
they claimed the logic was there, but they
claimed they were gonna shoot at us is
what they later claimed. She didn't have a
gun in her hand.
All of this came out in court, guys.
And so what's crazy is then we get
the video from them that proves or I
shouldn't say all of it. Other than
everything other than the conversation of the car
had come out in court. They lied about
the gun, everything. Lied about hitting her. That
was actually on video. But now we have
them in body camera footage saying that out
loud. Okay.
Here's what I mean, I just can't even
get past how insane this is.
All of it. Everything we're discussing, but just
that they're willing to do this.
Homeland Security comes in and goes, are we
watching the same video? This is just gaslighting,
guys. This is gaslighting. This is trying to
convince people who are maybe, you know, weak
minded when it comes to politics. You know,
they they feel like they wanna be on
the right side or whatever's driving them other
than the truth and get them to go,
oh, well, they they said it's not true.
So I'm gonna I they must I must
have missed some. I'm gonna believe them.
That's only only dishonest people and people that
are not mentally strong. That's it.
I mean, because you can look and you
can literally hear them saying that. And it
says, this CNN parroting a lawsuit could play
but you can read yourself.
Getting an accept an emotional exclusive interview,
you mean, other than them literally saying it
on video?
Right? They should just drop the charade and
hire a report. I mean, I don't it's
just it's I'm floored.
Once again, CNN demonstrates a complete aversion to
truth. Well, yeah. They're very dishonest, just like
you.
But your people are speaking on video.
Okay. So that's where we are. Right? We're
there just like, lie,
even though everyone can see what's happening. So
this is another example. And by the way,
each one of these, Martinez,
Reddy, every one of them, we reported the
moment it happened based on what the evidence
we had front of us, and we made
this is the case we made all the
way back then.
So as usual, demonstrating our value on this
platform, you knew all of this
months ago if you watch this show.
Now,
this this is kinda recently started following. I've
been liking what they're point pointing to, but
I'm not very familiar with it. This is
called Maine. Breaking, Trump d Trump DOJ moves
to dismiss charges in Minnesota shovel attack, which
we already reported to you, by the way.
I just wanna keep this in in the
vein of this point. That led ICE to
shoot a man.
Turns out ICE made it up. You know
this already.
Here's the dismissal on how Fox News originally
reported the story. So it has now been
dismissed because they dismissed it just like many
of these cases where they made the big
statement in the media, domestic terrorists and weapons
and violence, and then dismissed the case.
This is this is all performative theater, it
seems. This is all them just trying to
get cert and they're still failing.
But as you remember, attempted murder,
Fox News, just vomits out whatever they're told.
Like, pretty much everything in the corporate media,
everything in mainstream alternative media, But don't take
my word for it or his. Look. Read
it. It's all very public. And they lied.
And if you think that they were attacked
with a shovel to where they had to
defend themselves and they just decide to drop
the case. Really?
That's not what happened. And again, it's not
even debatable. It is provable where we are
right now. And here's Ken Klippenstein.
Our officer was ambushed and beaten with snow
shovels and broom handles. This was an attempted
murder. Okay. So here's the same account. They're
not out there trying to defend this one
because this one has now come out in
court, as far as I could tell. They
probably are. That's how ridiculous they are. My
point though is this is Homeland Security who
was over in the the post I was
just showing
you saying, we're watching the same video,
knowing they're lying.
So this is what they were lying about
in the one that has now been proven
to be a lie. Our officer was ambushed
and beaten with shovels. This was an attempted
murder. Details that CNN is too afraid to
address. Oh, and then they got caught lying.
ABC News breaking with the acting head of
ICE says that two of its officers appear
to have made, quote,
untruthful statements
about shooting a migrant in Minnesota and may
face federal charges. You know why I think
this is happening? This is the third this
is today.
Because what just happened in front of Congress,
I think, is starting to change the conversation.
I'm gonna show you a bunch of these
clips. Now I'm not usually of the mind
that those things have much effect. But what
I'm what I'm seeing is that the what
it you know, the entirety of our government
are aware of what I've been trying to
show all of us. The majority is not
having it.
Whether you whether they disagree on other political
points right now, the majority in my mind
clearly sees the Israel problem. The majority in
my mind clearly recognizes whether they agree with
the immigration agenda or not, that ICE is
a major problem.
This is easy to see in my opinion.
I've been telling you for six months or
more. I think now is starting to become
undeniably obvious to where they have to start
pulling back on the agenda, which Trump doesn't
do very often in my opinion. So let's
get into this in-depth. Now this is crazy
to me. This is the intercept.
After Alex Prudy, this is a marine
who went out
at the same location and decided the film.
Not breaking the law, not doing anything he
wasn't supposed to, and this is what went
down.
Marine detained in Minneapolis says feds copied his
phone without a warrant, took his DNA.
His name is Sari, a a Marine Corps
combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan
went to the scene of Alex Petty's killing
in Minneapolis less than an hour after agents
had fired the fatal shots.
He was wearing his marine camouflage and carrying
a lawfully owned nine millimeter Glock handgun on
his right hip in plain view,
as he does every day because it's legal
in this area, which is well, again, one
of the many lies they told when this
all started.
Agents on the scene, quote, he said, thought
I was undercover.
They kept asking what agency I was with.
Think about how stupid this is. This goes
to the lack of training, which has become
full display right now. They're now admitting this.
People with forty days of training that have
never handled a gun are being put out
there in high high stress situations.
Many of them are wildly politically motivated and
absolutely hate Democrats and think they're all terrorists.
Are we starting to recognize why this is
happening?
Now the reality
is that these people saw a guy with
a gun with camouflage and were like, who
who you work with? Like, not even so
if we're being told that that you're all
hyped up because the guy had a gun
and everyone's terrorist, and that's the way you
you don't even how do you what what?
A a terrorist can't dress up like you?
The stupidity, the the lack of intelligence there,
or just the incompetence
blows my mind. So then it says when
he told them he was not with an
agency, remember, he's still legally allowed to be
carrying that gun.
Their demeanor shifted.
Federal immigration agents soon aimed m four style
rifles at his head, footage reviewed by Intercept
shows. Their fingers on the trigger less than
a minute's walk from where Prady was killed,
which is a protocol issue.
Now remember, with the gun part of this,
in Tennessee, for example, in plenty of places,
it's not see, most people don't even know
this. Like, from California, they think it's all
super pyramids and there are many places in
this country which do actually understand the constitution
where you're allowed to carry without you don't
need to get a license. You don't need
to own anything
because you're right.
And so understand that a place like this,
carrying this out there, they're like, it depends
on where you are. Like, in Tennessee, it's
only a concealed carry. I can't carry it
on my hip unless I've got a license,
but I can carry it concealed
for my protection.
And so what's interesting is that these people
don't even know the basic understanding of the
place they're in.
And I think that's being driven by the
stupidity and incompetence of people like Nome or
that the agenda is to not care about
any of the laws.
Now it says, quote, more than more and
more border patrol and ICE agents gathered around
him. Now realize he hasn't done anything wrong.
Then they moved in with rifles and handguns
drawn. Right there. People can get removed from
duty for things like that. There's no drawing
your gun is supposed to be something that
is logged and marked and disguised. That's you
know, especially shooting it. But they're not supposed
to be drawing their guns so frivolously, like
that video where the guy runs into the
store with his gun out. You know? That's
one of the forty day guys. Right? I
mean, that's insane.
The encounter raises questions about how the federal
agents assessed threats using and used force and
made arrest decisions in the immediate aftermath of
the party's killing.
In and let's not forget that instead of
admitting what happened, they said terrorism
and then investigated the
family of the deceased person in regard to
Goode. And then in in and, Prady's example,
I forget what I forgetting exactly what their
next steps were. But in regard to good,
they investigated the family members
instead of the cops, who, as far as
I could tell, have never been investigated
even though that's protocol.
In a series series case, the the marine,
he and his attorney told The Intercept federal
agents took scans
of his biometric data. They they're lying about
all this in front of congress. That doesn't
happen. We don't do that. There's no database.
They're lying to you. Or Lyons has no
idea and somebody else is controlling what the
what they do with this information, which honestly
wouldn't surprise me with where we are. But
I I honestly, I think he's lying.
Biometrics. Doesn't that alarm I mean, where are
you at? Republicans? We're rather you know, we're
at teams of Republicans because I think conservatives
see it. This is everything we're talking about.
They're stealing your biometric data, which then Israel
has access to. That's not a joke. They're
using their
well, both Palantir and Israel, which is, my
opinion, just a conglomeration of the same thing.
Without and that and and they made a
copy of his phone without a warrant.
There's not even a debate around that, guys.
That's
criminal activity.
Before and I guarantee you that Trump's level
will just call they'll say, we they're organized
terrorists and national security, which is just flimsy
as hell, what we're talking about, especially since
he's a
marine. Now before the agents took him in,
apprehended him, he was standing on a sidewalk
observing events, not not even recording.
Not recording, not protesting, or engaging with federal
agents until they approached him.
That's it, guys. Just being there. When they
did, he said agents issued conflicting commands
and attempted to handcuff him without first securing
his firearm, which is a ridiculous
protocol violation,
but why are you arresting him? He said
officers briefly positioned his right hand on his
handgun while pulling his arm behind his back,
leaving him unsure how they expected him to
comply.
I I I mean, this may sound dark,
but I'm kinda wondering whether this was by
design. Standard standard law enforcement firearms training, which
many of them don't have,
typically emphasizes securing a weapon before attempting to
restrain an armed person, obviously.
Sari said he feared agents might shoot him
when his hand brushed his gun even though
the officers,
even though he said officers, not his own
movements, placed it there. Now think let's just
put aside the idea that that was on
purpose.
Think about a party situation. So they come
up to you,
and you got all these other guys all
shaky and edgy and terrorists behind them every
that's how they view everything, and
they turn and see your head on your
gun. Even though and and they don't know
that you know, with what we just saw,
does it really seem that far fetched somebody
would draw their gun and fire thinking he
was going for his gun, even though that
guy did it because he's incompetent?
This is why all this really matters.
He was detained for at least six hours
before released without charges. Okay. Well, it wasn't
three days like read reads or readies, but
it was also a veteran. Right?
But we're being told that this doesn't happen
to Americans.
Happens every day right now.
Inside the federal building, sorry said agent shackled
his hands and feet, photographed him. Why is
this happening right now?
I'm I guarantee this guy's gonna take some
action here. That's why I mean,
under what charge?
They scanned his face, more biometrics, and forced
him to provide a DNA sample.
This is so wildly
Orwellian,
eugenic stuff. I mean, who knows what's going
why do they have a right to have
this information?
And it says, and swab the inside of
his mouth. Right back to the COVID stuff.
He said agents denied him access to an
attorney,
which is something else we deny. Keeps happening.
Even though they were present elsewhere in the
building and in contact with civilians and federal
officers that day. I asked for an attorney
probably a 100 times, he said, and was
never given one. I was never told why
I was being arrested. It's insane.
Welcome to America, guys. For all the people
out there screaming about America and the constitution
and fighting the Democrats, how in the world
can you talk about a Republican veteran marine
being arrested for no charge in any context
without realizing where we are?
They took my cell phone and cloned it.
They actually told me that they did that.
No warrant, guys. Sari said agents did not
ask him to unlock the device, which says
something, doesn't it? Nor did they provide a
warrant, paperwork, explanation.
Meaning, because of I think it's was it
was it graphite or was it elite? One
of the Israel Palantir programs,
with their spyware overlaps, they don't even need
to unlock your phone anymore.
Telling you guys, this is where they've been
for a long time. We're just fine. We're
seeing it now. That's Israeli tech.
Failure to get a warrant raised,
serious concerns of
I hate the way that I mean, even
the interstate, what do you mean raise concern?
That was a violation of his Fourth Amendment,
period.
Unequivocally.
Doesn't raise concerns.
I just find that weird. I just I
I get it. We're it's about the you
know, we people write these things. I just
find that crazy. It's not it they absolutely
violated his rights by doing that. Period.
After seven hours, about seven hours after his
arrest, sorry, was released into subzero temperatures without
transportation.
Unsure where he was.
This is an American veteran who they arrested
for no reason,
took all these things from him illegally, and
then dumped him in the snow with nowhere
to go and no idea where he was.
This is what these are people fighting for
Americans?
He said he didn't know if he was,
remained under investigation nor whether the government retained
copies of his phone data or DNA sample.
You know who they are. While he was
in detention,
Surrey said agents provided minimal food and water.
Said detainees with visible injuries did not see
receive timely medical care. I asked for water
about a dozen times. At one point, they
brought three bottles for seven people.
War Sari said detainees had to use their
drinking water to clean blood off of, their
injured peers, which is consistent with accounts from
other civilian arrested that day and previously reported
by The Intercept. Quote, there was a man
with a golf ball sized contusion on his
head who didn't get medical attention, probably because
they did it to him. There was a
70 year old Marine Corps veteran with a
deep gash on his elbow who was bleeding.
Didn't matter, apparently. Sari said the treatment he
received stood in sharp contrast, get this, to
how he handled detainees during his own military
service
while in Iraq.
Well, I I really hope that this shakes
somebody.
Somebody who needs to hear this. Most likely,
the people that need to will pretend this
is that's a Democrat lie or whatever the
dumb thing is.
He's telling you that they treated people in
Iraq who were literal
enemies of the state or whatever you frame
it as. Like, the, well, let's let's be
real about what it really was, the illegal
invasion. But let's just say for the same
conversation, the enemy in the context of US
government lies. Right? That you were dealing with
people we're told are terrorists,
and they were treated with more respect and
dignity than the way ICE is treating American
veterans in this country.
That needs to stand out, guys.
I mean, it it's just it's it's flooring,
truly.
Making a note, really.
Oops.
There we go.
I don't know. This this just really is
shocking, you know? I mean, it not not
to those of us that are paying attention
because we see it, but
it's been going on, and it needs to
be addressed.
Now this is to the same point that
Kyle Cheney, the Trump administration has committed a
mass violation of ICE detainees,
of their constitutional rights in Minnesota, effectively blocking
their access to attorneys. Now this is what
we just heard from that guy. Right? This
is a judge has just confirmed this
in the Whipple Building. A judge ruled tonight
as of the twelfth, yesterday.
So they're
choosing
to deliberately withhold a lawyer.
I mean, I don't know how you do
understand that. It's anything other than people who
are actively, like, choosing to withhold rights from
American citizens
or anybody for that matter. It doesn't it's
we all have our constitutional rights.
These people are destroying this country. Now
let's get into some of these clips of
of Lyons and what he said in front
of congress.
I think these things truly stand out because
they're basic.
And the way he responds to things that
we can prove,
whether one example or endless examples, which most
of them are. Now look, I don't wanna
say for all I know, this guy's out
of the loop somehow. So you can decide
whether you think he's lying or just doesn't
know. But those are the only two options
that I can see.
Because ultimately, it's certainly possible that he is
being played like a lot. I think a
lot of what's going on in this administration
is, you know, cork and dagger kind of
like shadow game. Like, not a joke. I
don't mean that. I mean, I kinda do.
I mean, intelligence levels. We're talking about Israel.
We're talking about people who are operating,
wearing Israeli military uniforms in congress. You know,
no big deal. There's something going on here.
And so it's obvious to think that there's
a larger level at play where maybe this
person is not even really in charge of
his own position. Maybe he doesn't even know
that. I don't know. So you can decide.
But you have to acknowledge this is what
he's saying is disconnected from what we can
all prove.
Aaron Rapport made a lot of these clips.
It was he seemed to be he was
covering it while it was live. So let's
just go through, and you can listen to
yourself.
Hold on. What was this one? Oh, that
is the one. Okay. Start this starts with
a clip of one of the things. A
lot of a lot of stuff was brought
in front of them so everyone can see.
And, you know, so it's on the record,
so people can see it.
So on the screen, it's simply saying, ice
ages pulled guns on unarmed US citizen.
Happens every day right now.
Just randomly spraying them in the face with
mace or bear spray or whatever it is
just because they're standing there. As we've already
heard, the guy saying, if you raise your
voice, I'll erase your voice or things like
that.
Over and over, we see those
examples. We saw that.
ICE code of conduct says, quote, all ICE
in place must be paid professionally. It must
be a model for all to follow.
Director Lyons, yes or no, is the behavior
you just witnessed a model you think agents
should follow?
Sorry about that, sir. Sir, I I can't
speak to each one
individually.
Do you think just Each
ICE offices are held to a higher standard,
higher product, but in every case, like I
already stated before, between, you know, Tennessee versus
Garner, Graham versus O'Connor
It's also just an issue of common sense.
Like, right, even the last one where that
woman is being pepper sprayed, there's enough standoff
distance that there's she's clearly not a threat,
and he directly puts a nonlethal interface.
Speaking of non So see this one of
the things I wanna point out in general,
and who knows that I'm let's just put
it simply, whether it's intentional or not. They're
not asking the right questions.
Some of them are asking questions that I
like, but not the like, right there. The
follow-up question needs to be okay.
So we can acknowledge that you individual examples
maybe maybe don't represent the entirety of your
standard. Okay. Has that person been held accountable?
Was there an investigation?
Why'd they spray right there? Did you find
out? Oh, no? Okay. Well, then why not?
If you have this higher standard, why wasn't
that person chat why wasn't that person,
dealt with? See, because that's not happening right
now because they don't care.
Lethals.
Are all ICE agents, even the ones that
are new actually just trained in the use
of nonlethals?
Pepper spray, mace,
tasers.
Yes, sir. They employ it on themselves too
so they understand the impact of it. Yes,
sir. I've been sprayed many times. It's horrible.
Yep. I you know, and see, I I
don't I don't believe that for a second.
You're telling me that these hundreds of people,
like, thousands of ICE agents that went out
there with twenty, forty days draining got all
of that stuff? Come on, guys. I highly
doubt that that was something they made important.
My opinion. Yeah. Same here. Okay.
Right now, what is the training cycle for
new ICE agents? How many days?
So we've reduced the actual calendar days from
seventy five to forty two. We went from
five days a week to six days a
week. Five days a week was,
five, eight hour days, and we've gone to
six, twelve hour days.
And that is that is given enough sufficient
experience for them to be dealing in these
very dynamic areas and urban areas
with including weapons handling because I've seen some
of your your ICE agents and their weapons
handling. It's quite horrible.
Do you think that in those time period,
you could actually insert people into an environment
as Anameka is in Minnesota and other places,
and they're actually using weapons in the correct
way? So, sir, what we've done on the
backside of that is we've instituted our OJT
program, which as you and law enforcement are
familiar with, much like an FTO program, where
after the academy, they get that the railroad
training like you would
once a local police officer comes out of
the academy. So OTG is happening in places
like
Minnesota. So somebody who probably has never handled
a weapon
after forty two days is gonna be inserted
into Minnesota into a high stress environment. They
could, sir. Yes, sir.
Simple, guys. Very simple.
That's not okay. You're talking about I mean,
look. The point is, this is how they
rationalize it to people that are, you know,
hair on fire all the time about left
and right politics. That ultimately, we have to
because Biden and Venezuela and immigrants and this
all and so we have to just do
whatever we need to do. Okay. Well, then
just acknowledge that nothing matters anymore.
Because thing that we're pointing to, constitution be
damned,
that's a childish response.
The reality is to do the hard the
right thing, which may be a little more
difficult. If you actually believe anything you're saying,
and I think most conservatives and liberals about
every all the different are beginning to come
around to the reality that none of them
care about what they put forward. I believe,
anyway.
Here's a clip about
the database point,
you know, saying that now you're on a
database. Now look. Let's be real about this.
This is not this is happening. It's been
it's been discussed. As even she points out,
Trump literally called for it. We know the
Palantir discussion. We know that they're doing this
in regard to not just, you know, Democrats
and being on a list because you're terrorist,
but cataloging
Americans they engage with whether immigrants or not.
We've proven this.
So it's just it's it's the fact that
they keep playing this out even with congress.
Wouldn't if I can do that, they can
do that.
So even though this comes across as, I
think, does make the case, they could nail
this shot if they wanted to in front
of Congress, and they just don't. I think
that's by design.
Number of my colleagues about labeling people as
domestic terrorists. What is the definition of
a domestic terrorist?
So, ma'am, domestic terrorists is any to any
organization that,
you know,
on American soil,
home nation soil that's involved in
acts of treason, acts of violence,
activist extremism against a
group or against a,
a country. That's that's so incredibly not true,
by the way. No. Those are all called
crimes.
That's not the reality of that. Whether you
get into the political side of it or
the idea of what they pretend it is
today. The reality of terrorism is it is
a is a using political ends to or
violent ends to achieve a political to violent
acts to achieve a political end. That's the
reality of it going back forever.
Over the last fifty years, they've warped it
into their weird political thing that they use
it for, but realize what you just described
is not terrorism. It's terrorism could overlap with
those things. Right? When there's whatever other metrics
we discuss, whether it's coordinated, a state actor,
or whatever it is. But simply attacking a
state or somebody be like, somebody could be
irrational.
Someone could be crazy and go attack a
state or attack an individual. It doesn't mean
they're a terrorist. But see, they use the
word so frivolously today. It just means anybody
we're fighting right now. Anybody we don't like
or anybody we wanna disparage.
So so and he had to think about
that. He had to ramble that off. It's
not the truth.
Okay. So, actually, in law, it's it's it's
defined by the Patriot Act. That's the clearest
act we No. It's not, by the way.
That's not you it's my point is it
is the way that they turned it into
to be able to aim it at whoever
they don't like.
Regardless, though, at the same point. Place we
have it. And it has to be tied
to criminal activity. Right? So protesting
even if I'm sorry to stop it again.
But that's important what she just did. Right?
So So she skipped right over what he
was doing. Literally, you basically just agreed with
him.
Violent things. Right? Yes. Well, then then what
he just described is in fact what you
well, that's not what she started with. What
she's doing is trying to bring it in
to make another valid point though, that it
does not include
protesting,
filming,
which I think is a valid point. But
realize what just missed right there, that you
basically just moved the marker a little bit
in regard to just people acting violently being
terrorists in the eyes of the US government,
left or right.
See, there's always these incremental moves even if
she's genuinely calling these things out.
They all want the power over you. I
just hope we can start to see that.
But this point does matter. Activity. Right? So
protesting
even if you don't like it, protesting
of ICE agents unarmed and without destroying property,
is that a domestic terrorist?
No, ma'am. I stated under under oath earlier,
Depp. Okay. For that's covered on the first
amendment. Right? Great. So when, again, the president
and Stephen Miller and others in the cabinet,
including your boss, Kristi Noem, label people like
Renee Goode, domestic terrorist, you understand
why we can't trust
what you're doing with the information you're collecting
on these so called domestic. Why wouldn't you
just go, were they right or not?
Right? You just admitted that that was not.
Okay. So here's an example of her calling
this person a terrorist. We can prove that
all he did was stand there. Okay. Or
is she wrong? You probably will dance around
it. You see, those are the kind of
points that bring it to a head. You
know? I just think that we need a
more fine point in some of these things.
Terrorists.
Trust what you're doing with the information you're
collecting on these so called domestic terrorists.
So can you tell us under oath,
does the Department of Homeland Security maintain a
database of any kind of domestic terrorists?
Are you collecting
facial recognition information, license plates,
locations, addresses, those kinds of information?
No, ma'am. And I testified on the oath
on Tuesday as well. I said the same
thing. We don't have a database.
If there is a case,
a criminal case
that may involve some type of domestic terrorist
organization, Homeland Security, as you know, Homeland Security
investigations has evolved across the board and
embedded with the Joint Terrorism Task Force. We
do conduct those, but there is no database,
ma'am, for that. Okay. Or do you contribute
data to anyone else's, any other federal agencies
database?
No, ma'am. Okay. So the the fact that
we have ICE agents saying out loud to
people that they're trying to arrest or engage
with that we're gonna put you into a
database is just erroneous. They're making that up.
Yes, ma'am. I can't speak to why that
office has said it, but we do not
do that. Well, I would just offer that
given that the president put out an executive
order in September and said he wants a
list of domestic terrorist groups to use the
full weight of the federal government to go
against, you can imagine
that people who are peaceful protesters feel like
they are going to be targeted
and feel that they are at risk. So
I I,
I think
the conduct of your agency
has put us in a position
where the average American doesn't
know whether to trust law enforcement, and that
is
terrible and scary
given what law enforcement
on the ground in our states do. And
I I would just say if we do
not have serious reform and change,
then you will be contributing
to the average American who woke up very
supportive of law enforcement being terrified that they
and their community will be next.
Well,
so this is interesting.
I've I've realized I didn't have that video
that I've shown you we've shown before. Right?
And I looked this up. ICE.
Maybe maybe maybe I typed it, Raj, but
now you are in database.
That video is everywhere.
I don't see it. I got this other
one. I'm gonna check out in a second,
but let me just let me do this
real quick. We can we can play this
one.
And where my car is registered. Just see
car though. Alright. See what it says.
Because I think it's important to see this.
That I I think there's a very real
case here where
And where my Where we're being, you know,
kind of be like like we always talk
about. Whether it's, like, an Orwellian kind of
thing, like, basically changing
what we see, like, real like, re you
know, editing history, essentially, on these platforms.
Okay. Let's see with this one.
We'll play this one real quick and see
what they have to say.
And then I'll see if I can't find
that. But what I was gonna show you
or see if that showed up, I do
that, the ORM database Let's just write database
and see if that pops up And we
all know this is everywhere
I saw that video like a thousand times
on this platform
Guys, am I I mean, that's I know
what it looks like when it starts. That
that's not the one either. Yeah. Why are
you taking my information down there? Because we
have a nice new thing. Oh, that see,
this one's a different version of it. But
you see what I'm saying? The one that
we it starts where it's the same clip
where he's looking at the camera, it's not
there.
Somebody else reposted a different angle on this.
So let's watch this one real quick to
see what this one says,
and I'll play that one again. I just
wanna show you very quickly that here are
multiple examples of people saying that.
This is what I haven't seen. So let's
see what this one's And where my car
is registered. Okay. Good try, though. Alright. Thanks,
Olivia.
Do you feel strong or what?
We're good. Have a great day. Okay? I'll
keep following you. Okay?
She doesn't care. I'm sorry. No. Come on.
Who's the care? She doesn't care. They never
do.
How's it feel to be a race trader?
You know, we were trying to get a
child molester. Right? No. You weren't. Yes. We
were. How would how would you know? Because
it was a woman you talked to. His
wife And then his plate his plate came
back as murder. I was supposed to say,
calling someone a race Just just just for
the record, by the way, they've lied about
this
countless times.
I've proven that. But even if it's not
the case that going after one bad guy
is not then justify all your criminal actions.
But, I mean, we can keep watching. Let
me see if it I traitor? Because you
guys don't care. I hope you realize that
is the most racist that you can say
as a as a white woman. Of course.
And this so you know,
this isn't a good look for you.
You think I care about what about my
looks? No. Oh, no. No. Trust me. When
you guys are is evident by how you
look, you don't care. We get that. Trust
me. No. That's what I'm saying. I'm just
saying this Wow. Trying to be a social
warrior. If you actually cared, you probably would
care about the child who got raped and
also the person got murdered by the person
that we were looking for. But, see, you
don't care. No. I don't care because you
guys tried Thank you. You just tried to
detain legal immigrants. None of you actually give
a shit. If you are here to get
illegal, violent immigrants off the street, that would
be fine. No. We don't. That's not
Why are they even engaging with this woman?
Sorry I even wasted time on this. It's
listed. It was under the under the listing
of database, and it's not the right video.
Here's the other one. But either way, doesn't
it seem strange? Like, these are very unprofessional
people.
Why are you why are you arguing with
this random lady? Why does it even matter
to you unless she's breaking the law? Seems
strange to me. They see they seem in
you know, like, they're vulnerable, like, they're worried.
That's my personal opinion. Whether it's right or
not, I don't need to make the case
that these people are, by and large, out
there with what we can see
in a shocking way violating people's rights, breaking
the law, especially since every one of them
are not identifying themselves when they engage with
this kind of law enforcement. That's a crime.
Look it up. Here's the database. Why are
you taking my information down? Because we have
a nice little database. Oh, good. And now
you're considered domestic terrorists. So stop asking me
to tell We're videotaping
you?
So strange to me that that video just
doesn't seem to be there, at least the
one that I had first. Now here
is a post that matters.
Remembering this overlap.
ICE advances
sole source deal with Palantir for new surveillance
backbone.
ICE advances this deal,
and this is about a surveillance mechanism. You
know, so it's not even a secret, guys.
They are using Israeli Palantir tech to spy
on you.
Everybody under the guise of going after just
immigrants, maybe that's what they're doing. I think
it's provable they're not. But
we know they have a database. It's been
proven more than once. It's been said more
than once.
Here's Ron Rand Paul.
We did a good job on these, I
think, asking about, basically, you know, the general
sentiment we're getting from the Trump administration.
Right? That they're doing certain things. You know,
all these are kind of in the same
vein.
This is about them drawing their weapons in
particular.
I think, and this is just my opinion,
you have to look at, what your rules
are for for drawing weapons because it appears
to me they're not,
using the same standard as the police. Mhmm.
Sir, I could just speak to my experience.
I've done thousands of traffic stops. Like I
said, tells a ten year city police officer
prior to coming to ICE.
And, obviously, our training, we do fall back
on the two main Supreme Court decisions, Tennessee
versus Garner, for one. And, you know, we
can't speak to the totality of circumstances, especially
in the case where we don't know exactly
what it is. We can't go to that
office's mindset, so each one is
separate. But if you look at the use
of force, you know, curriculum within the pyramid,
you know, officer presence does include is include
one of those things. So to your point,
sir,
to your point, I've done it many times
myself, felony traffic stop.
You know, in this case of ICE, oftentimes,
we do know it's a, you know, a
felon or want a felon that we're going
after. The firearm may be drawn. But, again,
each See, what I see him doing
is constantly speaking in a general sense, which
I guess is I mean, you can decide
whether
what we're dealing with are a sponge
of scattered provable crimes
everywhere you look. And yet he responds like
going, no. That's not what we do as
an institution. Okay. Well, maybe you're right. But
it is happening. So is this being taken
out of your control? Is there some kind
of schism in the department? Or are you
just not aware that everything is happening this
way? You know, because there's no denying it.
But if you talk about it in a
general sense as if we all you know?
And here's the thing is if he talks
about this like it's all the the memo
they're guided by is something that he changed
in the beginning of this. So he keeps
talking about the general
standing of what they do and their protocols,
and that's not even what most of them
are being guided by right now. I don't
know. I you know, I clearly, I think
in my opinion, you can see is that
I don't think this person's being honest.
Each case is.
I think it does make a difference whether
you're stopping a target who's a felon stop
versus stop being a random person. In the
instance that was displayed recently in the news,
I don't believe it was a felony stop.
I don't even believe it's a targeted stop.
The most of them that we can see
are not. And I mean, the ones that
become big examples. They're not. I mean, they
keep they say it's all targeted stops, and
then you can prove, for example, that that
they well, here's an interesting point, by the
way. In regard to Martinez, it does appear
to have been a targeted stop, but an
illegal one. She was not breaking the law.
She was not an illegal immigrant. They rammed
her with the car to initiate that because
she was watching them.
You'd be alarmed at how often that's happening.
They're running into cars because they know these
people are watching them, and they wanna justify
causing them problems.
These you know, these are what you get
when you run a bunch of jumped up
bounty hunters who hate everyone that's on either
side of them for forty days of training,
if that. We have to condemn the atrocities
that happen. Sorry. Bumped that on accident. Oh,
sorry. That that was that's what I meant
to you recently in the news. I don't
believe it was a felony stop. I don't
even believe it was a targeted stop. No.
Sorry. That that was that's what I meant
to your point. I This, I think, probably
was somebody filming that was annoying them or
festering them, and then they went they they
followed the person and stopped them. Yes. And,
I think the weapons being drawn was inappropriate.
But I would suggest that you need to
look at these and you need to look
at the policy because I don't think they're
living up to the same standard of the
police. What do you mean look at the
policy? Like, you're here because it's happening. We
all see that. You're here to a net
to to this is what I hate about
this process is people come and be like,
I'll get back to you about that. What
do you mean get back to us? You
were supposed to make sure you were coming
prepared to discuss these things.
You know what I mean? Like and then
getting back never happens. When that ever happened?
It just kicks the can down the road,
and we all move forward. This is so
often how this goes. So right now, we
demand these answers, but it's, you know, it's
not how this go. But I think enough
has come out of this that's honestly, I
think whether this happened or not, people are
starting to see through this. You know, I
think the police, frankly, are better trained, which
is the other complaint that people have had.
Have we rushed some of the people into
the job, you know, and if we not
had adequate training? Senator Langford. I I mean,
and even crazier, think about comparing right now
what what the police have clearly become in
this country long before we got to ICE.
And now they're making them look like a
bunch of bunch of, you know,
I don't know what's a benign thing, a
bunch of puppy dogs. I mean, think about
that. Like, they they were we were talking
about police state and authoritarianism
and all martial law. And then ICE came
along.
My god. That's insane.
This one
is about the
FBI agents equipped with a signal. Oh, that's
right. The basically, when they came in after
the,
I think it was the good shooting,
the the the killing, the murder.
And they tried to investigate, and they stopped
them from doing so. And they basically tried
to sidestep that. This was Kash Patel.
The some reporting that came out saying that
FBI agents equipped with a signed warrant prepared
to document blood splatter and bullet holes in
miss Goode's SUV.
They received orders to stop. The orders came
supposedly from senior officials including
Kash Patel. Do you think a sufficient enough
investigation
is happening into the killing of Renee Goode
right now. Why would that be So, sir,
I I, you know, I can't speak to
that because I'm not aware of those decisions.
But what I can tell you, sir, and
the commitment from ICE, especially from the office
of professional responsibility,
is we did secure those firearms. Well, I
can tell you from a general sense of
just people I like. You know? That's not
an answer.
You you clearly have a glowing view of
all of ICE as a collective. That's clear.
But see, listen to the what was you
know the right question right there?
Stop. The orders came. The question would be,
why would is is that legal?
Right? Why why if they have a warrant
to investigate,
what right do they have to say you're
not supposed to do? I mean, I there's
even we're getting into, like, a state versus
the federal. Either way, guys,
if okay. Fine. If you argue that that's
his right, Cash is the, you know, head
of the FBI, fine. Then why would he
do that? Did they end up doing those
things? As far as I can tell, they
did not. And on top of that, nobody
has investigated
the actual shooting. And if you actually look
into the details we reported right after this
that came out already, that's what this is
based on. The information showed you that they
were clearly
going, Trump, what are we doing here?
Right? Not investigating, which is supposed to be
independently investigating, but whoever it is, right, going,
Trump, what do we do? Well, we don't
wanna look bad, so you don't investigate. Go
after their family, which is what they did.
Disgusting.
Supposedly from senior officials, including Kash Patel. Do
you think a sufficient enough investigation
is happening into the killing of Renee Goode
right now? So, sir, I I, you know,
I can't speak to that because I'm not
aware of those decisions. But what I can
tell you, sir, and the commitment from ICE,
especially from the office of professional responsibility,
is we did secure those firearms. We did
secure that scene
properly,
and we turned over our evidence to the
FBI. And we're standing by at the end
of their con their investigation, the conclusion of
the outcome to conduct our internal review at
that point. I just want to convey that
there is just a huge trust gap here.
I mean, just absolute zero trust
in this being able to for this administration,
be able to conduct an independent investigation
into these killings. And I just urge you
just continue to push on this because
without that, I don't think we're gonna be
able to move forward. And when we see
these types of statements from whether Stephen Miller,
Kristi Noem from Cash Patel and others,
it is absolutely,
putting a a black mark over anything that
is happening on the ground. Mister
Yeah. Right. Like, it's it otherwise be super
nice and and flowery if it wasn't for
those statements.
No. It's bad. See, this is what I'm
talking about. Now realize one thing to think
about here, which is a consideration, is that
historically,
when you know when you see through the
left and right, like I was kind of
hinting at before, this very well could be
a long term setup to just ultimately get
us to accept the slightly less insane version
of what comes next.
That's how this stuff tends to work. Even
if that's not the design, that may well
be how they play it out. To go,
well, here's a less version of that that's
way worse than it was before ICE, but
it's not as bad as the way ICE
just was. So everything's better. Right?
That's how our government works.
This next clip
oh, actually, here, I wanna show you this
first. So this is the report that we've
talked we we went over this at the
time.
This came out oh, actually, I don't think
we even went out of the we directly
went over the New York Times report yet,
but we discussed discussed this well before the
New York Times reported it. There's more details
in here that you should read. Prosecutors began
investigating Ray Good's killing. Washington told them to
stop, and we reported this right around the
time this was happening, a few days into
it, I think. But if you read it,
Kash Patel shut this down. That's when he
got called out for this. They told them
to stop investigating.
They didn't want a civil investigation, and this
is where you find out it was about
what Trump ultimately wanted.
Now this one
was about the meetings and the which we'll
have an example of that today.
People showing up for their meetings and then
having finding out ICE is waiting for them
even though they're showing up for their legal
meeting.
The process that we tell them they're supposed
to go through, and they show up for
that legally appointed meeting, and they arrest them
because, well, you're not you don't have a
citizenship. Well, they're not you know, this is
the point about they're playing this limbo game.
Technically, those people aren't here legally, not yet,
but they're also not here illegally. They're in
the process of this they're they've gotten especially
when they're the one I'm gonna show you,
they were showing up for their final meeting
to get their citizenship or their green card
or whatever it was, and they arrest them
and they deport them.
And then right now, there's many cases that
are being pushed back. There was a guy
that sent to Honduras. The court just demanded
they bring back. It keeps happening. Talk about
wasted resources.
Good god. It's such a joke today. So
this is example of them. And, you know,
he doesn't answer really, but I think his
answer, I think, makes the point. Sure. Hello.
I wanted to bring you in on this.
There was an incident that happened in San
Diego. Spouses of military members and veterans were
going to get, interviewed for green card, and
they were arrested upon arrival at their interviews.
Tell us what happened. Was that USCIS,
agents that arrested them?
No, senator. Excuse me. No, senator.
Anyone who comes to a USCIS interview who
has an outstanding want or warrant may find
themselves, subject to facilitated arrest. Yeah. But that's
see, this is the same game. What do
you mean? We're not we're talking about specific
cases here.
Fine. Anybody that might have a warrant in
any circumstance could be arrested. Yes. Yes. We
get to what you're doing. The point is
that there are examples of people who are
not in that position. There's examples we've seen,
some of the most bombastic ones. Somebody who
was arrested because of a a parking ticket
from twenty year from fourteen years ago, whatever
the number was, who was going through the
legal process.
That's it. Deported.
This keeps happening. There's many of these cases.
And so when you point to a broad
example and go, yes. This could happen hypothetically
when this hypothetical thing goes on. You're ignoring
the point.
Which ICE or local or state law enforcement
that all of the all of these spouses
of military members and veterans had an outstanding
arrest? Every one of them? Thousand or outstanding?
I'm not aware of these specific cases you're
referring to. I'm happy to talk to you
in. To be able Exactly.
So we'll get back to you on that,
which never happens. But you see, on top
of it, he'll still do his dance about
how you should have done this. What do
they do, though? Nothing.
You know, it's just it's a it's a
cycle where they one side gets to play
the one being the hero, the other side
gets to play the villain. And then it
flip flops, and it all keeps going. Meanwhile,
nobody ever goes to jail. The talk through
is very high profile. Your staff Was it
USCI
veterans had an outstanding arrest Senator,
I'm not aware of the specific cases you're
referring to. I'm happy he should come to
you in. To be able to talk through.
I'm happy to talk to your step But
was it USCIS, or was that coordinated with
ICE?
Again, senator,
depending on who comes to our office and
who they were with ICE
details of when and where interviews for green
cards and other administrative processes for interviews,
and immigration take place? Have you ever shared
that information with ICE? Senator, what what concerns
me is that in previous years, there was
no communication between USCIS, ICE, and CBC. That's
to you a question. Have you shared better
coordination and the timing of your is at
our offices, and if someone is subject to
arrest or detention,
we and we will communicate with ICE. And
anyone who comes into a federal building, any
federal building should expect to be arrested if
they have an outstanding warrant or warrant. Is
this a king just play that's in that
he literally just demonstrates. So you're telling me
thousands of those people who were all veterans,
all had outstanding warrants, they were all collectively
arrested? I mean, it's a provable example.
This whole thing went like this, guys.
It's just this nonstop
game of deflection, but this is always how
it goes. That's why
it's a exercise in futility as we talk
about. But, ultimately,
he's playing the game to say, well, anybody
should, but that's not what happened there. He
came
deliberately to not talk about that, it seems.
We'll get back to you on that.
But, also, one wait. One other thing he
said to you, I was gonna make a
point. Parts and other administrative processes for interviews,
and immigration take place. Have you ever shared
that information with this? Senator, the other part
is not just that they happen to show
up and they might be arrested, but that
what he's asking deliberately that he clearly tried
to avoid was are you not you know,
he said, of course, we should communicate. Well,
I would even agree with that. It well,
in any general sense that these things seem
like there overlaps, so there might be some
benefit. But the point
is that you're deliberately going this person or
this group is showing up at this time
for this meeting. That is a legal meeting,
and in many cases, have no issue of
other than some previous ticket or whatever we
talk about. That's what he's getting at, and
you can prove these cases.
You know they know this, guys. It's everywhere
right now. This is a game of deflection.
This one is about
the four, the and the heat actually, Blumenthal
did a good job on these as well,
about the fourth amendment
and how it seems. And this is about
the well, there's a couple examples of this,
but administrative warrant stuff,
just blatant violation of your rights, guys. Because
apparently, they had a memo,
which we talked about
already.
Picture is of ICE agents forcing their way
into
the Minneapolis home of Garrison Gibson,
banging down the door,
detaining
mister Gibson in front of his wife, Tianna,
and their 10 year old daughter and niece
who happened to be there at the time.
I don't know whether you're familiar with
what happened here. It's one of
many, many, many similar incidents that have happened
all around the Would you have ever thought
I mean, even with all that we knew
and all we discussed and even the with
the the screaming rants of Alice Jones that
he now doesn't wanna point to even though
it's turning out to be correct. In some
of the minor cases, let's be real. He's
been dishonest and lying his entire career. Ask
Bill Cooper. But my point is that could
we did you have we even with all
that we've talked about, would you expect that
we would be here right now like this?
Where you have gestapo going to doors of
American citizens and arresting them for no charge?
Like, I would have said, I could see
that happening in this country because of what
we see every day. Most Americans
would have never thought we would be here
despite everything because it just didn't seem possible
because of what we were being presented with.
We need to be real about what this
is. Even if it's only aimed at people
you don't like, even if it's only aimed
at trying to solve a problem you think
should be solved.
This
is not just destructive.
I mean, this is dismantling.
The country,
and it was done pursuant
to
what is called an administrative
warrant.
Mhmm.
Which, by the way, they've all lied about.
All of them. Right? From,
Vance and Noam and Bondi and all of
them have acted like this is supposed to
be the way it goes, and it's not
even debatable. They're just trying to circumvent the
law. Remember, an administrative warrant they can make
for themselves.
No judge involved. So they're telling you that
they can write a warrant for themselves and
kick in your front door if they think
there might be somebody in there they wanna
go after. That's what they're telling you. Not
the reality of the law. I'll go into
it. I think he makes it clear, but
I'll go into more if he does if
Blumenthal doesn't express the point of how that
really works.
A copy of that
warrant,
signed by
an SDDO,
who is, I believe,
a
member of the ICE workforce,
another agent,
a supervisory
detention and deportation
officer,
not a judge. Correct?
Correct, senator.
So in effect,
this is not a warrant. It's a permission
slip.
It's a green light from another
ICE agent
to go
bash down a door, smash into a home,
detain and arrest someone
without
a judge
finding probable cause
and without any sort of
objective
independent
finding.
Is that correct?
No, sir. So the I205 is the arrest
warrant, but the I205 is based on a
executable final order issued by an immigration judge
from a justice And that order
is from an immigration judge who is part
of the executive branch,
not
an independent
Judicial. Judge. Right. But
the the warrant issued is simply a permission
slip. Exactly. And we have one more clip
that continues this. But so go again. The
the important thing to understand, guys, is that
what we're talking about is you you're you
have ICE itself. I mean, that alone should
make that clear. Whether we're talking about checks
and balances or what we pretend this country
is and it's not. We once might have
been. But the idea being that you have
ICE itself giving itself permission.
So maybe that's okay with you. But if
you recognize all that's happening, clearly, they're breaking
the law. So that alone should be enough.
But then you realize that there's a constitutional
violation here. Right? So you have your right.
Fourth amendment. You can't just come kick in
my door and search for whatever you want
because narrative. So they need a judicial warrant
to sign for that or a a judge
that signs that. So they started saying, no.
We can just have our guy do it
because of some ruling. He'll sign it in
the next clip. And, again, it actually what
the actual case gets into is the reality
that they can use, and I disagree with
this even, to be honest, an administrative warrant
to go after somebody who's got a signed,
in the immigration discussion, a,
was it withholding a removal, but also some
other documents they point to, that they wouldn't
have the right to go into that person's
home. Because, essentially, they're hiding in their home
or whatever. I mean, I would argue that
would give you enough to get a judge
to give you warrant anyway. So this is
just escape, you know, a slippery slope, which
is what we're seeing. But they then use
the administrative warrant to go into that person's
home to be able to arrest them. The
way they're using it, as we can all
see, deliberately so, is to say, well, we
can use this administrative warrant for this person
anywhere.
That per we think they're in your home.
Kick your door in. That keeps happening. Oh,
sorry. They're not there. Or we go into
your home because they're in there. Still not
legal. Even though you have that, that's not
there. It's you have to have a judge
sign warrant to be able to go into
American's home. It's just the
reality. And so here's the next clip. And
this is just he is trying they're trying
to change the reality. And if you can
undermine these points, in effect, it makes the
constitution irrelevant, guys.
Let's be very clear. You were a local
police officer. Yes, sir.
To bang down a door, barge into someone's
home. Mhmm. If you're
That was weird.
Is that screen freezing for you guys too?
That was weird. You were a local police
officer. Yes, sir.
To bang down a door, barge into someone's
home,
if you're the FBI
or a local police officer, you need a
judicial warrant
from
a judicial officer,
a judge who is
going to find or
not probable cause Right. Which has a specific
meaning under the law.
These ICE agents
are banging down doors doing the same thing
without that kind of judicial warrant.
What is so different about ICE that it
regards itself
as an exception
to the Fourth Amendment? And the requirement for
a judicial warrant is a Fourth Amendment requirement.
So before he answers,
there is no answer to that. Right? Like,
you there I mean, well, in regard to
what they would make it legal,
they're acting
as if they are not bound by the
fourth amendment. Now whether you point to a
supreme court ruling, whether you were point to
a memo or Donald Trump's executive order, It
does not change the fact that it's a
constitutional
reality
where you could talk about Mabry versus Madison
and the reality of the Supreme Court more
than once has ruled that if it is
repugnant to the constitution,
whether law or not, it is null and
void. We are in a situation where our
government is so broken and so lost and
so manipulated that they're passing laws that are
completely contrary to the constitution. But if we
were in a place where we could be
honest, those would not be considered legal according
to the Supreme Court.
That's a reality.
So what he is talking about is the
fact that you're showing us that you don't
think you're bound by the Fourth Amendment. So
he's about to tell you why that is.
There is no correct answer. That's not allowed.
We do. We don't, senator.
We there is case law, US versus First
of all, he says we don't, and then
goes on to explain why he is. Lucas,
2007,
which is out of the 8th District Of
Minnesota,
which authorizes the entry of a home to
catch a fugitive No. Based on administrative warrant.
Nope. I beg your pardon, sir. It does
not
abrogate
the Fourth Amendment. And, look, even if it
did, it would be invalid.
That because that's the reality. This is what
we have to understand about the constitution. If
we believe as a collective
society that this is what we still, you
know, regard as our foundational document,
shall not be infringed. The reality that it
is not debatable, it's not some asterisk in
certain circumstances,
Whether national security or anything, fire in a
theater, it doesn't change these things if we're
being honest about it. And it's not about
only Americans because the government gave them to
you. It is about a group of people
that decided that we acknowledge this is what
human beings have a right to And it
will simply outline this for the world to
see, but we can only enforce it within
these boundaries in hopes that the rest of
the world would follow suit.
You don't just get to go, we made
this rule or pro wrote this paper, and
therefore, it's suit now if we all decide
that we don't care about the constitution anymore,
it's a different conversation.
I would argue as an individual, state, country,
or not, that I believe in those fundamental
rights whether or not you've written them down.
But the reality is as a collective, we
can decide to enforce that or not.
This is just where we are. This is
a slow incremental change, even really
rapidly happening now, but it's been slow over
a long period of time building to this
point. It does not say
that ICE agents or CPP agents
can simply bash down doors
and barge into people's homes, terrorize their children,
detain and arrest people without
a judicial warrant. And there is nothing different
about what ICE does as compared to the
FBI Right. Or local police that would justify
The policy
You you end up hearing Rand Paul. I
don't think he realized his microphone was on
just in case you wonder what that is.
Rand Paul speaking with a an aide or
something. It just kind of carries over the
microphone for a second.
That they're acting under, in fact, is the
result of a memo that you issued
in May. You guys are familiar with it.
Yes, sir. So it's important because what he
just did beside a case, which literally does
not make the argument in regard to the
fact that they can just ignore the four
what it does is talk about what I
said. It talks about the idea that if
you're going after a specific circumstance or a
specific case,
that if it's that person's home, then, yes,
then you have I still argue that's not
constitutional.
But that's that's not the case that you
can kick in anybody's door because you have
an a warrant administrative warrant that you made
for the person you're trying to go after
under the assumption they might be in that
home. Right? But what he's highlighting is the
memo that we've already told you about, we've
already discussed, that was written by Lyons that
is now being used as sort of like
the circumventing
all saying memo.
But they're they right now have
ICE documentation that contradicts almost everything in that
memo that is currently still there in their
in their files or in their their, you
know,
training materials.
But yet they're pointing to this one memo
because this is what's happening. You have one
group that's going screw everything else. We're going
this direction.
That's not what Americans want, guys. That regardless
of the claim of a mandate, that's not
because they're arguing
from point of constitutional value of law of
ever that's not what they're doing.
So he's pointing to this memo.
Guy or local police that would justify it.
The policy
that they're acting under, in fact, is the
result of a memo that you issued
in May. You're familiar with it. Yes, sir.
As your signature. To put Yes, sir. May.
Same timing as the Gabbard thing starting.
Don't think there's relevance there, but worth pointing
out. Says in effect, they don't need
judicial
warrants.
They can act on the basis of the
two zero five. Yep. That's what they wrote
down. So they're they're misleading them. So these
people think that they're acting within the law.
That's why you keep hearing them cite that.
Warrant that you've just described, which is administrative.
She's supposed to It's not
judicial. So let's let's talk more about Why
did you keep this memo secret?
I didn't keep that memo secret, sir. It
was blast notes. We learned about it when
They sent it to their people.
This is what he's
saying. They blasted it out to their people.
Yeah. But it was kept secret from Americans.
Yeah. Maybe you sent it to all everybody
in ICE or everybody associated with that, but
you're all in the same grouping that's all
keeping your you're all I mean, as a
team, it seems you're all standing against the
collective American will. The point regardless of that
is that this was not sent to Americans,
congressional people in congress until it was leaked.
So he you see what I'm saying? Like,
you he's being deceptive with these answers.
Line for a Judicial. So let's let's talk
more about it. Why did you keep this
memo secret?
I didn't keep that memo secret, sir. It
was blast notes. We learned about it when
two whistleblowers came to us Mhmm.
And said that you were using
it as a basis for
the policy.
It was never
announced publicly. It was never
released to Right. The press or the American
people.
Why did you keep it secret? Sorry. I
didn't keep it secret. If sending an email
to a workforce of 30,000 people is keeping
something secret, it's a bad secret. It What
a ridiculous argument. So your argument is that
because the rest of ICE that's told not
to talk about this and not to blast
it didn't do so, therefore, you didn't keep
a secret? I mean, that's the same thing
as Trump giving information to his executive team
and then acting like that's enough that we
told everybody, didn't we? No. You didn't tell
the American people, which is obviously what we're
talking about.
If the if you can't see by now
that this person at some level, they're choosing
to mislead you, then I don't think you
wanna pay attention to this. To reach those
people. Yes, sir. It did. Well, the the
the email did, sir. Yes, sir. See? So
what he just did right there, Blumenthal clearly
was saying these people, meaning American people, congress.
He was talking about the emails and to
his staff. He said it clearly didn't reach
these people. Lyons responded, yes. It did, in
regard to the email and his staff. They're
just misleading everybody. Who knows? Maybe that little
dance was coordinated. I don't know. Bottom line,
no accountability.
Rand Paul
discussing Freddy.
And the woman they shoved to the ground
and their their policies and, you know, their
deescalation tactics which cause violence.
You stated on Tuesday,
quote, no US citizen
is subject
Looks like I got these
mixed up.
This one
Ready. Ready.
Maybe I didn't clean let me just play
this. I mean, I forgot that maybe I
actually closed the tweet.
I do remember this one. This was actually
an important one.
You stated
on Tuesday,
quote, no US
citizen is subject to immigration enforcement,
and that doesn't happen. If a US citizen
is detained
in the course of the immigration investigation,
they are quickly
released.
I ask unanimous consent that a report that
we did,
ranking
member,
staff did,
entitled unchecked authority, it documents 22
US citizens being detained and assaulted
by immigration agents as well as written statements
from eight US citizens who have been detained,
shot at, and nearly killed by ICE agents
who came to see Without objection. Thank you.
So let's take George Reetz, for example. Reetz.
He's an army That's the army veteran I've
been discussing.
Now realize with what he just put forward,
imagine you responding with that's not happening.
That's what you're about to see.
Veteran, a father from California trying to go
to work. He said he was tear gassed
and held for three days Mhmm. Without
charges.
Or water. Is he lying?
Sir, I wasn't involved in that arrest, sir.
Were you
mistaken when you said that no US citizen
is subject to immigration enforcement? And for the
record,
they
ICE was involved
in plenty of ways that weren't directly worth
the people arresting him. I've I talked about
this already, but
it's obviously a repeating case that ICE has
been involved with, not just REITs, but all
a lot of these examples. You've seen them.
I've talked about them. You damn well know
he knows about them. So the question, though,
is you said not from ICE, but in
general, Americans are not subject to immigration immigration
enforcement. It's a true statement,
but they're doing it anyway. We understand. And
he knows that. So he's playing this game
where it's like, well, they're not subject to
it. We we all agree on that, but
you're doing it anyway.
No, sir.
Well, who involved in that arrest, sir? Were
you
mistaken when you said that no US citizen
is subject to immigration enforcement?
No, sir.
Well, who's lying? You or him?
Sir. You see one point point? Because you
can argue that no one is subject no
subject to it,
but then you can also point out that
ICE is doing it anyway.
That's you see, that's the game they're playing
because REITs did have this happen to him.
You know that. He knows that.
I'm speaking for the men and women of
ICE in my operation. I didn't arrest that
individual, sir. But the facts contradict what you
said. Will you admit that you don't know,
for example, about Alaya Raman, a disabled woman
from Minneapolis?
Many of them. She came to this hearing.
She testified
before
our spotlight.
And this was ICE. So too was Reitz
in the real big picture, but this was
directly Forum
violently dragged from her car. Also remember that
this what all the Democrats, excuse me, what
all the Republicans, the team sport player said,
what Nome and Bonnie, the terrorist, violent, radical
Democrat. That's what they did. And they were
lying.
Detained
without medical attention until she passed out. Is
she lying, or are you lying?
Medical
lying. Well, then you were mistaken when you
said no US citizen Right. Has been detained.
Right. And she realized that maybe he thought,
oh, well, they won't bring up the ICE
example.
Right? Well, here's one. No. No. She's not
lying. I'm aware of that case.
No, sir. I said no US citizen subject
to immigration law and deportation or removal. I
Does Well, that's a circular
argument. She wasn't subject to immigration law because
she's a US citizen, but she was detained.
Mhmm.
And that contradicts directly as And they've also
deported Americans
to children, but the point at the end
of the day is that it is happening
and Trump has threatened it many times.
But detaining and holding
and and there like I said, in the
beginning, there were many examples of US citizens
that were moments away from being deported had
the court not stepped in.
It's all there. As your statement applied to
Miramar
Martinez
who was Right. Almost killed,
shot seven times by
CPP
agents? Can argue you could argue being shot
is a little bit more extreme than being
arrested or detained. Right? It is true of
Diana Figueroa
who told us she was violently dragged from
her car after dropping her son at school,
thrown into a van, also detained. Is she
lying?
No, sir.
But, sir, you know, I've worked personally with
you on many cases when you come to
me with on constituents, especially in Connecticut when
I was a field officer in New England.
You know that I am transparent. We do
not lie.
I mean, it's just a dumb statement. You've
literally been lying. I've shown you examples of
you knowingly misrepresenting the truth.
But see, this is what they do. Well,
you know me, and I'm on. Okay. Well,
that means nothing.
You know, saying trust me
is not gonna the idea that just them
saying I'm not lying is supposed to be
enough when you can literally prove that they're
deceiving you.
So to say that we're lying is correct
to first whether you were mistaken
when you said
that no US citizen, I'm quoting, is subject
to immigration enforcement.
Correct, sir. Enforcement. Enforcement is an arrest removal.
I would call that misconduct
enforcement.
Well, so would anybody. When you're being arrested,
there's no gay he's playing game. That's my
point. Call it a lie. Call it aggressive
dishonesty. Whatever you wanna do. Manipulation,
sidestepping the truth. He's not being honest here.
I think that's self evident. Now here
are a couple of shows we did about
this in general. This one was about the
beginning and, you know, them repeatedly lying about
detaining them and deporting them. But detaining was
the big part of this. And we're talking
about US citizens. You can ask Rock. It'll
tell you. No. They've lied numerous times about
it. But I guess it doesn't matter. You
can look up the evidence for yourself. You
can look at the court documents I share
in this show. They are lying. No woman,
Bond, they'll stand up there and straight face
lied right to you look right in your
eyes and say, that didn't happen.
Everything's targeted. No. They're not. Here's an example
that people don't remember.
From May 2025, an amendment that was put
forward explicitly
stopping deportation of US citizens was voted down.
Yeah. That speaks for itself, and we just
can't seem to break through what our congress
really is in this country.
There's Rand Paul, what I was gonna play
about,
the
the tactics of de escalation.
So there were people who said and they
were part of the government. I don't think
they were in a view, but part of
DHS and part of the administration
said that, yes, the officers were using de
escalation tactics.
Nobody believes that. Alright? No. I'm just gonna
stipulate that. You don't I don't even need
your view on that. No one in America
believes shoving that woman's head in the face
in the snow was deescalation.
But your officers
need to know That sink in. They were
they were had a verbal encounter with them.
This is why my point about, like, honest
conservatives, which I believe is the majority, are
are
done playing this game.
Everybody
can see that. Now you can lie if
you want. You can pretend they're all
domestic terrorists and they tried to kill them,
or you can be honest with yourself. I'd
like to believe most Americans are on that
second category. I think we can prove that
right now. But him coming out and go,
look. Nobody believes that.
Hopefully, that reaches some of the ones that
might have been on that fence because they're
more, you know,
susceptible, I guess, to the team sport politics
because they wanna be a part of the
group. Nobody believes it, guys. They're lying to
you. Not just because Rand Paul said it,
but I agree with it. I said the
same thing before this. She did not place
her hands on the officers.
She wasn't trying to get their weapon.
It's not great. I mean, I don't I
don't like to see these encounters either. But
is it appropriate for the officers to respond
to a verbal,
barrage of words or whatever? Is it proper,
to physically throw a woman down or to
throw anyone down? If the only action is
verbal, no. Okay. That's what I wanna hear.
Right.
Correct, sir. Same answer. Alright. Right. There you
go, guys. Cut and dry. How much you
wanna bet these people get somehow reprimanded by
Trump or somebody like that? Because this makes
them look like they are.
Dishonest,
deceptive,
lying to
you. They just made it clear. So what
you just saw in that video that they
stood up and collectively defended, they all just
admitted was completely illegitimate.
There's really no one misunderstanding this, guys. It's
very simple. So maybe you can argue that
it's only the inner circle of executive branch
that are ruining it. Maybe. But acknowledge that
all of them are basically collecting, colluding
to deceive you.
And I'm not talking about you you, conservatives,
Republicans.
The very people. He they're lying to you
about the way this is going down.
Now this is an interesting one.
This is I'm not familiar with, Kyle Clark.
Looks like it's,
channel nine news. But he goes over a
case that we've already discussed.
And what just what clearing the frog points
out, which I agree with. He says, I
wasn't able to follow the hearing. We're just
showing you some clips from it. But have
any members of congress grilled DHS and ICE
about their surveillance
state software that is confident,
confidently giving them bad intelligence and resulting in
the situations across the country?
If you think about it, I I I
maybe it was, but I didn't see it.
I didn't watch the whole thing.
But I'd be surprised if they did because
none of them want that to be real.
I think they all support that. The Israel
Palantir
invasive surveillance
control grid network being built around you right
now.
So think about that
because that matters. Right? That's all illegal. You're
spying on Americans illegally, but weirdo none of
them seem to care about that. But this
is a a,
report.
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told Congress today
that local law enforcement in Colorado leaked word
of a raid, allowing gang members to clear
out the apartments. So it's kind of the
reverse story about the you know, we're saying,
did you tell them about the meetings and
the green card meetings? So he comes in
and claims, and this is interesting, goes back
to Aurora and the apartment building. That's all
remember when that that's one of the original
places this conversation started. Trinidad Arugua and all
the terror. Okay. Well, guess what? They lied
about most of that.
There's clear examples of gang activity, but I
proved it to you at the time, and
you could look back and study for yourself.
They they the buildings were dilapidated. They were
already basically gonna be there's a whole story
about what was going on there. And yes,
there was tons of criminal activity, but the
reality was they were already being kicked out,
people were already being told to leave.
And with the claim about the Turin De
Arago hotbed turned out to itself be a
lie based on the numbers themselves. But remember
this because they lied about this entire thing,
and they used it to do whatever you
think they did here, basically, in one part,
just to scare Americans into place.
The head of president Trump's deportation force is
making quite the accusation
that one of their operations in Colorado failed
because local law enforcement tipped off their targets.
Acting ICE director Todd Lyons made that claim
at a congressional hearing today. Which wouldn't surprise
me for a couple reasons. One being that
if you believe they're breaking the law, then
you I mean, like, pull yourself out of
the situation.
If you're a
Republican, right, let's just say you're you're, you
know, I'm just saying Trump's administration, and and
you
will let's try make turn away and make
it easy, like, apolitical.
The bottom line is that if you are
in a position of power in in in
government and you recognize that another you're in
the state and you recognize somebody higher up
is shockingly violating the law. Now don't put
yourself in this position because you're gonna take
a side. Just think about a Democrat. Okay?
An evil Democrat in the in Biden's administration
breaking the law in spectacular ways, but they
give you a direction and you choose to
go, well, I'm gonna ignore that
because I believe they're breaking the law. What
would you do? Would you side with the
person calling out the crime? See, it matters
when you frame it in a way that
is, you know, it it becomes the partisan
game.
If you cannot acknowledge that ICE in
spectacular
ways are breaking the law every day, then
you're not an honest person. That doesn't mean
all of them are dishonest or you can
the agenda necessarily is a bad thing. They
are lying to you, though, and we can
see that. So the bigger picture force is
making quite the act. Local law director Todd
Lyons made that claim. About the local enforcement
basically
revealing to the local people this was about
to happen.
I think that's a valid point to consider.
If if you believe they're breaking the law,
then why it's just sort it's sort of
like a whistleblower divulging government things. If they're
proving they broke the law, that's not supposed
to be a crime. Right? I mean, this
really does matter. But it turns out in
the at the core, it wasn't even real
in the first place. That the allegation turned
out to be more so these people were
already leaving. But I wanna point out that
even if they did tell them ahead of
time, it doesn't seem to be
as cons as as to the level they're
trying to make it because we know what
they're doing is against the law. I mean,
they they're not presenting warrants. They're identifying themselves
in most of the cases that I can
see.
I'm at a congressional hearing today as as
Democrats push back on aggressive ICE tactics in
the streets of America cities. The Trump administration
has been threatening to punish cities and states
that won't help them enforce immigration law. Many
Democrat led jurisdictions
don't cooperate.
And Well, there is a very clear conversation
to be had about states' rights that is
important. And if, if you understand the constitution
supersedes the federal government enforcement. But
on top of that, if you're talking about
something that we if you it should be
argued and discussed and debated. But if you
argue the law is illegal, unconstitutional,
some of them believe that, then there is
a conversation to be had there too. It's
not as cut and dry as Trump said.
They have to do what they're told.
You if that's the case, then welcome to
your authoritarian team.
The head of ICE said that law enforcement
in Colorado
actually sabotaged them.
When it comes to issues like cooperation,
low at the local state level, again,
ICE does do that, but so many times
I'll give you the example of Aurora Carlotta.
We were going to serve a criminal warrant
on an apartment complex of known TDA cameras
that was full. They say that. The evidence
has never backed that up. This was literally
and I I wouldn't be surprised if these
people are being are being manipulated by the
ridiculous Nick Sorter types out there or Nick
Shirley. Well, they're dumping out these false reports
that they then use to actually go I
mean, or they're using it in line. Got
it. Remember that the information was not actually
the picture that they were presenting. It was
not some Trandere Rauber one. They lied about
that. I proved it at the time. But
also that there was a long standing reality
of specifically Trandere Rauber criminal activity in the
area.
And some cases probably overlapped within the building,
but the truth was that it was a
bay The whole thing was I mean, actually,
I think they show pictures in here. It's
it's disgusting.
It's a dilapidated building that people were abusing.
At the end of the day, there's a
whole other level to what was going on
there. I think Trump's administration chose to use
that like everything else we're seeing. We tried
to work with state and local government. They
made notifications. We were that the operations are
ongoing.
So when tactical teams arrived,
protesters were already there, and the apartment complex
was empty. Well, let's also realize that they've
been talking about these complexes forever.
It's not like that was a secret. But
whether it was on the day, you can
argue that they did let them know if
that's what you believe.
Here's the story on that. Several apartment buildings
targeted by ICE in Aurora were nearly empty
at the time of the raids last year,
but that was a process that had started
weeks before agents showed up in Aurora. But
you can In January, the city declared several
buildings at the edge at Lowry Complex a
public safety risk. Right. Now that's a part
that people leave out because they wanna make
it about the fact that it was all
just the gang activity. No. This was something
that they were trying to get these people
out of the way.
Been notorious for violent crime and code violations.
Tenants
were told to move out before ICE came
to raid the property. ICE showed up on
February 5, two weeks before the apartment buildings
were set to close.
ICE said that they had hoped to arrest
a 100 plus gang members in Aurora that
day after president Trump had falsely claimed the
city had been conquered by a Venezuelan gang.
A Fox News crew embedded with ICE that
day reported only 30 arrests.
The administration at first blamed the news media
for leaking the operation, but didn't provide evidence.
We reached out to ICE to ask which
law enforcement agency they're now blaming for the
leak, and we have yet to hear back.
Right. So wouldn't it be easy to prove
which one did it? See what this seems
to be to me, which is pretty obvious,
I think, is that they went into this
maybe because they bought into this, the false
intelligence like I was talking about from their
own people lying to everybody. Whatever the reason
they went in
and didn't find what they wanted.
Right? They was they didn't rest who they
thought was gonna be there. They didn't have
this grand showing. And as it turns out
that even the thirty day arrested, even the
entirety of this entire administration since 2025 forward,
we show you how many people they've actually
indicted or and actually got have in charges
in regard to Trans de Aragua. You won't
be surprised. But, before we get to that,
if somebody breaks in the chat, like, they
thought this was from Biden's administration. That's my
point is it was. This has been ongoing
for a long time, but it folded over
into Trump. This it's sort of like the
Somalia, a lot of these conversations. These things
have been there. They've been already engaged with.
They just decide to jump on them because
they're not it's not something that most people
were aware of before they made this big
political game and used Twitter to make it
a big thing.
Wait. I was gonna I was gonna say
oh, yeah. This is what I was gonna
show you. So what's interesting is the the
first of all, the larger argument where these
people were already removed and told to leave
before they ever went there. Now whether they
didn't know that or not, whether they thought
they would be able to lie about this,
who's to say? But what's interesting is here's
what Grock had to say. All of the
of all the arrests in Trump's second term,
all of them,
how many were later proven to be trendy
or arrogant members? Not even the ones they
claimed they were going for. Just in general,
even accidentally arresting them. Right? Well, it says,
independent investigations such as the one by New
York Times in May 2025 have found that
in the sample of 238
Venezuelans deported,
deported as alleged Trende Rago members under the
Alien Enemies Act. Remember that? Still there. Never's
gonna go away now. Only a handful had
any verifiable connection to the gang.
Many arrests and deportations appear to involve alleged
rather than confirmed members, with official members often
including those with possible ties rather than proven
affiliations.
Great. So it's okay to burst into people's
homes in Chicago in the middle of the
night or the allegation, the crime, the suspect.
Remember, they didn't find one person. What they
said they got one, it turned out to
not be an actual transgender rival member in
Chicago when they zip lined down from the
street, flashbangs in babies' cribs. All that's real.
Why? Just to scare everybody? Are they just
that incompetent? I don't know which one's more
scary.
Here's what's crazy. Of the oh, and it
says, right here was, they over 260
members have been federally indicted. Now remember, that's
just an accusation
based on some evidence, but it's just an
accusation. That means they're claiming that.
Of the 260 indicted, how many were later
found guilty?
Of the 260
federal indictments, the alleged Trende Arago members since
January 2025 have resulted in relatively few confirmed
convictions or guilty pleas. Well, what do you
know? Funny how that continually seems to be
the case,
But trust the team. Right? Trust the plan,
guys. Well, here's an example of a marine
who was separated from her two young kids.
She was at her final immigration interview like
we keep telling you, and she waited five
years to get there when agents burst in,
arrested her right in the middle.
In her meeting,
quote, I serve the country and, you know,
I would have thought the country would serve
us. We followed everything to a tee, do
things the right way,
and this is what happened.
Here here's the this is the,
the husband or the I believe it was
the husband.
I served the country, you know, and,
you know,
I would think that the country would serve
us in this instance.
A marine veteran pleading for help after ICE
agents arrested his wife during an interview to
get her green card. Good afternoon. Thanks for
staying with us at 04:30. I'm Denise Valdez.
I'm Kirsten Joyce. That woman came to The
US from Europe eighteen years ago seeking political
asylum. Eight News Now reporter Joshua Peguero joins
us in the studio. He spoke with her
husband as well as her attorney. Joshua?
Now Diana Butnarczyk left the Eastern European country
of Moldova for a better life. She has
two kids, works,
and is also married to a military veteran,
but she now sits in the Henderson ICE
detention center with her family and friends desperate
to get her out.
She's never been in jail or anything like
that. So, again, this is a brand new
thing for her. Patrick Baja says his wife
followed the law. I totally understand, you know,
policies and rules and all that. And, again,
that's why we we followed everything to a
tee when it came to the process.
And, you know, as a as a marine
veteran, you know, I I I just
would like the help. On Wednesday, Baja, his
wife, and their attorney were in an immigration
interview they waited five years for when the
tone quickly changed. Five minutes into the
interview,
I came into the room and
arrested her.
Why is that even something that makes sense
to anybody? Why why would you you know?
And let's be clear. This is not them,
like, I don't think, coordinating this to set
the meeting up, to get them while they're
there. If that's the case, that's just
vicious.
But but but the idea being that if
they have a reason to arrest these people,
why wouldn't they arrest them anywhere else? And
why would you try I mean, they're going
through the legal process.
And this is the worst of the worst.
Somebody who is not doing anything wrong, who
happens to be married to a marine, who
is literally going through the legal process. You
know, I just it's it's painful that anybody
tries to pretend like this is not exactly
what we're all talking about. This is
the the dismantling of this country in before
our eyes.
It's pretty crazy to me.
As crystal ball points out,
our tax dollars are going to imprison his
wife, the wife of a marine, and separate
her from her children.
Before we get to this incredible story, let
me play this clip. I think I might
have missed this one. I think I remember
I said I I might have missed one
in the the tweets. Xander Preddy. He's filming,
in the middle of the street. We see
two women
that are, as you watch the video,
jawboning, complaining, protesting, yelling,
maybe not being nice, but they're protesting the
weather. Let's keep the videos stopped.
And so my question, to mister Scott first
is
is yelling at,
ICE officers or border patrol, is that a
form of domestic assault on the officers?
No, sir.
Mister Lyons?
No, sir. It's not. K.
Is filming of ICE or border patrol
either an assault or a crime in any
way, mister Scott? No, sir. Mister Lyons? No,
sir.
Let's, roll up. Go ahead. And this, gentlemen,
is why
Trump hates Rand Paul and Thomas Massie.
Because that just made them look ridiculous. Right?
The the the two people, the authorities on
this point, that that Trump and Noem specifically
have argued they're all terrorists and that they
literally are pointing them screaming at them. And
Noem even said that that's an act like,
that's where he gets that phrase from, claiming
that screaming at them is violent. You got
you got Republicans out there saying that now.
The very ones who were thirty seconds ago
telling you about all the constitutional rights the
Democrats were violating.
It's wild, guys. And it's obviously the right
point. They are allowed to film. They are
allowed to yell and call them names and
do whatever they want. Nazi, fascist, whatever. You
can call them what you want because that's
free speech.
And the game they play is that they
point to I mean, realistically, they just simply
go, they're all violent. Therefore, what that person
does is leading to it. That is the
same game they've been playing everywhere else on
the other side, that words are violence.
Bani told you that. You even using Charlie
Kirk because that's how ridiculous they are, Even
though Kirk said literally the opposite.
So this story
is just the the icing just the the
cherry on top. I mean, it's just, like,
a bad analogy because that's a positive thing.
It's just incredible to me.
See a a border patrol officer
faces federal charges over allegations that he harbored
an unauthorized immigrant
who was also his girlfriend
and also his niece.
Not a joke. This is from yesterday.
US Customs and Border Protection, Border Protection officer
is facing federal criminal charges over the allegation
that he harbored an immigrant who officials say
is in the country illegally
and is also his girlfriend and niece.
Wilkerson
allegedly provided her, quote, financial support, including housing,
credit cards, assistance with financial obligations, and access
to vehicle, the justice department said. The criminal
complaint states they traveled together through border protect
patrol checkpoints near the Degas border. He literally
smuggled her into the country,
if this is correct. And it appears to
be based on the reporting that I can
see. And what's crazy to me so we're
talking about a person involved with this process,
not every single one of them, but by
and large, who are treating people in in
in the in a fraction of this kind
of action, like the most alarming terrorist on
the planet with full violence.
And here they are doing it themselves. I
mean, look, I can show you examples of
the ICE agents stealing from people, getting caught
with their vehicles after they're deported. I mean,
there's no accountability in this, and that's why
this is happening. Because you're demonstrating
whether it's might makes right or only they're
bad, and we can do what we want
because we're aiming at the Democrat. Whatever it
is. And this is what starts to happen.
That's insane and disgusting.
On top of that, right, as you already
saw, this is wired, expanding across The US
at breakneck speed. With what we're talking about,
this is not only it's not only not
slowing down, even though they kind of floated
that for a minute, it is blowing up
across this country.
And realize, it's when you're this broken
with no guidance, one memo, and complete lawlessness,
the last thing you should be doing is
rapidly expanding.
But that's actually the point.
Because they're trying to get this done before
we can stop that. That's what I feel
from this.
Now, Drop Site News highlights Raskin, who I,
like all the rest of them, are left
right politicians who I should don't think anybody
should trust.
But he says he exercises right to look
at the information.
And I'll just read directly from what Dropsite
News says. Says he conducted an unannounced oversight
visit to the ICE facility and found conditions
that were disgraceful.
60 men
crammed shoulder to shoulder in a room for
twenty four seven with one toilet, no showers,
aluminum foil blankets for sleeping. We've heard all
this from numerous people.
So whether he believe him or not, we
can secondarily verify this with tons of people
who were there. US veterans included.
Despite a $75,000,000,000
budget under Christiano.
He describes the treatment as inhumane. Raskin said
he's demanding immediate answers. You know what I
think is driving this? Because this is what
Israel does as well.
Now you may find that to be an
irrelevant point. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's maybe
it's just because they're also this disgusting. But
Israel and Ben Gavir have made a point
to make sure people that are Palestinians are
suffering in their presence. He may literally stated
that. Whether it's the caloric manipulation, calories, or
whether we're talking about the space or what
they give them, he says he wants them
to suffer.
So here we are, dealing with terrorists, we're
told, like the same way they deal with
Palestinians,
and you're treating them like you like, not
they they want them to suffer. That's the
mindset. So you with despite $75,000,000,000,
you create situations where they're suffering and then
act like it's just
because Biden and everyone that came in.
We're talking about vile people here, guys. Horrible,
disgusting, unconstitutional,
un American people.
And here, Mike Johnson comes in and says,
you know what? They should be spared the
spared the hassle
of getting a judicial warrant
before entering private homes.
Yeah. Keep fighting for the Constitution, guys.
Mike Johnson
wants you to believe that for their convenience,
we should just let ICE kick your front
door in in case they think there's something
going on.
Justin Amash says the constitution isn't optional, but
that's what they're trying to do. Right? The
point of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement is
to hassle the government, guys. That's the point.
It's supposed to be difficult to search and
arrest people. Not that it's a it's not
a bug. It's a feature of our American
Republic.
Who knows for how long if that's even
still the case?
Department of State.
Organizations like Code Pink, they write,
and the People's Forum
denigrate The United States,
whitewash the violence of Marxist regimes,
and run cover for narcoterrorists
like Maduro. Guys, they're talking about an activist
organization in this country, whatever you think about
them, who has every right to be doing
what they're doing, who's acting in legal ways,
and you can quite literally prove that. They
are calling them terrorists.
This is a whether you think so or
not, this is a major jump right now.
He's been floating this about abstract things. He's
made allegations. He's aimed at American citizens more
than once, but he is pointing out a
left group specifically and saying not not even
like a Hamas anti like, even though they
will make that argument argument
like they do with Palestinians in general, my
point is. But they're this is Donald Trump's
administration saying this group who is acting within
the constitution
are narcoterrorists like Maduro. It says while enjoying
an influx of cash from a donor network
with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that
they're claiming about this group.
So what are you saying? Are they breaking
the law or not, Donald Trump? What are
you doing? Are you saying that these totally
not illegal things are suddenly I mean, how
much you wanna bet that most of what
they're pointing to is not even valid?
My point is regardless of that, if you
wanna make a case that they're breaking the
law, then do so. Otherwise, this is you
trying to legal like, illegally create the pathway
to
go after Americans for acting within their rights
because you don't like what they're pointing to,
like Khalil, like Ozturk, like everything we're seeing
right now. This should be chilling.
Whether you're a Democrat or not, guys, this
should be chilling. It's the same thing you
saw Biden do with truckers, a convoy, whatever.
It's the same group.
It just this this worries me. It really
does. Because based on this logic, they can
now do what? Just secretly grab them in
the night and deport them somewhere because they're
terrorists.
That's how quickly this can happen, guys. We
need to call this out.
Now here's Rand Paul, who just did an
interview with Derrick Rose.
You might be interested to hear what he
has to say about the authoritarian Trump administration.
The the areas that I think is is
most troublesome for me as somebody who does
value civil liberties and freedom of speech
is the, the response what I would consider
an authoritarian response that Donald Trump has used,
via ICE.
Obviously, I know that there's there's there's debate
within libertarianism itself on what the correct libertarian
position is on borders and how it handled
that. We'll set that aside for the moment.
But I do think that there is this
sense of a a rising just like last
time you told me, you know, when Trump
was elected, we were coming off the heels
of the cultural Marxism
and the progressive, you know, movement under Biden,
and Trump offered potentially
a bit of hope to some people. And
now it seems like we're seeing the counter
to that, which in my view is a
sort of nationalistic authoritarianism.
Again, some of it relating to the border,
but also Trump ignoring you know, basically saying
he can ignore the courts, different socialist policies
like buying stake in American companies.
What are your general thoughts on that? I
mean, I know you already said you're disappointed
with Trump, but more specifically, do you see
a streak of authoritarianism
under Donald Trump, maybe almost the mirror image
that we saw from the Biden administration? Or
how do you how do you see that?
At the beginning of Trump running, I think
it was in '16,
I was asked by an interviewer on national
television
what I thought. I I he says and
it was a friendly interview. He said, and
why aren't you supporting him? I said and
my simple answer was, I I said, I
I think he's an authoritarian.
And,
that says a whole lot. That means he,
as an individual,
should sit all,
you know,
set up all the rules and laws rather
than saying I've made a commitment to our
moral principle
of natural law and to follow our constitution.
So that's a lot different, and I think
that's that is what has happened.
And,
unfortunately,
you know, I I think
even though we had some good answers when
he he would talk about this, I think
it's, you know, on the wrong the wrong
way because I think the principle of protecting
civil liberties
is,
is not not going well.
And, this this whole thing about what's happening
with immigration,
I think it is complex. And I think,
I I don't I don't think I've heard
one simple
answer that says, this is,
this is the libertarian answer. You might find
that easier in a gold, you know, and
and monetary policy that you can't counterfeit money
or something like that. But, I think that,
the the the way this is going is
that the people are going to, you know,
continue to rebel
against this, and we have to try to
mold that into something that is much more
positive. Yes. See? Telling you, you know, Ron
Paul has been one of those consistent people
politically at at principles. I mean, it's just
crazy. And he's simply calling it out. And
there's a reason peep they the system doesn't
really want you to recognize what he's doing.
Because the same reason with that is a
long term
consistency.
You know? And that challenges everything in front
of you in the partisan game. Right? That's
not supposed to be possible. And he's simply
highlighting the reality and where we are. Right?
And the idea that he's seeing the same
thing of people rebelling against this left and
right. And it's our job to try, all
of us, every one of us, to try
to mold this into something that is actually
positive change because that's what's happening right now.
It's happened many times over the years where
there is some momentary
momentum, and then they grab it.
They queue in on it. They rushigate it.
Right? They do whatever they they they hold
you back into the system. It's what they
need.
I've never seen it like it is today.
Maybe that's just because I didn't live through
past examples. Right? But it's now. It's happening,
guys.
Now I'm I'm pretty much gonna leave it
there for today. My plan again is to
have a show tomorrow. But, again, it's it's,
based on a couple of factors since my
my like I've said recently, I don't know
if I announced it in one of the
last shows, but I'm planning to try to
do sort of a five, four, five day
stretch. And then within that, maybe one of
the days, maybe not to add to it,
like interviews.
And then I have AM wake up on
Tuesdays, and that might count as one of
them. But then have, like, a couple days
in a row off so you guys can
count on that continuous reporting. And then I
I can have, you know, the days to
try to, like, break away and not get
over invested in certain things. You know, I
think it's important for propaganda.
But in saying that, my point is that
right now, I'm still trying to kind of,
you know, organize the background. So my that's
my plan so far. But and I'm I'm
hoping to get it to a point to
where it's, like, outside of an emergency, completely
consistent. I think that's important. You know, I've
we got you guys have always asked me
of this, and I've told you it's important
for me to have the, you know, the
timing around it. But, you know, I'm at
a point where despite
the freedom to try to, like, gather throughout
the day and not aim at a certain
time, I'm not gonna give it a specific
time to when the show will start. But
I do I've always agreed, and I do
think it's more important now than ever to
give you guys that consistency. So you know
where it's gonna be. You can plan for
it, you know, other than just catching it
whenever it pops up on the stream. Right?
So that's my plan. So that's the ultimate
goal. So today, I'm gonna wrap right here
for the most part, but I wanna give
you a couple of examples of what the
what we'll get into in the next in
the, the next show, likely tomorrow.
And this was some Epstein stuff and some
Israel stuff that will and maybe I'll end
with one of those clips. But we discussed
this. Don't miss this. It it came out
in,
you know, pretty much mainstream reporting later that
day. Trump admin caught monitoring individual Epstein search
history in congress,
and so spying on congressional investigation
through Epstein files. As well as us, by
the way, I truly think that we're being
monitored whatever we look at pretty much anywhere,
but specifically through that.
But new emails coming out that are literally
saying that, you know, Epstein to Bill Gates
going, hey. In this is 2016, Trump's administration
saying come to visit the island. New administration
people coming.
Maybe it means Trump? Maybe it means even
Agosta, for all we know. Who knows? But
important. And we're gonna go more in-depth to
this. Bannon arguing, or rather discussing, with Jeffrey
Epstein about why maybe Trump should launch a
foreign intervention. You know, just to unite everybody.
Yeah, guys. We live in a cartoon. We
live in a in a construct.
It is not real. We're being manipulated. And
I don't mean in the sense that it's
not all you know, they're real people. People
are dying. But we're being manipulated. You know
what I mean? Like, that's just casually referring
to with Jeffrey Epstein about why Trump should
start, and this is when Bannon was in
there. Start a foreign intervention to, you know,
bring up morale. That's not even new to
their administration. That's a long term government thing.
Ask Netanyahu. But more emails we'll get to
that I think are important.
Allegations about bodies being buried that point to
the emails that we already showed you. In
fact, literally important ones about these email links
to videos that we can't check, but they
claim that they have all the evidence to
all the terrible things. And now it's coming
out that the person
literally
from New Mexico the New Mexico Commissioner of
Public Land, Stephanie Garcia Richard, is calling for
this to come out because she's the one
that actually reported this a while ago, it
seems. And now because the Epstein files came
out, she's going, look. That's right there. Like,
I reported that back then, and nobody did
anything.
That's what she's saying. It's to my knowledge,
no investigation has taken place thus far. Remember,
the email
is talking about this guy saying, look, this
isn't this is serious. They're killing people. They're
burying their dead bodies. These two women were
were basically killed during rough Spanish sex and
then buried at Zorro Ranch. Here's the videos.
So my point is, this is something that
she was aware of, called it out, exposed
this, and they never investigated.
And that mean that goes for Cash Patel
and this administration too, guys.
We'll go into this in-depth.
Lauren Bulwark
calling out the torture in the files that
that they're claiming aren't there.
Terrifying language, emails about torture, consumption, the cannibal
restaurant, women claiming involved in tragic sex sex
trafficking. These are things that are on the
emails that we haven't seen.
He realized, I mean, this is not going
away, guys. They have lost this control.
Whitney saying, tried to tell you guys that
he was lying about it a few years
ago. Elon Musk appears in his latest trove.
He previously denied any involvement, but now it's
being shown that he did. We know this
if you're paying attention. Whitney called it out
a long time ago. Mohammed Safa from the
UN.
He yesterday, e he Elon Musk, this was,
on the twelfth, so the eleventh, He says,
Elon Musk joined my call for a global
revolution over the Epstein files.
But then he respond he he responded to
Elon Musk because he's always been censored by
him and says, well, you'll be included in
my upcoming report to the Human Rights Council
on Epstein files and complicity in Gaza through
Starlink.
And then, because Elon's totally all about free
speech, he flagged his account, and all of
his posts have been directly null and void.
And he says, can you please do whatever
you can? Let him see. So the point
is, Elon Musk censored him because he said
like, I think Elon Musk is on this
desperate effort to make it look like he's
leading the charge to expose this. And the
moment the guy goes, well, you're included, he
blocks him or whatever, censor just presses the
account. That's what this is like on a
free speech platform that's run by people who
don't care about free speech.
Norway
actually has charged their p the, a prime
minister with gross corruption.
Former, excuse me, former prime minister for the
Epstein files released in The United States.
In The United States, however,
there seems to be nothing happening.
Everyone
sees this.
Nine twenty nine Epstein Associates were shielded by
the government, says Maxwell. Now she's trying to
get them to give her a pardon because
she says that they're not doing anything wrong.
This she's throwing anything at the wall, it
seems. But recognize that she said this before
she was having to fight for a pardon.
And the Bondi thing, it's just embarrassing. They're
on this clip going, Bondi did so well.
She knocked it out of the park, which
is just so embarrassingly not true. Here's an
example of somebody trying to tell you that
Bondi played this like QAnon style to get
them to trap themselves.
Hate to break it to you, mister Poole.
Bondi is not that smart. And even if
somebody coached her, she wouldn't be able to
play it out. And frankly, that's not what
happened. But keep grasping at that hopium, you
know? The end of the day, they've always
been lying to you. Here she is going,
we're fighting to stop human trafficking, and now
she covers up human trafficking.
And Tim Pool,
Alex Jones,
Luke Radowski,
James O'Keefe, whether more, Patrick Bet David, O'Keefe's
kinda calling him out, are all up there
going, yeah. We see it finally. I can't
this is Tim going, you know, we gotta
call him out. Welcome to the team, bud.
Well, I shouldn't even say that. Welcome to
actually not being dishonest. The crazy thing is
these people have been trying to lie to
you the entire time, literally trying to gaslight
you. And now finally, because it's so obvious
that they even have to go, okay. Now
it's he's talking about the Wexner
redaction. Now that we know they've redacted the
co conspirators, now we have to call them
out. Oh, you mean aside from the other
700,000
things that were just as bad? You complete,
complete hypocrite.
You fraud.
All of you.
Here, Alex Jones is doing the same thing.
I wasn't aware Howard Lutnick visited the island.
So why is Trump protecting the Democrat party
who were all oh, finally, Alex. Now you
wanna go, why is Trump covering up? You
mean aside from the 100,000
examples that have been here since yesterday,
But now and how much you wanna bet
he doesn't even this is what he does.
He might be the bad guy and then
spends all day telling you why you should
support him.
Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic. Here's Luke Rudowski going,
and Trump this is what Trump said. I
wasn't aware Lotnik was on the island even
though you know he's seen everyone talking about
it. And Luke says, who is denying Trump
info?
Really?
I said he's lying, bud.
He's lying. Come on, man. Now could we
not get past the he's lying to you.
But who's so he Trump is a you
know, it's always Trump's like this bumbling fool.
I don't know what's happening, but yet he's
also fighting a deep state, and we're all
gonna win.
Patrick Beck David said, the Epstein files have
been the biggest black eye.
Welcome to finally calling it out. All these
people are suddenly going, no, we see it.
And watch as they get a flood of
support from the middle ground that think, oh
my, finally. You know, they're they've been the
ones lying to you. Don't give them that
bone.
House Republicans announced they're investigating the Bad Bunny
Super Bowl performance.
Right? Don't worry, guys.
They're clearly focusing on the really important stuff.
Okay? You still talking about Epstein?
Donald Trump, 2025
and 2026.
But we're gonna investigate the bad language on
the Spanish. I mean, really?
Come on, guys. Like, you're gonna get the
smallest amount of investment from people that are
like, Yeah, Democrats suck. That is dwindling because
they're children. And the majority of us, whether
you agree with that or wanna dunk on
or not, care a little bit more about
the truth
and the constitution,
you know, and stop him kinda file. You
know, just a little bit more. But the
crazy thing is they're hoping that's gonna do
something. I mean, it's just embarrassing. Like, literally
think about this. You have them starting an
investigation into bad bunny performance, but not Epstein,
but not Palantir surveillance, but not anything that's
happening. He's just
it's pathetic.
And I'll go into some more of this
in future. Al Jazeera did a good clip
about Palantir and the investment.
We have The US Israel Futures Act that
they're all investing in, which basically becomes the
future of the technocratic control structure overlap with
I mean, it just it's not even
border line slowing down. So I think what
I'll do is this I I use this
clip to start. I'll end with,
this one. I was gonna end again with
the Ron Paul clip. Maybe, actually, I'll do
that instead. We'll get to this tomorrow.
These are I mean, what's funny is, again,
same point, actually. This is Sean Ryan.
You know, the CIA Sean Ryan guy that
got caught lying to you with these fake
emails. But here we are breaking down the
truth about Israel, even though you've been basically
trying to gaslight us for that. There's a
whole thing happening right now where people, like
I keep saying, are gonna eventually go, I
was always calling it out like they did
in COVID. Because it's the the the cat's
out of the bag, guys. There's no going
back. So they need to start pretending like
they always saw it because that's how the
game is played. But this is a guy
making great points.
What lists off literally everything you've seen on
the show a thousand times, but it's good
to see it in a two minute clip
where he breaks down all the reasons Israel
controls this country.
Same thing here as this guy basically just
shows the '20 the 2025,
I think. I forget when this was, but
this is not the very recent one, I
don't think. Either way, it happens every time.
Netanyahu comes in the room and the entirety
of the US Congress gives him a standing
ovation for five minutes and then does it
again. That's wild committing genocide. Right? So if
you if you didn't see the beginning,
here's Ron Paul to end
telling you why that is. And this is
not a new clip. This has been going
on.
I mean, frankly, as long as I've been
doing this, it's been something you could see.
Today, it feels as if that game, you
know, it's
it's
all the way over. You know, that this
is something that has gone beyond just an
influence game that has gone to, like, a
breaking down of this country or basically just
unabashedly fighting for Israel policy even though Americans
are screaming America first. But I'll leave you
with this. Thank you for tuning in today.
Keep fighting, guys. I mean, you're making a
difference. I know you can feel that as
much as it feels dark, feels, you know,
by design. So you stop pushing.
Don't stop pushing.
Fight for the
truth. Not calling for violence. Go out there
and expose these things because you're making a
difference and people are seeing it. These things
are incremental, guys, and it is changing. We
just need to stay the course.
Maintain, right, principles, integrity. Do not fall into
the partisanship.
Thank you for tuning in, guys. I love
you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Oh, wait. Forgot this. Sorry.
Last clip. Alright. Join Ron Paul. He is
legend. Oh, there's been a coup
that take a we don't have any resemblance,
to a government that believes in a republic.
We don't have honest money. We don't have
integrity. We don't even have people in Washington
that even pretends,
you know, that you're supposed to tell the
truth. But I do believe there has been
a coup, and it's been taken over. And
if I want to if I can, I
wanna just put the date in my mind,
and you anybody could pick probably any date
in the last hundred year? But I picked,
I have picked 11/22/1963.
What happened on that day? That was the
day Kennedy was murdered by our government
Wow. You know, by the CIA.