Speaker 1: In the hospital on that day, you told me you're
Speaker 1: in the hospital, that you were told that there was
Speaker 1: a credible threat against me and Tucker Carlson. Specifically, you
Speaker 1: told me that me and Tucker Carlson were on a
Speaker 1: list and that you were just telling me as a
Speaker 1: friend that me and.
Speaker 2: Tucker should lay low.
Speaker 1: And after you told me that, I ended our phone
Speaker 1: call and I immediately called took a Carlson and I said, hey, terrified,
Speaker 1: obviously crying all day and telling him that he and
Speaker 1: I have to lay low because there's a credible threat
Speaker 1: and it is now really living inside me that you
Speaker 1: did not tell me who that threat was from. I
Speaker 1: assumed the FEDS told you, But I asked you the question,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't the FEDS call me directly if there was
Speaker 1: a threat against my life? No such call has come in.
Speaker 1: How is that possible?
Speaker 3: Irrefutably true?
Speaker 4: And concerning questions from Candice Owns, which she does deserve
Speaker 4: answers to, but she omitted something that I think is
Speaker 4: really important, and this is actually something that came from
Speaker 4: her coverage about a month ago, and that was that
Speaker 4: Andrew Covid, the same person who she alleges contacted her
Speaker 4: from the hospital, which means it was probably the same
Speaker 4: day as the attack on Charlie Kirk to warn her
Speaker 4: that she was on a list and that she was
Speaker 4: under threat and that she needed to lay low along
Speaker 4: with Tucker Carlson, which she then called Tucker and confirmed
Speaker 4: that with him as well. It tells me that there
Speaker 4: is a reason to believe that Andrew Covid thought that
Speaker 4: Israel was behind the attack on Charlie Kirk. Now let
Speaker 4: me explain, because I'm making a pretty outlandish claim if
Speaker 4: you haven't been following this closely. A few weeks after
Speaker 4: the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Andrew covidt went on TPUSA
Speaker 4: and he said, this.
Speaker 5: A group text chain that has been made known and
Speaker 5: released by Candee Owen's and I just want to dress
Speaker 5: it head on because you know, that was a text grab,
Speaker 5: a screen grab that I had shared with people, so
Speaker 5: it is authentic, and I want to go into it
Speaker 5: because I actually am really excited that the truth is
Speaker 5: out there. I first want to say the reason I
Speaker 5: have I didn't share that screen grab publicly is because
Speaker 5: it was a private It was a private exchange, and
Speaker 5: I felt like it didn't necessarily comport with things that
Speaker 5: were already public. I wanted to not betray my friend's
Speaker 5: trust in that way, but I did share it with
Speaker 5: some people in government.
Speaker 4: So those notorious group chats, those messages from Charlie Kirk
Speaker 4: in which he said that his donors were pulling out
Speaker 4: and that they were doing so because he wouldn't have
Speaker 4: been in Tucker Carlson, and that ultimately he had no
Speaker 4: choice but to have been in the pro Israel cause
Speaker 4: that was screenshotted by him, That was sent to the
Speaker 4: government by him. There has been an additional reporting after
Speaker 4: the fact that claims that he sent it to the FBI.
Speaker 4: I don't know who he sent it to. All I
Speaker 4: can go off of is what he said there, which
Speaker 4: is that he sent it to the government. But the
Speaker 4: obvious implication, and the point that I think that Candice
Speaker 4: should have made in that moment, is that Andrew Covid,
Speaker 4: the pr rep and the right hand guy to Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 4: thought that those group chats were meaningful. He thought that
Speaker 4: they were a potential motive. Why else would he send
Speaker 4: that to the government, Why else would he forward that
Speaker 4: on to anybody?
Speaker 3: Why would you do that? I mean The obvious.
Speaker 4: Implication there is that you believe that it may serve
Speaker 4: as motive. Now, why would that be a motive. Well,
Speaker 4: if you've already been watching my show or Candas for
Speaker 4: that matter, you already know why that would be a motive.
Speaker 4: Charlie Kirk was the last prominent young voice on the
Speaker 4: right wing that was very right or die for Israel.
Speaker 4: At least historically he had been. That had been changing.
Speaker 4: He had started to question Israel and their policies, particularly
Speaker 4: after October seventh, when he thought that there may have
Speaker 4: been a standown order that was put in place, because
Speaker 4: otherwise he could not rationalize or come to any sort
Speaker 4: of logical conclusion as to why there'd be no IDF
Speaker 4: response or any real response for many many hours after
Speaker 4: the invasion from AHAs he became increasingly disturbed by the
Speaker 4: Epstein lack of disclosures. He also came under fire by
Speaker 4: TPUSA attendees on the regular, challenging him and asking him
Speaker 4: questions as to the war in Gaza, be that ethnic
Speaker 4: cleansing or otherwise. It had Dave smith On to challenge
Speaker 4: Josh Hammer, a debate he had already won. He did
Speaker 4: that at the penultimate event in July in Orlando, in
Speaker 4: which Dave Smith did what Dave Smith does, and he
Speaker 4: once again traunced Josh Hammer, Josh Hammer who went on
Speaker 4: to lie about the nature of those group chats which
Speaker 4: he was a participant in. So why did Josh Hammer
Speaker 4: lie and why did Andrew Colvitt tell the truth? Assuming
Speaker 4: he's telling the truth that in fact he screenshot of
Speaker 4: those chats and he sent them to the government, the
Speaker 4: obvious implication is that he believed that those chats contained
Speaker 4: a lead or a motive to the assassination of Charlie
Speaker 4: Kirk that the government needed to look into. Now, as
Speaker 4: I've said many times, you don't have to agree with
Speaker 4: Candiss Owens on her analysis or her suspicions. You don't
Speaker 4: have to believe that she's right in leaning towards this
Speaker 4: being an intel hit or Israel for that matter. What
Speaker 4: it does tell you, though, is that in the immediate
Speaker 4: aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, his right hand
Speaker 4: guy thought that that was viable. He thought that that
Speaker 4: was a potential motive or a potential lead for the
Speaker 4: attack on Charlie Kirk. That is a big story, that
Speaker 4: is a blaring headline story that nobody's talking about, and
Speaker 4: nobody's pressuring mister Colvit to answer that question. Why did
Speaker 4: you think that they were valid? Why did you send
Speaker 4: that to the government. Now, I'm not accusing him of
Speaker 4: doing anything wrong, In fact, quite the opposite. I think
Speaker 4: in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of his friend
Speaker 4: and his boss, he probably was thinking to himself, Okay,
Speaker 4: what has happened that's out of place over the past
Speaker 4: couple days, What is something that could be meaningful that
Speaker 4: happened over the past month or week? And what was
Speaker 4: his conclusion? Well, as evidenced by his activity, his action,
Speaker 4: is that he thought that that group chat was pertinent,
Speaker 4: He thought it was viable, he thought it was a
Speaker 4: potential motive, so he forwarded it on. You did the
Speaker 4: right thing, Andrew. I applaud you for that, but I
Speaker 4: have to ask why did you not come out in
Speaker 4: defense of Candice Owans when she started to imply the
Speaker 4: same thing just a few weeks later. Why did you
Speaker 4: stay totally quiet? Why did you leave her drifting in
Speaker 4: the wind as everybody else called her a liar and
Speaker 4: a lunatic when it's pretty clear to me that you
Speaker 4: thought that the same exact thing, and in fact, you
Speaker 4: probably thought it before she did. So there's really only
Speaker 4: two potential conclusions to come to. Either Andrew Covid lied
Speaker 4: about screenshotting that chat and sending it to the government,
Speaker 4: particularly the FBI, or he did do that and then
Speaker 4: he became scared or silent for some other reason. And
Speaker 4: I don't know what that reason is, but there's a
Speaker 4: very easy way to figure this out. Mister Covid, tell us,
Speaker 4: tell us why you thought that group chat was meaningful?
Speaker 4: If you have an explanation that's more benign than what
Speaker 4: I'm insinuating. What I'm thinking, what I'm thinking you were
Speaker 4: insinuating with that, Well, tell us why was that meaningful?
Speaker 4: I mean, it doesn't have to necessarily lead to some
Speaker 4: sort of far fetched or far reaching conclusion that this
Speaker 4: was in at tech from Massad or Israel or our
Speaker 4: own intellagencies. It could be that you thought that the
Speaker 4: withdrawal of the donor funds, maybe that was a catalyst
Speaker 4: for someone domestically to be upset with Charlie. I don't
Speaker 4: know what you were thinking, but I think it's meaningful
Speaker 4: enough that you want to answer it.
Speaker 3: And I hope you will.
Speaker 6: I wonder if I represent an anti interventionist faction. Tucker
Speaker 6: Carlson does too, as does Candice Owens, and I wonder
Speaker 6: if that's the real reason. I've not said anything particularly
Speaker 6: disparaging about Anfest, but they told me I couldn't come.
Speaker 3: Why.
Speaker 6: Maybe it's because I said we should stop funding Israel.
Speaker 6: Maybe it's because I said we should be giving money
Speaker 6: to Ukraine. Maybe it's because young people largely don't want
Speaker 6: foreign intervention and there are individuals in politics who disagree.
Speaker 6: So I will say this, I've been given the official
Speaker 6: reason I had made hurtful comments. Maybe I'd been told
Speaker 6: they'refull hard to do. Perhaps the use of Tim Poole
Speaker 6: is no more. We don't need a disaffected liberal who's
Speaker 6: anti WARRN, anti intervention. That's not what the movement needs.
Speaker 6: The movement needs those who are going to champion foreign
Speaker 6: investment and foreign intervention.
Speaker 4: So that's my buddy Tim Poole talking about his disinvitation
Speaker 4: to Amfest, which is the largest event that TPUSA throws
Speaker 4: every year. It happens at the end of the year.
Speaker 4: I never get invited, primarily because I'm not very pro Israel.
Speaker 3: I would imagine.
Speaker 4: But Tim is essentially announcing to the world that he
Speaker 4: has been disinvited, and he has been a staple of
Speaker 4: that event for a few years now, as far as
Speaker 4: I know, maybe longer than that. And it's just interesting
Speaker 4: to me because, in my opinion, as I said at
Speaker 4: the end of my last episode, Tim has been largely
Speaker 4: in between on this issue. He says he doesn't want
Speaker 4: to talk about Israel, but he also doesn't really care
Speaker 4: about Israel, but he also wants to put America first.
Speaker 4: And I argued quite extensively a couple days ago that
Speaker 4: you really don't have a choice. If you genuinely are
Speaker 4: interested in putting America first, well then we're going to
Speaker 4: have to break away from some of our allies. We
Speaker 4: cannot continue to be both the policeman of the world
Speaker 4: or the donor of the world, be that via military
Speaker 4: aid or just welfare to people. Broadly, this has to end.
Speaker 4: Thirty eight trillion in debt, a trillion in interest annually.
Speaker 4: You have to end it. You don't have a choice.
Speaker 4: So if you want to put America first, you're going
Speaker 4: to have to have an opinion when it comes to
Speaker 4: Israel aid. And I think generally speaking, He's probably open
Speaker 4: to the idea of getting rid of all aid to
Speaker 4: Israel and maybe even all weapons. But what I think
Speaker 4: is interesting about this is that despite the fact that
Speaker 4: Tim has taken a largely neutral stance or at least
Speaker 4: certainly not an overtly antagonistic one towards Israel, he is
Speaker 4: still facing that same decision point, that same demand of
Speaker 4: him to essentially should ter get off the pot.
Speaker 3: Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?
Speaker 3: Are you with us? Are you against us?
Speaker 4: Are you in favor of our continuing aid and an
Speaker 4: incredibly intertwined relationship with Israel when it comes to foreign
Speaker 4: policy and otherwise or are you not? That's sad, because
Speaker 4: if you expect to keep this coalition together, it has
Speaker 4: to be a big tent like I was never calling for.
Speaker 4: And I still continue not to call for Ben Shapiro
Speaker 4: or Mark Levin or any of these people to be
Speaker 4: thrown out of the GOP or deplatform for that matter. Certainly,
Speaker 4: I want to replace them when it comes to the
Speaker 4: voting block, and I want to win hearts and minds
Speaker 4: and convince the American people that what they've been prescribing
Speaker 4: to you for decades now has been completely destructive and
Speaker 4: ultimately severely not in your interest. But I'm not trying
Speaker 4: to beat them over the head. I'm not calling up
Speaker 4: TPUSA and saying, how dare you invite Josh Hammer? You know, like,
Speaker 4: that's just not my perspective. It will never be my perspective.
Speaker 4: I believe that my ideas are right, and I am
Speaker 4: more than content to have them challenged, and I would
Speaker 4: actually prefer that they'd be challenged. I think that's how
Speaker 4: we progress, That's how we find some sort of compromise
Speaker 4: and meeting of the minds, and we allow for the
Speaker 4: general public to have that same dialogue, and that's ultimately
Speaker 4: how you create peace in this world and in this country.
Speaker 4: And if you're going to make it so that someone
Speaker 4: who has not been antagonistic towards Israel, like Tim Poole,
Speaker 4: he is also not welcome, well then we have a
Speaker 4: problem that is now basically an ideologically possessed cult that
Speaker 4: is a neo conservative movement, and in my opinion, that
Speaker 4: is completely contrary to the wishes and dreams and desires
Speaker 4: of Charlie Kirk. You're a founder, to which I will say,
Speaker 4: why are you doing that? Why are you going against
Speaker 4: the wishes of Charlie, particularly given that his legacy has
Speaker 4: been so much a part of this debate over the
Speaker 4: past two months, that nobody can make heads or tails
Speaker 4: of what he truly believed. I mean, if you listen
Speaker 4: to the propagandist, if you actually listen to Charlie, he
Speaker 4: had a very nuanced perspective. He was obviously pro Israel,
Speaker 4: but he was also willing to challenge them when he
Speaker 4: thought they got out of line, something that I think
Speaker 4: Tim is willing to do that I think you ought
Speaker 4: to be willing to do. And if you're not, you
Speaker 4: can expect Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson to start to
Speaker 4: really wonder, is that why Charlie was removed? Because TPUSA
Speaker 4: was just a little bit too liberal when it came
Speaker 4: to discussions about Israel, that you aren't interested in having
Speaker 4: that debate that in fact, it is supposed to be
Speaker 4: a propaganda arm for a foreign government, a foreign country,
Speaker 4: in which case, why is your name, TPUSA, Why are
Speaker 4: you trying to indoctrinate the young conservatives of this country
Speaker 4: into something that is not in their best interest? In
Speaker 4: my opinion, and I might add almost everybody that a
Speaker 4: tends your event, or at least half of them at
Speaker 4: this point seemed to be asking the same questions I
Speaker 4: am as to whether or not that relationship to Israel
Speaker 4: is in their benefit. And if you expect to deplatform
Speaker 4: someone like Tim, I would imagine you're going to be
Speaker 4: disinviting people like Dave Smith too. And do you think
Speaker 4: that you're going to have kids in the audience that
Speaker 4: stop asking the questions that they do every single TPUSA
Speaker 4: event when it comes to the USS liberty and everything else.
Speaker 4: I would say no, They're going to keep asking it.
Speaker 4: So does that mean you're going to disinvite them, You're
Speaker 4: going to start to remove them from the audience. Are
Speaker 4: you going to stop handing out a microphone and then
Speaker 4: allowing them to ask questions unscripted? It seems as if
Speaker 4: that's the trajector you're going in And let me just
Speaker 4: say again, that was not Charlie Kirk. That was not
Speaker 4: what he was about. Yes, he was pro Israel, but
Speaker 4: moreover he was pro debate, and in my opinion, he
Speaker 4: died for that. He died for free speech. So if
Speaker 4: you're going to try and pretend as if you're carrying
Speaker 4: on his legacy, I think you're making a catastrophic mistake,
Speaker 4: and I think your organization will fail as a consequence
Speaker 4: of that. So I hope you make the right decision.
Speaker 4: And speaking of making right decisions, Nick Fointes has a
Speaker 4: clip that's going very viral today and I want to
Speaker 4: address it, and hopefully I don't upset him so much
Speaker 4: that he decides not to do the show with Dave
Speaker 4: Smith and he and Carroll and myself. But I have
Speaker 4: to adjuss it. I have to say what I have
Speaker 4: to say, And for any of the groupers in the audience,
Speaker 4: which I'm sure there are a few, I hope you'll
Speaker 4: hear me out. I hope you'll at least at least
Speaker 4: hear me out. You may not come to the same conclusion.
Speaker 4: You may not agree with me, and that's fine, But
Speaker 4: I think it's very important that we contend with the
Speaker 4: trajectory that Nick seems to want to go in and
Speaker 4: really ask ourselves whether or not that's in your best
Speaker 4: interests and mind for that matter.
Speaker 7: The political system is not answerable or accountable to the
Speaker 7: people because the political system is corrupt, and at these bottlenecks,
Speaker 7: this is where intelligence, mercenaries, foreign government's money is exercising
Speaker 7: undue influence in a way that is concealed from the
Speaker 7: public for an agenda that we don't know about, and
Speaker 7: maybe we don't even understand. Our sovereignty, our freedom, our liberty,
Speaker 7: our independence has been stolen from us by this system.
Speaker 7: Why would we want to maintain this system? That's the goal.
Speaker 7: The system is corrupt. The system has to be destroyed.
Speaker 3: So I'm gonna pouse there.
Speaker 4: I completely agree with Nick fant Is on that the
Speaker 4: GOP has abandoned any semblance of what they're supposed to be,
Speaker 4: So no disagreement. Should they be destroyed? Yeah, yeah, they don't.
Speaker 4: We don't really have a choice because they're so rotten
Speaker 4: to the core, as evidence by the Epstein cover up
Speaker 4: after they campaigned to get into power based off of
Speaker 4: bringing justice and then lied. I mean, we went from yes,
Speaker 4: we're going to give you justice, full disclosure, We're going
Speaker 4: to drop all the Epstein files. We'll do it in
Speaker 4: the first month whatever, and then immediately it shifts to
Speaker 4: here are the files, and then they bring out these
Speaker 4: white binders that have nothing new in them whatsoever. And
Speaker 4: then you shift a couple months later and there's no
Speaker 4: there there again.
Speaker 7: I know people.
Speaker 8: I get it.
Speaker 3: I understand it's not there. If it was there, we
Speaker 3: would have told you.
Speaker 4: And then you shift another month later, and it's like,
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Epstein traffick to no one.
Speaker 3: You've seen most of the files.
Speaker 9: Who, if anyone did Epstein traffic these women to besides himself,
Speaker 9: you replied, According to the transcript, there is no credible
Speaker 9: information that he trafficked them to anyone else. The location
Speaker 9: of the twenty nineteen sex trafficking indictment, which produced many things,
Speaker 9: including a series of FD three to two documents according
Speaker 9: to victims who cooperated with the FBI and that investigation.
Speaker 9: These documents in FBI possession. Your possession detail at least
Speaker 9: twenty men, including mister Jess Stay, CEO of Barclay's Bank,
Speaker 9: who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to victims, including miners such
Speaker 9: as Virginia Roberts. You free, May she rest in peace.
Speaker 9: That list also includes at least nineteen other individuals, one
Speaker 9: Hollywood producer worth a few hundred million dollars, one royal prince,
Speaker 9: one high profile individual in the music industry, one very
Speaker 9: prominent banker, one high profile government official, one high profile
Speaker 9: former politicans, one owner of a car company in Italy,
Speaker 9: one rock star, one magician, at least six billionaires, including
Speaker 9: a billionaire from Canada.
Speaker 3: We know these people.
Speaker 9: Exist in the FBI files, the files that you control.
Speaker 9: I don't know exactly who they are, but the FBI does.
Speaker 9: Have you launched any investigations into any of these people?
Speaker 9: And have you seen these three two documents?
Speaker 10: Sir?
Speaker 11: I have asked my FBI agents to review the entirety
Speaker 11: of the Epstein files and bring forth any credible information.
Speaker 11: And we're working with Congress not and to deveulows that
Speaker 11: information and produce.
Speaker 2: It to you.
Speaker 11: But any investigations that arise from any credible investigation will
Speaker 11: be brought There have been no new materials brought to
Speaker 11: me launching a new indictment.
Speaker 9: So is the loophole here or is it your assertion
Speaker 9: that these victims aren't credible?
Speaker 11: They reviewed all that, yes, sir?
Speaker 9: And so have you reviewed those three to two documents
Speaker 9: that were the victims name the people who victimize them
Speaker 9: if I personally know, but the FBI has. So how
Speaker 9: can you sit here and in front of the Senate
Speaker 9: and say there are no names? I said, Oh, I
Speaker 9: named one today, I said, We are not in the
Speaker 9: We are not in the practice of the Department, just
Speaker 9: the FBI of releasing victims' names. That is not what
Speaker 9: we do. We are also not in the habit of
Speaker 9: releasing incredible information.
Speaker 3: He was just a pervert.
Speaker 4: He was just downloading bad stuff on his computer. But
Speaker 4: he certainly wasn't videotaping the rich and powerful abusing young ladies. No,
Speaker 4: I wasn't doing that, wasn't blackmailing anybody. He wasn't even
Speaker 4: trafficking to anybody. He had nobody else that he was.
Speaker 4: Nobody else was doing anything, according to Cash Hotel and
Speaker 4: Pam Bondi. And then we have Donald Trump calling it
Speaker 4: a Democrat hoax.
Speaker 3: Okay, I guess.
Speaker 12: And then I heard there's no files. I heard it's
Speaker 12: a hoax. All so he's going to release the files. Well,
Speaker 12: I thought there was no files. He wants an investigation. Now, listen, like,
Speaker 12: what is going on?
Speaker 4: As the clock hits eleven fifty nine PM and Thomas
Speaker 4: Massey and MTG and Rocanna are sitting on the precipice
Speaker 4: of passing a bill, a law that will force the
Speaker 4: disclosure of this file, suddenly they shift and suddenly, yeah,
Speaker 4: we're on board, because I've got nothing to hide. That's
Speaker 4: what Donald Trump tells you. But if you recall just
Speaker 4: a few months prior Pambondi and Cash Hotel, he didn't
Speaker 4: traffick to anybody. There's nothing to look into. There's nobody
Speaker 4: else that's guilty. But then Trump shifts it and now
Speaker 4: it's Reed Hoffman and all these other Democrats that are responsible,
Speaker 4: Bill Clinton obviously, and then today she says this, do
Speaker 4: you mean that.
Speaker 8: You will provide all the files by thirty days?
Speaker 13: We will follow the law. The law passed both chambers
Speaker 13: last evening. It has not yet been signed, but we
Speaker 13: will continue to follow the law again while protecting victims
Speaker 13: but also providing maximum transparent.
Speaker 8: See Man Maturnity General. The DLJ statement earlier this year
Speaker 8: saying that the files would not release mention the fact
Speaker 8: that the review of the documents and the evidence did
Speaker 8: not suggest that any additional investigation of third parties was warranted.
Speaker 8: What changed since then that you launched this investigation.
Speaker 13: Information that has come for information, there's information that new information,
Speaker 13: additional information, And again we will continue to follow the
Speaker 13: law to investigate any leads, if there are any victims.
Speaker 13: We encourage all victims to come forward and we will
Speaker 13: continue to provide maximum transparency under the law.
Speaker 14: We will.
Speaker 13: We're not going to say anything else on that because
Speaker 13: now it is appending investigation in the Southern District of
Speaker 13: New York.
Speaker 4: Now let me start by saying cash Betel standing there is.
Speaker 4: She completely back pedals on everything that he claimed just
Speaker 4: a few months ago. Has got to feel brutal, and
Speaker 4: you deserve it. You deserve every ounce of that embarrassment
Speaker 4: and that shame, because my god, how much of a
Speaker 4: failure you've been. And I can't believe you haven't resigned, honestly,
Speaker 4: But Pambondi, if you're listening to her and you don't
Speaker 4: get the immediate feeling, like you know in your soul,
Speaker 4: in your core, that she's lying to you. Just a
Speaker 4: matter of seventy two hours prior, they were pushing to
Speaker 4: not have these disclosures, not have this law passed by
Speaker 4: Massey and MTG because I don't know why. I mean,
Speaker 4: they didn't tell you why, right, it was just a
Speaker 4: Democrat hoax. And then suddenly seventy two hours later, after
Speaker 4: they say he didn't traffick to anybody, now they've got
Speaker 4: new information. Now they're bringing additional investigations. Really, are you
Speaker 4: buying that? Is anybody buying that that just suddenly in
Speaker 4: that seventy two hour period, after Epstein's already been dead
Speaker 4: for years and this case has been buried for years,
Speaker 4: now they get new information. Now there's additional participants that
Speaker 4: committed serious and have to be prosecuted. Is anybody buying this?
Speaker 4: You shouldn't be. If you're thinking it all rationally, you
Speaker 4: should be telling yourself or thinking to yourself. Obviously they
Speaker 4: had this information prior, and obviously they were not going
Speaker 4: to pursue it. They were not going to pursue it
Speaker 4: at all. But thanks to you, every single one of
Speaker 4: you sitting at home right now, who relentlessly demanded that
Speaker 4: they disclosed these files, those that stood up and backed
Speaker 4: MTG and Thomas Massey and Rocanna for that matter, that
Speaker 4: is the reason that that bill got passed. Because I
Speaker 4: want to remind you, despite the fact that that bill
Speaker 4: passed with only one dissenting vote, everybody else voted yes.
Speaker 4: Just a month prior, over two hundred Republicans were prepared
Speaker 4: to not vote yes. They were going to vote against
Speaker 4: disclosing the Epstein files Entirely. Two hundred Republicans think about
Speaker 4: how crazy that is, and then one hundred and ninety
Speaker 4: nine of them shift with the wind because Donald Trump
Speaker 4: says okay. Now why did he say okay? He said
Speaker 4: okay because it was going to pass regardless. And then
Speaker 4: all of these fucking vultures decide to finally do the
Speaker 4: right thing and vote yes, Yes, we're going to require
Speaker 4: by law that the Epstein file be disclosed. But why
Speaker 4: did they vote yes? Because they knew it was a
Speaker 4: career wreckord Because had it passed and one hundred and
Speaker 4: eighty or so of them had voted no, they would
Speaker 4: have had to carry that for the rest of their
Speaker 4: careers that you voted to not disclose the Epstein files.
Speaker 4: So one hundred and ninety nine of them go all right,
Speaker 4: fuck it, Trump says, do it.
Speaker 3: We'll do it.
Speaker 4: These are the type of unprincipled, absolute scum that have
Speaker 4: to be removed from office. And when Nick Wenta says
Speaker 4: that the GOP has to be destroyed, this is why
Speaker 4: these are deeply, deeply corrupt people, so corrupt that they
Speaker 4: cover for what. If you followed my show at all,
Speaker 4: or if you've done research on your own, you've already
Speaker 4: come to the conclusion that Epstein was an asset to
Speaker 4: Israel as well as probably our intelligence almost certainly, and
Speaker 4: that information was being used for blackmail along with his
Speaker 4: accounting tricks. He was a financier, is what they call him.
Speaker 4: But what he really did was he funneled money for
Speaker 4: intel agencies and really powerful and wealthy people to do
Speaker 4: shady shit, illegal shit, and he got paid handsomely to
Speaker 4: do so.
Speaker 15: Epstein also had close ties to our own intelligence agencies
Speaker 15: in Israel's intelligence agencies. That's why there's so much effort
Speaker 15: in trying to stop this, and I do believe they'll
Speaker 15: try to stop it somewhere else and that's going to
Speaker 15: backfire on them too.
Speaker 4: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why they've tried to
Speaker 4: bury this, and that is why suddenly they have additional
Speaker 4: people that they're going to look into and allegedly prosecute.
Speaker 4: Why would they open up these cases now, Well, because
Speaker 4: if it's an open case, they can make a claim
Speaker 4: that we can't talk about it right now because it
Speaker 4: could jeopardize prosecutions.
Speaker 15: I am sorry if one of your billionaireed owners is
Speaker 15: going to get embarrassed because he went to rape island.
Speaker 9: They need to be on the other side of.
Speaker 2: Bars a lot of them.
Speaker 9: Some of them will be embarrassed, but some of them
Speaker 9: need to go to prison, and the survivors know that.
Speaker 3: So how will we.
Speaker 9: Know if this bill has been successful.
Speaker 3: We will know when.
Speaker 9: There are men, rich men and handcuffs being purp walked
Speaker 9: to the jail.
Speaker 2: And until then, this is still a cover up.
Speaker 4: These people are fucking liars and they are fucking scum.
Speaker 4: Nick Funt is absolutely right about that. And I'm going
Speaker 4: to get into the part that I disagree with Funt
Speaker 4: does eventually, but first we have to hear from the
Speaker 4: Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.
Speaker 16: All right, Number five national security concerns. Okay, The discharge
Speaker 16: requires the Attorney General to release within thirty days quote
Speaker 16: classified information to the maximum extent possible. This ignores the
Speaker 16: principle that declassification should always rest and always has rested,
Speaker 16: with the agency that originated the intelligence.
Speaker 4: So the Epstein disclosures, according to the Speaker of the
Speaker 4: House Mike Johnson, couldn't deigns your national security. I want
Speaker 4: you to ask yourself, and I mean this sincerely, think
Speaker 4: about it deeply. Why is it that a child trafficking,
Speaker 4: ring a blackmailer and a financier to the most corrupt
Speaker 4: institutions and people in our country and all over the world.
Speaker 4: Why would that fall under the purview of our national security?
Speaker 4: And hey, Mike, are you talking about America's security or
Speaker 4: are you talking about our greatest allies national security? Because
Speaker 4: that's what everybody's thinking. A lot of people won't say
Speaker 4: it out loud because you'll get called all sorts of names,
Speaker 4: But that's what we're all thinking. Go read drop site News.
Speaker 4: If you don't believe me, go read about what Jeffrey
Speaker 4: Epstein was doing. He was setting up all sorts of
Speaker 4: unbelievably shady deals on behalf of Israel, having Israeli spies
Speaker 4: stay at his house, having Ahud Barack basically fucking be
Speaker 4: his roommate for a couple of years. I mean, it's insane.
Speaker 4: It's insane the connections that this guy had with the top,
Speaker 4: top levels of Israel. And they want us to believe
Speaker 4: that when you say this is a danger to national security,
Speaker 4: that you're talking about America's security. And let me just add,
Speaker 4: if you are talking about America's national security, if you
Speaker 4: were covering up which I clearly you were. But if
Speaker 4: you were, if you were covering up for a child
Speaker 4: trafficking ring, a blackmailer, and a guy who was doing
Speaker 4: all sorts of shady financial shit on behalf of foreign governments,
Speaker 4: well then you committed treason. All of you committed treason.
Speaker 4: And let me add if our intelligence agencies are participating
Speaker 4: in this type of activity, which clearly they were, well
Speaker 4: then you're all guilty, and you're all. I mean, evil
Speaker 4: doesn't even begin to describe it. And I think the
Speaker 4: truth at the end of the day, or at least
Speaker 4: the natural conclusion that most of us have come to
Speaker 4: anybody who's thinking about this rationally, is that you guys
Speaker 4: are either evil or you're blackmailed. And I tend to
Speaker 4: think that most of you are just being blackmailed. But
Speaker 4: there has to be an inflection point. There has to
Speaker 4: be a moment at which everybody just stands up and says,
Speaker 4: no more. Whatever we're guilty of, we have to reclaim
Speaker 4: our own government. And anybody in the GOP who doesn't
Speaker 4: have the courage to do the right thing, even if
Speaker 4: it means reputational damage, or even if it means your
Speaker 4: own prosecution for other shady.
Speaker 3: Shit you did.
Speaker 4: I don't care if you're gay, if you abuse kids, yeah,
Speaker 4: I care, and you're gonna have to serve time. But otherwise, like,
Speaker 4: come clean. This is like the highest crime you can
Speaker 4: possibly commit. You've already committed bad crimes. It seems like
Speaker 4: otherwise you'd probably tell the truth about it. But now
Speaker 4: you're committing treason. Now you're selling out your own country.
Speaker 4: And last I checked, the punishment for treason is a
Speaker 4: little bit more significant than those other crimes you committed.
Speaker 7: In this case, if we find out who was on
Speaker 7: the island, we're going to vote to replace everybody that
Speaker 7: was complicit in it, and that might give you some
Speaker 7: hope that we can peacefully replace the political system.
Speaker 2: That's the whole point. Johnson says.
Speaker 7: We can't tell we can't give away the whole game
Speaker 7: because I might undermine the political system.
Speaker 2: Why because you're all guilty?
Speaker 3: Is that it?
Speaker 2: Because it's all's true?
Speaker 7: Because you're all guilty, and you know that if we
Speaker 7: saw all the Epstein files, nobody would pay their taxes,
Speaker 7: nobody would vote, because why would you What would be
Speaker 7: the point you're paying parking tickets while they're being blackmailed
Speaker 7: for child rape?
Speaker 4: So maybe maybe you guys need to have a come
Speaker 4: to Jesus moment, especially as much as you talk about God.
Speaker 7: So this is the blueprint. This is how we take over.
Speaker 7: And by the way, hey and get a load of this.
Speaker 7: Roe Conna and Thomas Massey working together against the interests
Speaker 7: to compel the files. What do you think that has
Speaker 7: a ninety percent approval rating? If you add progressive Democrats
Speaker 7: and nationalist Republicans working together, let's say, to compel the
Speaker 7: release of the Epstein files. What kind of approval rating
Speaker 7: do you think that has ninety percent? And what if
Speaker 7: they got together and they opposed foreign aid to Israel?
Speaker 7: What approval rating do you think that would happen? Ninety percent?
Speaker 7: What if they got together and worked on the basis
Speaker 7: of a common interest? Do you think that Republicans are
Speaker 7: independents running under that brand? Do you think that that
Speaker 7: would become more popular or less popular over time? Four
Speaker 7: becomes eight, eight becomes sixteen. It's snowballs, and we need
Speaker 7: to propel someone into the White House. That is just
Speaker 7: a populist.
Speaker 4: Now, Neck's right about basically all of that. That is
Speaker 4: what they're terrified of. This is why we have the
Speaker 4: culture war more or less. I mean, there are obvious
Speaker 4: disagreements when it comes to the cultural war that are sincere,
Speaker 4: but a lot of it is concocted to try and
Speaker 4: keep us separated, and it particularly the populist left in
Speaker 4: the populist right. I mean, they hate the populist movements,
Speaker 4: They hate anybody who's not just kool aid drinking Democrat
Speaker 4: or a kool a drinking Republican. They want us to
Speaker 4: be on the plantation divided based off of the somewhat
Speaker 4: overstated left right divide. And again I agree with Nick
Speaker 4: that there's a tremendous amount of power if we are
Speaker 4: willing to work with the populist left and the populace
Speaker 4: right on the things we agree on. I think where
Speaker 4: Nick and I part ways is that I think abandoning
Speaker 4: any semblance of a defense against the free market or
Speaker 4: in favor of the free market will be catastrophic.
Speaker 7: And here's where we're going to have to give. This
Speaker 7: is going to be the compromise. Very simple. The left
Speaker 7: has to give up immigration, That's simple. The left is
Speaker 7: going to have to give up. Look, we can have equity,
Speaker 7: and we can have equality in the country, we can
Speaker 7: have civil rights we can have all those things, but
Speaker 7: we have to close the damn borders. We have to
Speaker 7: close it. Too many illegal immigrants, too many legal immigrants.
Speaker 7: That has to be the compromise. The left has to
Speaker 7: give on immigration and the right has to give on
Speaker 7: the free market. If the right can come down on
Speaker 7: healthcare and on a social safety net, and maybe on
Speaker 7: subsidies for education, and if the left can come down
Speaker 7: on the anti white open border stuff, and they can
Speaker 7: agree that we have a country that party will win
Speaker 7: ninety percent of the vote in rule for a century,
Speaker 7: that's the compromise. That's the populist compromise. Why is it
Speaker 7: that for the left it's like they don't even care
Speaker 7: about anything else.
Speaker 2: It just has to be open borders.
Speaker 7: And on the right, it's like they don't care about
Speaker 7: anything else as long as it's foreign a to Israel
Speaker 7: and war in the Middle East and war with Russia.
Speaker 7: That's the kind of program that we need. And that's
Speaker 7: what they're terrified of. They're terrified that the left and
Speaker 7: the right are going to come together on the basis
Speaker 7: of stop supporting Israel, on the basis of closed the borders,
Speaker 7: on the basis of restricting money in politics and the
Speaker 7: influence of the oligarchs. That's what they're terrified of.
Speaker 4: Now, he's not wrong that there's a tremendous amount of
Speaker 4: energy and popularity for these ideas when it comes to
Speaker 4: the young people in this country. He's right about that,
Speaker 4: and he's probably right that that will be the prevailing
Speaker 4: ideology moving forward. I'm just not at all willing to
Speaker 4: go along with it. I still think that it's very,
Speaker 4: very dangerous to start to just hand out free bees
Speaker 4: to basically bring the ideological sides together, and not because
Speaker 4: I'm opposed to handing out free bees, even though i am,
Speaker 4: but more specifically because we simply can't afford it, because
Speaker 4: the thirty eight trillion dollars of debt. Yes, it would
Speaker 4: be great if the left and right, the populist left
Speaker 4: and right, could come together and say no more aid
Speaker 4: to Israel, no more wars in the Middle East, no
Speaker 4: more wars period. But the truth is is that even
Speaker 4: if you were to end all of that foreign aid,
Speaker 4: and even if you were to end the empire in
Speaker 4: terms of the wars, you're going to have additional problems
Speaker 4: financially that are coming regardless. And if you'd think that
Speaker 4: you're just going to be able to turn on the
Speaker 4: printing presses and churn that up so that you can
Speaker 4: scare quotes afford this social safety net, which is already
Speaker 4: extraordinarily significant and based off of his description, would be
Speaker 4: increasingly large. You're not going to be able to do so.
Speaker 4: And let me explain exactly why, because I'm sure I've
Speaker 4: lost some of you already, because this is kind of
Speaker 4: an Austrian school defense that will immediately make it go
Speaker 4: a Lolbert idiot. You don't understand what time it is.
Speaker 4: It's like, no, I do understand what time it is.
Speaker 4: I'm telling you it's not going to work. And here's why.
Speaker 4: If you end the empire, the primary undergirding of the
Speaker 4: US dollars purchasing power is the fact that we are
Speaker 4: the empire that I think it's seventy or eighty percent
Speaker 4: of global trade is done in the US dollar. Why
Speaker 4: is it done in the US dollar? Well, one, because
Speaker 4: it had been historically one of the more stable currencies.
Speaker 4: We're rapidly losing that reason for them utilizing it. The
Speaker 4: other reason that it's been the primary trading currency of
Speaker 4: the world is because we killed people. If they didn't
Speaker 4: that's the truth. That's why get off. He's gone, saidam
Speaker 4: a bunch of people. So if you intend to end
Speaker 4: the empire, which I hope you do and I would
Speaker 4: love to see done, you're going to have to also
Speaker 4: emburn fiscal conservatism in a way that has not been
Speaker 4: embraced in our entire lives. You're going to have to
Speaker 4: cut spending, and it's going to have to come across
Speaker 4: the board. It's not going to just be the military
Speaker 4: industrial complex. It's going to be a lot of things.
Speaker 4: And that's a tough pitch to make. But to offset that,
Speaker 4: what you need to be doing, and I agree with
Speaker 4: Nick's conclusion or his prescription for the border, I think
Speaker 4: that we do need to put a moratorium on immigration.
Speaker 4: I think that the American people do feel as if
Speaker 4: they're being replaced, and I don't think they're wrong to
Speaker 4: feel that way.
Speaker 3: I think they are.
Speaker 4: But if you were to do that, you suddenly increase
Speaker 4: their standard of living. You decrease the supply of labor,
Speaker 4: and you increase their living standards because their wages go
Speaker 4: up because they're no longer competing with tens of millions
Speaker 4: of illegal immigrants that are here. They're also no longer
Speaker 4: competing with tens of millions of illegal immigrants that are
Speaker 4: taking up housing. That should bring the price of housing down.
Speaker 4: It will be a deflationary pressure that will be to
Speaker 4: the benefit of the young people in this country that
Speaker 4: have been so disenfranchised. But the answer is not to
Speaker 4: offer them free housing. The answer is to inspire them
Speaker 4: once again, to let them know, to actually know that
Speaker 4: they have a future, that if they work hard and
Speaker 4: they strive, that they can actually reach the highest heights
Speaker 4: of whatever industry they're entering. So if we have deflationary
Speaker 4: pressure when it comes to the price of things, if
Speaker 4: the dollar starts to strengthen, and if the employment market
Speaker 4: starts to improve, well, suddenly so much of the desire
Speaker 4: for the government to come and help and just hand
Speaker 4: out everything diminishes. And if I haven't convinced you, let's
Speaker 4: see if Ron Paul has any better luck.
Speaker 17: The greatest danger when we accept the notion that the
Speaker 17: governments supposed to take care of us from cradle to grave,
Speaker 17: and we're supposed to be the policeman of the world,
Speaker 17: is it ultimately is done at the expense of personal liberty.
Speaker 17: The purpose of all governments should be the protection of individual.
Speaker 2: Liberty for each and every one of them.
Speaker 17: We need to reverse the trend on the attack on
Speaker 17: our civil liberties. We need to repeal the Patriot Act.
Speaker 2: We need to repeal the.
Speaker 17: Provision and the President has the authority to assassinate American
Speaker 17: citizens without trial. We need to repeal the provision that
Speaker 17: says the President can use the mill terry to arrest
Speaker 17: any Americans.
Speaker 2: It is an ndy nine am a trial.
Speaker 17: Very simply, the answer is, send only people to Washington.
Speaker 17: Send only people to the White House that know and
Speaker 17: understand and read the constitutions and enforce the constitution. Then
Speaker 17: we would have an full understanding how you have a peaceful,
Speaker 17: thriving nation as you enforce the concept of liberty, enforce
Speaker 17: the liberty for each and every one of us equally.
Speaker 17: This brings people together.
Speaker 2: Because people will.
Speaker 17: Use their liberty in different manners, but we don't have
Speaker 17: to fight over how they use their liberty as long
Speaker 17: as they assume responsibility for themselves and the consequences.
Speaker 2: Of all their actions.
Speaker 4: Tell me what he has wrong there, sincerely asking do
Speaker 4: you think I mean, particularly given that we just lived
Speaker 4: through four years of Biden and the Democrat rule since
Speaker 4: censoring us, locking us down, I mean, just abusing us
Speaker 4: to the end of the earth, especially someone like Nick
Speaker 4: being deplatformed, being put on the no fly list, being
Speaker 4: debanked for God's sikes, Do you trust this government to
Speaker 4: have this amount of power? I mean, if you do, still,
Speaker 4: after what you've gone through, I don't understand the rationale
Speaker 4: is I mean, is the rationale that you're going to
Speaker 4: take over the government in such a way that you
Speaker 4: don't have to worry about the viciousness of the state,
Speaker 4: and that you're gonna utilize it for your own ends?
Speaker 4: Because if you think that's gonna happen, I don't see it.
Speaker 4: I don't see how that's actually how this plays out.
Speaker 4: I think quite the contrary. I think it'll end up
Speaker 4: being to your detriment and mine. The answer to me
Speaker 4: is fairly straightforward. Yes, Yes, we need to end the
Speaker 4: Patriot Act. Yes, we need to go after and prosecute
Speaker 4: and use whatever state power we can claim for ourselves
Speaker 4: to absolutely mercilessly go after everybody that did what they
Speaker 4: did to you, Nick Fuontz. And He's right, there's going
Speaker 4: to have to be compromise, and ultimately, what I'm asking
Speaker 4: for is probably not going to be what we get either,
Speaker 4: So I'm not saying that like it's my way or
Speaker 4: the highway, even though that's what he's saying to the GOP.
Speaker 4: And I like the mentality, and I think that that's
Speaker 4: the energy that we need to bring forward. I think
Speaker 4: we need to have a my way or the highway
Speaker 4: mentality when it comes to our demands of the GOP.
Speaker 4: But when it comes to the negotiations between the warring
Speaker 4: sects of the populist movement, be that left, right or libertarian,
Speaker 4: I think that's the debate that matters most. I think
Speaker 4: that's what we ought to really be in the weeds about,
Speaker 4: is like, all right, so if we are going to ally,
Speaker 4: what is the vision, what are we trying to create
Speaker 4: and what is the best way to create that? Because
Speaker 4: I think that at the end of the day, most
Speaker 4: of us have a similar vision for where we want
Speaker 4: to get. We just don't know exactly what pathway we're
Speaker 4: going to take to get there, and there's a lot
Speaker 4: of different prescriptions that could be thrown on the table
Speaker 4: and debated at nauseum, And honestly, I hope that we
Speaker 4: get a chance to do that, which is why I
Speaker 4: emailed Nick and invited him back on the show with
Speaker 4: Dave and Ian. And I know Ian Carrol has a
Speaker 4: lot of disagreements with me when it comes to economics too.
Speaker 4: I mean, the fact that he was an RFK guy
Speaker 4: tells me he was probably more in favor of the
Speaker 4: social safety net stuff that Fontez is prescribing here. So
Speaker 4: it's going to be very interesting, and I think that's
Speaker 4: that's where the fight's at.
Speaker 3: That's what the debate ought to be.
Speaker 4: Instead of like whether you're a man or a woman,
Speaker 4: you know, all that pointless bullshit, It's like, let's fucking
Speaker 4: let's get into this. Let's see what actually presents and
Speaker 4: creates the best world moving forward. And if that's national
Speaker 4: socialism or if that's kind of quasi free markets.
Speaker 3: I don't know where we're gonna end up.
Speaker 4: What I do know is this was the type of
Speaker 4: discussion I was having a couple of years ago. It
Speaker 4: was me, Dave Smith, Jimmy dor and Passa. We were
Speaker 4: all talking about this on their show and it was like,
Speaker 4: all right, if we get on board with ending the Empire,
Speaker 4: will you guys give us national health care? And it's like, oh, well,
Speaker 4: you guys already agree with us about ending the empire?
Speaker 3: So what are you giving up?
Speaker 4: Because it seems like if this is a negotiation, if
Speaker 4: we're actually trying to have a meeting the minds here,
Speaker 4: don't you have to give up something too? And I
Speaker 4: guess nixt point is all right, you guys just give
Speaker 4: up on the mass immigration, open borders thing.
Speaker 3: It's like, all right, but.
Speaker 4: I'm already, I've already I'm on your team with that.
Speaker 4: So like, what am I getting here? Because I think
Speaker 4: that socialism is going to be a disaster.
Speaker 3: Because it is. But the good news is is.
Speaker 4: That we do agree on one major thing, and that's
Speaker 4: in putting this country first.
Speaker 3: Now how do we do that?
Speaker 4: We'll hash that out, But in the meantime, I think
Speaker 4: we can all agree that we need to stop whatever
Speaker 4: the fuck this is here in Israel.
Speaker 14: And as I finish, I wanted to come back here
Speaker 14: to Israel and let you know that I asserve you
Speaker 14: as the mayor, but I want to continue to have
Speaker 14: the title that's more important to me than anything. I'm
Speaker 14: your brother, Thank you.
Speaker 4: That's the former mayor of New York City, Eric Adams.
Speaker 4: In Jerusalem, he's a mayor of probably the most prominent
Speaker 4: city in America, New York City. He goes over to
Speaker 4: Jerusalem the Whaling Wall, and he says, I served you.
Speaker 3: What the fuck are you doing? Man?
Speaker 4: And this is like, I think, at some point point,
Speaker 4: this just happens so often that it just becomes normalized.
Speaker 4: Even though if you take a step back and you
Speaker 4: say to yourself, like, wait, wait, wait, wait wait, there's
Speaker 4: a black dude from New York who's going over to
Speaker 4: Israel to say I served you.
Speaker 3: Why? Why?
Speaker 4: Why is that the paradigm that we've accepted.
Speaker 3: And it's not.
Speaker 4: I mean, he's a Democrat, but this is standard fair
Speaker 4: on the right side the GOP, Almost all of them
Speaker 4: do the same thing. Many of these wolfs in sheep's
Speaker 4: clothing also wear the skin suit of America first, or
Speaker 4: Maga for that matter. I mean, these people are fucking sick.
Speaker 4: It's so obvious that their allegiance is not to America
Speaker 4: or Americans. Look, if Eric Adams were to go to
Speaker 4: some synagogue in New York City and say I served you,
Speaker 4: I'd be like, okay, fine, at least they're Americans. You
Speaker 4: don't go to a fucking foreign country after being a
Speaker 4: mayor of New York City and say, I served you
Speaker 4: talking to people who are not American. That's treason, Like
Speaker 4: dictionary definition, you don't serve foreign governments or foreign people
Speaker 4: while presiding over our government in America. At least you shouldn't.
Speaker 4: At least it shouldn't be allowed, and it certainly shouldn't
Speaker 4: be something that's so overt and in our faces that
Speaker 4: it's just beyond the pale insulting. And when people talk
Speaker 4: about noticing, this is what they're talking about. They notice
Speaker 4: they noticed it like this, and they go, what the fuck? Wait, wait, wait,
Speaker 4: you were a mayor of the biggest city in America
Speaker 4: and you served them.
Speaker 3: Why did you do that?
Speaker 4: And then you start to back up and you start
Speaker 4: to connect more dots and you go, okay, so if
Speaker 4: you served them, you're just some black dude from New York.
Speaker 4: Then how did you get into power in the first place?
Speaker 4: And what was the mechanism that caused your rise? How
Speaker 4: did you get there? And might I add, why was
Speaker 4: it that Donald Trump also backed you despite the fact
Speaker 4: that you were a Democrat.
Speaker 3: Why did he like you? Eric Adams?
Speaker 4: And oh wait, so Donald Trump got a couple hundred
Speaker 4: million dollars from the adel Sims. Is there any connection there?
Speaker 4: Is that why he also backed you, because not because
Speaker 4: you serve New Yorkers in some positive way, you didn't,
Speaker 4: but because you served the same donor class that put
Speaker 4: Trump in the power. It's like, oh, all right, now
Speaker 4: we have a problem. Now we've got a real problem.
Speaker 4: This is not exclusive to Israel. There's foreign influenced by
Speaker 4: a lot of countries. But all of it has to cease,
Speaker 4: all of it, and anybody telling you otherwise needs to
Speaker 4: make a damn compelling argument as to why it shouldn't.
Speaker 4: And if they're unwilling to have that discussion, if they're
Speaker 4: unwilling to tell you exactly why that paradigm is acceptable,
Speaker 4: and instead they just start to call you names. You
Speaker 4: know exactly what you're dealing with. A propagandist, a foreign agent,
Speaker 4: a trader, and I don't use that word lightly.
Speaker 3: That's what it is. Though.
Speaker 4: You can't be an American politics and serve a foreign country.
Speaker 3: You can't do it.
Speaker 4: And you've done it for too long, and you got
Speaker 4: away with it for way too long. And you certainly
Speaker 4: labeled us a bunch of hateful shit because we started
Speaker 4: to call you out on it. Up Ding it's over.
Speaker 4: You can't keep doing it. And that includes Democrats like
Speaker 4: Eric Adams. And it also includes the entire Trump administration,
Speaker 4: which inexplicably covered up for the Epstein operation, you know,
Speaker 4: because Jeffrey Epstein, a classic Katari surname. A buddy of
Speaker 4: mine responded to me with that, that's the debate. Now
Speaker 4: we can come together on America first. But what does
Speaker 4: what comes after? I'll leave you with that. You tell
Speaker 4: me what comes after this national socialist movement? Or are
Speaker 4: we going to embrace free markets to a certain extent
Speaker 4: or not after all the fighting we've gone through, or are
Speaker 4: we going to be Sweden or some other European quasi
Speaker 4: socialist hellhole.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Doesn't sound so great to me. You guys won't even
Speaker 4: believe this. I couldn't believe it when I looked at
Speaker 4: the charts this morning. Liberty Lockdown. This show has more
Speaker 4: listeners than Rachel Maddow. She gets paid twenty five million
Speaker 4: dollars a year. I don't even make six figures. What
Speaker 4: the fuck is wrong with the world anyways, I just
Speaker 4: thought that was awesome. I'm two slots away from Glenn Back.
Speaker 4: These are Spotify rankings Obviously she's got a TV show,
Speaker 4: so she's still reaching way more people than me. But
Speaker 4: just to have surpassed someone like such an obvious overt
Speaker 4: propagandist like Rachel Maddow, and to have done it with
Speaker 4: no network and no backing, no marketing, it's unbelievable.
Speaker 3: It's just fucking awesome.
Speaker 4: And I think that's like, that's where we're at, Like
Speaker 4: you can just buy some lighting and a camera and
Speaker 4: have an Internet connection and you can compete with the
Speaker 4: biggest voices in the country. I mean, Nick Went is
Speaker 4: such a great example of that. He was de bank deplatformed,
Speaker 4: basically treated like a terrorist, and he's now arguably a
Speaker 4: top three or five podcaster, stream or whatever in the
Speaker 4: world or in America at least. I mean, that's amazing.
Speaker 4: That's the reason for hope. And we don't have to
Speaker 4: fucking worry about like beating Rachel Maddow in terms of
Speaker 4: the debate, Like she's not really that relevant. It's between
Speaker 4: us now. Like think about what an incredible paradigm shift
Speaker 4: that is. Like I remember, you know, Dave Smith famously
Speaker 4: kicked the ship out of Andrew Cuomo, not physically, even
Speaker 4: though he could probably do that too, but it was
Speaker 4: at PbD.
Speaker 3: I was.
Speaker 4: I was there for that event and it was just
Speaker 4: like this incredible moment for us because Dave was me.
Speaker 4: You know, he's just a guy with a camera and
Speaker 4: a microphone, right, and he gets this opportunity to take
Speaker 4: on one of the top lockdown COVID propagandas and Chris Cuomo.
Speaker 3: I don't like what people did the Joe Rogan about
Speaker 3: I remacton. I don't why you did it.
Speaker 2: No, no, yes you did find.
Speaker 10: The clips, but dude, find the clips. You shamed Joe Rogan.
Speaker 10: Find you said he was taking horse the armor. You
Speaker 10: and Don Lemon were chuckling at him. I'll go find
Speaker 10: you just saw the clip. Watch I'm not chuckling. I'm
Speaker 10: listening to Don. But no, no, no, there's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 10: Wasn't on there and here's absolutely they were. Oh here
Speaker 10: do we have it?
Speaker 2: Hold on, let's play the club.
Speaker 3: Drugs for animals and horse.
Speaker 6: And people telling them to what person you know you
Speaker 6: talk about like, you know, cancel culture and who.
Speaker 2: To shame ivermectin a d wormer.
Speaker 10: Really, they are shaming themselves, that's what they're They're shaming themselves.
Speaker 2: So you're taking a d warmer right now. You can't
Speaker 2: apologize for that this.
Speaker 10: You weren't being clear that it was this, and you
Speaker 10: know that, dude, you're being so dishonest right now. You
Speaker 10: were talking about ivermectin the drug. You were not talking
Speaker 10: about this version of ivermactin.
Speaker 2: Come on.
Speaker 4: Obviously, Dave did what Dave does and he stomped him
Speaker 4: into the ground. But I think what was most notable
Speaker 4: about it is like, well, yeah, of course they beat him,
Speaker 4: Like of course they've just ran circles around him and
Speaker 4: made him look like a total fool. And what's really
Speaker 4: interesting about it is like it doesn't even matter though,
Speaker 4: you know, like Chris Cuomo was on CNN like primetime forever,
Speaker 4: and it's just like he doesn't matter, though, like Rachel
Speaker 4: Mattter doesn't matter, like Tucker Carlson matters, front As matters,
Speaker 4: can his own's matter, Dave matters. These people don't matter
Speaker 4: like the I'm two slots away from Glenn Beck. Glenn
Speaker 4: Beck was on Fox News in primetime for fucking ever.
Speaker 3: I used to watch his shit.
Speaker 4: He was doing the chalkboard and connecting everything to Soros,
Speaker 4: and I was like, this is interesting it's like, I'm
Speaker 4: too slot spot Glenn Beck in his entire Blaze Empire,
Speaker 4: Like it's just a different paradigm, man, And it's all
Speaker 4: because of you guys. It's all because of us. I'm
Speaker 4: gonna include myself in that one. It's all because us,
Speaker 4: because we just all recognized we were being lied to
Speaker 4: and we're like, we're not gonna accept it anymore. We
Speaker 4: know your liars. We're gonna get our information elsewhere. And
Speaker 4: then it's just pure meritocracy. It's like, is this what's
Speaker 4: this guy's track record? Is he telling the truth consistently? Okay,
Speaker 4: I'm gonna keep listening. As soon as I feel like
Speaker 4: you're lying to me out, we're done. And that's the
Speaker 4: trend line, man, And it's a beautiful thing. You got
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson, Candice Owns, Dave Smith all top ten. I'm
Speaker 4: talking news podcasts. Obviously there's other charts. I'm thirty nine,
Speaker 4: Glenn Beck is thirty seven, Rachel Maddows forty one.
Speaker 3: What the fun, dude, It's so awesome. It's so cool, man.
Speaker 4: Uh we did a million a million listeners over the
Speaker 4: past thirty days. Never done that before. So I just
Speaker 4: want to end with that, there's the silver lining. We're
Speaker 4: winning doesn't mean we've won. Don't get a twiste that
Speaker 4: we haven't. But in terms of the information war, as
Speaker 4: Alex Jones vidilia, we're winning. We're fucking winning. It's all
Speaker 4: because you guys. All right at liberty lock pot on X.
Speaker 4: You want to sport more work, subscribe there.
Speaker 3: I'll follow you.
Speaker 4: Back Libertylockdown dot locals dot com, or go to MyPillow
Speaker 4: dot com. Get you some cozy from MIKEA. Lindel, who's
Speaker 4: perman code lockdown.
Speaker 3: We're out of here. Peace on this vote.
Speaker 2: The years are four hundred and twenty seven.
Speaker 3: The nays are won two.
Speaker 11: Thirds being in the affirmative.
Speaker 17: The rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection,
Speaker 17: and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
Speaker 5: Subscribe to Liberty Lockdown, Great podcast Clint is Tight