Washington, U.S., September 9, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
• Justice Department shut down Homan bribery probe • Acting AG Bove criticized Homan probe as 'deep state' operation • In undercover sting, Homan allegedly promised government contracts for bribe
WASHINGTON, Sept 21 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan accepted a $50,000 bag of cash from an undercover FBI agent last year in a since-closed U.S. Justice Department bribery investigation, two sources familiar with the matter said on Sunday.
In the alleged scheme, Homan promised immigration-related government contracts when he joined the Trump administration in exchange for the money, the sources said, speaking anonymously to discuss nonpublic investigations.
FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the investigation closed over the summer, one of the sources said. Homan could not be reached for comment.
“This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors. They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing," Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement on Sunday.
"The Department’s resources must remain focused on real threats to the American people, not baseless investigations. As a result, the investigation has been closed.”
The probe into Homan started around August 2024 near the end of President Joe Biden's administration and stemmed from a separate national security investigation, one of the sources told Reuters.
In that unrelated probe, the target repeatedly brought up Homan, saying he was collecting bribes in exchange for future government contracts, the two sources told Reuters.
An undercover sting operation was set up, and Homan was caught on a recording accepting a $50,000 bribe in a bag from the restaurant chain Cava, the sources said.
Homan oversees the Trump administration's campaign of mass deportations of people in the country illegally. The White House said he has not been involved in awarding any contracts.
"He is a career law enforcement officer and lifelong public servant who is doing a phenomenal job on behalf of President Trump and the country,” Abigail Jackson, White House deputy press secretary, said in a statement.
A grand jury probe into Homan in the Western District of Texas was still in its early stages when Trump returned to the White House in January, the sources said.
Emil Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general and is now a federal judge, was briefed on the case in February, one of the sources said. In that exchange, he expressed displeasure with the probe and said it was an example of a "deep state" operation, referring to the idea that unelected officials secretly control the government.
The statement from Patel and Blanche said the probe was a "blatantly political investigation" and "yet another example of how the Biden Department of Justice was using its resources to target President Trump’s allies."
Homan was an official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under President Barack Obama and its acting director during Trump's first term.
During Trump's four years out of power, Homan ran a consulting business to help companies obtain immigration-related government contracts.
In the recorded sting operation, Homan claimed he would keep the bribe money in a trust until he had completed his service in the Trump administration, one of the sources said.
Not long after the meeting when he criticized the Homan probe, Bove separately ordered corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams to be dropped, prompting career prosecutors to resign. The Justice Department has also largely dismantled the unit that prosecutes corruption cases, which took part in the Homan probe.
The now-closed probe into Homan was reported earlier by MSNBC.
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Mark Porter and Cynthia Osterman
Erika Kirk Forgives. The Feds Forget... | Candace Ep 240 Candace Owens Streamed live 3 hours ago
Erika Kirk gives a heartfelt speech, Kash Patel issues a statement responding to public questions about Charlie's assassination, and many things we're being told do not make sense...
Transcript
All right, you guys. Happy Monday. Erica Kirk, man, that she really is just the moment. The speech that she gave, everybody was just wowed by her. I felt my energy personally like last night going into that. I was effectively like soaring in the air above the convention center, like a dragon above, waiting for Erica to just be like fire. And I was just going to come down and swoop in out of nowhere. all the politicians, all the fake people, everyone was just going to be in that moment toast. But she didn't call for war. Erica did not call for war. She, in fact, she did the exact opposite, which is what was so stunning. It was unbelievable the forgiveness that she granted, the strength that it took for her to call for that forgiveness. It's just unmatched. And it really made a difference. And I was being serious when I tweeted that I think it was the most consequential speech in American history. A message that everyone needed to hear, including myself. a message of complete submission to Christ. And by the way, uh later on, we're also going to discuss another kind of submission to Christ, which is submitting yourself to truth. Cash Patel has now come out and issued a statement fully capitulating to the public, the public insistence that they're lying to us. They are so clearly lying to us about what happened on the day that Charlie Kirk lost his life. Nothing they've told us thus far makes any sense, and somehow it's only getting worse. So, welcome back. Let's jump right into this. [Applause] [Music] I have to say any woman that can get on stage and meaningfully say that they forgive the person who killed their husband that quickly, you are truly a better person than me because I I've just been so angry and so angry. And yet she was able to through tears and obviously you could tell um how difficult that moment was for her. But she arrived at forgiveness and she did it in front of the entire world. And I think that every single person should watch that speech. Truly, they should watch that speech. They should watch uh Tucker Carlson's speech. I don't think even showing you clips of it, I'm going to show you one, could do it justice. You should watch it in its entirety. uh the emotion, the message of it and you can obviously see why Charlie fell in love with her, right? I remember meeting Erica. We were at Charlie and I were in New York for something one or another and he was falling for her hard, but he wanted to play it cool. He wanted to play it cool. So, he's like, "Come meet her at Del Frisco's in New York City and I came there and she was just lovely. She was genuinely such a nice person." And I was like, "Charlie, just go for it. Just go for it." And he did go for it. And last night, I really do think that the entire world needed to hear her message. What you took from it, how you could apply it to your life, um, is up to you. But specifically, the part that she shared that provided me with so much peace and I needed to hear it truly was when she explained that Charlie did not suffer because that thinking about that is I just I really shed so many tears over it. thinking that he suffered even for a moment. It was my favorite part of her speech. So, I'm going to play that right now. One moment, Charlie was doing what he loved, arguing and debating on campus, fighting for the gospel and truth in front of a big crowd. And then he blinked. He blinked and saw his savior in paradise [Applause] and all the heavenly mysteries were revealed to him. I mean that it's just beautiful and to really think about that um that he just blinked and then he was with the Lord and it is just a fact that Charlie just loved the Lord. It was constantly like I told you going through the conversations and how much he would just say I need to pray about it. I need to pray about it. I need to pray about it. wanting to marry Erica. First thing he said, which I think I showed you guys last week, and Erica is correct. It is important to remember that message of forgiveness that we have within ourselves. And it sometimes feels very hard to do that. But we do, we are called upon to forgive people, to forgive our enemies even in moments that it seems impossible or extraordinary to do so. But it is also important. It's not really a but. But I just I want to assert that it is also important to remember that what Christ is. As I said at the top of this show is truth, right? Christ is truth. And we are not getting the truth right now of what happened to Charlie Kirk on 910. And to be very clear, I am going to need it. I demand it. In fact, I'm now currently working on a minuteby minute timeline, which I will have for you guys later this week, of what exactly happened in the seconds and minutes following Charlie um getting shot. I need to know. I need to follow bodies. I've already been able to, as I asked over the weekend, locate George Zinn in the crowd. It seems a bit suspicious to me how far he was. And then suddenly they take him through a pathway. I mean, that's him right there. Thank you to the person that sent this picture. Um, but then I I find him on video and I'm trying to understand how he made it down the pathway and was taken through to the same area that they had just taken Charlie in the car. I have a lot of questions and each and every one of them will be answered by the end of this investigation. And I also want to put it to you this way. So much more has come to light that I have not yet presented. I am working with other journalists uh different aspects asking them hey you look into this I'm going to look into that and the first thing that I I think I should make abundantly clear is I am relieved that Erica Kirk is at the head of turning point USA because just like I alluded to last week and which I will double down on now I believe that people within that company betrayed Charlie. Okay, that's just what I believe right now and I want to make sure that I have these facts entirely at my side before I tell you guys more. I will say if you are a rat on a ship, you should probably flee now. I recommend it. Anyways, you guys, on Friday, we did an episode. I want to be clear, I didn't think that that episode was going to have the reaction that it did, but I am grateful we were unpacking the footage that was going viral of the guy that was taking down the camera, which which was directly behind Charlie's head a mere approximate 4 minutes after Charlie was shot. Everybody thought that it was very suspicious. I recognized the individual and reached out, had a conversation, saw the footage, and made the promise that I was not going to share it. Although I said to you, I encouraged them to share it. I believe that the reason everybody is a conspiracy theorist is because people don't share truth. Right? What once you share everything, there's no room for conspiracy. And when I was sharing what I saw, I was doing so because I I was just thinking that, you know, this could help like this can obviously remove people from their conspiracies. And then it kind of occurred to me that what I shared was a bigger deal than I had imagined by saying that I didn't see any blood. And that is a fact. I did not see any blood. In fact, the only blood that I did see at all, I'm talking about blood in the back, was on Charlie's hand, on Charlie's left hand, which as many people have been saying means that the blood moved forward. We don't need to get into all of the gore. But what I didn't expect thereafter was for the Turning Point USA spokesperson, Andrew Kovvette, to issue this statement as people were asking questions like, "Hey, how is that possible? How was there nothing in the back?" Um, if this is the gun that was used, Andrew Kovette tweeted this over the weekend. I want to address some of the discussion about the lack of an exit wound with Charlie. I'm usually not interested in delving into most of this kind of online chatter and I apologize that this is somewhat graphic, but in this case, the fact that there wasn't an exit wound is probably another miracle and I want people to know. I just spoke with the surgeon who worked on Charlie in the hospital. He said the bullet quote absolutely should have gone through, which is very, very normal for a high-powered, high velocity round. I've seen wounds from this caliber many times and they always just go through everything. This would have taken a moose or two down, an elk, etc. End quote. And then now this is Andrew. But it didn't go through. Charlie's body stopped it. I mentioned to his doctor that there were dozens of staff, students, and special guests standing directly behind Charlie on the other side of the tent, and he replied, "It was an absolute miracle that someone else didn't get killed. His bone," referring to Charlie, was so healthy, and the density was so so impressive that he's like the man of steel. It should have just gone through and through. It likely would have killed those standing behind him, too. In the end, the coroner did find the bullet just beneath the skin. Even in death, Charlie managed to save the lives of those around him. Remarkable and miraculous. End statement. Now, first I want to say this because people were attacking Andrew Kovette immediately. Um, I want to say that it is good to remember that this is Andrew Kovett's literal job. Okay, he is a PR agent. He runs a PR company and his job is to respond to online chatter and online questions and sometimes it may not even be what you want to say. In fact, it should never actually if you're going to your job be necessarily what you want to say. Um, he also was very close to Charlie. So, I would imagine that he's under a tremendous amount of pressure. The company is moving into a different direction. These are we are still just over a week after Charlie lost his life and he has to be the messenger. Who is directing that message? We don't know. But his job can't be easy at this moment. Okay. If I say to my PR agent, I want you to make this statement. He works for the company. My my PR person just has to make a statement. Okay. So, I think I would like to just respond to what is being said objectively rather than to attack Andrew Kovette's character. That aside, the statement objectively feels to me like the manipulation of a Christian audience, right? They know Charlie's audience is Christian. And therefore, what they're selling to us is we you should believe you're a believer, right? As a Christian, you believe in miracles, right? Like you believe in Christ and the miracles um that Jesus performed, right? Well, then you should just believe this. There's something about that that I don't like. I don't like that. I don't just this was a miracle and that should just be the end and no more questions should be asked. Yes, the conservative base is filled with Christians, but also the conservative base is filled with a lot of hunters. Okay? people that hunt and they know weapons and they know how weapons work and they know how weapons don't work. And this particular statement to me does not pass the sniff test. Now again, when I share that information, I had assumed they were going to say the angle went through this. I I did not imagine they were just going to say that it was a miracle. Alex Jones immediately took to X Live. This began trending. the statement began trending and he jumped onto an X onto X and he responded to that statement saying this. Take a listen. The spokesperson for TPUSA just posted two hours ago that they talked to the corner and that Charlie Kirk was shot with a 30 odd six in the left side of his neck of the artery and that he's a man of steel. and that the bones in his neck that are like chicken bones stopped a bullet that travels 2,00 500 ft a second out of the barrel at 200 yards depending on the grain of of the cartridge and the rest of it probably hit him at 1,900 ft per second. I've shot hogs at 500 yards 30 yard six right to the side tiny hole blows up 4 inch hole out the other side we're talking through two feet of a hog boom hit him in the head bring blows up they just said he got shot with a 30 odd six and that it didn't go through yeah it's a lot it's a lot to process and here's the thing if you were going to bring me to the argument that this truly was a miracle, it probably would not be in the midst of a circumstance where the feds are lying, right? That that is like not now, right? Cuz it could be a miracle also that Tyler Robinson decided to take a break at Dairy Queen and issue some texts that sound like they were written in 1822. um and tell every single it could just be a miracle, right, for the feds and and go through every single detail of exactly how he planned it, why he planned it, including his MAGA dad who's been extra MAGA lately that he doesn't actually lived with and nobody knows why the dad is extra MAGA late lately. Um and explaining where to find the weapon and and just a miracle that he happened to leave this letter that has since been disappeared. But they, you know, he took a picture, his lover took a picture of it. could just all be one big federal miracle. But I'm not inclined to believe that at this moment. Okay? I'm not inclined to believe any of this at this moment. And so we press on. Okay? And because Alex and many other people and hunters and conservatives were going, "Yeah, no." I mean, people were even posting videos of them shooting to show what that damage would be like. Cash Patel then made an extraordinary move and I would say I would refer to this as a capitulation to online sleuths. Uh he tweeted this. He wrote, "As the director of the FBI, I am committed to ensuring the investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination is thorough and exhaustive, pursuing every lead to its conclusion. The full weight of America's law enforcement agencies are actively following the evidence that has emerged, but our efforts extend beyond initial findings. We are examining every facet of this assassination. We are meticulously investigating theories and questions including the location from where the shot was taken, the possibility of accompllices, the text message, confession and related conversations, discord chats, the angle of the shot and bullet impact, how the weapon was transported, hand gestures observed as potential signals near Charlie at the time of his assassination, and visitors to the alleged shooters residence in the hours and the days leading up to September 10th, 2025. Some details are known today while others are still being pursued to ensure every possibility is considered. Our primary focus is to complete this investigation and deliver justice to protect the integrity of the investigation in subsequent prosecution. We cannot release every piece of information that we have to the public right now. We will ensure every question is addressed at the appropriate moment regarding specific details such as questions about the plane that allegedly turned off its transponder after departing from an airport near the assassination site. We can share updates when answers are confirmed. After interviews with the pilot and consultation with the FAA, we determined the transponder was not turned off. Incomplete flight data in rural areas caused the apparent gap. The entire FBI mourns the loss of Charlie Kirk. we will not rest until justice is served and our investigation into the assassination will continue until every question is answered. Okay, so first thing that I can very quickly debunk is when he says that they looked into the transponder thing and yeah, we checked it out and actually they just lost service. Okay, that disputes what the plane owner themselves uh he identified himself Derek Maxfield and issued a a long statement on Instagram where he said that they got permission to you know turn off services which are transponder services um and they got that permission from the air traffic controller. So it can't be both. can't be. No, it never happened. They just lost service. And Derek Maxfield saying, "No, we had communication with the ATC, which is air traffic control, and what we did followed guidelines." So, that's already a problem. Secondly, saying that you're not going to release information because you want to protect the integrity of the investigation while also releasing those ridiculous text messages. Uh that looked like somebody was having fun on TikTok and making, you know, a ridiculous skit. I don't feel like the investigation has much integrity or the feds in general have any integrity after you guys gaslight us about Jeffrey Epstein. Okay. So, if you want us to or if you want to restore credibility to the the feds, I would allow the mommy sleuths to take over. That's my opinion. I had to get in touch and allow the internet to do what the internet does because now you're answering everything that we brought up, not me, we because I am it is because of the entire world paying attention, sending tips. I'm grateful to God that I have a platform to be able to share that information and to encourage it. But this is this is just coming from regular people around the world and now you guys are it feels like playing defense because you have not been playing offense. So yeah, that would be my free advice that's not going to be listened to. But while I have your attention, I do have a few more questions that could be answered or maybe some leads that you guys could be exploring, if you will. Because once we began learning about that house next door that's been vacant and is owned by UVU and once we began looking into the witnesses and finding a a common last name and looking into Calira Engineering as we did last week. Again, not implying that they did anything wrong, just telling you factually that that witness whose uh footage ended up in the hands of TMZ runs an engineering company uh that is has a presence worldwide and they specialize in making these valves. I started thinking once people told me that valves historically have a connection to the government and the deep state um about how important those valves were to warfare because if you just want to shut down someone's pipe pipeline let's say you want to shut off water um or you want to shut off gasoline yeah it makes sense why the government would want to be controlling pipelines and valves but anyways I started to ask myself oh Well, is anybody looking into whether or not there was anything under Charlie Kirk when he was shot? Right? Because if we aren't accepting the narrative that that particular gun at that distance did no um didn't pass through and yet for whatever reason the feds scrambled to repave that area. Uh maybe as some people have speculated he was shot from a closer distance. I started wondering, was there an access point to any valves? Were there any pipelines that could have been under Charlie? And as it turns out, I looked at some old pictures of where he was sitting. Uh, and there was a massive pipeline that was almost exactly behind where Charlie was sitting. Here's that that maybe it's a water pipeline. I don't know. But there it is under the flag. And to your right, I went into my tips line and I saw that somebody had messaged me about this. More than one person has messaged me about this. They're like, "Hey, yeah, there's like a whole underground thing there to your right. You're observing those two little boxes, and they told me that that was a a trap door." Now, I'm not implying someone, you know, popped up and shot Charlie, but that's a closeup of that area. I'm just implying that there's an entire underground there. And I remember when I looked at the footage, I felt like it was coming up. I don't know anything about ballistics. I'm not an expert, but if there was a hatch door nearby, then we can assume, as we should always assume with colleges, obviously stadiums, there's always an underground path. So, I'm wondering if the federal government has explored the possibility that somebody could have been under Charlie and done that while everyone's looking around and thinking that a shot went off from here. if that was just maybe like decoy number two and actually Charlie was shot from beneath him which then could maybe explain why there was no exit wound. Again, I'm theorizing because I have a right to I have a right to think and that is interesting to me. Where do where does it go? Where where do the tunnels underneath UVU lead to? Right. That's an interesting question. Maybe everyone's looking up when we should be looking below. Right. maybe we should be looking below if there is this interest in pipelines. And I saw that actually where he was sitting, there's a whole irrigation system that's managed by the university. And so there's definitively stuff beneath Charlie. Again, I don't know anything about ballistics, but I've been very clear that we will be exploring every lead until we get a proper answer for what happened. And I think that that would probably be an interesting one for the feds to explore because within 48 hours, I mean, was it 48 hours, Skyler, they decided to instead pave that area, repave it. Do we have footage of that? Here we go. Yeah. No, they kind of did the opposite here. They they paved it. And I feel like that's was a little soon. So, I don't know if if things can be um unpaid. I'm sure they can, but maybe exploring a tunnel network would be a good start. And I will leave it at that before we get into the absurd I I didn't think it it could be more absurd than last week in the manners that I have been attacked. But over the weekend, somebody reported me to the FBI and the CIA. And I'm not going to prison alone. I'm taking all of you guys.
Okay. The attacks against me from Aipac citizens or Zionists are now bordering on the hysterical. I I mean, last week was insane. I got to the point where I just went I just shrugged. I just Kanye shrugged. I'm like, "Okay, I don't know what to say." But this is just so funny. I had to share it. I have been meaningfully reported to the FBI and the CIA. And I want to be very clear, you guys are all complicit. Just this weekend, this is real. A real live tweet came from Laura Loomer, our resident psycho. She tweeted this. She's been attacking me non-stop. As part of her grift to monetize the murder of her quote unquote best friend, Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens is selling a CIA line of merchandise that is called the Candace Intelligence Agency, which rips off the CIA name and logo. It is a federal felony to use the CIA seal without license. She then cites the code and um calls, reads it, sends a quote from it, rather pulls it, and then says, "You are likely breaking the law with your CIA merch, Candace. The CIA can technically sue to get Candace to stop using their logo. It's really disrespectful to Charlie Kirk and the CIA." And then she CC's and tags the director of the CIA. Now, as everybody who watches this show knows, we've been selling that merch since before Charlie got assassinated. So, we just continued our show with the merch that we already sold for our show. Obviously, our um parody off of the CIA, which is perfectly legal, obviously, uh was related to the fact that we're always investigating things. Uh so, don't let the truth get into your way when you're spearing somebody. But the audacity to actually tag the director of the CIA and ask us to go to prison or to get into trouble is just I think it really highlights they're they're insane. It's it it is just insanity. It is reaching new levels. I love the guy who then tweeted under her. This was so good. He just said, "Look at Amazon committing all of these quote unquote federal felonies." And then he says, "F Israel first." Laura Loomer. as just a little side note and that he shows all the t-shirts on Amazon because like obviously you can buy yourself an FBI costume for Halloween if you'd like to. But that wasn't enough because last year I mean last week was that insane like they just tried to wipe away years of my life by pretending completely fictionalized that Charlie and I had a breakup. Right. Eric Bowling did this. He said I even I don't know if if he was even sober on that program because he said he hadn't seen me. This is Eric Bowling since 2015. He interviewed me in 2020. So that was weird. But they were clearly the call went out to just make up something that never happened. Never happened. I never had a falling out with Charlie Kirk. And so this guy, Awesome Jew, who I heard was also in the Hamptons with Bill Aman and that group of people who went out there, he then tries to cleverly release a text message between Charlie Kirk and an un an unknown individual. The text message has no date. It has no time. And I'm going to tell you why that is. And I'm going to tell you exactly when that text message had to have occurred. And but him releasing this tweet spectacularly backfired. The goal, of course, was to prove that Charlie and Candace had a falling out. Look at this message. Charlie's talking trash about Candace, except he's not at all. Instead, what the message did is that it proved exactly what I was saying, that donors and Zionists were attempting to control his speech, my speech, and who he platformed. So, these are the text messages that he shared, and he wrote exclusive. A close friend of Charlie Kirk shared these messages. I'm going to guess it's either Seth Dylan or Josh Hammer. uh it could could not be but I'm just putting that out there because of the style of the messages and he says he was never wavering on Israel and they are active he was actively pushing back on Candace Owens's false narrative. Now these are the messages he shared. This is the friend of Charlie in blue. He writes, "I watched the podcast. Candace needs to say two things and this will stop in its tracks. They are fundamental conservative principles. And she didn't say either. Quote, "Israel is not committing a genocide." Second quote, "30 dead, raped, kidnapped, and beheaded Americans in Gaza makes the fight in Gaza America first." And then he ends it by saying, "This is not Ukraine." He's literally saying what I have to say to make something stop in its tracks, right? And then Charlie writes, "This is right. I'm really trying to help her." what else is he going to say to this person? And then, but it's that second message that I can tell you exactly what the context was because I was messaging Charlie about it and I can tell you the time frame and why they wiped it is because it's from 2023. He then writes, "It doesn't come natural to her because I truly think she doesn't understand saying that Muslims are forced to live in a Muslim quarter in Israel and that betrays the timeline." Okay. So, what clearly happened in this text chain is that I tweeted, this is when it all started for me, and I started getting threats that I had to take it back if I wanted my life back. And he's kind of saying that there, right? This will all stop. I tweeted that genocide is always wrong. Here's the exact tweet. No government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide ever. There is no justification for a genocide. I can't believe this even needs to be said or is even considered the least bit controversial to state. That tweet was me responding to something that Brian Mast said in Congress. He said, "There's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian life." That was grotesque. So, I then started getting peer pressured to correct the tweets, to apologize for the tweet. At the time, I was at the Daily Wire um that I needed to understand why my tweet was wrong. Uh Dave Rubin uh instantly replied and said something about Israel, even though I didn't mention Israel in the tweet. And by itself, it was uh I still stand by that tweet, guys, years on. And I was being inundated. Charlie was being inundated. Like, how could she say this? How dare she say this thing? This is so wrong. And then I hosted somebody who was a Zionist on my show. And that's what he's referring to. The conversation that I had uh with Ammy Kak. And clearly Charlie probably said to him, you can watch this to get her viewpoints. Candace is not anti-Semitic. And that guy is not having it. He is incensed. And he is saying, here are the words that we have to hear from Candace. The reason they stripped that and didn't put the date that it was 2023 is because then it destroys the narrative that they're trying to put out that me and Charlie stopped had a falling out because obviously I went on tour with Charlie at the beginning of 2024 and I spoke at their conference in the summer of 2024 and you know don't let the facts get in the way of this bizarre narrative that Charlie and I had some falling out last year which never happened. rather what happened was Charlie was peer pressured by these same individuals um that I you know for me not to speak at Amfest and I was just like dude I don't I don't even care which is what I told you now in terms of his statement there that Charlie's viewpoints were not changing at all. These are not words that I put in Charlie's mouth. You can just go back and watch the things that he was saying. He hosted a sitdown which was incredible actually to discuss what anti-semitism is and what anti-semitism is not. It was a a town hall of sorts with students. Uh Jenz, as Megan Kelly said, she you can't find anybody beneath the age of 30 that supports Israel. That's a fact. And Charlie was trying to communicate that their tactics, just like you see in that text message, was hurting their cause. People are tired of it. We're tired of being bullied. For me, they behaved like a mafia. There's no other way to say it. I I was my livelihood was being threatened. And then eventually obviously I lost my job behind the scenes telling me what I had to say if I wanted to I don't know still be welcomed into the circle and I made a conscious decision to not be welcomed into I don't want to be around people that are behaving like that that are speaking like the way that person is speaking. Here's what she needs to say. Who are you? I don't need to say anything. My statement was fine. Genocide is always wrong. Okay. It's just always wrong and you're not going to convince me that I've done something wrong. They wanted me to apologize. I was being told I needed to issue a public statement to apologize for the tweet that I just read to you. Genocide is always wrong. Whackadoodle. Anyways, let's hear Charlie Kirk in his own words. This is from July of um this year. He was hosting that town hall about anti-semitism. Skyler, let's first run the clip of just before we get into the Apac clip, just him discussing with Jen Z anti-semitism. Take a listen. You're not anti-Israel. You don't wish them harm. You You're not, you know, like cheering on Iran. No, I I support is I think there are ally. I want them. But you would be called an anti-Semite by some people for saying this. And I think that's ridicul. I don't hate Jews because I think a nation should defend themselves. Exactly. Like I think that's the most ridiculous thing ever. I feel like it's becoming like the word racism. Like we just disagree with them so we just have to call them a name. I don't think it they're actually anti-semitic. I think people just can't agree with them and they can't prove them wrong. So they just throw a word out and be like you're anti-semitic for because you think that we should stop sending our money there. Something that I see amongst the people I'm around. I do see more like general disdain towards I mean just being honest Jewish people. That's correct. just because they're constantly being told that you hate Jews and it's like fine. If you're going to say I hate Jews over and over and over again, like if I'm going to be convicted of the crime, I might as well do the crime. I fear the same thing happens with all the talk of race. The more we talk about it, the more we bring it up, the more racism actually happens. This is like I try to tell Thank you for saying this like because like this is I try to tell these people and they're like we must get more aggressive. And so like let me ask a question. If we were to say if we were to remove like if people said what Tucker said is anti-Semitic, I don't hold that view, but it's like a lot of people on Twitter are like calling us out and like if whatever that's not going to happen, but um if we were to cancel Tucker, would anti-se anti-semitism increase or decrease? I think increase because that means any supporter of Tucker Carlson's statement therefore makes them anti-semit and association 100%. Exactly. But the binary that's presented is that if you don't passionately talk about it, you are a hater. That's probably destructive for everybody involved. So for me, I'm trying to find this new path, which is I love Israel. I visited there. My wife and I had the best experiences ever. I saw where Jesus rose from the dead and he walked on water. But also, I'm an American and I represent a generation that can't afford anything and that we are like flooded with illegals and no one speaks English and our hospitals are clogged. I think we need to have the prudence to reject the Jew hate, like, okay, we're not going to put up with that. That's dumb. But also, if you call everyone an anti-semite if they don't take a puritanical view of the Netanyahu government, then I think that's it's bad for everybody. Again, that's him in his own words. Uh, just a little over a month before he lost his life. So, I don't understand them. I don't know what they're trying to win here. And then he takes it a step further. He They talk about a no-go zone. You imagine he's got these donors. They're threatening him. And here is what he had to say when they were discussing Apac. Take a listen. How many of you guys think when a lawmaker and a man I respect like Ted Cruz uses the Bible to justify aid to Israel doesn't even know the verse, do you guys think that's like not the best way to approach this? Raise your hand. Okay. I think Ted Cruz is Genesis 12:3. I think a lot of people see that as offputting when you look at the New Testament. Why? Because I think a lot of people they they look especially at the writings of Paul where he talks about how that the new flesh is not the same as the people in the old covenant. The new flesh is everybody is everyone's included. Talking about Romans 9. Yes. Yeah. Are you Catholic? Converting to Catholic from Judaism. This is my next Oh, from Judaism. Yes. Oh, wow. So, so you're Jew. You're ethnically Jewish. Ethnically Jewish. And you have concerns about Apac? Yes, I do. I'm told that by some people that if I criticize Apac, I'm anti-Semitic. I think it's ridiculous. Yeah. I I feel like it's great to have a concern for your country. Do you think that the that Apac represents again I'm not saying I believe this but I think this is what you're saying that it represents a kind of cutting in line of prioritization away from the American people. Would you guys say that's a fair summary% meaning that like okay we vote we're citizens but a separate group gets higher priority because of whatever reasons. you you you you look like you want to chime in that the entirety of the idea of a pack is to represent a group, but the fact that we're having we're allowing a group that doesn't even represent American interests to influence the people who are supposed to be representing us I have a huge problem with. And that's why I've said this before and a lot of people don't like when I say it. I actually think there's probably like 20 representatives between Senate and House who I think are actually fully doing the work of the American people and don't have the interests of some group pulling their sway. But when you hear that lots of other countries also are lobbying um do you think I mean that you probably don't know the names of those countries but it's happening. Does that upset you equally or is Apac just get all the the press because it's so top of mind? if those other ones are doing the same thing. Of course, I do not think that other countries should be telling us how to spend, you know, that that telling our representatives and people who are here to represent all of us that they should be focusing outside of the United States, America first. Thank you. You know, there once was a president who um started talking about that, suggesting that the precursor to Apac, which became Apac, um should register under Farara. And he ended up getting shot in a moving vehicle in broad daylight with the whole world watching. So, that's a dangerous conversation to be hosting is what I want to say. It's a very dangerous conversation to be hosting. It is incredible that he is in his own words six weeks ago and they're just lying to that young ethnically Jewish kid who said he was converting to Catholicism. Amazing. If the spirit of what he was saying, if he was the leader um and was the spokesperson in the political realm for the Jewish people, they would go a lot further. They would go a lot further. Instead, they're making enemies everywhere. And as they make enemies, they then gaslight. They call their friends in the press. They call you names. And they keep doing more of the thing that made them lose an entire generation of people. Charlie was trying to help them. He was trying to help them. As you can see, as he said, I tell them, who's he talking about when when he says that? I keep telling them this. Who is he speaking about? Listen to Charlie in his own words. It's ridiculous to pretend like I am saying something that you cannot verify. That Megan Kelly is lying, that Tucker Carlson is lying. And it is very difficult uh to not see as I do that what I went through beginning at in the beginning of 2024 seems to be what Charlie was going through in 2025 which is getting really tired of the pressure of people telling you something that you're doing is wrong or saying is wrong when it so clearly is not. It's it's almost like they try to make you think you're in a psychosis, right? They It's It's a level of gaslighting you've never seen before. It's like, "How could you say? What did you What did you mean when you said genocide is always wrong? I can help you. I'm your friend. Candace, don't you see why you should say sorry for that tweet?" I know. I look back at text messages. I know other Jewish people, you know, they love you, but they they were hurt. You know, they saw your tweet and they just said, "What happened to Candace?" They said it brought tears to their eyes. And I held the line. I said, "I'm not apologizing. If me saying genocide is always wrong brought tears to their eyes, then these people are demons. Like what? Like, excuse me. So, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. And I um also just want to say that Tucker Carlson was amazing at last night as well. I know he's catching a lot of flack, but what his message was very important. He shared the story of Christ and that these people who plot and lie and you know uh censor and pass laws all it ever does inevitably is the exact opposite of what they're hoping that it does. And that really is the lesson of the Lord. That is that is the lesson of of all of the plots failing. And here is a clip of what Tucker Carlson had to say last night. The main thing about Charlie and his message, he was bringing the gospel to the country. He was doing the thing that the people in charge hate most, which is calling for them to repent. So, how is Charlie's message different? And Charlie was a political person who was deeply interested in coalition building and in getting the right people in office because he knew that vast improvements are possible politically. But he also knew that politics is not the final answer. or it can't answer the deepest questions actually that the only real solution is Jesus. And the reason it's really simple politics at its core is a process of critiquing other people and getting them to change. Christianity, the gospel message, the message of Jesus begins with repentance. Christianity calls upon you to change. Our core prayer given to us by Jesus, the Lord's prayer, how long is it? Demands that we forgive other people. But preceding that is a request for our forgiveness. In other words, forgive us our sins. Meditate on what we've done wrong, how we've fallen short, and then it becomes possible to forgive other people. Fantastic. That is a call to change our hearts from Jesus and that is the only way forward. Couldn't agree more. And I will say this like I am on this journey to figure out what happened on that day. I'm not going to stop unless Erica Kirk asks me to stop as I have said or my father or my father um or my husband asks me to stop because truth matters. And I think it is amazing that uh Erica found it in her heart to forgive. But it is also my belief that there are more people involved that are in need of forgiveness. Okay. Like I said, a lot more of it I have found out and I want to be really methodical about releasing information, but this one they chose the wrong person. They they chose the wrong person to take out.
Larry C. Johnson & Paul Craig Roberts: Charlie Kirk BOMBSHELL Update — Europe Snapbacks on Iran Dialogue Works Streamed live 17 hours ago
Transcript
Hi everybody. Today's Monday, September 22nd, 2025, and our friend Larry Johnson is back with us. Welcome back, Larry. You did. You haven't kicked me out of the house yet, huh? Not trying to dispossess me, but nice shirt. You're doing nice shirt. You too. Yeah. I gota tell gota tell Professor Miranda he's got to step his game up. You know, he he made some crack on one of your recent conversations with him. He's a good man, but he needs to get a shirt. Yeah, exactly. Please subscribe and hit like button to help us reaching more people. And Larry, let's start with the case of Charlie Kirk. And he here is what Fox News told us about the rifle, the type of rifle being used in the assassination. We get the latest details about that weapon, but investigators had already told us one thing that we knew a few days ago was that they found the rifle out wrapped in a towel right near the shooting scene. So, they had it, but what we didn't know was exactly how old it was. is. And it's important to point that out because police say the suspect might have chosen that gun because it was pretty much untraceable. I want to show it to you on your screen for people watching at home. This is what that weapon looked like according to authorities. It's a Mouser model vintage rifle that investigators say is so old they didn't even have a serial number on it, so they wouldn't have been able to track it down. This is the weapon that police say Tyler Robinson used to assassinate Charlie Kirk that day. It dated back several decades. is the gunman calling it grandpa's rifle tech text texting rather his transgender partner after the killing saying this. I want to pull up these text messages cuz this whole thing had come to light too the other day. I'm worried what my old man would do if I don't bring back grandpa's rifle. I don't know if it has a serial number on it but it wouldn't trace to me. I'm worried about handprints. I had to leave it in a bush though where I changed outfits. I didn't have the ability or time to take it with. And then he actually kind of stayed around the area, we're told, to see if he had the time to get it and take it to his car. Court documents say the Utah State Bureau of Investigations, who's working this case, found DNA from the murder weapon that they believe is consistent with Tyler Robinson. Police say Robinson also admitted in a text message that he shot and killed Kirk, texting back and forth to his partner, kind of giving a lot of information. and back out here live. While Robinson sits in that county jail behind me in Utah, his partner is cooperating with authorities, I'm told. So, they're trying to get as much information as they can. Yeah, you get what they're talking about. Yeah. Larry, what do we know about the rifle and how is the information? How do you find the way that they're somehow managing this situation or they're trying to put out information about the case of assassination? Well, we really don't know much about the rifle. We've got some I call them contrived narratives. There was a photograph that was circulating claiming, "Oh, this is the rifle they found." But, you know, according to that report, this was a 1906, 1908 Mouser. That's 120 years old. The rifle that they showed didn't look like that at all. You know, it was not a wooden stock. It almost looked like it was a um some sort of plastic material stock. Um so, you know, we're not sure. I've heard some have just said that it's an MK98 uh mouser and and and and you know another friend of mine Ryan Dawson had claimed that oh yeah that you could comply collapse that stock you know fold it over to reduce the size of the gun. Well I've been all over scouring the internet for such a an image I can't find it. Um, so, uh, and you know, shooting an old rifle is, uh, you know, brings some problems with it. I mean, you've got to make sure it's in, you know, it's in decent condition and that the barrel hasn't worn out and, you know, a number of other things. You know, I've got a M1 Garand, which was the rifle used in World War II. It's from 1943. And I still before I ever shot that had to take it to a gunsmith to say, "Okay, check the is this safe to fire because it fires the round that Charlie did, which is a it's a big round." Um, so we really don't know if that in fact is the rifle, you know, and what what the condition of it was.
Then the question is, uh, you know, the FBI claimed that he broke it down, you know, took it apart, disassembled it in in part to get it off the roof. Yet, if you disassemble a mouser, it has what's called an internal magazine. So, it's like a spring that if you you put in rounds of ammunition and that spring will, you know, push up so that you can then chamber the round into the barrel, you know, or, you know, put put the round uh into uh the barrel so it can be fired. Well, the problem is when you disassemble a mouser that when that internal magazine, it drops out and all the ammunition falls out. And yet they claimed that they found the rifle intact with the, you know, he'd fired a shot. It's a bolt action. So you raise the bolt, pull it back, it will extract the cartridge, move the bolt forward, it will insert the new cartridge into the barrel. Well, that they claimed that after he fired, he didn't didn't operate the the bolt action at all. Left it intact. So there's no way in hell he could have disassembled it is the point. Okay. So, somebody's lying here. That that's what's clear. Um the images of him going across the roof. Um it doesn't appear he's got, yes, he has something in his hand, but it doesn't appear to be a full-size Mouser rifle. Um, so just, you know, you've got to ask a question, why why is the FBI lying about this?
And then then you get to the issue of the shot. The fact that there has been so much disinformation surrounding this tells me that it's an intelligence operation of some sort. In other words, people deliberately feeding false information into the narrative such as, "Oh, he was shot from the side, that's why his head did, you know, his head didn't do that." Or he was shot from behind, or, you know, so you've got lots of this conspiratorial stuff going on. He was shot from the front. He got shot, you know, right here. whether it nicked the collar bone and then spun up, but it put a hole in and you know the hole initially shows up about the size of the end of your middle finger. Um, but then it rapidly, you know, blood just poured out. The claim that it was a 306 round that hit him. Um, I have seen several videos of a variety of 36, you know, full metal jacketed uh 30 30 six rounds. It would have tore his head off if that's what hit him or just I mean would have caused catastrophic damage beyond what we saw in his neck
You can see on the internet they've got what are called ballistic dummies. So they use a gel and they actually have a skeletal structure. So it's designed to reproduce, you know, what shooting uh an actual person would be like. And I mean when the when a 30-6 six round hits it uh now again when some of these images we don't know if they were shot from 200 yards. Um there is a a round it's called frangible and it's it's designed that when it penetrates it then breaks up. It doesn't it was it was originally designed to stop you know when police were shooting somebody a bullet would pass through them and hit some innocent bystander behind. So they they came up with what's known as a frangible round to that would then remain within the body of the person. I suppose that's possible, but then we get this story out that the doctor found the bullet just under the skin, and they were calling Charlie Kirk "a man of steel who stopped the bullet." You know, that's such a croc of crap. You step back and say, "Why the lies." There's no doubt Charlie was shot from the front. There was not an exit wound. You can see it in a variety of videos. And it raises questions about exactly what size it was. Some insist that it was what's called a palm pistol. Look, look. The problem with a palm pistol is how do you aim it? I can aim and point. I can do pretty accurate point shooting out to about 21 ft. But once you get out past, say 15 yards, and you try to point shoot with a handgun, you're not going to be very accurate.
This was an accurate shot. So, whoever was aiming, if they're aiming to the head, the bullet could have dropped and hit him in the neck.
So, the forensic I what I'm saying so far is the forensic evidence just isn't adding up to the narrative. And, you know, the FBI's got uh you know, I had I had high hopes that Cash Patel and Dan Bonino would bring some credibility back to the FBI. They turned it into a frigin clown show. They're both buffoons. Larry, you've mentioned how the doctor, the surgeon was talking about the bullet that they man of steel because he could explain what has happened to the bullet, what he didn't because we've learned from what from what Candace Owens told us that she saw a footage from backside. Uhhuh. She she sees that there is nothing going on when you look at the you you know look at the scene from the back. And why is that the position? You see no blood. You see nothing coming out in that direction. There's a I I've got a video on my latest uh sonar21.com post um that contains several several videos within that video of different shots from uh a 306. There's one that uses a full ballistic dummy head chest. The shot goes through the chest, blows out the back. So you get an exit wound. It's so the entrance wound maybe like the size of the end of my finger. The exit wound is like this. And there was a 2x4 a piece of a piece of wood that was attached to the back of this ballistic dummy. The bullet penetrated the 2x4 and then went back and hit hit a wall. That's what you know she was expecting to see that if if a 306 round that was fully metal jacketed had hit Charlie in the neck would have tore his neck off would have blown off a big back half of his neck and would have probably hit some of the people that were standing back behind that that's where the story doesn't make sense. Uh now maybe they'll come up and say, "Oh, well it was an it was an underpowered, you know, they this was a speciallymade round of ammunition that only had half the power, you know, half the gunpowder inside the shell casing." Well, you know, maybe. Um so again we just we don't have any the information they've put out is misleading and beyond that we don't have any good information other than to say what we know about the performance and how and the car characteristics of 30 out six round are not evident in what we see with Charlie Kirk. Um, you know, he gets hit, you know, he does this real quick movement from he gets hit from the front. Um, and you know, it's just it's the physics of you're hitting low enough on the neck, the head's going to move forward. You hit me in the forehead, my head's going to go back. I mean, you can just do it to yourself with pressure. You you hit yourself from the side, hit yourself from the side. But if I hit myself here on the side of the neck, your head does different things. So people, you need to look carefully at what's going on. But the fact that he said he found the the bullet under the skin, that doesn't make sense.
The other thing is the text messages between Tyler Robin Robinson and his love, you know, the whole thing is amazing because he's coming. Yeah. He's because the whole story that he comes from a conservative family and then he goes in a relationship with a transgender guy and you know the text messages between the two it seems that two people 50 years ago are talking to each other. It's somehow amazing just looking at two 22 years old. You know the these are pretty young people talking to each other the way that Yeah. 50 years ago people were talking this Yeah. L what's his name? Lance Twigs or you know something like that. Yeah. The the there's a real problem with the text messages put out. And number one they don't have date timestamps. So it's not like they've been lifted off of phone. Um some have speculated that this was an AI generated conversation. You know, you went to Grock and say, "Hey, Grock, give me give me a conversation between, you know, two two uh sexually confused people, one of whom has just killed somebody and has uh got a rifle he needs to hide and you know, because some of the word, some of the language use, you know, you and I talk a lot. You know, we're on you know, you do a variety of podcasts. I do a variety of podcasts." None of us use language like that. I mean it is it's archaic. Some of it is archaic.
So you got to wonder why are they so busy establishing this narrative.
Now there are other reports out, and again I take it at face value that it may be true, that this thing was planned in advance. You know, there were cars coming and going from that location in the days preceding. There were posts on Discord and other social media platforms saying that something big was going to happen on September 10th. Others even saying hat Charlie Kirk was going to be killed. So, this wasn't just one angry transgender confused guy who's going out to avenge his boyfriend/girlfriend, whatever, that there was an element of organization to this. And you know, that's what they got to get to the bottom of.
How trained does someone have to be to hit the target the way he did in this assassination?
Well, it means that you've had somebody who's taken that rifle and zeroed it, so that when you shoot a target at 200 yards, I've heard 150-200 yards, when you shoot a target at that distance, you want to make sure that when you line up the reticles, you know, the crosshairs, that when you put the crosshair on a particular point, that's where the bullet will hit. Because the earth is curved, when you fire a bullet, it's basically following the curvature of the earth. And over distance, the longer the distance, the more the bullet drops.
So if I'm shooting a round, we call them rounds or ammunition because a bullet is only one part of the round. You've got the bullet, the shell casing, the primer. The primer is a little explosive at the base in the center of the cartridge. Then when you hit it, it ignites the gunpowder. So you got those four things, the bullet, shell, gunpowder, and primer. When you fire say a 5.56 round, which is, you know, much smaller at 500 yards if you've got it zeroed, so at 200 yards, you'll hit right in the middle of what you're looking at. At 500 yards that bullet will drop five feet, okay? So what this means is somebody had to have zeroed that rifle so that they knew when they were aiming at 200 yards, that it's going to hit either where you aimed, or you will understand that you need to adjust where you aim at, recognizing that the bullet's going to drop four or five inches from 200 yards. Okay?
Hopefully I'm not confusing you yet.
No.
So that's one thing, tat there had to be somebody, whether it was Tyler Robinson, or somebody who helped him, who zeroed the rifle. Number one.
Number two then is the actual shooting, pressing the trigger. If I've got a zeroed rifle, I can teach you to do that at 200 yards in probably 15 to 30 minutes. And it's a simple matter of put the rifle down, aim at the target, understand what you're looking at through the scope, put the crosshairs on it, learn to breathe, exhale, hold your breath, press the trigger. I could teach you to do that, and you could make that shot.
So the bottom line is there was an element of skill here. Plus, this gets back to the whole notion of he disassembled rifle. If you've got it zeroed in, and then you take that rifle apart, there's a good chance that you will have lost the zero so that you have to shoot again to make sure that you're aiming where the red dot in the middle of your scope is. That's where the bullet's going to go. Does that make sense?
Yeah, it's amazing the way that you describe it. Larry, a person in our audience has a question for you. What would happen if the bullet came from the right side around the ear?
Yeah. No. If you would have seen it from the right side, just put your finger to your ear, hit yourself in the air, try to see if you can keep your head -- if you get hit unexpectedly in the side, your head's going to move like this. Okay? We didn't see that on the video. His head does this. It goes down and then up, down and then up, not to the side. So, that's why I say this. And I step back and say, "Who's putting that out?" I'm not accusing the questioner of that. That has been circulated on the internet as, yeah, this is what we think happened because this was an exit. That wasn't an exit wound. That was an entrance wound. And I can pull up my video at sonar21.com and look at that, and watch the exit wound that comes out of this ballistic dummy. You know, it's the size of a paper plate small, like a 6" hole. So what was done to Charlie was an assassination. It was intended to kill him and it, and it did so effectively.
What about his change of outfit. Here is what the FBI said.
So when he's first spotted on campus, he has different clothing on, and then he changes clothing on the roof, and then changed back into that clothing at some point so that when he was apprehended, when he was arrested, the clothing matched the clothing he had on before the shooting.
Yeah, how do they know he changed his clothing on the roof? I don't know, was he doing a strip tease, music playing. There are lots of lots of holes in the story. I don't know if there was a deliberate effort to mislead people, that's a possibility, or if it's just sheer incompetence. I never discount the possibility of incompetence and stupidity.
And you see the footage, Larry, of the guy who's crossing the road, and you see he has some sort of problem with his leg and he doesn't --
Well, that's before, right? Before the shooting, he's walking like he's limping. Some have speculated that he had a rifle in his pants. And I've seen videos where some say you can't do it, and others say you you know I've seen videos where you can do it. You can still walk, but you will have a limp, or it's not a normal gate. So is that how he smuggled the rifle up? Again they've got images of him on the stairs, and you don't see him moving in any of those images. So you can't tell whether or not he's actually bending his knees. Does he have a rifle hidden in his pants or not?
When this first happened, I assumed he had a rifle that he was able to take apart. There are some you can take take apart, disassemble, and break them down, and get them into a backpack. But then the FBI comes up with the story of this 30-6 which doesn't break that down easily. I've not seen, and I've looked, a single video. If someone can find it, please send me a copy of it. I'd like to see someone breaking down a mauser.
I could bring my M1 Grand in here. Again, it's a World War II vintage rifle like this. Some suggest his may have gone back to World War I, but it's got what they call a receiver, and then the stock, the wooden part that the barrel sits in, that doesn't come apart easily. It's not a a quick knock it down. Whereas with an AR platform, an M4, M16, I just push a little uh screw, if you will, or bolt, and it can break down right away. I can do that in 4 seconds, but not this.
So, Larry, here's what Candace Owens said about the outfit.
What happened? Something made its way around the entire town and into my tips line repeatedly. It is a very clear image of Tyler Robinson, allegedly taken, I'll say allegedly for safety here, but it's looking right according to my timeline. Allegedly taken at 6:38 p.m. at a nearby Dairy Queen. Here is that photo that we can show you. Just take a look at this photo. What is wrong with this picture? A lot is wrong with this picture. First and foremost, at 6:38 p.m., you just shot someone. You have gone through great pains to hide your face, to change your outfit. But wait, you didn't fully change your outfit, did you? I'm looking at this photo and you're wearing jeans, and you're wearing the maroon shirt. Now we have a 50/50 combo of the outfit. And now you're showing your eyes, and you're not fearful at all that you might be recognized.
Also, wow, you must have quite the stomach. You don't have a criminal record, and then the next thing you know, you shoot someone, and you're like, I'm just going to go have a meal? You don't seem to be too shaken or too upset. Something problematic is the location. By the way, we mapped this out. It's about 15 minutes away from the campus at a time when we're told that he's idling by babysitting the rifle. So, what we're showing is about a 17 minute drive away from the campus. So, there should be a lot of footage then of of his Dodge Challenger driving back and forth.
And like I said, the biggest thing that jumps out at me is he looks kind of content there. So, he's got to be a full-blown psychopath wearing half of what the feds told us he was wearing in the morning, and half of what the feds told us that he was wearing during the shooting.
So, why did he text this exchange at all, and say that he changed outfits when you could have said , "I changed my t-shirt" if that's the reality? You just changed your t-shirt and that was enough. Was it just a t-shirt that he changed? The outfit again, as I sensed yesterday, has always been problematic. I feel the outfit was the fed's mistake. It never made any sense to say that he wore an outfit onto campus, light khaki shorts and a maroon shirt, and then decided to completely change hours later. Because why wouldn't you just change the t-shirt? That actually makes more sense. Every kid wears blue jeans. You don't have to change blue jeans, or change out of khaki shorts to avoid detection. No one's going to say, "Hey, we're stopping you because you're wearing blue jeans." That's not a thing. It would make much more sense if he had just changed his t-shirt.
Well, look, there's some problems with what she's saying. 6:38 p.m. was 3 to 4 hours after the shooting. She intimated that this was like 15 minutes after the shooting. No, it wasn't. I think the shots took place around 1:00 p.m. So I'm assuming this is all local time to Utah. So the fact that he's nonchalant 5 hours later, I don't find that surprising at all. But you know she is correct. Why is the FBI making such a big deal about changing "outfits"?
Look, you and I know we got the shirt thing going on. I've never heard you say, "I'm gonna go put on my new outfit." Who talks like that? "I'm going to change my shirt; we're going to change shirts." Or we're going to come in with conservative shirts on Friday. No, we don't say "outfits." There's something weird about the language. And Candace is correct when she notes, he's going to change his t-shirt? It's not like the whole thing was a costume, or was it? So, you know, again, this FBI with a lot of things it's saying is creating just more confusion.
Then we had the memorial of Charlie Kirk in which we saw Tucker Carlson coming up, Donald Trump was talking about and Donald Trump was asked about actually the assassination. He said that he feels that the assassin was alone and no one else is involved. Here is what he said. Involved is what you're asking. It would look to me like not. Now, he did have a friend, but I don't The friend seemed to be a little bit surprised. And here is what Tucker Carlson said at the memorial. He was a Christian evangelist. And it actually reminds me of my favorite story ever. So, it's about 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about the people in power and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people and they hate it and they just go bonkers. They hate it and they become obsessed with making him stop. This guy's got to stop talking. We've got to shut this guy up. And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamp lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us? We must make him stop talking. And there's always one guy with the bright idea and I could just hear him say, "I've got an idea. Why don't we just kill him? That'll shut him up. That'll fix the problem." It doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way. Everything is inverted. You know, you see two people, one of them is feeling that what has happened to Charlie is deeper than what they're talking about and Donald Trump is trying to say that this is the only guy who was responsible for the assassination and nothing more than that beyond that. Yeah. you know, Trump's reaction to this has been pretty weird. Um, they've, you know, there've been descriptions by both by Charlie's widow, Erica, and others that thought Charlie loved Donald like a father. He was like a second child to Donald Trump. Yet on the video uh footage that got, you know, the part that was used in the show that got Jimmy Kimmel fired, Kimmel, you know, correct made a I thought he made a decent point, a fair point about Trump was asked like the day after Charlie had been murdered that what what's your reaction? And he just said something very, you know, GL, you just sort of, oh yeah, it's terrible. Hey man, look at that construction project over here. That's that's what I said. That's weird. That's not normal. Um, if you really have a relationship with somebody that you genuinely cared about and they've been murdered in this way, I would find it even difficult to talk, particularly if it's someone that's like my my son, someone that I claim to have had this close relationship with. Trump's emotions on this have not been normal. I mean, it the emotions don't match the story, I guess, is what I'm saying. Um, hey man, look at we're building the biggest ballroom ever. Yeah, Charlie. Yeah, he's dead, man. But man, this ballroom's going to be great. Um, you know, that is, you know, what I'd call legitimate target for for a comedian trying to make a point that Trump's reaction was just so, you know, uh, so unusual. I'll leave it at that, which is not even a little bit comparable with what Natio is trying to do. Oh my god, he's so obsessed with everything around it. Donald Trump is trying to ignore everything and that wasn't a big deal. And how Larry when you put this to the reactions coming from Donald Trump to the reactions coming from Net is the prime minister of another country is trying to do everything to convince people that he wasn't behind the assassination and Donald Trump is somehow ignoring as you've mentioned the way that he should address the assassination. Well, there is uh the the Apac, AmericanI-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. the various Zionists are working overtime and it's not just Jewish Zionists, it's Christian Zionists uh to you know Charlie was used as a tool by these people and Charlie he did accept their money and there you know there are several instances over you know even in over the last year or two where uh he has said things to justify the genocide. Uh he has not been strong in condemning the murder of children in Gaza and part of that can be attributed to the political the the financial pressure that was being brought to bear on him by these wealthy uh Zionist donors. Um they realize they have a problem though because you know um the the conversation that was you know recorded I guess 24 hours before all this happened between Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro. And if you if you take some of the comments out of context, it sounds like Charlie was really questioning and challenging the the Israelis genocide. But if you play the full clip, it's more like he's trying to get some guidance from Ben Shapiro. Hey, you know, help me. How do we how do we explain this to people so that uh they're not going to be pissed off at Israel? Well, um whether you know both Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson have testified or you know spoken out that Charlie was under enormous pressure that he did not like BB Netanyahu. he did not like BB Netanyahu's interference in American politics and that he recognized he had a problem with his base of supporters. The the these these 20 20 year olds are not buying into the Israel's our best friend narrative. So this, you know, the fact that it surfaced quickly that the possibility was, was this Israel trying to shut up Charlie? I don't rule that out at all as far as not not did they set somebody up? Did they help organize the effort? Can't rule it out because they've got a they got a clear track record of killing people that they view as a problem. Just ask Hassan Nasalla and the Hamas negotiator Haneia, you know. So they've Israel's got just, you know, a long rich sorted tradition of uh murdering, assassinating others that they want to get out of the way. So, here's Charlie Kirk who's uh beginning, you know, well, the the two points that he was adamant on was he was going to have Tucker Carlson was his friend and he was going to have Tucker back at the next Turning Point USA event. Well, that you know there's clear evidence according to Tucker anyway that uh these Zionist donors uh the very very very wealthy pressured him to say don't you don't have Tucker Carlson don't have Megan Kelly and don't have Dave Smith. Well, so you know it's a complicated picture from Charlie Kirk's side. the there's you there are some who can just take certain statements he made and said he's just a tool of the Israelis and there are other comments you can take said no he was starting to break away um again I come back to the fact he's 31 years old and so young so young there are things you believe when you're 31 and you know you may not have enough experience at that point to you know properly think about it and say what you're going to say I Oh boy, I said some stupid stuff I didn't mean to. And people could take comments I said back when I was 30, 31, and if they played them, it would, you know, paint a radically different picture of me. So that's why I say I'm going to be uh I'm very reserved in any kind of judgmental statements about Charlie Kirk was this or Charlie Kirk was that. you know, I step back and just say, hey, u whether he was a tool of Zionist or not, he had the force of personality and the personal vision. And when you listen to Candace Owens, who worked with him in the early days of Turning Point USA, you know, very very clear that uh um he he was a he was a young man with a vision and delivered on it and and he need commended on that. When you interact with the people, it could be on your in your classroom, it could be with the crowd that Charlie K is doing, you try to tell your message and you're getting their message. You're getting influenced by the people you're talking with. Even when I teach at the in in the classroom, I get influenced by my students, right? they teach me as as I'm trying to teach them. You know, that's what has happened during this movement in the United States. In my opinion, Charlie Kirk was somehow she she he he learned something new that he couldn't learn it from Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens, right? It came from the young people who were challenging him, who were trying to make a point against him. Yeah. I wonder I don't know when when did he first do his first prove me wrong. You know when he'd go to a college campus and say hey prove me wrong and would but it would be a debate a back and forth a Socratic questioning. I I'm not sure. Yeah. But but I would guess if you went and watched the first two or three of those that he did and then you watched what he did eight years later. Let's assume that he started when he was 23. I think you'd see a a difference, a change in approach, change in argument, a change um you know, he's been accused of saying some harsh things. But again, in those videos that I've watched of those interactions, he was never insulting or or, you know, calling people names, you using expletives, um, insulting, you know, their their mother's sexual history, you know, none of that. It was always, you know, back and forth asking a question, posing a question. Um that's why I don't think that the Israeli government would be able to reshape the movement that he has started because the movement is coming from these young people is not about Charlie and his people. It comes from the young people in the United States most mostly under the age of 30. Yeah. And that could not be changed as I understand it. Larry, what's your take on that? Yeah. No, I think the Turning Point USA is they're at a point of we'll see how they continue. Uh I don't know what percentage of their budget has been supplied by wealthy uh Jewish donors like Bill Aman uh and others. But um you know if they find money outside of that if you will nonzionist money and then continue this movement because it is you know it is trying to challenge this sort of traditional I don't like calling it leftist but it but it's um they they are challenging the notion that uh they start from the premise America is a good place, not a bad place. Um, and again, that's one, that's the discussion I would love to have had with someone like Charlie to say, you know, hey, I agree that within America, there has always been this hope, this ideal of goodness, but we got to take responsibility for our evil, for what we've done, what we're doing. I mean, look at right now. Donald Trump is murdering people in boats off the coast of the Dominican Republic and off the coast of Venezuela with no proof, no evidence, no actual due process under the under our constitution. He just decided, I think they're bad. Someone's told me they're bad. I'm going to kill them. That's legalized murder. That's all it is. So, we've got these bad things in in America. the the sort of the other thing that the uh that they emphasize is that you know and this is where where it gets really interesting Charlie Kirk's inter emphasizing a Christian faith that these Zionists reject Christianity and particularly in the more you know I'm told I have not read the actual passages in the Talmud but people say that within the Talmud which is commentary by Jewish rabbis that there are scathing disgusting things said about Jesus and about the Virgin Mary. So, you know, the irony of Zionist money funding a movement that is primarily Christian, promoting a Christian message and repentance and come to Jesus, you know, that that at some point becomes maybe a a point of contention.
Larry, don't you think that this rhetoric about left and right is confusing, and we are not addressing the core issue, which to me left is socialism, the employee/employer relationship, and social security. The left are always asking for these things to be to be considered. But you don't see the Left talking about other things. The Right is talking about something else, traditions. And they are confusing the whole battle. I was watching the Candace Owens podcast. She said Tucker Carlson, and she herself, said that the battle is between the elites and the people. It's not the battle between the right and left.
Yeah, I agree with that. For example, I believe that government should not be out attacking, killing, foreigners, attacking other countries, engaged in military operations on their own initiative. I believe that military force should always be used as defense, because you've been attacked, or you are being threatened with an imminent attack in which your life will be lost, or you have no alternative but to use force. The same thing applies when I teach defense, teach people to protect themselves with a firearm. If you carry a gun, and somebody confronts you, the first thing you need to try to do is to deescalate that, not fight them, not escalate it by calling them names, or hurling insults, or imposing tariffs, or some action that will harm them. Try to deescalate. Try to get away. Get out of the situation. It's only if you can't get away, and you can't deescalate, and the person with a weapon is moving towards you, then you use force, and take them out. But that's the last resort. So because I take that position, does that make me conservative or liberal? Does that make me right or left? Beats the hell out of me.
Or the concept that I don't want government taking money that I make, just to waste it on some other programs. I would like there to be some fiscal responsibility. I'm willing to pay my part to be a member of society, but I don't want to have to pay more than other people. And if you're if you're fabulously wealthy, maybe you could step up a little and help contribute to society. Does that make me left or right?
So we just go sort of issue by issue. I tend to lean more in the libertarian direction, with minimal government, maximum responsibility for individuals, and hold people accountable for what they do.
The other day, I don't know if you saw Pam Bondi talking about the hate speech and freedom of speech and you know the same the same thing was happening with the previous administration. They're using the same sort of rhetoric to go after their political rivals, right? you know. Yeah, that's that's the danger. I mean, she she was and the good news is that people like Tucker and Candace spoke out immediately condemning her. Uh she's she's awful. She needs she should be fired. Um she shows she doesn't have an understanding of the Constitution. Certainly doesn't understand the concept of free speech. You know, I'm old enough to remember you weren't uh you may not even have been born yet. um when the there were a group of neo-Nazis that marched in a area of Illinois, Skoi, Illinois, outside of Chicago, where there was a large Jewish population, a number of Holocaust survivors, and uh they they ultimately they were allowed to march. You know, I I oppose everything they stand for, but the I concept of free speech is you even allow those that you hate or just, you know, despise to have a voice. You know that it it's you can't just shut it down. You can say, "I don't like I don't like what you're saying." Because if that becomes your standard, then everybody is going to be subject to the the persecution based on who's in who's in power. They can declare any kind of speech like what we've been having today can be considered antisocial or, you know, uh anti-semitic or and therefore we're going to shut shut it down. It shouldn't be that way. Yeah, the the situation is hugely changing, Larry, considering I I don't know if you saw the clip when Jimmy Kimmel was talking about Tucker Coulson being fired of Fox News. He was just attacking Tucker Carlson. Yeah. The most violent way, violent way possible. That didn't happen with Jimmy. Yeah. Karma is a beautiful thing. You know, as I say, I learned the saying in Argentina, elabors mouth. And uh you know, Kimmel uh you know what people people forget Jimmy Kimmel used to have one be on one of the most sexist u shows where it was the Ben Stein show and he was there with Adam. I guess they called it the man show that I think that's what it was called. I think it's may still be on YouTube. Did you ever see it? No. Oh, I haven't. Yeah. Go look up the man show. I mean, they were doing nothing but acting like a bunch of teenage boys chasing women, drinking beer, being hell raisers. I mean, it was it was it was the antithesis of what he is now. I mean, good god, you know, he, you know, back then he was funny. Now he's just, you know, screeching lecturer, you know, hectoring people. Yeah. But you don't see Tucker Carlson doing the same because they know they got they understand the situation. They're so much aware of what's going on with the whole game. Well, T Tucker to his credit admits, you know, I said some stupid things. I was I supported the war. I was at Neocon. You know, he's he's actually doing a lot of public self-confession and repentance. You know, I think he genuinely feels bad for how he was such an enabler of so many bad things and now he's trying to make amends for that. So, but but that's the difference. He admits it. Kimmel doesn't. Yeah. Larry talking about this situation between Iran and Europe with the stap sanctions and it seems that still they're trying to do something politically, but how do you feel about the whole situation with the Trump administration? How do they feel about it? Do you think they're putting pressure even more on Europe to with the case of snapback sanctions? And how what is the outcome of that for the the position of the West in terms of the way that they're trying to put pressure on Iran to get whatever they want to get from Iran. So let's let's explain what we mean by snapback sanctions. Prior to the signing of the JCPOA, there were six or seven different kinds of sanctions that had been imposed on Iran by the United Nations Security Council under that uh joint comprehensive plan of agreement. Um JCPOA, I think that's the right what the acronym means. Yeah. Um the all those previous sanctions were supposed to be lifted. Iran was going to be under a new era of no sanctions in exchange for allowing inspections and ensuring that it wasn't building a nuclear weapon. Then the United States jump bailed out on it. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom who were also signitories part of the JCPOA. They never li they never actually lifted those those previous sanctions that had been in place. They didn't lift those. So Iran was still actually suffering under the sanctions even though under JCPOA they were supposed to be free of it. And then um I guess Russia ironically was the one who had proposed this concept of snapback. naively believing, you know, the R the Russians really are too trusting sometimes. I think uh but they believe that that this JCPOA thing would work that they were confident Iran was going to let them monitor u and so they never thought it would get to the point that Iran would say, "Hell no, we're not going to deal this anymore." because then the snapback was then any of those countries could say, "Okay, uh we're going to put all those sanctions back in back in place." Well, yeah. I mean, the the fact of the matter is those sanctions never went away. So, was still operating under the sanctions. So, a lot of this is just p you know, we're snapping back. What's important to note is the other day at the United Nations Security Council uh Russia and China along with Pakistan and Algeria I believe introduced a resolution saying hey let's keep the JCPOA sanctions relief in place and because all of this this is this is why Iran signed the Cairo agreement with IAEA uh two weeks ago. Because at the time I was saying, "What the hell are they doing? They should tell IAEA to go to hell." But instead, they're signing this agreement to allow IAEA back in, who's the den of spies. But then I didn't think through and realized what they were doing. what Iran was doing is saying, "Okay, we're going to continue to cooperate as required by JCPOA because we, you know, we do genuinely want to have the sanctions relief." And in doing this, Iran took the high road of saying, "Okay, even though this international rules-based order is unfairly applied and never applied in a in a just manner with us, nonetheless, we're going to still play by those rules. And what did the West do? Nine members of the UN Security Council told Iran, "Go to hell. Screw you. No, we're going to you're going to get the sanctions again." The sanctions which have really never been lifted were, you know, going to be enforced. Except then Russia and China came out together first time. This is an illegal and valid action. and we're going to do business with Iran any way we like and ignore your sanctions. So, it's it's now a real break. Uh and uh Iran is Iran's in a stronger position both militarily, economically, and politically now than it ever has been. Do you feel that Iran with this movement, Iran would move toward China and much more than before? Because Iran was somehow trying to the new administration, the possession administration somehow was trying to get some sort of balance between the east and the west. They were trying to many people within the administration. They were advocating for a better relationship with the United States, specifically with the United States. Well, I think they now realize there's no possible relationship with the United States. United States wants to destroy Iran. uh Iran at the same time has been very uh you know active in strengthening relations with both China and Russia. You know there have been several there have been multiple military transports from both Russia and China going into Iran. You know helping them rebuild in the aftermath of uh of the attacks on June June 13th. So, uh, you know, what what what you're seeing here now is, um, in fact, the other day the chief of chief of staff of the Iranian army was in Moscow and one of the meetings was with their basically their secretary of energy and the secretary of energy said to him, you know, we look forward to in increasing enhancing our economic and military cooperation. that was coming from a Russian energy chief. It's like what do you have to do with military cooperation? So clear, you know, clearly uh Iran is they're getting ready to be attacked again. That that's that's going to take place and uh I I I think it will be devastating for Israel and potentially the United States.
Paul's here.
Hello, Larry.
Hello.
How's it go?
Go ahead, Paul.
Larry was talking about the snapback sanctions that Europeans together with the United States trying to impose more sanctions as as it was before JCPOA. And how do you see the outcome of the new policies? Instead of having a common ground to work with Iran, you would force European to go after the plan of snapback sanction putting lot of sanctions on Iran. How is that going to influence the policy of Iran in terms of moving toward the east or somehow trying to accommodate trying to get closer to the west? Your take on that? Well, I agree with Larry. I think Larry nailed it. It forces Iran to develop closer relations with the other two superpowers, Russia and China. And and I agree with Larry. Larry is right. My own view is that uh he's also right. I think I understood Larry to say that uh there's not going to be possible for Iran to reach an accommodation with United States and I agree with that. I don't know what I didn't miss I missed you know what his reason for that is but I certainly agree with it and I think the reason is that the government of the United States is a two-bit puppet government of net value that's all it is there there there's no independence anywhere in the United States government from Israel they control both houses they control the presidency and the media uh the foreign policyy's in their hands. So, um whatever happens to Iran will be determined by neter. Let let me ask you a question, Paul, that uh one of one of the people that uh reads my uh Sodar 21 sent this to me, and I hadn't really thought about it, but uh he said that given the the price level of oil that's needed in order to sustain fracking in the United States, that oil that the price of oil needs to be up at a certain level, and that perhaps what really what Trump's really doing is trying to prov provoke this crisis with Iran in order to actually get the price of oil up so that he can protect these industries inside the United States. Do you think that's pretty far-fetched? Uh, no. That's an entirely possible motive. Uh, but I just don't think American foreign policy is that independent. Yeah. it, as good a motive as it is, the controlling element is Netanyahu. It's Israel. And um so I don't I really don't think we're capable of acting in our interest in the Middle East. Yeah. Hey, I'm going to bail out now. You gentlemen have a great conversation. Good to see everybody. Great to talk to you, Larry. All right, my friends. Bye-bye. See you. Bye-bye. Goodbye. Bye. Goodbye.
Great. Yeah. Paul, let's start with the case of Charlie Kirk. And what's your feeling? What's your understanding? You look at the assassination, you look at the guy that they're talking about, Tyler Robinson. He's coming from a conservative family. Then he's engaged in a relationship with a transgender guy. And the whole story is somehow amazing. The text messages between the two is somehow from another time. What's going on? What do you make of what's going on with the case of Charlie Kirk? You see, you Tucker Carlson coming out saying what has happened to Charlie Kirk is much deeper than what we've been told by the administration, and Donald Trump coming out that he assassinated with no link beyond that. What's your take on that?
Well, I agree with you. The official story is nonsense. It's impossible. It bears no relationship to any fact. Remember now they arrested this Robinson guy, Tyler Robinson, the other day, with no evidence. They claimed the rifle out in the woods was his. As far as we know, it was planted. But the reason I say they had no evidence is they didn't have a bullet. And if you don't have a bullet, you can't use the rifle to find the markings it makes on a bullet to find out if the bullet that allegedly was used to kill Charlie Kirk was fired from that rifle. So they arrested him with no evidence. There was no evidence because they didn't have a bullet.
Now this bullet story is really peculiar, because I kept seeing that they were looking for the bullet. They hadn't found a bullet. And now the story came out the last day or two that the surgeon found the bullet. It was right under the skin of Charlie Kirk's neck. There was no exit wound. In other words, it took them several days to discover there was no exit wound. I mean, really, we had this report allegedly from the surgeon, via Charlie Kirk's right-hand man in the organization, that Charlie Kirk was in such extraordinary health that he was a Man of Steel, and that the bone mass stopped the bullet from exiting. Well, this is another preposterous story. What's the bone mass in your neck? There's no bone. There's a little bit that connects the head to the spinal cord. If this was a 30-6 round, which they say is a caliber for taking down large animals, grizzly bears, moose, it would tear a man's head off. It would decapitate him. And yet, it's stuck in his neck.
Well, the first reports didn't say that the surgeon had found the bullet. He just said, "Hey, there's no exit wound. This makes no sense." A 30-6 isn't going to be stopped by a person's neck. But the later reports say, "Oh, he's got the bullet." Well, I'd like to know what caliber it is. It's impossible that it's a 30-6 unless it was in some amazing way defective. So the whole story stinks.
Now there is available now on the Internet a very clear video of a man standing right in front of Charlie Kirk just a few feet away. There's a railing between them, but I think you can actually reach over and touch him, and you get a clear picture of the man. You know what he looks like. As far as I can tell, there's no effort made to locate this person, to identify him, or to question him. But if you watch this video, I posted it this morning at the end of my column, it appears to show that this man assassinated Kirk with what's known as a palm pistol. It's an old thing. It fits in your hand. And you can see him. He's standing kind of sideways, and at the right moment he raises this arm up, and this hand goes here, and as soon as you see the bullet hit Kirk, you see his hand move just a little bit from the recoil. And then he hops over the fence, and rushes to Charlie's aid, which is a good way to escape. He's one of the people aiding Kirk.
Well, this should get plenty of attention. In fact, it looks to me like you can even see the pistol barrel in between his fingers. And with a little bit of recoil, it shows it's clearly not a 30-6, or his hand would come back and slap him in the face. I know all about high powered rifles. So, what was it? 17 caliber, 22 caliber, 25 at the most? It was a high-powered rifle round.
Then I see there was a report from some other surgeon who wasn't doing the exploration of Charlie, but he says the trajectory of the bullet doesn't match the theory that it came from a roof. So we have all of this.
So what does it tell us?
Well, it tells us that the control narrative is having trouble. There's a lot of trouble with this control narrative. But they're having some success because of the fact that the surgeon said Charlie Kirk's bone mass stopped the bullet. Now all of Charlie's Christian supporters are thanking God for the miracle of Charlie's strength which prevented the people standing behind him from being hit by the bullet going through and hitting them. So in other words, everything's off focus. The narrative controllers have even got Charlie Kirk supporters off focus, talking about the God's miracle, Charlie's bone mass, and you can see where that'll go.
And then we see the narrative controllers getting the rest of us all focused talking about transgendered roommates, and hidden messages of Tyler Robinson admitting his confession. In other words, there's no confession, but the media is creating the impression that there is one from a hidden message. And the media said that it appears that Tyler Robinson might have confessed online. So the confession that appears is hidden.
So these stories have been planted by whoever handled this assassination. It fits the pattern that we see over and over. It fits the pattern that James Jesus Angleton told me about.
Altruistic World Online Library Search of "James Jesus Angleton"
THE SECRET SEARCH FOR TRAITORS THAT SHATTERED TH... Nov 4, 2015 ... James Jesus Angleton was born in Boise, Idaho, on December 9, 1917, eight months after the United States entered World War I. His father, James ... The Last Days of Danny Casolaro: Murder or Suicide: However May 26, 2016 ... Casolaro then told Killian he had stumbled onto the Octopus, and that it had all started with James Jesus Angleton, the CIA spymaster who ... THE DUST BOWL -- ILLUSTRATED SCREENPLAY - Rapeutation rapeutation.com › dustbowlkenburnscreenplay Oct 17, 2013 ... James Jesus Angleton, the CIA counterintelligence chief whose job ... " While Angleton's reaction might have seemed extreme, the response to the ... UNHOLY ALLIANCE: A HISTORY OF NAZI INVOLVEMENT WITH ... Jun 26, 2015 ... Like James Jesus Angleton of the CIA, hunting for the Soviet mole he could not see but "knew" was there all along, these cult leaders insist ... THE SECRET LIVES AND DEATHS OF CIA OPER Nov 4, 2015 ... The self- destructive hunt for Soviet moles inside the CIA, led by the brilliant but obsessed James Angleton, was finally brought to an end with ... View topic - Mrs. Kay Griggs on How the Government Works Jan 12, 2018 ... It was at Harvard that Kronthal became acquainted with a young Harvard Law School freshman named James Jesus Angleton. ... James Jesus Angleton's ... U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis, by Richard Breitman, Norman May 23, 2018 ... These comments caught the eye of the CIA's Counter-Intelligence (CI) Staff, headed by the legendary James Angleton. ... Jesus Christ, the son of ... THE FRANKLIN COVER-UP -- CHILD ABUSE, SATANISM, AND ... Sep 24, 2015 ... Wright conspired with his close friend, James Jesus Angleton, the extreme right-wing head of CIA counter-intelligence, to "target" the three ... View topic - Act & Punishment: The Pussy Riot Trials Oct 3, 2018 ... ... James Jesus Angleton, the CIA's counterintelligence chief, in order to undermine Communist influence in the international union movement and ... The Dark Side of the Orgasmic Meditation Company: OneTaste i Jun 20, 2018 ... Stimson, William Averell Harriman, Clarence Douglas Dillon, Frederick Trubee Davison, James Jesus Angleton, William F. Buckley, McGeorge ...
So my view is until somebody can explain how a human neck stopped a 30-6 from having an exit wound, and somebody can prove that the bullet they took from Charlie's neck apparently was fired from that rifle, I don't believe a word of it. Not a word. And I think that we discussed this before, maybe not. The two people, the two entities that had the strongest motive was the American establishment. Why? Because here's a rising leader they can't control. He doesn't talk the language. He's talking the language of family, God, Christianity. He's talking all the things that they've been busy getting rid of for years.
So they have a very good motive. The same motive, the same reason they got rid of Martin Luther King. He was a rising leader. They didn't control him. The ruling establishment will not tolerate a leader they can't control. Look what they tried to do to Trump for eight years. Four false indictments, how many false civil suits? Constant propaganda. Russiagate, Documents gate, Insurrection gate, Stripper gate. It was endless. This is what they do to anyone they can't control.
Now, what is the other entity that had the strong motive? Israel. Why? Because apparently in the beginning, like any American conservative, Charlie Kirk was aligned with Israel. Americans have been aligned with Israel since the beginning of the Cold War. They're also aligned because of this myth of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which doesn't exist. It's a hoax. But the Christian conservatives are just accustomed to being aligned with Israel.
Well, Israel was our ally in the cold war against Russian influence in the Middle East and our ability to control the oil flows, all of that. So, conservatives don't even think about it; they're just automatically in Israel's camp.
Charlie Kirk was like that. And then he started noticing things, and he started raising issues. And toward the end, he was being quite critical of Israel. Well, if Netanyahu sees this, he says, "Look, this is the leader of the rising generation, and that's going to be the future leaders of Israel's camp. We have to get rid of him."
So, that's my take on it all.
They're two different entities, both powerful, both capable of assassinating whoever they want to assassinate. Both had strong motives to assassinate him. The official narrative makes no sense. They arrest Tyler Robinson before they have any evidence. They don't even have the bullet. If you don't have the bullet, you can't prove it came from the gun that they say is his. And as of uh yesterday, my search, I couldn't find anywhere that Charlie that this Tyler Robinson had confessed. There's no I saw one post that allegedly has Tyler Robinson saying uh they don't have a case against me. They haven't proved their case. I agree with him. What What is the case? Uh There's no he's arrested and blamed before there's any link between the bullet and the gun. And we still don't know what the link is between him and the gun. We we don't know what that link is. So that's my that's my take on it. This is a political, a professional political assassination to get rid of somebody who was disturbing the situation.
Yeah. Many people are questioning, Paul, the way that Netanyahu was reacting to the assassination, and even he came out two or three days ago on his personal YouTube channel telling everybody that "It wasn't us. We didn't do anything. We didn't assassinate Charlie Kirk." Why is he feeling the need to do this?
Because Israel had such a strong motive. You know, the first thing that now he said was what a terrible thing that Charlie Kirk has been killed, that he was our friend. We were closely aligned. He was with Israel. That's what he was stressing. He didn't deny that they had killed Charlie Kirk. He didn't say that they didn't do it. He was saying Kurt is our close friend. We were closely allied. He was a man of Israel. He was trying to offset any impact Kirk had on the rising youth about, "Maybe there's a problem with Israel." That's the first thing he did. To me, that's telltale. But you see, we're not going to find out anymore. If Israel did it, there'll never be any official confirmation of that. And if it was an inside job of the American establishment, there'll never be any confirmation. The real question is whether this Tyler Robinson will get assassinated inside a suicide proof jail cell with all the cameras turned off, and the guards asleep, so they can declare the case closed, because it's so full of holes. It'll be very difficult for them now to come up with a new narrative, because the old one is completely shot to pieces. It doesn't make any sense. So, I don't know what they're going to do. I suspect Jack Ruby will be led into the jail to shoot him.
Paul, what has happened to Charlie Kirk in my opinion is some sort of influence on the public opinion among young people in the United States that is changing their mindset toward Israel. It seems that in the aftermath of his assassination, the Israeli lobby, and Ben Shapiro, and people who are supporting Israel, and what they're doing in Gaza in the Middle East, they're trying to take over the movement. They're trying to reshape it. Do you think they're going to be capable of doing this? Because this movement came TO Charlie, Charlie didn't move toward this movement. The people who Charlie was talking with changed his mindset toward Israel. It wasn't Charlie influencing them. And mostly these people were from conservative families who were criticizing the policy of the United States somehow. That's rare.
Nema, I've never known a conservative that wasn't in Israel's pocket. I mean, I'm sure there's a basis for what you're saying. I hadn't thought of that. But I find it surprising just thinking about all the years I was in Washington, the whole Cold War period, the conservatives were in Israel's pocket, and everything I've seen since then, they're still in Israel's pocket. The Republicans are totally aligned with Israel. It's only the Democrats, or some Democrats, that have been critical, and the reason is the Democrats are the champions of the "immigrant invaders," and they allowed so many Muslims into the United States. Now they're are Muslim mayors, and Muslim district attorneys, and Muslim members of Congress.
So the Democrats have had to sort of accept some criticism of Israel, but the Republicans, they don't accept it. And there's really not what I would consider a conservative press any longer in America. It was taken over several decades ago, or 30 years ago, by the neoconservatives along with the conservative foundations. So, what you said surprises me.
But to get to your question, usually when a movement loses its leader, it struggles. That's a huge blow. If you think about it, James O'Keefe, when he was the head of Project Veritas, it was a very effective organization. And they threw him out because he was too effective. Somebody got to his trustees. Well, what do you hear Project Veritas today? Nothing. Nothing.
What about Glenn Greenwald? First he gets bumped out of the press and TV media, and then he forms the Intercept, and it's effective, so he gets thrown out of that. Well, what have you heard in the intercept? The kind of hard-hitting analytical reporting that Glen Greenwald was doing disappeared from the intercept, just like Project Veritas became nothing once the threw out James O'Keefe.
So when you lose your leader, I think that's a very serious blow. I mean, you can see it. Look at the effect of the Israeli assassinations on Hezbollah. I mean, Hezbollah is nothing like the force it was prior to Israel removing so many leaders. The same could be said for Iran. I don't know. You would know more about that than me. But Israel assassinated so many Iranian top leaders and scientists that it has to have had a an effect on Iran.
So I don't know what fate the Charlie Kirk organization will have. They may try to carry it on. It may just become some kind of reformation of evangelical stance. The whole evangelical stance could possibly be less pro-Israel, or it could be more pro-Israel. It really depends on where the money comes from. If it comes from the Israelis, the Israel lobby, then it'll become an Israeli organization.
You see what the organization I think will be mainly concerned with is existence, and preaching Christian values. And it will be removed from foreign policy discussions unless that's a requirement for Israeli funding.
***
Paul, what's your take on the way Saudi Arabia has decided to have a sort of alliance with Pakistan, a military alliance with Pakistan, a defense treaty between the two countries? One of them is nuclear with nuclear missiles, nuclear bombs, and the other one is seeking for some sort of umbrella, some sort of nuclear-security-capable state. What's going on in the mind of these people in Saudi Arabia, in Bahrain, UAE. If Israel attacks, what can they do to Israel? The United States definitely would not help us in that sort of attack to defend us. They're not going to defend us. So, we should do something about it. That's why they're talking with Pakistan. They're trying to get a better relationship with Iran. Your understanding on that?
Well, it's obvious the Saudis want to be included in Pakistan's nuclear umbrella. It's the Pakistani nuclear weapons that are attractive. Now why has this come about? Because "Greater Israel" traditionally is from the Nile to the Euphrates. That was the definition of greater Israel. That is the territory that the Zionists claim is Israel. in other words, it includes half of Iraq and Syria, and other elements. But first, in the last year, Israel expanded Greater Israel to include one half of Saudi Arabia. So all of a sudden, Greater Israel doesn't stop at the Euphrates, which if I remember my geography, kind of splits Iraq in half. Now it goes into half of Saudi Arabia.
Then more recently, Israel announced that, Netanyahu said that, Greater Israel now includes Pakistan. Well, if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are included in greater Israel, then they're targets to be destroyed, just like Libya was destroyed, and Iraq was destroyed, and Syria was destroyed, and Palestine is destroyed. You know, they got to go. And so when these two countries, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, find themselves included in Greater Israel, they said, "Okay, that's the target on our back. We know the Americans are just two-bit-punk-puppets of Netanyahu and Israel, and they're going to destroy us." So that's why they come together.
You see, what's always puzzled me is this should have been obvious to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia 20 years ago. It's taken them 20 years to recognize the obvious. That whole part of the world is so slow in just seeing the obvious. And so they've been knocked off one by one. If they had been unified, Israel would have gotten nowhere, but they can't accept reality, or they can't see it, or they're just focused somewhere else. I don't know. But clearly they have not been focused on their survival, because they haven't survived.
So it could be now that Israel has brought home to Saudi Arabia and to Pakistan, "Hey, you're now part of Greater Israel." And they said, "Woo, what are we going to do about this?" So they're going to have to get unified. Pakistan's valuable to Saudi Arabia because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Now if China and and Russia had any sense, and Iran, they would announce a mutual defense treaty, and include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And then the word goes out to Israel and THE United States. "You attack us, and we're going to attack you." And it stops.
But since Russia and China and and Iran have zero vision, they can't see beyond the end of their nose, nothing will happen. They seem determined to be destroyed, one by one. And they will be.
Paul, what do you make of Donald Trump asking Afghanistan to let the United States go again in Afghanistan, and get the air base back which Donald Trump is claiming it was the United States who built the air base, which it didn't, it was the Soviet Union in the 1950s who built the air base. What is he trying? He said that he's concerned about China's activities in the region. But how do you see beyond that? Is it Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, all of them together?
Okay, I'll tell you. First of all, I don't think Donald Trump is any longer in control of his foreign policy, and I think the military security complex has resumed control, and the military elements of it are very disappointed in the way we withdrew from Afghanistan. It was a humiliating thing, kind of like Vietnam. And the military security complex wants more conflicts, because it wants more markets for its weapons.
And so this is the American military security complex, and the elements in the armed forces, that are very unhappy at the way we withdrew. War is what feeds the profits, and feeds the careers. If there's war, the promotions come much faster. If there's not war, your prospects of moving up are limited, and very slow. And of course, if there's no war, you have a limit on the weapons that you can get financed and sold. So that's what's going on. Trump is learning that the president doesn't really control the government, which is what I've said for a long time. It was my experience when I was high up in the Reagan administration. It's very difficult for a president to control anything, because the main use of government, the main function of government, is to serve private interests. And so even the President's own appointees are serving those private interests, so they will have careers when that administration is over. So assistant secretaries, under secretaries, cabinet secretaries, they're looking ahead. "What happens to me when this guy's gone? What if I make the wrong enemies? My career is over. What if I make the right friends? I'll prosper, and go on and and rise, and be paid more and more and more. So this is the real incentive. And it's difficult for government to do what the President's agenda is, unless the agenda magically serves all the private interests.
Of course, any kind of reform agenda doesn't. Any kind of peace agenda doesn't. So this is what Trump's up against. And I think that we now see he's no longer in control of foreign policy. And this is why his statements are always turning around. He says one thing, and then a little bit later he's contradicted it, because what he says isn't what they're doing, and they're not going to adjust to him. He has to adjust to them.
So that's my explanation. It's what I experienced, and I think there's been a lot of people who have seen it by being part of it, who are honest enough to say that that's really what the situation is.
Paul, before wrapping up, what is the situation with the conflict in Ukraine? Donald Trump is talking about sending 6 billion of weapons to Ukraine, and on the other hand he feels that he wants to do something about the conflict in Ukraine. What is his position? Do you feel the same way as you feel about the Middle East, or the Russian talks behind the scene, are getting somewhere?
Well, again, the military security complex doesn't want the conflict to end. It means profits. It means they have to cut back. Executives wonder who will be cut, "Me, or this guy?" So he has to send the weapons. I think Trump was trying to get out of the war directly and instead of having the American taxpayer fund the supply of weapons to Ukraine, he wanted to sell the weapons to the Europeans who would buy them, and give them to the Ukrainians, and that would keep the profits going for the American armament industry. It would be a way for Trump to get us out of directly participating in the war without hurting their profits. And therefore, it was a way that he could exit without making himself vulnerable to the military security complex, without annoying them by closing down one of their profit avenues.
Then he could prepare for his war against Iran, which I'm fairly certain Netanyahu will lead him into. I don't quite see how he's going to avoid it. Trump always adjusts to Netanyahu. Just the other day, when Netanyahu and the Israelis attacked the Houthies in Qatar, the little Arab oil emirate, they didn't succeed, but they killed some of the local citizens. Well, in all the reports they are talking about Hamas. It was Hamas. Yeah, I was thinking it was the Houthis. It was Hamas. Hamas.
Yeah, they tried to kill the Hamas leaders, and they killed other people instead. Well, this was an act of aggression against a sovereign country. And the initial reports said that Israel had attacked without clearing it with Trump. So these were all the initial reports. This showed to me that Israel was feeling more and more confident. They don't even have to clear in advance what they are going to do with the United States. Then later, I saw a claim that Trump said Israel had spoken to him, and he had cleared it. Well, which one is true? Did Trump have to say this because it made him look like they don't pay any attention to him anymore?
Initially the reports were that Trump was mad at Netanyahu, and upset with him for doing this. Because we have this great big air base in that little Arab oil kingdom. And they're supposed to be part of our position in the Middle East. And now Israel's attacking it, attacking our ally, Trump's ally, where our air base is. Well, you can see why Trump had to say, "Oh, yes, I gave approval."
I think it's pathetic that the United States is such a weak powder puff type of country that it can't even have its own foreign policy. It has to accept the foreign policy that Israel imposes on it. And so I discount the notion that the United States is a superpower. It's an Israeli puppet state. That's all it is. Even in red states, you can't criticize Israel, and at the same time have a government contract, or government employment. I mean, even Texas now. Imagine Texans, tough Texans, and their Republican government won't let them say a critical word about Israel without being banned from doing business with the state. Well, this shows you who's in control. And look at the universities, our elite universities. At Harvard, if the students go protest the genocide that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians, they get expelled from school. They can't even wave a Palestinian flag. That's considered a hate crime. And if the students protesting are foreign, Trump deports them. Well, would we do this for any other country? No. No. Do we do this to the left-wing kids that burn American flags, and cheer Charlie Kirk's death, and encourage assassinations of Trump? No, we don't. We don't do this. So that kind of tells me that what happens in the Middle East is mainly in Netanyahu's hands. And Putin's Russia, and the Chinese, they just seem to be afraid to get involved.
I mean, Putin ran away from Assad in Syria after spending several years defending Syria. He ran away and handed it over to Israel! Now Israel's occupying southern Syria, I think all the way to the city limits of Damascus. And then they say they are there to stay. So if you want to know what's going to happen, ask Netanyahu. He's the one who knows.
Thank you so much Paul for being with us today. Great as always.
Illinois Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh was thrown to the ground by ICE agents on Friday during a protest outside the Broadview Processing Center in Chicago, where immigrant detainees are held. At least 10 people were arrested as federal agents fired pepper balls and tear gas into the crowd, which was there to oppose the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”
“If they are willing to do that to a congressional candidate on camera in front of press, imagine what they are willing to do to their detainees behind boarded-up windows,” says Abughazaleh.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We end today’s show in Chicago, where Juan is. As at least 10 people were arrested in protests outside an ICE facility Friday, with federal immigration agents firing pepper balls and using tear gas on the crowd, Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh was thrown to the ground by ICE agents. People had rallied outside the facility to protest the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has led to the arrest of nearly 550 people in a sweeping crackdown on immigrants in the city.
We are going to Chicago, where we’re joined by Kat Abughazaleh, who is a progressive congressional candidate in Illinois’s 9th District, which includes Chicago.
Kat, welcome to Democracy Now! Describe what happened to you. We’re going to show the video.
KAT ABUGHAZALEH: Yeah, so, this is actually the third time that ICE has thrown me to the ground. I have been at this facility for the last three weeks every Friday morning, and I’ll be back this Friday. I encourage anyone in Illinois to join me, 7 to 9 a.m. at 1930 Beach Street, B-E-A-C-H. This was, as I said, the third time that ICE has done this to me. It was probably the most violent occasion of throwing me to the ground. But, essentially, a car was about to run over a fellow protester, and so I went to check on that person. And that was all the justification an officer needed to pick me up and throw me to the ground despite being half his size.
And what I really want to stress here is that is what these officers are willing to do when there is press and cameras around. The reason we are protesting at this facility is because they are committing human rights abuses within the Broadview processing facility. It is a processing facility, so people are not supposed to be kept there for more than 12 hours at a time, but they are being kept for days or weeks, without beds, without hot meals, with hygienic products. And if they are willing to do that to a congressional candidate on camera in front of press, imagine what they are willing to do to their detainees behind boarded-up windows.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Kat, you say you found two badges there. What did it say on the badges?
KAT ABUGHAZALEH: So, I have no idea, the people who have accosted me. I have no idea who they are. I have no idea who these men are. They have had masks and sunglasses and hats, sometimes when the sun is still down. We have seen two badge numbers the entire three weeks that we have been here — four weeks, if we include a vigil earlier in the summer — and they were just numbers. There was no name, and there was no identifying law enforcement agency. I have no idea if these men are actually affiliated with ICE. For all I know, this could just be random men who said, “I’m going to put on a mask and a costume I got from Spirit Halloween to make me feel like I’m in the Army, and go and rough up some protesters today.” We have no idea who these people are.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of what you know about the conditions in the Broadview facility, could you talk about that?
KAT ABUGHAZALEH: Yes, this Broadview facility is horrific. We’ve gotten reporting about dozens of people being kept in one cell. And these are our neighbors. These are pregnant women and grandmothers sleeping on concrete floors. I have not been inside the facility. Elected officials that have tried to inspect it have not been allowed inside. But I can attest that two weeks ago, when I saw prisoners being marched into a van, they were in the same clothes they were detained in, and we have no idea how long they’ve been in there, and they were in the same clothes they were detained in. The conditions at this facility are horrendous. They are committing crimes against humanity. And it is so important to remember that all of the treatment that we went through as protesters doesn’t hold a candle to what these detainees are dealing with. I mean, ICE agents shot and killed a man two Fridays ago in the Chicago area. They are able to act with impunity. They are able to hurt whoever they want. Last Friday was the first time they had taken protesters inside the facility.
And while the video of me being thrown to the ground has gone kind of viral, I want to talk about a few other things that happened that day, because they haven’t been covered as much. We had to play tug of war with a man’s body to keep him from being abducted inside the facility. Right before we were tear-gassed, ICE was carrying a van with a protester that had been detained inside of the van. We stood arm in arm. All this is happening on Broadview public property, on public streets. They tried to ram the van through us. A man fell in front of the van, and the van was going to drive over his head, and I helped him up before that happened. But they were totally willing to do that. They shot a man in the face with a pepper ball bullet. They tear-gassed us as they were trying to drive a car through a crowd. And then, after that, they threw a tear gas canister at the press area, very intentionally, after protesters were already dispersing, because, you know, we were coughing and trying to get tear gas out of our eyes.
AMY GOODMAN: Kat Abughazaleh, you are running for Congress, a congressional candidate in Illinois’s 9th District, which includes Chicago. The election is in November of ’26, the ultimate election. Why are you running for Congress?
KAT ABUGHAZALEH: I’m a researcher and journalist who covers the far right. I have spent my career deradicalizing and educating people on far-right narratives and misinformation. I have spent my career, just as my colleagues have, trying to get Democrats to put up a resistance to the far right, to understand that the old playbook is gone and that it’s not coming back. And I don’t feel like our leaders are doing that. And so I got sick of waiting around, and I decided to run the type of campaign I think we should.
And that is with unapologetic progressivism, anti-fascism and using our resources to materially improve people’s lives right now. So, we do voter outreach, but our campaign office also doubles as a mutual aid hub. We don’t ask for $500 a plate at an event. For our kickoff event, for instance, we asked people to bring a box of pads or tampons for Chicago’s Period Collective. We are about mobilizing people on the ground right now and making politics as accessible as possible, while also not compromising on basic human rights.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you’re running for the seat to replace Jan Schakowsky, who’s retiring. There are several other candidates running in that field right now. Why do you think that voters would be best choosing you as the candidate?
KAT ABUGHAZALEH: You know, Illinois does a lot of things right, and that’s the reason they aren’t dealing with, until very recently, people like Stephen Miller and Elon Musk on a daily basis. I have been. I am the only candidate in my race with a track record of fighting and winning against the far right.
I am the most effective communicator in my race. And I am the only candidate in my race to have the majority of her money come from small-dollar donations. We’ve raised over a million dollars, and our average donation is just 32 bucks. We have over 7,000 volunteers, and that’s not because I’m some force. It’s because people want progressive policies. They want commonsense policies. They want a center that recenters —
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
KAT ABUGHAZALEH: — actual voters. And that’s what we deserve from our leaders.
AMY GOODMAN: Kat Abughazaleh, I want to thank you for being with us, progressive congressional candidate in Illinois’s 9th District, which includes Chicago. That does it for our show. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
***************************
No Secret Police Act: CA Gov. Signs Law Against Masked ICE Agents; Feds Say They Won’t Comply September 23, 2025
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the No Secret Police Act into law this week, banning all law enforcement — including federal immigration agents — from covering their faces while conducting raids in the state.
“What this law is trying to do is to take us back from the era of routine masking based on completely foundationless officer claims of fear,” says Eva Bitran, the director of immigrants’ rights at the ACLU of Southern California.
Trump administration officials have already vowed to ignore the California law, “and this is why we need to have a federal solution that will apply nationwide,” says New York Congressmember Nydia Velázquez, who has introduced the No Masks for ICE Act in Congress. “This administration is out of control, and it’s affecting everyone.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We turn now to California, where Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law the No Secret Police Act, banning all law enforcement, including ICE agents, from covering their faces while conducting raids. The ban is a response to recent immigration raids in Los Angeles and other areas where ICE officials made mass arrests while heavily masked. This is Governor Newsom speaking before signing the legislation.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: The impact of these policies, all across this city, our state and nation, are terrifying. It’s like a dystopian sci-fi movie — unmarked cars, people in masks, people quite literally disappearing, no due process, no rights, no rights in a democracy where we have rights. Immigrants have rights. And we have the right to stand up and push back.
AMY GOODMAN: The new California law was quickly denounced by Trump administration officials, including Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at Homeland Security. She said, quote, “A sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,” unquote.
The acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, Bill Essayli, didn’t just denounce the law, but said ICE agents should not follow it. This is U.S. Attorney Essayli during an interview with KCAL News.
BILL ESSAYLI: We’re not going to follow it. The law has no force or effect on federal agencies. The state of California has no jurisdiction to regulate anything that we do in the federal government. And I’ve instructed our agents to disregard it. So we will continue doing our operations as we have been doing them. The reason the officers wear face masks…
AMY GOODMAN: We’re now joined by two guests. Eva Bitran is the director of immigrants’ rights at the ACLU of Southern California, joining us from Riverside, California. And in Harlem, we’re joined by New York Congressmember Nydia Velázquez, who introduced the No Masks for ICE Act in Congress, which would bar agents nationally from wearing facial coverings during enforcement actions and require them to wear clothing displaying their name and affiliation with iCE.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Eva Bitran, let’s begin with you in California. The significance of the No Secret Agents Act being signed into law, and yet Trump officials saying, “Do not follow the law,” to ICE agents? Talk about where this law came from.
EVA BITRAN: This law came from the enormous siege of our immigrant people here in Southern California that we have seen the federal government, beginning in June, carry out all the way until now. What we saw were bands of masked, powerfully armed and really swiftly moving federal agents kidnapping our community members. And that’s what prompted California to react, to say this is not how we handle our immigrant people. For us, it is important that due process prevail, that transparency prevail, and that we free our people from the kind of siege of kidnappers that’s come out to Southern California.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, Eva, some people have criticized this law because it has loopholes, that it allows mask exceptions for SWAT teams and undercover operations. How do you respond to those concerns?
EVA BITRAN: My understanding is that what this law is trying to do is to take us back from the era of routine sort of masking based on completely foundationless officer claims of fear, and back to sort of the technical necessities that officers would claim in previous years or previous administrations. And the loopholes are designed to sort of protect for that.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I’d like to bring in U.S. Congressmember Nydia Velázquez. Welcome back to Democracy Now! I wanted to ask you about the legislation that you’ve introduced. What are the specifics of the legislation, and also your hopes, your expectations of whether it can pass or not?
REP. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ: Good morning, and thank you for having me, Amy and Juan.
So, as you can — as you see, the Trump administration is already saying that they are not going to comply with the law passed by California. And this is why we need to have a federal solution, that it will apply nationwide, and it will ban the use of masks, and it will require for any ICE agent to wear a uniform that clearly has their names and badge numbers, so that there is transparency and accountability.
AMY GOODMAN: Eva Bitran, I just wanted to ask you: What does this mean? As Congressmember Velázquez tries to introduce a federal solution, which would require these federal agents, on the ground, what is this now going to look like? First of all, it doesn’t go into force, the No Secret Police Act, for — until next year. Is that right? And how do you get ICE agents to comply, if the No Masks bill is not passed in Congress?
EVA BITRAN: So, that’s right that the bill does not go into effect until next year, but what we are really seeing is our communities coming out to demand an end altogether, masked or unmasked, to the lawless and unconstitutional raids that we have seen ICE carrying out here. We’ve seen people in the streets peacefully asking for ICE to leave our community neighbors alone. We’ve seen Rapid Response Networks. We’ve seen community defense initiatives to keep people safe. And we know that’s the path forward, whether or not legislation is in effect.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, and I’d like to go back to Representative Velázquez. The ICE data shows, for instance, in New York, that there’s been nearly a sixfold increase in immigration detentions, going from 500 last year to almost 2,800 in the first seven months of this year. What is — what has been your experience as these ICE dragnets have spread across the country and even in your state?
REP. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ: Well, people are terrorized. Families do not want to — parents do not want to go to bring their children to school, to take the subway, to even be — appear before an immigration judge, because they know that they could be ambushed by ICE agents in those federal courts. People are terrorized. And this is the whole purpose of this mass deportation. It’s just to terrorize, to instill fear.
And my message to America is that we live in a country with laws. And everyone, every person, whether you are undocumented or not, you have a right to due process. And this is — this use of police tactics, of agents wearing masks, of ambushing people in the streets in front of school children, is undermining safety and security in our communities. And we have to have a federal response.
This administration is out of control, and it’s affecting everyone, not only — not only undocumented, bystanders, who sometimes when they witness on masked — not only masked agents, but cars that are not identified, they think that a kidnap is taking place, but also it incentivizes criminals to wear masks so that they could commit crimes and assault immigrants in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Federal Plaza, 26 Federal Plaza, Congressmember Velázquez. A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction to improve the conditions at this notorious ICE jail inside this federal building in Manhattan. Immigrants have described being imprisoned for days or weeks at a time in overcrowded cells, without access to medication or proper sanitation, forced to sleep on the concrete floor, left hungry, without outside contact. In the last week, something like 11 of your fellow Democratic elected officials were arrested. Does ICE’s use of masks, do you think, directly connect to their refusal to allow transparency in these facilities, that now a federal judge is saying must be scrutinized? You just — most recently, City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is campaigning around the city with Zohran Mandani, and Public Advocate Jumaane Williams were among those arrested. Lander was arrested again.
REP. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ: Yes. You know, I have attempted three times — two times, twice, with Jerry Nadler, Goldman and Adriano Espaillat, to enter 26 Federal Plaza. And every time, they have not allowed us to go into the 10th floor. Adriano Espaillat and myself, we forced ourselves to get into the 10th floor, but not into the detention facility itself, because they prevented us.
They keep lying. They’re saying that there is not a detention facility, that it’s a processing center. Yet we have seen videos that shows how crowded they are, and it is, and the unsanitary conditions, the lack of meals, showers and so on. So, the judge instructed them to improve the conditions. But not only do they lie, they are in violation of the statute, because we are within our legal right as members of Congress to go there and inspect the conditions of those facilities, and time and again, they prevent us from exercising our oversight responsibility.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I just have one more question for —
REP. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ: And so, again, this is —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I’m sorry, I just have one more question for Eva before we break. There have been —
REP. NYDIA VELÁZQUEZ: Sure.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: As the congresswoman said, there’s been numerous arrests, up to more than 80 arrests, of people who have been trying to assist these migrants when they’re being rounded up by ICE. What is the ACLU’s recommendation to people who are trying to support immigrants in these crises?
EVA BITRAN: Yeah, we are really thankful to community members, immigrant and otherwise, who are coming out to give real testimony and witness to what’s happening here. We continue to recommend that community members, if it is safe to do so, show up and record with their phones the interactions that are happening around them, to really give witness and also to force some transparency on what have been incredibly secretive operations. We also know that it’s important for people to have Know Your Rights information. And we’ve seen our community members, Rapid Response Network members shouting out Know Your Rights information to people as they are being detained, which has also been really powerful.
At the ACLU, we have litigation that’s been defending the rights of protesters who have been outraged about what’s happening to immigrant neighbors here in L.A., as well as litigation both about the conditions at the short-term holding facilities and as well as at the sort of conduct of these unconstitutional operations.
So, we are watching. Community is watching. Our neighbors are looking out for one another. We know that what happens in L.A. becomes the blueprint for the rest of the country with these enforcement operations, and we’re also trying to model how to mount a proper civil response.
AMY GOODMAN: Eva Bitran, I want to thank you for being with us, director of immigrant rights at the ACLU of Southern California. And thank you to Congressmember Nydia Velázquez, who introduced the No Mask for ICE Act in Congress. We just mentioned Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani. She has endorsed Zohran Mamdani. We’re hoping to have the New York City mayoral candidate on Democracy Now! tomorrow.
Next, we go to Chicago, where ICE agents threw a Democratic congressional candidate to the ground. Back in 15 seconds.
Kristi Noem FREAKS OUT Over Gavin Newsom Post Amid Horrific ICE Raid Chaos The Damage Report Sep 23, 2025 #TheDamageReport #JohnIadarola #TheYoungTurks
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem rages over a tweet from Gavin Newsom over his order to block ICE agents from wearing masks despite the horrific chaos, targeted traps, family destruction and gross tweets ICE has created. John Iadarola and Viviana Vigil break it down on The Damage Report. Leave a comment with your thoughts below!
"Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called out California Gov. Gavin Newsom for writing a “menacing” post about her on Monday, telling Fox News it sent her family and friends into a panic.
Newsom received backlash on social media after his press office wrote, “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America,” just weeks after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University.
Responding to the post on Fox News’ Hannity, Monday, Noem said:
It was cryptic and it was really menacing, I would say, Sean. It immediately panicked my family and friends. Within, I would say, a couple of minutes of that being posted I started to get text messages and phone calls."
Transcript
[Kristi Noem] It was cryptic, and it was really menacing. I would say Sean, it immediately panicked my family and friends.
So, Kristi Noem is now running to the news to be like, "My family, my friends are all terrified."
Did something happened to you? Are you going to be okay? Well, wait. What was this cryptic and menacing comment? Well, we showed it to you yesterday. It was put out by Gavin Newsom's press office. It was this:
Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today.
You're welcome, America.
And as we showed yesterday, it was because he was signing a bill that was going to stop ICE from masking while terrorizing the people of California. That's it. And Noem is freaking out like, "Everybody thought I was about to be murdered. Everybody thought that was it for me. It's Gavin Newsom. He tweeted it."
Does anybody think that Gavin Newsom was going to rub out the head of the Department of Homeland Security. And if Gavin Newsom was going to do that, was he going to tweet about it? No. Nobody believes this, even a person that is crazy as Kristi Noem, and perpetually looks crazy like Kristi Noem, could actually believe that. But she's got to get something out of this. She's got to make a big to-do. And the to-do continues in this clip.
Within, I would say, a couple of minutes of that being posted, I started to get text messages and phone calls, family, my kids saying, "Are you okay, mom? Are you fine?" They know the threats that I've had. They know the threats that they've had, the things that have happened to them because of politicians like this that say things, and somebody grabs on to them that has an agenda. The cartels and criminals that have threatened our family already.
You know, Gavin Newsom, cartel leader, radical Gavin, violent Gavin Newsom. These people are absolute clowns. They're not deserving of any respect. And I know it's not like you were probably predisposed to give any to Kristi anyway, but these people are such whiny babies. [u][size=120]They want to be victims more than they want to be anything. Because if if they can pitch themselves as victims, then they can strike back. They're the ones assaulting our constitution. She's the one assaulting LA, let alone cities around the country. They're the ones trampling on our rights. And if we just allow that to be the truth, if everybody agrees on that, well, then they look really bad. But if oh god, they're the minority, then I guess it's okay for them to take away our rights, and crack your skull open, or whatever. And that's what this is all really about.
Her freaking out in that way was performative. Nobody, nobody, thought that Gavin Newsome was going to do something violent. It's pathetic. And if we had a serious right-wing media, she would have gotten much more pushback in that appearance, but unfortunately that didn't happen. Viviana, what do you think?
A couple things, John. I love that her children are just glued to Gavin Newsom's Twitter. Just minutes later, they're like "Mom, are you okay? I'm following Gavin Newsom." But you know what, Kristi, you know who's grabbing on to people? ICE. YOUR GOONS. They're grabbing on to people in my community. It's YOU terrorizing cities across the country. You're afraid for your life because of a tweet that the governor of California is saying that? I mean, ridiculous.
You're absolutely on point, John. It's this victim mentality that is used to justify further violence, further threats. I mean, nobody has been more threatening than Kristi Noem. I mean, maybe it's a difficult call to make, but she has been extremely threatening the last several months to cities all over the country. And for her to cry up there with her puffed-up lips, as if she's really scared -- we know you're not scared.
But I will say I loved it when Gavin Newsom's team came out with this Trump-like response. And I'm getting a little sick of it, to be honest. Okay, it was funny. Let's be serious. We don't want to be them. We don't want their whole thing. They are not like us. They co-opted that slogan. Just be you, dude." They use everything as cannon fodder. So like just be the governor that you were before. We have our questions about as well.
But these kind of jokes, when when Trump's administration does it, they don't even respond, you know, and they don't even justify them. But here, yeah, here we are. They make excuses for Gavin when he's joking. I don't I don't know at Gavin Newsom's core what he is. So, I don't know if he's being himself or whatever. I do know that six months ago he was like doing podcasts with Steve Bannon. So this is better than that, I guess. Like, if he's going to be an act, I prefer the tough guy act. But, but I think that there are other people who I think are a little bit more comfortable being authentically themselves. And maybe we'll hash all of that out in the primary when it comes.
But yeah, Kristi Noem is going to be absolutely fine. She's not in any danger, like any dog would be while in the same room as her. So I think that she's going to be just fine.
Let's move on to a little bit more Kristi Noem news on her job performance. Kristi Noem's incompetence regularly rears its head. Her response to natural disasters. When we need DHS to work, it unfortunately can't, because she doesn't know what she's doing. She doesn't seem interested in the job. She's only interested in the photo opportunities. And the bad press that she's gotten, because she's doing such a bad job, has apparently rubbed her the wrong way. So, she's apparently very mad. And we're getting behind-the-scenes reports of this, which we'll give you the specifics on, but just understand she does not appear to be mad about the failures of DHS. She's not mad about the fact that aid wasn't doled out in a timely fashion, that lives might have actually been lost because of her incompetence, and because of the policy changes that she championed. No, she's just mad that people are acknowledging it.
So don't take this as a sign that maybe she'll do better in the future. She doesn't seem to think that she needs to. She's addressing this in the same way that Donald Trump is, and the others. She doesn't want critical press, basically.
But unfortunately, her position is an important one. These are life and death matters. So, it's kind of unfortunate for America that she's not committed to doing better in the future.
But here's one of the policy changes that she made that ended up with her getting a lot of bad press. She announced in June that she would need to personally sign off on all payments exceeding $100,000 for disaster relief. The previous threshold for the secretary of the department to sign off on was $25 million. So, she drastically took it down, because she wanted to be a doggy person. She wanted to be like Elon Musk. "I'm going to weed out the waste, fraud, and abuse." The issue is that frequently, things cost more than $100,000. And frequently when it comes to DHS, when it comes to FEMA, time is of the essence. A
So in July, the secretary waited four days to sign off on crucial aid for Texas flood victims, delaying the deployment of urban search and rescue crews, and leaving thousands of disaster assistance calls unanswered because FEMA didn't renew a contract for hundreds of call center workers, because she didn't sign it. Now, when she was going to sign it herself, it took 4 days, I think that deserves congressional oversight.
How many photo ops did she do? How many costume changes did she do in those four days as people in Texas desperately needed help?
Anyway, there was a lot of negative press, including from the damage report over that. And after the press picked up on this change, and the delay, her chief of staff, Corey Luwandowski, who is widely believed to also be her partner behind the scenes, got together and got mad at the staff. They were screaming at them. A DHS employee said the level of disrespect and screaming at everybody in the room was really shocking, and they were taken aback. They also accused the people in the room of lining their pockets from government contracts, which seemed like projection to the people listening who had nothing to do with the criticism they were facing.
Another former DHS staffer said that it was clear that Noem and Luwandowski, who's heavily involved in the department's contract work, were embarrassed by the coverage, feeding off one another's negative energy, which is, I assume, the vibe of their relationship. Noem dropped multiple F-bombs. But you can swear all you want. You can take a great day out to a gravel pit to work your feelings out. But that's not actually going to solve the fundamental problem, which is that you don't take this job seriously. You think that it's about dressing up like a fireman, like a chef, and then taking a photo or whatever, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make yourself look cool, cuz you have a vain idea that someday you're going to be the President or something.
No, you're supposed to be making sure that the homeland is secure, that we're protected. And until you actually take that seriously, you're going to keep getting negative press like this. Viviana, what do you make of this?
You're right on point, John. You know, there are serious consequences to her incompetence ,and her greed, frankly, because I do believe there's a lot of grifting going on as well. It's a really serious job to be the director of homeland security. We do have legitimate terrorist threats against the country that we need to protect, but the anger, and the hate of the people that are okay with the ICE raids, and the crackdown on undocumented people, are blinding them to the harm that this woman is causing them directly. And I wonder how long it's going to take for them to wake up, and see that this is not helping them at all.
You remember when Biden got in, and he gave Secretary of Transportation to Pete Buttigieg. I think a lot of people were like, "Well what experience does he have to merit that?" It felt like he helped out Biden during the campaign, and and the Democratic party says, "We're going to give you position. But it's an important position, and there were some challenges, and failures in that area. And maybe if Pete had more experience, the response would have been better. I do think that he tried over the four years to take it seriously, even if it's just pure ambition. He seemed to know that doing the job well would help him.
We're almost a year into this, and what has Kristi Noem done? She poses with guns. She poses with trucks. She poses with helicopters and planes and acts like, "Oh, I'm the one steering the boat", or whatever. Like, "This is not serious." And I know that she just sees it as a stepping stone to something.
But a lot of families are being hurt. We've potentially lost a lot of families. There are few positions more singularly critical than being Secretary of Homeland Security. And she treats it like it's a podcast, or like she's an Instagram influencer, just going to take some photos or whatever. And unfortunately, it's more important than that.
And so, another reason, by the way, why I would love for the midterms to go well for the Democrats, is for getting her in there to answer some questions for these missteps, that I think would be great for America. [Music]
_______________
COMMENTS:
@rclayman4432 2 minutes ago The ttRump regime is full of nothing but BIG BABIES! What am embarrassment!
@dyssent8744 3 minutes ago (edited) She is FULL of shit And herself.
@mm4884_fp 6 minutes ago (edited) oh brother. White woman tears
@ustunod9645 7 minutes ago You, head of home whatever. Grow some balls, like when you shot your dog.
@taintedlife2618 7 minutes ago What a whiner. Who gives a damn about her.
@CarlExsted-oe9fb 7 minutes ago What a lame excuse she works for the government get Real you’re a grown woman who shoots dogs and you can’t take a remark from Newsome. I think you have serious problems in your head.
@rhoca_sings 8 minutes ago Oh my, clutch my effing pearls. Give me a damn break, Cosplay Kristi and cry me a river. Nothing about that tweet was menacing and you know it. You’re a pathetic puppy killer. So, cry me a river while your goons go out TERRORIZING innocent people, smashing their car windows, wearing masks, not identifying themselves, literally KILLING people who are rightfully in fear of their lives, then lying about it and trying to cover it up. Ugh! The whole lot of them are lying, disgusting, dishonest fascist C.H.U.D.s (look it up)
@pabloteveni7099 10 minutes ago There should be a nickname for Trump's motley cabinet of sycophants, dimwits, villains, and monsters. How about Donald's Dime-a-Dozen Dummies or the evil entourage or Trump's Terrible Troupe?
@DickieNuts 11 minutes ago She better calm down. She gets too heated, the ass fat they cranked into those fugly duck lips is going to melt and seep out of her massive pores.
@MA-dr1wj 12 minutes ago You really want to talk of unconstitutional? Bunch of hypocrites. The trump culitists have no right to even try to be sanctimonious when you are promoting militarized policing, weaponizing the government against perceived "enemies ", and applauding violating rights to freedom of speech, religion, and right to protest if its even remotely different than the neo nazi mentality. Bunch of despicable hypocritical tyrant terrrorists.
@c.s.7266 12 minutes ago She's no victim
@martyroberson1761 14 minutes ago All your troubles are your own fault ice barbie. Stop being so dramatic you POS
@Tsimy876 14 minutes ago More Botox!! Was there a special at Costco?
@VerdantHuman 16 minutes ago Typical HYPE by Noem over nothing at all. Whats next Christy? Did a bush or plant look sinisterly at you too? Go and ARREST IT! The Trump Admin creates its own bad days every day - with total incompetence and stellar lack of performance on EVERY FRONT in every portfolio.
@Tsimy876 18 minutes ago Probably a burning bush. But then a puppy put out the flamer by lifting its leg on it - so she Noem'd the puppy!!!
@Vivy-vixen 16 minutes ago I wonder why you're getting death treats This lady is full of [SHIT.]
@Vivy-vixen 18 minutes ago Thank you Mr Newsom!!!!! We can wish!!!
@michaelh8890 20 minutes ago Noem is SO friggn stupid
@madielynn53 26 minutes ago Please freak out Noam you nut ball. Just Please, Please, go away you plastic winey face.
@DavidMason-j4b 26 minutes ago this whole story is complete BULL SHIT --- - this Witch is as dumb as tRUMP Is -- put the dingdong in jail !! Liar Liar Pants on fire !! where is the BIG DOG KILLER ??? messing her pants it seems
@JB-tr6nu 29 minutes ago Hypocrisy and lies keep maga united.
@lisamills161 30 minutes ago Hi Dear People on Damage Report. There is a toxic MAGA troll ComicChrisBook (I call him ComicPaedoTurd for good reason) who has spilled his effluence from TYT Investigates (where he is wholly ignored) to this site. The other day, he dragged up a previous name of ComicBookGuy. A putrid, and impenetrably stupid Maga person, elderly (70), homophobe, misogynist, and racist from Tucson who purports to sit on a school board whilst having said this about his own female children. I quote "Ask my daughter and granddaughter whether or not I am a virgin" Euuchhhh. He has a son too! Why not ask his son. Try to ignore (as he revels and gloats over every reply and deliberately taunts decent people to get replies), but if you can't, just ask him if he has stepped down from the school board yet and back to jail (where he has been four times). Cheers NB All info from the troll himself.
@briannicholson5130 31 minutes ago “Crater Face “ needs to look in the mirror and see the damage that she has caused to families by tearing them apart!!!
@MeMyrrh 31 minutes ago Too many drama queens in the current administration. Geez.
@ellenrainwalker9173 32 minutes ago (edited) This horrible woman is such a whiny little snowflake if anyone jokes about her, but she has no problem killing puppies.
@Duckster183 33 minutes ago Taste of your own medicine Kristie! How do you think all the nonwhite people you’re taking off the streets feel?!
@YT-GoDiSwAtChInG 34 minutes ago (edited) You forgot they like to hold children hostage to get to the parents. Like the 5 yr old austic child they held to get the father out of the home. May they real what they sow.
@HankZadid 34 minutes ago (edited) Oh Yeah, Bimbo ICE Goon, BOTOX Lips? Pray that her Family shits bricks every day and the soul of the dog she shot terrorizes these GNOME Snow !! Newsom’s Speech is protected by 1st Amendment !!
@FernandoPerez-wb1re 37 minutes ago Kristi "Botox Barbie" Noem wants pity and empathy from Americans now but that wretched whore Kristi Noem showed no compassion to human beings she was deporting and imprisoning she only brought upon them woe, despair, grief and sorrow. Maga is nothing but a plague that's been unleashed upon America and it needs to be eradicated.
@Floer-esch 37 minutes ago I have to disagree on Viviana's take on Gavin Newsom. He needs to keep holding up the mirror but needs help from others to highlight that it is a mirror and not his actual content. He's trying to show how insane the right is using their own words and methods.
@dianaddimich4933 38 minutes ago These people are atrocious. Whiners and hypocrites. Yea be afraid of a governor. Like he really would threaten her. Go a pair, and feel scared like your immigrants feel everyday. Baby!
@Hawkshaw3030 42 minutes ago Please don't get her shooting innocent dogs
@gregmuon 42 minutes ago Snowflakes.
@TruthAICanada 43 minutes ago MAGA TEARS
misslamarr 48 minutes ago My life is a terrifying mess with Trump in office!!!
@farcebrook 49 minutes ago Jiminy Cricket! At least she was more outraged when DJT said Bernie's gonna have a bad day Cheers to single standards, unless you want to make yours a double
@kirastars 50 minutes ago It's like she's talking about Trump and how many manipulate people.
@MrSixxshooter 51 minutes ago This woman is extremely dangerous . Very dark times for our country .
@talonanthony 1 hour ago Disaster of plastic surgery on that one
@BarryCorcoran-fj2td 1 hour ago BoBo is into rubbing out at the theater.
@MichaelVaughn-c3v 1 hour ago The entirety of the Admin are drama queens and are delusional, clinically delusional
@junekemp5646 1 hour ago Wow, what a snowflake. She shots and kills a puppy and freaks out over a post.
@sierra9614 1 hour ago Too bad her face can no longer move to convey all the 'fear" she experienced by a tweet! The lady that haunts the dreams of puppies across the nation, needs to get a grip, no one is buying her shit
@RonaldPhan-r3z 1 hour ago Gavin Newsom is always trolling Kristi Noem because she is a puppy killer and a devil woman.
@benwa-m2s 1 hour ago of course that cruel twat thought she will be murdered, it is because she wants to murder everybody. every accusation is an admission with these boneheads
@BarryCorcoran-fj2td 1 hour ago I thought maybe Kristi dreamt about Cricket, the goat and the pony. I guess it's just another hypocritical snowflake displaying their PVS - Perpetual Victim Syndrome.
@creativedesignsolutions7310 1 hour ago Her family knows she is BatSh** crazy.
@americansfortruthandjustic7504 1 hour ago Gavin didn’t even invite her behind the barn.
@lourdesperez2861 1 hour ago Get out of politics and no more threats, this comes with the job
@davidv7275 1 hour ago Kinda tough to feel sorry for this life and family destroyer of 100's of thousands people. Poor Kristi.
@sandralovell5624 1 hour ago Hey, Ice Barbie! You forgot to add how afraid the homeless people are as well now that your friend, Killmeade has announced on the Fox show that they should all be involuntarily euthanized! Yes, "just kill them", he said! And then somebody did just that to some of these people! I will never in my life step foot back in the United States! I always knew that there were a lot of crazies there, but now they're running the country!! Actually, they're running the country into the ground. What a hellhole America has become.
@tonysu8860 1 hour ago Biggest issue is whether California has any way to put teeth in that bill to require unmasking and identification by federal law enforcement. Trump has been pushing boundaries whenever he doesn't see a penalty. Will California law enforcement be empowered to confront, arrest, incarcerate and expel violators of the act? Maybe even deport to South Sudan and Uganda or anywhere else?
@Steven-k2n1t 1 hour ago Trying to start shit
@chriscorey5164 1 hour ago (edited) Oh, puh-leeze…they’re just so anxious to be victims. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so damn pathetic.
@SharonVero3 1 hour ago Why would anyone bother to rub her out??
@erkang2359 1 hour ago Ugly Magabitch, you are looking frustrated....kill a dog, but let it be a Maga dog
@drfranks1158 1 hour ago has won, no one is talking about the TRUMPSTEIN FILES anymore
(didn't take long did it)
@rubenramirez1216 1 hour ago cankles says stuff
@timothypayne78 1 hour ago Please let her get what karma a psycho freak deserves
@rubenramirez1216 1 hour ago she's stupid
@1oldgar 1 hour ago Puddy ssy
@permasteve4184 1 hour ago Maga would believe it, you bet your booty
@JoYoon-yo4qu 1 hour ago Does Kristi Noem realize the threats that hre puppy, horse and goat gets every time she shows her face on TV.
@damonhines8187 1 hour ago F.T.H.O. YOU DERANGED TW@T!! Why are we subjected ad infinitum to this c**t's bleatings. Stop grabbing people, including citizens and other legal residents, off the MOTHERF**KING streets!!
@wendellmccain4303 1 hour ago This is the lipstick pig that runs around thinking she is gi Jane crying like the little bi**h she is. Just trying to suck up any sympathy she thinks she deserves. No sympathy here for the fake loser
@mazzamonk 1 hour ago She killed people
@MaryKuczko-m5x 1 hour ago She only in danger by a crazed maga with a gun ! No Democrats likes her enough to shoot her lmao
@RMSBones 1 hour ago WHY ARE YOU NOT REPORTING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER!!!! Am I crazy?
@GaryKemp-t4j 1 hour ago Cartels and criminals, oh my. She’s lying. Can’t Corey protect her.
@ambesa1 1 hour ago As an American that appreciates our constitution, bill of rights, & declaration of independence—-this regime can eat a 8- pack of hot dogs.
@wyntahsummah9547 1 hour ago She is sickening, so fake disgusting
Want to hang out with us Drapes tonight?
MRS. VERNON-WILLIAMS: Allison Vernon-Williams, get in this car.
BALDWIN: What's the trouble, honey?
These hoodlums bothering you?
Grandmother, Baldwin, this is Wade Walker.
WADE: They call me Cry-Baby. This here is my sister, Pepper.
PEPPER: Greetings, Granny-o.
BALDWIN: Allison's my girl, so hands off, Cry-Baby
WADE: You could have fooled me, Square.
Mrs. Vernon-Williams, I hear you're having a talent show at your charm school today.
MRS. VERNON WILLIAMS: I can barely imagine what you would call music.
WADE: I can sing pretty good.
MRS. VERNON WILLIAMS: "Well," not "good." Haven't you ever heard of the English language?
PEPPER: Don't go flip out, mama.
HATCHET FACE: Yeah. Sometimes shook-up old ladies get cut.
We Put A Mirror Up To The Absurdity Of Donald Trump - How Gov. Newsom Got Under The President’s Skin The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Sep 24, 2025 #GavinNewsom #StephenColbert #GovernorNewsom
California Governor Gavin Newsom comments on his use of social media to beat the president at his own game, and argues that Democrats as a whole need to go on the offensive now before it’s too late. Stick around for two more segments with Gov. Newsom.
***
“I Fear We Will Not Have An Election In 2028 Unless We Wake Up” - Gov. Gavin Newsom The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Sep 24, 2025 #GavinNewsom #StephenColbert #GovernorNewsom
California Governor Gavin Newsom issues a stark warning about President Trump’s efforts to “rig” the 2026 midterm elections, and what it could mean for 2028. Stick around for more with Gov Newsom.
Transcript
>> Stephen: WE'RE BACK WITH THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, GAVIN NEWSOM. TELL US ABOUT THE COLLECTIVE HEALTH POLICY YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER WITH WEST COAST DATES. WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS? >> Governor Newsom: WEST COAST OFFENSE, WESTERN ALLIANCE. >> Stephen: OKAY. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING? WHAT'S THE AGREEMENT? >> Governor Newsom: I RUN THE LARGEST PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CALIFORNIA, SIZE OF 21 STATE POPULATIONS COMBINED. SOME OF THE BRIGHTEST SCIENTISTS, RESEARCHERS, NOBEL LAUREATES. AS A CONSEQUENT WE ARE ADVANCING AN INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIES TO COUNTER THE MISS INFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION COMING FROM THE CDC. PUBLIC HEALTH. >> Stephen: WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE NA AGENT CDC IS HEARTBREAKING TO ME. MY DAD WAS A IMMUNOLOGIST AT THE NIH UNDER KENNEDY AND I LOVE SEEING THIS PERSONALLY BUT TELL THE PEOPLE WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THERE ARE GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO CERTIFY AND SAY THESE ARE THE TREATMENTS OF THESE DRUGS. WHAT IS IT MEAN IN TERMS OF INSURANCE? >> Governor Newsom: WE REQUIRED THAT INSURERS PROVIDE INSURANCE AND COVER THE COST OF ALL THESE VACCINES AS WELL. AND SO AGAIN -- >> Stephen: NORMALLY THEY WOULD USE THIS CDC -- >> Governor Newsom: CDC GUIDELINES. IF THEY ARE NOT MAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS THEY ARE NOT GOING TO COVER THE COSTS. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT, PEOPLE COULD POTENTIALLY LOSE THAT COVERAGE. IN CALIFORNIA WE ARE REQUIRING HEALTH PLANS, REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PROVIDE ACCESS AND WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT OUR OWN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS PROVIDES A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON FACTS BASED ON SCIENCE, NOT BASED ON [BLEEP] AND FEAR. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] >> Stephen: WHEN YOU SAY... WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT "WE'VE GOT TO PUSH BACK." IN THIS CASE YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO DEMOCRATS. YOU MADE AN OUTREACH TO MOVE BEYOND DEMOCRATS. IT'S NOT LIKE DEMOCRAT VERSUS REPUBLICAN IS WHAT I HEAR SOMETIMES. SANITY VERSUS INSANITY. REASON VERSUS FEAR. YOU HAVE GONE TO SOME LENGTHS TO DO THAT. YOU'VE GOT YOUR OWN PODCAST. YOU TALK TO STEVE BANNON. HE SPOKE TO THE LATE CHARLIE KIRK. >> Governor Newsom: HE WAS MY FIRST GUEST ON THE PODCAST. >> Stephen: WHAT DID YOU GET FROM THOSE CONVERSATIONS? SOMETIMES SOME PEOPLE COME ON PODCASTS OR TELEVISION SHOWS AND AREN'T HONEST REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR IDEAS. WHAT DID YOU GET FROM THOSE? >> Governor Newsom: I GOT A LOT OF GRIEF, CRITICISM FOR QUOTE, UNQUOTE, PLATFORMING. DIVORCE IS NOT AN OPTION. WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO LIVE TOGETHER. SUCCESS LEAVES CLUES. THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THE LAST ELECTION. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MOTIVATES, HOW THEY KEEP WINNING IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW THEY KEEP ORGANIZING AND BUILDING A COALITION PARTICULARLY YOUNG MEN. CHARLIE KIRK AND WHAT HE WAS ABLE TO DO. HE WAS KIND ENOUGH TO FLY OUT. WE SPENT AN HOUR AND HALF TOGETHER. INTERESTINGLY WE WERE STAYING CONNECTED UP UNTIL JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO UNTIL HIS TRAGIC ASSASSINATION. WE HAD STEVE BANNON ON FOR THE SAME REASON. NO EXAGGERATION. ABOUT 40 MINUTES INTO THE BANNON CONVERSATION -- FOR IS NOT AN INDICTMENT OF BERNIE SANDERS BUT IT SOUNDED MORE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS IN TERMS OF THE POPULIST MESSAGING. I NEVER EXPECTED THAT. W DIDN'T GET INTO JANUARY 6TH, ALL THE THINGS WE DISAGREE ON. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE CIVIL ENGAGEMENT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE DIALOGUE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO LEARN FROM YOUR OPPONENTS AND IS IMPORTANT TO RECONCILE YOUR WEAKNESSES. AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO MAKE UP FOR OUR FAILURES IN THE PAST. WE GOT CRUSHED IN THIS LAST ELECTION. NOW WE'RE IN A POSITION WHERE WE ARE STRUGGLING TO COMMUNICATE. WE ARE STRUGGLING TO WIN BACK NOW THE MAJORITY AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHAT I'M DOING NOT JUST TODAY IN TERMS OF THE WORK OUT HERE, RAISING MONEY, ALSO RAISING AWARENESS AROUND HOW DONALD TRUMP IS TRYING TO RIG THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS AND HOW I FEAR THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ELECTION IN 2028. I REALLY MEAN THAT. IN THE CORE OF MY SOUL. UNLESS WE WAKE UP TO THE CODE RED, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY. WE WAKE UP SOBERLY TO HOW SERIOUS THIS MOMENT IS. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] >> Stephen: WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER QUICK BREAK. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH MORE GAVIN NEWSOM, EVERYBODY.
***
California Will Now Require ICE Agents To Show Their Faces - Gov. Gavin Newsom The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Sep 24, 2025 #GavinNewsom #StephenColbert #GovernorNewsom
California Governor Gavin Newsom explains the state’s new law that bans members of President Trump’s ICE force from concealing their identities while on duty.
Transcript
>> Stephen: HEY, EVERYBODY, IT'S GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA. I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT PROP 50 VOTE BEFORE I DO THAT, YOU RAISE A BIGGER QUESTION ABOUT WHO WILL WIN IN THE MIDTERMS. TO THE IDEA THAT PERHAPS WE WON'T HAVE FREE AND FAIR AND OPEN ELECTIONS. >> Governor Newsom: WE WILL HAVE PUTIN-TYPE ELECTIONS. >> Stephen: THE ULTIMATE FEAR IS THAT YOU NO LONGER HAVE YOUR DEMOCRACY TO MAKE CHANGE PEACEFULLY. >> Governor Newsom: HE KNOW HE'S GOING TO LOSE THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS. HE'S UNDERWATER. HE IS WEAK IN EVERY CATEGORY. DONALD TRUMP IS WEAKNESS MASQUERADING AS STRENGTH. HE IS WEAK IN EVERY KEY CATEGORY, THAT'S A FACT AND I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACT. HE KNOWS THAT. AND THAT'S WHY HE DIALED NOT FOR VOTES BUT DIALED FOR SEATS. SAID HE IS QUOTE, UNQUOTE, ENTITLED TO FIVE SEATS. CALLED GREG ABBOTT AND SAID "YES, SIR, AND" DID THE SAME THING IN INDIANA, MISSOURI, DURING THE SAME THING IN FLORIDA, LIKELY OHIO AND WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN UTAH. DEMOCRATS, WE ARE GOING TO HOLD HANDS, TALK ABOUT THE WAY THE WORLD SHOULD BE, TALK ABOUT HOW IT'S UNFAIR, MAYBE WRITE AN OP-ED. MEANWHILE THIS GUY'S CONSOLIDATING POWER SO WE DECIDED TO PUSH BACK AND FIGHT BACK BUT IT'S NOT JUST THAT. THAT IS THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG READING THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS BECAUSE HE KNOWS OTHERWISE HE WILL LOSE. WHEN WE KICKED OFF THE CAMPAIGN SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE KICKED IT OFF AT THE DEMOCRACY CENTER IN LOS ANGELES HE SENT OUT I.C.E. AND BORDER PATROL TO INTIMIDATE FOLKS FROM WALKING IN TO OUR EVENT. IT RESTING THIS POOR SOUL THAT WAS TRYING TO SELL STRAWBERRIES AS COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO INTIMIDATE US. THAT'S A PREVIEW OF THINGS TO COME AND VOTING BOOTHS AND POLLING PLACES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. HE FEDERALIZED 4,000 NATIONAL GUARD IN MY STATE. HAS HUNDREDS OF FEDERALIZED NATIONAL GUARDS. HE SENT THE UNITED STATES MARINES, NOT OVERSEAS BUT TO AN AMERICAN CITY. 700 ACTIVE-DUTY MARINES. HE SENT THE MILITARY TO AMERICAN CITIES TO POLICE AMERICAN CITIZENS. THE I.C.E. ISSUE IS ALARMING ONWARDS. IT'S THE LARGEST PRIVATE DOMESTIC ARMY OF ITS TYPE, POLICE FORCE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. WE WILL HAVE 30,000 PEOPLE THAT INCREASINGLY APPEARED TO BE SWEARING AN OATH OF OFFICE TO HIM, NOT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. AGAIN, WAKE UP TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY. [CHEERS AND APPLAUSE] >> Stephen: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST DID COME ON THAT SUBJECT, OVER THE WEEK AND YOU SIGNED A NEW CALIFORNIA LAW THAT BANS IC FROM CONCEALING THEIR IDENTITIES WHICH IS A GREAT IDE IDEA. I'M CURIOUS, THERE'S ALL THESE REASONS WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO DO IT FOR THE POPULATION THAT IS ACTUALLY BEING POLICED BY THEM BUT WHEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND, WHENEVER I HEAR THAT THEY WANT TO HIDE THEIR IDENTITIES, WHY DON'T ANY PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE SAFER BY IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES. AMERICA IS THE PLACE LOADED WITH GUNS AND HEAVEN FORBID ANYTHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO ONE OF THESE GUYS BECAUSE THEY WERE MASKED. NO I.D., WINDOWLESS VAN, THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ATTACK. FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. SHOULDN'T THESE PEOPLE SHOW WHO THEY ARE AND NORMALIZE THEIR BEHAVIOR SO PEOPLE AREN'T TERRIFIED? >> Stephen: THIS IS THE WORST PART ABOUT IT, I HAD DEEP EMPATHY FOR THESE NATIONAL GUARD. TEACHERS, FIREFIGHTERS, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE HELPING WITH RECOVERY IN L.A. BEING USED AS PAWNS, SAME THING FOR A LOT OF THESE FEDERAL AGENTS. I'VE DEEP EMPATHY, TO YOUR POINT. LOSING CONFIDENCE AND TRUST IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT'S HAVING AN IMPACT, CHILLING IMPACT ACROSS THE SPECTRUM FOR OTHER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. WE HAD A 15-YEAR-OLD DISABLED KID IN LOS ANGELES WHO WAS WAITING FOR HIS SISTER TO COME OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL AND THEY PULLED OUT GUNS ON THIS KID. THEY PULLED OUT GUNS AND HANDCUFFED THIS YOUNG CHILD. THAT'S HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MASKED MEN JUMPING OUT OF UNMARKED CARS. PEOPLE DISAPPEARING, NO DUE PROCESS. NO OVERSIGHT, ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY. HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TODAY. PEOPLE ASK IS AUTHORITARIANISM -- YOU'RE BEING HYPERBOLIC. [BLEEP] WE ARE BEING HYPERBOLIC. IF YOU ARE IN A BLACK OR BROWN COMMUNITY, IT'S HERE IN THIS COUNTRY SO I'M DEEPLY PROUD THAT I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SIGNING THE NATION'S FIRST BILL TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MASKING, ALSO TO REQUIRE SIMPLE IDENTIFICATION, TO YOUR POINT. IF SOME GUY JUMPED OUT OF AN UNMARKED CAR AND A MAN WITH A MASK AND TRIED TO GRAB ME, BY DEFINITION YOU'RE GOING THESE ARE NOT JUST AUTHORITARIAN TENDENCIES, THESE ARE AUTHORITARIAN ACTIONS BY AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT. YOU SAW WHAT STEPHEN MILLER SAID LAST WEEK. CALLED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND EXTREMIST ORGANIZATION, BASICALLY A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION SAYING HE'S GOING AFTER HIS ENEMIES. HE SAW THE TWEET DONALD TRUMP SENT OUT BASICALLY TELLING PAM BONDI I WANT THESE THREE PEOPLE TAKE IT OUT. IT'S HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES. THIS CAN'T BE NORMALIZED. NONE OF IT CAN BE NORMALIZE. >> Stephen: GOVERNOR, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HER HERE. GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM, EVERYBODY. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH PRISCILLA PRESLEY.
New Charlie Kirk Evidence CHANGES EVERYTHING! | The Kyle Kulinski Show Secular Talk Premiered 2 hours ago The Kyle Kulinski Show
Transcript
All right, welcome to the show, y'all. We got a lot going on today. So, yes, later on in the show, I will talk about the news that just came out this morning that there was a mass shooting at an ICE facility where immigrants were targeted. Uh there are three immigrants dead. There are no ICE agents even injured. But given those facts, the right has still decided to go allin on shamelessly lying about this. So, we'll talk about that. I also have new Charlie Kirk evidence that absolutely changes everything. I'll be talking about that in just a second. Uh then after that we're going to get to Trump crashing out in his speech to the UN. We have Kamla spilling the tea on 2024 to Matto. We have Chuck Schumer is caving to Trump yet again in the shutdown fight. We have the failed Trump assassin. The verdict is in. Is he guilty? Is he innocent? Uh and that's a crazy story. There's some twists and turns in that one. So don't miss that one. And then um later on uh Trump is looking to bail out the crackpot Argentina president who tanked his own country and Jimmy Kimmel returns and lights up MAGA in his defiant return. So we'll talk about all that and more.
So, let's start with this. You all know the Charlie Kirk story has not been adding up at all. There's a couple things that I keep coming back to that I just haven't seen a sufficient explanation for. Uh one of those things is that the shooter allegedly changed clothes two times. Why he did it two times, nobody knows. Nobody can explain why he changed twice and why he did it at the times that they said he did it. Also, nobody can explain. They allegedly uh disassembled and reassembled the weapon also multiple times. Nobody can explain that this particular weapon is notoriously very difficult to uh disassemble and reassemble. It's not really made to do that easily. Uh nobody can explain how this particular weapon, even when broken down, it wouldn't fit in his backpack. Um nobody can explain how the weapon was reassembled in the woods after the shooting when it allegedly was disassembled after the shot was fired. Uh there's a lot that doesn't add up. Never mind the uh multiple decoys that were in the audience that you know I I there's no explanation that makes sense that includes those people unless they were involved in the plot and the FBI is trying to pretend like they weren't involved in the plot and in fact those people have been let go. So as you all know I've had many questions about uh you know what went on here and it seems like I got to be honest it seems like originally I thought I'd be in the minority but no I'm not. I I appear to be repping the majority position certainly among people left of center but even among people right of center. I know that MAGA certainly MAGA leadership is trying to make this about Trantifa. Blame trans people, blame Antifa, but it's not working. And it's not working because they keep trying to get away with preposterous things. So here's a great example of that right here. Fox News tweeted this a couple days ago. Man of Steel. Charlie Kirk's body stopped a bullet that would typically just go through everything and it was an absolute miracle. Nobody else was killed. His surgeon told TPUSA, "It is insane that in the year of our Lord 2025, they wrote this with a straight face. I mean, this is humiliating. They're actually making the case that Charlie Kirk is unique among billions of human beings and his uh flesh, his blood, his bones are just that much stronger that they were able to stop a bullet that others just would have no chance of stopping whatsoever. Um, now that gets to the main point here, which is the story they were telling originally was, okay, the shot that hit Charlie in the neck, well, first it had to ricochet off of a bulletproof vest he was wearing and then it went up, which is why the entrance wound was so large because normally an entrance entrance wound it is actually very small. Like usually where the mess happens is the exit wound. That's where you see, you know, sort of the flesh explode and the blood come out. And so the the fact that the entrance wound appeared to be so big, the explanation was, hey, the bullet ricocheted off the top of his bulletproof vest and sort of went in almost sideways or tumbling, and that's what led to the huge open wound and the blood immediately coming out. But here's the thing, Erica, Erica Kirk has subsequently come out and said he wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest. Not only that, but some people say um you know, you could see in in certain in certain clips from certain angles, certain pictures, you could actually see a little bit of the outline of his nipples through his shirt, which would again prove he's not wearing a bulletproof vest. Okay. So then, uh so if you throw out the bulletproof vest aspect of this, well then you open up a whole can of worms cuz now it's like, well, that can't be an entrance wound anymore. That looks like it's probably the exit wound cuz that reacted like an exit wound, right? Okay. So now, uh, all of And the funny thing is, you know who's really making a big stink about this? It's the right-wingers cuz it's the people who are very well-versed in gun culture and they know the facts and the evidence and how these things work cuz they've been shooting guns their whole lives. And so we have a bunch of people who came out and talked about this and we're like, "Nah, bro. This this simply does not add up." So here's one right here. I want to play this for you. Take a look. You know how many people hunt out there and know exactly what a 30 odd six round does to a an elk skeleton or bone? We're not dumb. This ain't going to work. This this man of steel, his bone density. Let's talk about this, okay? Let's talk about some things that a 3006 can do. From out to about 4 to 500 yards, a 300 6 can penetrate elk bone. Why is that significant? Elk bone is significantly more dense and strong than human bone. Why? Because elk get up to almost a thousand pounds. And so the bone has to be extremely dense to carry that much weight. Now let's compare it to human. Okay. Well, for one, let's talk about where Charlie got shot. He got shot here in the corateed. If that did hit a vertebrae in his neck, let's understand that neck vertebrae is some of the most fragile bone in the human body because it's so flexible to handle what we do with our neck. So, what they're telling you is a 30 odd six round, which can blow through bbone, was stopped by Charlie Kirk's neck and a vertebrae. If you believe that, God bless your little heart. Now, let's look at this actual bliss test. All right, so we're going to watch a video from US Overwatch. He just put out this a day ago. Very good video. Check it I'll put his link in the pin comment description if you want to watch the whole video. So, our first shot will be a cold boore shot and we will just see what kind of results uh we are able to duplicate. All right, so he's got some very thick bone here across the strap of this dummy. Obviously, this would be far thicker and stronger than a human vertebrae in the neck. Let's uh let's see what this 36 rounds does to it. Wow. And that's not even the uh the gelatin test. I know you've seen it with like gelatin and I mean I've seen like the head get straight up blown off from a 306 round like this is not there's no way that the weapon that they're saying that they're saying was used was used right. It was definitely a different weapon. Now at this point we don't even know where the [ __ ] shot came from. More on that in a little bit but I'll keep going here. All right. From this angle you can see here. Huh? Not only does it go through that bone, it explodes the bone, blows through the dummy. Also, as we'll see here in a second, blows through the wall behind it. Like we did kind of also think, the uh bone stood no chance against a 30 caliber round traveling at that high of a velocity. So, now we're going to give it uh reset it back up and put the uh ballistic plate in front of it and see if we can't duplicate that shot as well. Right now, he actually shoots a ballistic plate with 30 R six round, destroys the plate. Sex air. Just rip the entire half of that plate off. So there you go guys. You just saw I mean right there for you. 36 round damage it's going to do. Went through way bigger bone than a vertebrae through the dummy through the wall. Blew the entire top section of that ballistic plate off. But Charlie Kirk's neck flesh and a little vertebrae stopped that round. So now uh everything's in question. People are saying the kind of gun is in question. The round is in question. The the direction of the shot is in question. Uh basically people are not buying anything. And if if all of us can look at what they're presenting and rip it apart to this extent, what do you think a good defense attorney will do? I'm telling you, there's like like almost no chance whatsoever that Tyler Robinson is found guilty based off what we've seen so far cuz their story does not add up. It does. All right, so more now, like I said, all this is hitting a fever pitch online. So what happens? Well, uh, the FBI director, Cash Patel, he comes out and says the following. Ready? As the director of the FBI, I am committed to ensuring the investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination is thorough and exhaustive, pursuing every lead to its conclusion. The full weight of America's law enforcement agencies are actively following the evidence that has emerged, but our efforts extend beyond initial findings. We are examining every facet of this assassination. We are meticulously investigating theories and questions, including the location from where the shot was taken. Wait, hold on. So, that sounds like you guys are kind of admitting the shot maybe didn't come from the front. That the original story you tried to convince everybody of was complete and utter horseshit. This is what he's saying. Hey, we're looking into maybe the shot came from elsewhere. Wow. Wow. Okay. He says the possibility of accompllices, the text message confession and related conversations, discord chats, the angle of the shot and bullet impact, how the weapon was transported, hand gestures observed as potential signals near Charlie at the time of his assassination. This is something I showed you, I believe, you know, right after it happened in my long segment on it. A lot of people isolated. Looks like these people are given signals who are next to Charlie. He says, "We're looking into that, too." Okay. and visitors to the alleged shooters residence in the hours and days leading up to September 10, 2025. Some details are known today while others are still being pursued to ensure every possibility is considered. Our primary focus is to complete this investigation and deliver justice to protect the integrity of the investigation and subsequent uh prosecution. We cannot release every piece of information we have to the public right now. We will ensure every question is addressed at the appropriate moment regarding specific details such as questions about the plane that allegedly turned off its transponder after departing from an airport near the assassination site. We can share updates when answers are confirmed. After interviews with the pilot and consultation with the FAA, we determine the transponder was not turned off. Incomplete flight data in rural areas cause the apparent gap. The entire FBI mourns the loss of Charlie Kirk. We will not rest until justice is served and our investigation into this assassination will continue until every question is answered. So the thing about the plane there he's alluding to something we had brought up that soon after uh the killing there were plane they didn't shut down the airport there were small planes still taking off and one of those planes sort of went off radar for a little bit. Basically he's he's trying to address all of the chatter online and the conspiracies and people saying hey this doesn't make sense and that doesn't make sense. But okay, here's the thing. First of all, you would have been the ones to fake the dialogue. Like, you would have the text messages you guys released. It sounds like you [ __ ] faked it. I don't trust anything from the MAGA DOJ and the MAGA FBI. I trust nothing from them. But furthermore, bro, this is why you don't put a podcaster in charge of an investigation. This is why you don't do that. This is why you have seasoned veterans and experts who know this stuff uh to do this stuff. They fired the top FBI person in this region of the country not that long before the shooting happened. And now he's running around like a chicken with his head cut off and his thumb up his ass and he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. And this is him just desperately trying to quell the online mob saying, "Oh no, we're looking into it. We promise we're looking into it." Are you? Are you? Because Tyler Robinson is insisting he's not even the guy who did it. And now everybody's starting to have questions about that, that he looks like a [ __ ] psy. Now it genuinely looks like even where they say the shot came from, the shot didn't come from there. That AAM's razor is the shot didn't come from where they say it came from. Right? So then it's like, okay, well, where the [ __ ] did it come from? Well, I've seen theories, none of them particularly convincing, but I've seen theories of like, oh, this person to the side of Charlie did it. And then I've seen other theories that say, "No, no, no, this other person to the side of Charlie did it." Then I've seen theories of there's this guy in like a corner and you know, and very pixelated, but you can zoom in and see him from a distance. There's a guy with a sniper rifle packed away in the tucked away in the corner. Uh, so like people are trying, but I don't know. Nothing's really uh totally satisfying here. But let me give you some more. So this was a video that dropped recently as well. This guy has his own theory that he wants to to share with you. As we proceed here in this segment, you're going to see everything I've given you so far is pretty much rock solid, right? Everything I've given you so far, the fact that they're saying he's a man of steel. No, he's [ __ ] not. That's [ __ ] The fact that now the story about the bullet and the gun makes absolutely no sense. That that's a fact. Cash Mattel is scrambling and basically being like, "Oh, we're on it. We're on it." But yeah, I guess we don't know what the [ __ ] happened either. Well, now I'm gonna go through here some of the theories and we're going to start with with somewhat plausible and then as we go on it's going to get into crazyville. Okay, but let's go. Here we go. Ladies and gentlemen, I now have acquired proof that the FBI's official story is false. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, we're going to have an entire monologue and talk about a lot of these things after I show you this. But if you take nothing else away from this video, you need to see this. And in that video, you can see the same what appears to be the bullet coming down. And it does line up with the actual gunshot itself. not coming gang violence. Great. So, this video was created by a friend of mine who is a Marine. You'll see him here at the end. This is the angle he is showing the shot coming from, showing where Charlie was sitting and the angle of the shot, which will correspond with this video here, which unfortunately we will blur out Charlie's face, but we will show what is necessary to prove that this was an entry and exit wound. So, you'll see him circle the highlighted area right there, and you'll see the exit wound corresponding after, split second after, as it would from an entry and exit wound. So in this footage, you can clearly see that Charlie is shot from his back right and there is blood splatter coming out of the entry wound immediately after a shot. The first arc is kind of down as if it's just gushing out from the entry wound. And then the second shot corresponds with when his head kind of snaps forward, that fluid then flips up in relation to that motion. So you can see there's that second splatter flipping up into the air. This is something that I hadn't seen to this date. I saw this for the first time uh late in the evening yesterday and I decided that this needed to be put out immediately because not no one that I know of is talking about this. So big shout out to my friend who actually found this and created this video. You'll see him here in just a moment. But let's just one more time look at this shot. You see bullet comes in in that circled area. You have the blood splatter go down then up and then immediately after you see the exit right here with the skin being pierced and then the exit wound emerges. And again, that is not a far distance for a bullet to travel. Whatever the caliber is, whether it be 5.56, 308, 306, it's not even a debate at this point. It doesn't matter what caliber killed him. What matters is that the official narrative is not true. Again, whether the FBI knows or not that they're lying, but this is 100% conclusive evidence that Charlie Kirk was shot in the back of the head and it exited through the front of his throat. All of the evidence points to Charlie being shot from his back right now. Including this little blood splatter that we can see here against the white backdrop. The extreme hemorrhaging from the front of his neck, which again corresponds with an exit wound, the extreme loss of blood. No matter what the caliber is, that distance, that amount of meat is not enough for most bullets to expand. I mean, 99.9% of bullets will not expand in that short distance. Most of them require 12 to 14 to 16 in even sometimes of tissue to expand properly. Also, Charlie tensing up correlates and proves that he was hit in his spine. It's a spinal injury. any of the game that I've shot in the neck or in the high vitals where you where you impact the spine that the game usually drops right in its tracks because you sever the spinal cord. This is again exactly what we see with Charlie. He tenses up his head also his head movement also correlates with being shot in the back of the head. His head snaps forward and then he tenses up and you see him fade away, drop the mic and um was absolutely traumatizing video footage and I'm sorry to have to um show you guys this again, but this needs to be seen and talked about because this is going to be suppressed in the algorithm. So make sure you share this with any of your friends, your family members, save this video, whatever you need to do. So, this video was actually provided to the channel by um a friend of mine who is a Marine, and I forgot to show you the end of the video here. So, this is my friend who actually made the video. I want to just give him a shout out. I will link his socials down in the description below. Again, he is the one who brought this to my attention. Okay, so the stuff about it looks like he was shot from behind and that was the exit wound. That honestly makes more sense to me. Now, the the deeper question though is who would have been there and had the ability to do it? because it looked like from most of the camera angles I've seen, it looked like there wasn't much room for anybody to be there. Right now, he says he brings up this portion here. I'll go back to it where, you know, they say, "Oh, this is where the guy is shooting from." But if this is where the guy is shooting from, my understanding that was that this was more front right of Charlie. This wasn't this wasn't back right of Charlie. This was like front right of Charlie. So, I don't know how they could take a shot from there and have it be have it enter, you know, back here and the exit wound be front left. So, I I don't know the lines. He draws a line here to sort of make it seem like, oh, the lines work out. I don't know based on See, he's drawing a line here, but my understanding was that this line, if you actually drew it properly toward Charlie, this would be like a front right shot at him. It wouldn't be a back right shot. So, I'll let it keep going here because then he does draws this other line which sort of implies like Yeah. Oh, this is where it would hit him. I don't think it is. I I think I thought that there was uh that was more front right. So, parts of this it kind of makes sense. The blood the tiny blood splatter coming out of the back first sort of implies to me that that would be more of the entrance wound, right? And the size of the wound in the front does make it seem like it'd be an exit wound. But again, I'm not an expert. I'm not an expert. But the terrifying thing is we can't rely on Cash Patel and the MAGA FBI to actually get the right answers and give the right answers. I mean, how hard did they try to pin this thing on [ __ ] trans people? They tried so many ways. They, oh, it was a trans shooter. You had uh 4chan doxing three or four different trans people who didn't do it, by the way, trying to ruin their [ __ ] lives. Then they moved it to, oh, there's trans stuff on the bullets. That's not true either. Then they moved it to finally, oh, he's got like a trans partner, roommate or something. So they kept moving the trans goalpost, but obviously ideologically they just wanted to blame the left. They wanted to blame trans people. So they're blinded by their bias. So you can't trust [ __ ] coming from these people. Nothing at all. But you know, people are starting to dig deep. So this is one theory that went out there. This thing has has gotten a lot of traction. By the way, a lot of people are talking about this. Like I said, I've seen theories that uh the shooters were directly to his side. I've seen different people singled out as the shooter to the side. Uh but let me keep going here. So, this is the other thing people have been talking about now.
They're also going deep on Erica Kirk, and they're they're learning more about her background. So, this person says, "Hey, media, what are the odds of Turning Point President Erica Kirk and Virginia prosecutor Lindsay Halligan being on on the same stage in the same Trump-owned 2009 beauty pageant?" And so, when you dig deep on Erica Kirk, and you find out that she did the Trump Miss USA thing.
Another thing about her past, apparently they moved to Phoenix because her mom got involved with the government. She got a job with Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. So, there's links between her mom and the US government.
People are also pointing out Erica Kirk apparently worked for this Christian missionary thing in Romania, who were allegedly disappearing children. And that begs the question, "Well, what the [ __ ] were they doing with them? Is this some sort of trafficking thing, like we've been so concerned about Vis-a-vis Epstein?
Romanian Angels JOIN THE MOVEMENT: Change the life of a Romanian Orphan this Holiday Season EVENT DETAILS ADOPT A BOY / GIRL Everyday Heroes Like You will provide a list of orphans to choose from with their wish list ___ next to their name.
Please contact Erika to get your copy of the wish list: [email protected] JOIN THE PACKAGING CELEBRATION On December 6th, bring your family & friends to ceelebrate the love, happiness, and holiday cheer that you will be sending overseas to the little angel you adopted. We will help you personalize and package your gift.
THINGS TO BRING Family/Friends (please RSVP) Child's wish list item Personalized ______ "They can no longer die, for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of teh resurrection." -- Luke 20:36 http://www.everydayheroeslikeyou.com
Romania Probes Israeli Adoption Agency Link in Organ Trafficking Romanian authorities are looking into possible links between Israeli adoption agencies and an illegal global conspiracy to sell organs for transplants. by Ran Reznick Haaretz December 12, 2001 https://www.haaretz.com/2001-12-12/ty-a ... b77dc50000
Romanian authorities are looking into possible links between Israeli adoption agencies and an illegal global conspiracy to sell organs for transplants.
The Romanian Embassy in Israel has asked for, and received from the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, a list of all children born in Romania who have been brought to Israel for adoption in recent years. The Romanian officials are trying to ascertain if all such children arrived in Israel with all organs in their bodies.
In its request to the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, the Romanians did not offer evidence in support of suspicions of a link between adoption and organ trafficking. The inquiry is part of a broader investigation involving Romanian children sent to Italy and the United States.
As Ha'aretz has reported in the past, some Israeli physicians were involved in illegal kidney transplants and the sale of human eggs in Turkey, Romania, and other countries in East Europe.
In parallel with the organ investigation, officials from Romania's central adoption agency and from Israel's Labor and Social Affairs Ministry and police, are also examining possible criminal activity of two groups dealing with the adoption of Romanian children by Israeli parents.
Among other suspicions, officials are checking whether one Romanian group, headed by an Israeli, has forged adoption papers, and whether children have been offered to Israeli parents without proper, legal process.
Responding to complaints and rumors, Romanian authorities have taken the highly unusual step in the past year of withholding authorization for the adoption of 16 Romanian babies destined for Israeli parents. This delay has been enforced although the Israeli couples have paid $20,000 each to adopt the infants, and have already become acquainted with the babies in the foster homes and institutions where they are being held. Romanian authorities insist they will not give the go ahead for the adoptions until inquiries about possible wrong-doing are completed.
To help finalize the adoptions, the Labor and Social Affairs Ministry turned to President Moshe Katsav and asked him to raise the issue with Prime Minister Adrian Nastase when he visited Israel last July. Foreign Minister Shimon Peres also raised it with Romanian officials during his recent visit there.
Parents affiliated with the "Future of the Children" group, based in Rehovot, have also appealed to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to help finalize the adoptions of the Romanian children.
And people are making these videos. These videos are first of all, they're blowing up. But second of all, it's one of those things where you can drive yourself crazy connecting the dots on this [ __ ] .So here we go. Watch this.
Charlie, I love you. Arizona.
So that's her at a Trump Miss USA pageant. She did one in 2009, and I think she did one in 2012. This is her at the event. Trump owns the Miss USA pageant that Erica Kirk Romania. This is what I just told you about. Romania probes Israeli adoption agency link in organ trafficking. What the [ __ ] What the [ __ ] Oh, that's the other thing. She has told a story about how her and Charlie met. I don't remember all the specifics, but it was something like on a plane to Israel or in the airport on the way to Israel or on the airport on the way back from Israel. They're accused of training children in crime and sending them west. We as an American people deserve to have every custody file released. That's where I disagreed with, Charlie. I hate my opponent. The $12 million fortune Charlie Kirk leaves his wife and kids following shooting. Nearly 5 million raised for Charlie Kirk's family following assassination as Turning Point USA sees upwards of 18,000 new chapter requests overnight. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Dempsey? This guy's been talked about for years. And are people still talking about this guy? This great that is unbelievable. I was definitely trafficked. Romanians adopted as kids now seek justice. Answers as adults then. All right, now we're going a layer deeper. Ready? We're going a level level deeper here, bro. See, now we're getting into all the like the conspiracies I've I've we've talked about to this point are more or less within the realm of not insane. Now we're getting to the sort of stuff that the flat earth community, there are certain theories that they are gravitating to about the shooting. and we're going to walk through some of them here. So, uh, one of the things some people are saying, and to be fair, I don't know if this one is actually flat earth. This might be just short of the flat earth community here, but, um, they're saying that the video, uh, of Tyler Robinson allegedly running across the roof, um, that that particular video is AI, that that's faked. And some of the points people have made is that, hey, I thought that this campus was just uh given a whole bunch of, you know, 1080 HD security cameras and now you're showing us videos that look like they're recorded on a phone from 2007 from 200 yards away. It just doesn't that's weird. It's weird. And so people are saying, "Look, this is this is uh faked. This is AI." And I'll play the video here for you and we'll walk through it as we talk about it. But take note here of the shadow of Tyler Robinson as he runs across the roof. And the shadow disappears when he gets on uh this portion of the roof. Watch. I'm going to mute it. Did you see that one more time? Running. There's the shadow. Shadow is gone when he hits the white part of the roof. All right. One more time. Shadow is there as he's running in this portion. when he gets to the white when he gets to the white portion. There's a shadow disappearing again. Shadow disappearing. They're going to get to another uh discrepancy in the video that they say they say vertical lines glitch. Okay, that one was weird. Let me watch that one again. I didn't quite see this one. Did you guys notice anything here? Let's see. Running. Running. Running. Going to zoom in on the lines. I guess those lines change a little bit. Blue haze on the edge of the roof. That I don't know about that one. The blue haze. The blue haze thing just seems like again, if this one's a shittier camera, you could just have weird glitches. You know what I'm saying? I don't know why the blue haze. Okay. All right. And then the person behind the tree is the other one. You're going to see this. So, see this person walking, walking, walking, walking. They get behind the tree and then they don't finish walking. It just stops. They're going to show it again. They're rewounded here. They get behind the tree and then they stop. That one. That one. People were pointing out that one within like the first week. I think this is if you zoom in on the video to the right hand portion you see somebody walking on the sidewalk but when they get to behind the tree uh they stop and there is no they don't continue walking through the other side which I mean another explanation for that is the person stopped walking right like maybe they stopped and they looked at their phone or some [ __ ] um but people are using this as evidence of hey this is like AI this whole video is faked whoever's putting together these uh these edits with this Hog, they are uh they're all in, huh? Google Earth Loi Center. Let's see where they were. CCTV had clear view footage not released. So, they're saying the footage was not released of you can see in this in this uh in the screenshot here uh the the full video of it. You would be able to see the shot, but they didn't release the shot. is that point that they're making that that's what they're trying to say there. Um, all right. So, now now let's go fully into Crazy Town. Let's go fully into Crazy Town. This is um people were pointing this out within the first week and it was one of those like I don't know, man. Obviously some optical illusion or some [ __ ] but people were saying, "Oh, the whole event is faked." And one of the reasons is watch what happens to the chair after Charlie gets gets killed here. A chair goes through a table and like it it looks like a chair literally like goes through a table like it's some some video game type glitch. So watch this. Here we go. Watch the chair. Wait for it. There's the chair and it goes through the table. You see that? You see it? One more time. Watch the chair. It sort of goes through the table right through the table. You saw it one more time. Chair through the table. I lied. One more time. Chair through the table. That That's like I don't know, just some optical illusion type [ __ ] I would imagine. You know, but because All right, now we're going fully. We're all in. Now, notice the name of this Twitter account. Brett Flat Earth Bible Jesus. Look, the reason I'm showing you guys all this is not to be like, "This is what happened." It's to show you all the stuff that's out there because nobody can trust MAGA. Nobody can trust Cash Patel. They're they're [ __ ] useless and they're biased. They have their own things they want to blame it on. And so in the vacuum there, everybody rushes in with their own theory. And now we arrive at the granddaddy of them all, which is Charlie Kirk is hanging out in Cuba with Tupac. And uh the whole thing was a [ __ ] hologram and he's still alive. Ready? So I'm going to click play on this one for you. This one obviously I think is just out there in Narnia. But nonetheless, it's interesting. So let's watch. Good afternoon everyone. Now I'm sure all of you have noticed online that a lot of people are talking about why are these people allowed to be in this canopy? Why isn't this marked off and taped off as a crime scene? And why is this guy in the white shirt taking the most important camera down? the what you think is the most very important camera there. Why is he taking it down? Well, here's why. Because it's not a crime scene. A crime didn't take place here and that's not a camera. Now, before I tell you what it is, I want you to get a real good look at it. Let me just say I love how they put like the spooky music in the background to have that subtle psychological effect on you. Like, you know, I'm about to drop some real [ __ ] on you, bro. As he's taking it down, anybody figure out what it is yet? Okay, here's what it is. It's called a hologram projector. And if you don't believe me, you can go look them up online. And they're not cheap. They're not cheap. Usually 20 to 60 70 $80,000 for these things. And they come in different varieties. Now, Hollywood calls them hologram stage projectors. Now, you see how Charlie's little tent there is a perfect square. And you, as you can tell, it's 10t squared. 10t all the way around on each square. And it's about 9 ft tall. That's because it has to be for the projection to work. Now, let's explain. For smaller spaces, the projectors can be configured with mirrors to elongate the projection path and maintain picture integrity. Eyeliner displays ideally require a minimum footprint of 10 ft square and a height of 9 ft to show full-size human figures. What you are seeing is a reflected image which is so true and realistic to the original, it has become known as a virtual image. Many people perceive what they are seeing now as a 3D hologram. In fact, it is a 21st century take on a mid-9th century visual effect known as Peppa's ghost showing now on the relay screens. Thanks in part to the amazing optical properties of the eyeliner foil combined with the lightened picture output of Christy digital highdeinition projectors. The image has depth and opacity that actually supersedes the scale and definition of traditional 3D hologram. Like I said before, 10 ft squared, 9 ft tall. This canopy was made this size for a purpose because it is a hologram stage projection that you guys were watching. These performers are holograms. Every series we take one step closer to achieving all of the sci-fi dreams. It's pretty cool. You'll never have to miss a gig again. The gig can come to you. We traveled to Paris to meet Ian Okonnell, director of the company that put this show on. I recall we were being asked to produce a So, you get the gist of it. But yeah, they're saying the flat earth people are saying it was a hologram. Charlie's still alive. Uh they go on in this video and other videos to point to the fact that there's allegedly a trap door that was right underneath Charlie. So, um I'm telling you, man, it varies. It v the different conspiracies out there vary, but the fact of the matter is everybody is looking for answers because it's very clear that the FBI has lied to us. It's very clear they're not telling the truth. It's very clear they're not even really interested in finding the truth if I'm being honest with you. They want to pin it on some Antifa person or some lefty or some trans person and uh you know move on and call it a day and use this for their political ends, namely as Trump is doing, wage a war on the left in this country. That's what they're doing. But they're you know it's [ __ ] podcasters running the FBI and they're failing miserably. And so certain things are more practical than other things. Certain things make more sense than other things. This stuff here obviously I think is bonkers and totally out there. But the stuff that makes sense is um that the official story is is bogus. It's completely complete nonsense. It's just utter horseshit. And now people are correctly I believe questioning where the shot even [ __ ] came from and what weapon was actually used. So that's where we are now. And uh people are going to keep trying to put stuff together and come to their own conclusions because again what we're getting from the government is just not even remotely believable at this point. Hey y'all do me a favor and like and subscribe. It helps out big time in the algorithm. Click the bell as well for notifications when videos drop. And watch that video on screen right now. You know you want to.
****************************
Tell me everything you know about "Romanian Angels" charity adoption outfit, who started it, where, when and how. ChatGPT said: Thought for 24s
Short answer: there are two different things people mean by “Romanian Angels.”
1) “Romanian Angels” — the small U.S. evangelical charity program
Who started it: Erika Frantzve (now Erika Kirk). Public write-ups describe “Romanian Angels” as a program under her U.S. 501(c)(3) Every Day Heroes Like You. Hindustan Times +2 Hindustan Times +2
Where: Worked in Constanța, Romania (on the Black Sea). Hindustan Times
When: Active in the late 2000s–2010s era (press and web traces refer to the nonprofit founded in the mid-2000s and to later trips/programming; there’s no comprehensive public archive). primetimer.com
How it worked: It ran holiday “adopt an orphan” gift drives (a figurative “adopt,” i.e., sponsoring gifts/needs lists), plus other church-style outreach. There’s no verified evidence it was ever an adoption agency or was charged/expelled by Romanian authorities. Multiple fact-check roundups (post-2025) say the trafficking/ban claims circulating online lack official support or records. mint +3 Yahoo +3 Hindustan Times +3
Bottom line: “Romanian Angels” in this sense was a U.S. ministry project, not an adoption outfit, and there’s no substantiated record of trafficking accusations or a Romanian ban.
2) Romanian Angel Appeal (RAA) — the well-known UK/Romanian foundation from 1990
Who started it: Olivia Harrison (George Harrison’s wife) spearheaded the effort after seeing the post-Ceaușescu orphanage crisis; she rallied partners and volunteers. Romanian Angel Appeal +1
Where: Organized out of the UK with on-the-ground operations in Romania (based in Bucharest today). Romanian Angel Appeal
When: 1990. High-profile fundraising launched that summer (e.g., the Traveling Wilburys’ charity single/album “Nobody’s Child” in July 1990). The Beatles Bible +1
How it worked: Began with emergency aid to orphanages (renovations, supplies, training), then expanded to long-term programs in education, health (HIV/TB), and social services—many coordinated with Romanian ministries. RAA continues today. Romanian Angel Appeal
Bottom line: RAA is a large, established foundation born in 1990 out of the global response to Romania’s orphan crisis; it is not an adoption agency, though it helped transform care systems for institutionalized children. Romanian Angel Appeal +1
Why the names get mixed up
The phrasing is similar (“Romanian Angels” vs Romanian Angel Appeal).
Both worked with Romanian orphans/children, but only RAA is the well-documented 1990s foundation tied to Olivia & George Harrison; Erika Kirk’s “Romanian Angels” was a later, small U.S. ministry program with gift-sponsorship drives—not an adoption outfit. Romanian Angel Appeal +1
If you’re thinking of a specific adoption-related entity beyond these two, tell me any detail you remember (city, year, a person involved) and I’ll track it down.
You said: I have a pamphlet here from "Romanian Angels" for a holiday adoption event in arizona that says: ChatGPT said:
Great — thanks for sharing that detail. That lines up with the first “Romanian Angels” I described (the Arizona-based holiday gift/adoption drive connected to Erika Frantzve/Kirk’s nonprofit).
Here’s how it fits together with what’s known:
Origins and Founder
Founder: Erika Frantzve (now Erika Kirk), a Phoenix/Scottsdale–based evangelical speaker and philanthropist.
Entity: She set up a U.S. 501(c)(3) called Every Day Heroes Like You in the mid-2000s. “Romanian Angels” was one of its flagship programs.
Operations
Arizona events: They held holiday “adopt an orphan” drives — exactly what your pamphlet refers to. Families in Arizona could “adopt” a Romanian orphan’s Christmas wish list, buy the gifts, and send them overseas.
Romanian partner: The gifts and supplies were directed to children’s homes in Constanța, Romania.
How it worked: Participation was framed as a sponsorship — i.e., “adopting” a child for the holidays by sending gifts, not a legal adoption.
Timeline
Mid-2000s – 2010s: That’s when the project was active, with holiday drives publicized in Arizona churches and community spaces.
After Erika married Charlie Kirk (Turning Point USA), her online presence shifted toward broader faith/political work, and “Romanian Angels” dropped from public view.
Clarifications
Not an adoption agency: Despite the phrasing on the pamphlet, “adoption” meant gift sponsorship, not legal adoption.
No trafficking/ban records: Fact-check investigations have found no evidence that Romanian Angels was ever banned from Romania or sanctioned. The only major, long-running Romanian orphan charity is the Romanian Angel Appeal (RAA), which is unrelated and founded in 1990 by Olivia Harrison and partners.
Would you like me to summarize your pamphlet’s text in context — i.e., place its language alongside the public record so you can see exactly where the rhetoric differs from the reality? That way, you’ll have a cross-reference between the marketing pitch and the documented history.
You said: that says: JOIN THE MOVEMENT: Change the life of a Romanian Orphan this Holiday Season EVENT DETAILS ADOPT A BOY / GIRL Everyday Heroes Like You will provide a list of orphans to choose from with their wish list ___ next to their name ChatGPT said:
Perfect, thank you for transcribing that — it matches what I’ve seen described about the Romanian Angels program.
Here’s how your pamphlet text fits into the picture:
Pamphlet Language vs. Actual Structure “JOIN THE MOVEMENT: Change the life of a Romanian Orphan this Holiday Season”
Context: This is the mission appeal.
Reality: It was a seasonal Arizona church-community campaign run by Erika Frantzve/Kirk’s 501(c)(3), Every Day Heroes Like You. The “movement” was essentially a gift-sponsorship drive.
“EVENT DETAILS – ADOPT A BOY / GIRL”
Pamphlet intent: “Adopt” is being used in the sponsorship sense, not legal adoption.
Reality: Volunteers or donors chose a child’s profile and pledged to buy gifts, clothing, or other needs for Christmas. The gifts were then shipped to orphanages in Constanța, Romania.
“Everyday Heroes Like You will provide a list of orphans to choose from with their wish list ___ next to their name”
Mechanics:
The charity compiled names (first name/initials) and simple gift lists.
Arizona participants picked a child to sponsor.
They purchased the items and returned them to a collection point.
Volunteers shipped them overseas.
Significance: This shows that “Romanian Angels” was not an adoption outfit in the legal sense, but a holiday gift sponsorship under a U.S. charity umbrella.
Why the Confusion
The word “adopt” in these pamphlets is what often leads people to assume this was an adoption agency.
In fact, Romania had a moratorium on international adoptions since 2001 (later tightened by EU accession in 2007). So, no U.S. group could have been legitimately arranging adoptions at that time.
Would you like me to trace where and when this pamphlet campaign was being promoted in Arizona (e.g., specific churches, news coverage, or nonprofit filings), so you can pin down its local footprint and how official the operation was?
You said: yes ChatGPT said: Thought for 12s
Here’s the Arizona footprint I can document for the “Romanian Angels” holiday “adopt-a-child” drives:
Where it was promoted (Arizona outlets & orgs)
Arizona Foothills Magazine ran a holiday blurb on Dec 19, 2013 titled “Romanian Angel: ‘Adopt’ a Child,” explaining donors could “adopt” a Romanian orphan by purchasing the child’s Christmas wish-list items—exactly the language in your pamphlet. Arizona Foothills Magazine
Notre Dame Preparatory (Scottsdale) alumni page profiles founder Erika Frantzve, noting her 501(c)(3) Everyday Heroes Like You and saying it “works in partnership with the United States Marine Corps to help sustain an orphanage in Constanța, Romania.” (Confirms the Arizona base + Romania tie-in.) Notre Dame Preparatory High School
Idealist.org nonprofit listing for Everyday Heroes Like You shows it as an Arizona organization (Scottsdale) with global projects—consistent with an AZ-organized holiday drive. Idealist
IRS Exempt Orgs file (Arizona) includes EVERYDAY HEROES LIKE YOU INC with a Scottsdale, AZ address—useful as an official breadcrumb tying the program to Arizona. IRS
(There are also recent summaries referencing the program’s Arizona roots, but the items above are the cleanest primary/organizational traces.)
What the Arizona materials say the event did
The 2013 holiday item spells out the sponsorship model: pick a child from a list, buy the gifts on their wish list, and donate the items—not legal adoption. Arizona Foothills Magazine
Timeline anchors
2006–2007: Nonprofit formation era (Everyday Heroes Like You). IRS/Org listings and local profiles tie it to Scottsdale, AZ. IRS +1
Context on “adoption” wording (why it couldn’t have been legal adoption)
Romania placed a moratorium on intercountry adoptions in 2001, then passed Law 273/2004 (effective Jan 1, 2005) allowing intercountry adoption only in extremely narrow kinship cases (e.g., grandparents). So Arizona drives using “adopt” meant gift sponsorship, not adoptions. csce.gov +1
If you want, snap a photo of your pamphlet and I’ll align its lines verbatim against the 2013 Arizona Foothills piece and the org listings above so you’ve got a tidy, sourced one-pager.
You said: tell me everything you know about Erika Kirk's mother. I know she worked for the defense department and homeland security. What kind of a name is "Frantze." Who is Erika's father? ChatGPT said:
Here’s what I found (and could not find) about Erika Kirk / Frantzve’s family — especially her mother, father, and the name “Frantze / Frantzve” — along with assessment of where the gaps remain.
What is known Mother: Lori Frantzve
Multiple sources name Lori Frantzve (née presumably) as Erika’s mother. People.com
In People Magazine, it says Lori spent “nearly two decades working for General Electric before launching her own ventures in network security.” People.com
After Erika’s parents divorced, Lori “raised Erika as a single mother in Scottsdale, Arizona.” People.com
The People piece also says Lori “instilled in Erika a sense of self-reliance, community service, and deep religious faith.” People.com
There are incidental mentions in news aggregators of Lori being in “network security” or “own ventures” in that area. People.com
What not confirmed:
I did not find credible sources confirming Lori ever worked for the U.S. Department of Defense or Homeland Security.
I did not locate her full career résumé (dates, roles, governmental versus private sector) in public records or reputable profiles.
Father: Kent Frantzve (or Father’s identity)
Some biographical and news sources refer to Erika’s father as Kent Frantzve. Yahoo +1
However, almost all public profiles emphasize that Erika was primarily raised by her mother after her parents’ divorce, and there is little detail about her father’s background, occupation, or involvement. Yahoo +3 opb +3 Wikipedia +3
No reputable source confirms Kent’s professional history, government service, or further personal details that I could verify.
Name “Frantze” / “Frantzve” / “Frantze”
Erika’s published name is Erika Lane Frantzve (before marriage). Wikipedia +2 opb +2
Many public sources consistently use “Frantzve” (not “Frantze”). Hindustan Times +3 Wikipedia +3 The Independent +3
The variant “Frantze” seems to be a misreading or typo (in your question) — I found no credible public reference to “Frantze” as her last name.
As for the origin or etymology of “Frantzve”:
I found no public genealogical record or linguistic source that satisfactorily explains “Frantzve.”
It is an uncommon surname, possibly a variant or anglicized version of a longer name, or with roots in Northern Europe / Germanic / Scandinavian name structures (just speculative).
One article notes that her grandfather was an immigrant from Sweden. Hindustan Times That suggests possible Scandinavian heritage, which might help explain a less common surname form.
Assessment and gaps
Lori’s defense / DHS work: I found no verifiable record that Erika’s mother worked for the Department of Defense or Homeland Security in an official capacity. The sources I found emphasize her GE and private sector / security industry work, which might be conflated in some narratives.
Father’s details largely unknown: While the name “Kent Frantzve” appears in some oblique mentions, there is very little public documentation on his background.
Surname origin speculative: Because the name “Frantzve” is rare and I found no genealogical or etymological discussion in reputable sources, its exact origin remains unclear. The Sweden-immigrant grandfather note hints at Northern European roots.
Privacy / limited exposure: Given Erika’s profile and her mother’s preference for privacy (insofar as public domain suggests), some family details may simply not be in the public record or intentionally withheld.
If you like, I can dig into public records, archival sources, and genealogical databases to see whether anything deeper can be found (e.g. Lori’s full work history, Kent’s identity, family immigration records). Would you like me to check those?
You said: yes ChatGPT said:
I checked public records, media reports, and genealogical-style sources; here’s a full accounting of what I could find about Erika Kirk / Frantzve’s mother, father, and family origins — along with what remains unverified or speculative.
What is found in public sources Mother — Lori (Loretta Ann) “Lori” Frantzve (née Abbas?)
Many biographical articles and profiles refer to Erika’s mother as Lori Frantzve. BBN Times +3 People.com +3 Ideastream Public Media +3
Some sources give her full name as Loretta Ann “Lori” Abbas Frantzve, suggesting “Abbas” might be a maiden name or heritage surname. Facebook
She is consistently described as the primary caregiver after Erika’s parents divorced, raising Erika in Scottsdale, Arizona. People.com +2 Ideastream Public Media +2
Career:
Many sources say Lori worked for General Electric for nearly two decades. People.com +2 Hindustan Times +2
After GE, she is said to have launched “ventures” in network security / private sector security / tech / cybersecurity. People.com +2 Hindustan Times +2
Ancestry:
Some media mention that Erika’s maternal grandfather was an immigrant from Sweden. Hindustan Times +1
The “Abbas” surname (from the “Loretta Ann ‘Lori’ Abbas Frantzve” reference) might suggest Middle Eastern heritage, which aligns with speculation of Lebanese roots in social media posts. Facebook
Unverified / missing:
No credible record of Lori holding a job as a major official in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) or Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shows up in responsible sources.
No public resumes or LinkedIn profiles (in reliably verified media) that detail specific roles in DoD or DHS.
No authoritative genealogical or civil records confirming “Abbas” as her maiden name or confirming exact lineage beyond media speculation.
No public documentation (e.g. in local newspapers, registries, federal employee rosters) that tie her into military/intel agencies that I could reliably trace.
Father — Kent Frantzve (or “Kent”)
Some sources list the name Kent Frantzve as Erika’s father. BBN Times +3 People.com +3 Hindustan Times +3
It is generally reported that Lori and Kent divorced and Lori raised Erika thereafter. People.com +2 Ideastream Public Media +2
Beyond the name “Kent Frantzve,” I found no credible public record of his occupation, background, or further family history (in media or public registries).
Name “Frantzve” / Possible Heritage
Erika’s birth name is reported as Erika Lane Frantzve. Hindustan Times +3 Wikipedia +3 Ideastream Public Media +3
The name “Frantzve” does not appear to be common; I found no genealogical or name-origin sources that clearly explain “Frantzve.”
The Swedish immigrant note (maternal grandfather from Sweden) may hint at Northern European roots in the family, though whether this connects to “Frantzve” or “Abbas” is speculative. Hindustan Times +1
The “Abbas” middle/hereditary name (in “Loretta Ann ‘Lori’ Abbas Frantzve”) suggests possible Middle Eastern / Lebanese heritage in maternal lines, especially because social media posts cite Lebanese heritage in relation to Lori. Facebook
Synthesis and caveats
What we can say confidently:
Erika’s mother is Lori Frantzve (possibly Loretta Ann “Lori” Abbas Frantzve).
Lori worked long-term at General Electric, then in private/tech / security ventures.
Her parents divorced; Lori raised Erika in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Erika’s father is named (in multiple media reports) as Kent Frantzve, but beyond that, publicly little is known.
There is speculation or media rumor of family roots in Sweden (maternal grandfather) and possibly Lebanon (via “Abbas”), but that is not verified in credible genealogical sources.
What we cannot yet substantiate:
That Lori was ever formally employed by DoD or DHS.
The full professional history or identity of Kent Frantzve.
A clear, documented genealogy linking the names “Frantzve” or “Abbas” to known family trees or national origins.
Birth records, public employee records, or government documents confirming governmental service roles for Lori.
Here’s what I can document about Erika (Frantzve) Kirk’s parents and the surname—plus what I cannot verify.
Mother: Lori (“Loretta Ann ‘Lori’ Abbas”?) Frantzve
Name & role in Erika’s upbringing. Mainstream profiles identify Lori Frantzve as Erika’s mother and say she raised Erika in Scottsdale after divorcing Erika’s father. People.com
Career. People’s profile says Lori worked nearly two decades at General Electric before launching ventures in network/security tech; her LinkedIn presents her as a founder/exec in computer & network security (AZ-Tech, GTEK, etc.). I find no credible record that she held a formal position at the U.S. Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security. If she consulted for firms with federal customers, that isn’t the same as being a DoD/DHS employee. People.com +1
Family background (reported). Some media note Swedish ancestry on her side (a maternal grandfather immigrated from Sweden), but that appears to refer to Erika’s paternal grandfather (see below); either way, Swedish roots are well-documented in the Frantzve line. Legacy
Father: Kent Frantzve
Identity. Multiple reputable outlets name Kent Frantzve as Erika’s father. People.com +2 AZCentral +2
Public presence. Little is published about Kent’s profession; he appears briefly in coverage around Charlie Kirk’s death. The Times
Extended family / ancestry. Obituaries show Erika’s paternal grandfather was Carl Kenneth (“Ken”) Frantzve, born in Falun, Sweden, which grounds the Swedish heritage in the Frantzve (paternal) line. Legacy +1
The surname: “Frantze” vs. Frantzve
Erika’s maiden name is Frantzve (with zv), not “Frantze.” That spelling appears across mainstream bios and reference pages. Wikipedia
Origin. “Frantzve” is rare in English-language records; given the documented Swedish paternal grandfather, it’s plausibly a Scandinavian/Germanic surname variant (e.g., related to “Frans/Frantz”), but I couldn’t find an authoritative etymology entry beyond that inference. (What is firm is the Swedish-born grandfather on the Frantzve side.) Legacy
Related Arizona paperwork that ties back to Erika’s maiden name
Erika’s nonprofit Everyday Heroes Like You, Inc. is on GuideStar and tax-exempt directories at a Scottsdale, AZ address with ERIKA FRANTZVE listed as principal—useful as an official breadcrumb for the family’s Scottsdale base. www2.guidestar.org +1
What I did not find (after checking news, org directories, and professional profiles)
No substantiated record that Lori Frantzve worked for DoD or DHS as an employee or official. Public sources consistently frame her post-GE work as private-sector network/security entrepreneurship, not federal employment. People.com +1
Ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner blasts the Kimmel suspension: 'Where has all the leadership gone?' by Madeline Berg and James Faris Business Insider Sep 19, 2025, 1:41 PM MT https://www.businessinsider.com/disney- ... ion-2025-9
• Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner sounded off on ABC's decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel's show. • Eisner called out a lack of corporate leadership in a social media post. • Disney has faced a wave of backlash since suspending "Jimmy Kimmel Live!"
Disney's Jimmy Kimmel suspension has started a mouse-on-mouse fight.
Former Disney CEO Michael Eisner criticized the company's decision to pull "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" from ABC indefinitely after the late-night host's remarks on Charlie Kirk's death.
"Where has all the leadership gone?" Eisner said in an X post on Friday, referencing Kimmel's suspension.
Jon Stewart suggests Colbert's cancellation is tied to Paramount's Trump settlement
Although Eisner — who ran the Mouse House from 1984 to 2005 — didn't call out current CEO Bob Iger by name, he took a clear shot at his successor.
Eisner lamented what he characterized as the capitulation of university presidents, law firm partners, and other corporate leaders to Trump and his allies.
"Maybe the Constitution should have said, 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except in one's political or financial self-interest,'" Eisner wrote.
In the post, Eisner defended Kimmel, praising him as "very talented and funny."
He didn't immediately respond to a request for further comment.
Disney has been the target of backlash in recent days in Hollywood and beyond, including protests at its studio headquarters in Burbank, California.
Eisner ran Disney for more than two decades. During his tenure, the company's market value grew from around $2 billion to a full-fledged entertainment giant worth roughly $60 billion. Disney is now valued at over $200 billion.
Trump FCC SMACKED with COMPLAINT after PLAN FAILS by Sidney Blumenthal & Sean Wilentz & Seth Stern. Court of History Legal AF Sep 24 2025
The Court of History's Sidney Blumenthal & Sean Wilentz are joined by the director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, Seth Stern. The discussion revolves around the Freedom of the Press Foundation's recent complaint against FCC Chairman, Brendon Carr.
Transcript
Welcome to the Court of History. I'm Sydney Blumenthal. I am here with my colleague Sean Wentz of Princeton University. Well, the court is now in session. Sean and um it turns out Jimmy Kimmel Live is live again. That was right. Jimmy Kimmel's dead for a short period of time. Well, what do you make of that? I mean, look, I mean, this I gather that all of Hollywood just revolted. I went crazy about this that they saw what was going on. It wasn't just the Hollywood left, quote unquote, but everybody saw that this was completely out outrageous. And um I gather um I have no inside knowledge, but I gather that's the reason why ABC finally decided to uh to back off. But now, what's the FCC going to do? I mean, you know, he's been pretty ferocious, pretty thuggish in his in the way he's gone about doing things. We the the the plot thickens, as they say. Yeah. Well, Brendan Carr, who is the chairman of the FCC, said that Disney could do it the easy way or the hard way. And it turns out that um Disney learned it the hard way because all of Hollywood revolted against what it was doing. And yeah, Michael Eisner, the former CEO of Disney, came out and really trashed Bob Iger, the current CEO, for his cowardice. Um, no love lost there. Now Jimmy Kimmel's back is um but um Sinclair and Nextar, is that what it's called? are yes going to censor continue censoring him on their own. Um there are a lot of issues involved here with all of these people doing it and I think we need to bring in an expert. So I'm delighted to introduce an old friend of the court of history, Seth Stern. He is the director of adv advocacy at the freedom of the press foundation. Now that foundation monitors and documents virtually every press freedom violation in the United States and engages in advocacy to defend the public's right to know. And as it happens, um, just two days ago, um, the Freedom of the Press Foundation sent a letter to the Office of Disciplinary Council of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. That was a complaint against Brendan Carr. Seth, we know you have filed a previous complaint on July 28th against Brendan Carr that addressed his egregious conduct and um sought, I think, for them to consider uh his disparment. Why did you file a supplementary letter and tell us what's in it? Yeah, that's the thing with Brendan Carr. Whenever you think you have comprehensively documented all of his violations of the rules of professional conduct or the first amendment, he sends you right back to the drawing board with another one. So, we filed a supplement to our original complaint. Not overly confident it'll be the last time we need to supplement that complaint. But we just thought that his conduct now um proved that his conduct with respect to Paramount was not an anomaly. This is his MO. he is going to wield the FCC's power to approve mergers of lenses as a weapon to um compel the press into compliance with the MAGA agenda. We see we saw it with Paramount, which was seeking to to merge with Sky Dance. That merger was held up until Paramount wrote Donald Trump a $16 million check to settle his frivolous lawsuit and made editorial concessions including agreeing to bring in a bias monitor who turned out to be a career partisan um equipped to monitor bias. Um now we're seeing the same thing. Um, NextStar has a merger in the works with Tegna, which not only requires FCC approval, but actually requires a rule change because it would exceed current um ownership caps if those two entities were to merge. Next, of course, has all the reason in the world to get Brendan Carr on his on on their side, knowing that he's a political operative and not an independent regulator, and that's how you get favors out of him. So, that's what they did. They agreed to pull Kimmel, put ABC in a position, and I'm not at all excusing ABC for its own capitulation, but put ABC in a position where a large number of ABC's local affiliates between NextStar and Sinclair, which also pulled Kimmel, were not going to be able to um to watch the show. And one thing I would say about that is speaking of Nextstar's merger, this is really exhibit A for why that merger should not be permitted. Because you see Nextstar, even with its current market share, even with its current number of affiliates, has enormous leverage to wield against the ABCs of the world um to carry out Trump and Carr's censorship agenda. and we're seeing it doing so. Do we want to give the next stars of the world even more power to throw the First Amendment under the bus for profit? I'd say not. This is exactly why the market cap should not be expanded. Right. Yeah. Right. Well, you know, Brendan Carr works for somebody who thinks he's a king, and Brendan Carr apparently thinks he's the king of Hollywood. Um but you go through his rule violations which are quite extensive. Um starting with competence and um going through criminal acts. What criminal acts has he committed? Well, I'm not a criminal lawyer, but you've got um Republican senators like Ted Cruz saying that this was a mafioso shakedown. um when Brendan Carr gets on on air um on Benny Johnson's show of all places to talk about media integrity. Kind of ironic there, but when he gets on Yeah. Who is Benny Johnson? Who's Benny Johnson? Just mention it quickly. Oh, sure. He's a a right-wing influencer with a history of plagiarism and conspiracy theories. There was a big New York Times article about him a month or so ago. Um but he's a favorite of the Trump administration and is uh being given um access that normally would be granted to serious people but is now being he was also a recipient uh he says unknowingly of Russian money. That's right. Yeah, I forgot that part. There's Yeah. Yeah. So you also say that Brendan Carb um is uh liable for misrepresentation. He me misrepresented the FCC's authority. How do you do that? Well, that is um from the language of the rules of professional conduct governing attorneys. So it's sort of a a legal term, but he is representing to lences that the FCC has the authority to regulate their content, which it plainly does not. There is a public interest requirement that FCC licenses operate in the public interest. That requires them to not, for example, air blatant fraud or um other or or pornography or other extreme categories. There is absolutely no precedent for the public interest requirement, meaning that the FCC is entitled to sit in Washington DC and go line by line through a late night comedian's monologue and parse every word they say to decide whether they believe that they that they're speaking in the public interest. The reasons for that is because that kind of power is sure to be abused. That's why we have a First Amendment um in the first place. And you can see it being abused because Brendan Carr shows absolutely no interest in fallacies broadcast over the public airwaves that are favorable to Donald Trump or criticism of Donald Trump's adversaries. Somehow the only time he believes something is not in the public interest is when it is counter to Donald Trump's agenda. So he's misre misrepresenting the FCC's authority to lences. And the thing is the lences know that the FCC is not authorized to regulate content. But when Brendan Carr contacts them, they know they are not speaking to a good faith regulator with serious curiosity as to whether they're in compliance with their requirements. They're talking to Donald Trump's henchmen, as Ted Cruz said, someone who is engaging in mafioso tactics. I I I I can't say how a criminal court would ultimately rule, but to me, it looks a lot like extortion. It looks a lot like deprivation of of of rights. Um it looks a lot like a a number of offenses um on the books whether criminal, civil or attorney ethics rules. And and and it looks like one other thing too though, right? It looks like to me part of the um comprehensive effort to redefine what the public interest is, which is to say the public interest is Donald Trump's interest. and he hammers that home and he hammers that home and he keeps going at it in such a way as I think he hopes that eventually people will start believing it or at least you know acquiescing in it that there's no distinction between Donald Trump's well-being and that of the nation because he speaks for the nation he is the king and and I and I think that that always has to be brought in mind bear borne in mind not only in this case but every time he tries to do this this happens to be a case that's particularly egregious and has you know tremendous ripple effect throughout the culture without the politics but that's what's going on here, right? I mean, he's just trying to say we are I'm the country. That's it, right? I I think that's that's exactly right. That's what he is doing with the FCC through the public interest requirement. That is his hook to attempt to regulate content in the rest of the world that is not regulated through the FCC. Um the hook seems to be national security and safety. Of course, the Pentagon Papers case held that the government can't just scream national security like a magic word whenever it wants to censor the press. That point appears to be lost on this administration, as we saw with its uh requirement that Pentagon reporters pledge to not print anything they're not authorized to print. As we see with its frivolous claims that reporting on ICE operations or identifying ICE agents somehow threatens national security. as we see with its efforts to deport people like Remisa Sterk for writing a a relatively tame oped that the Trump administration claims somehow threatens national security or or or or puts us in a boat with terrorist supporters with with with Hamas who's not even mentioned in the op-ed right now. Mario Gua, a journalist from Atlanta, is facing deportation for nothing but covering a no Kings protest, doing his job, reporting the news. And I do commend all the Hollywood celebrities and everyone else who got behind the um the push for Kimmel, but they should be spending that same energy on someone like Mario Gua who did nothing but report news of public interest to the public, is not facing any criminal charges, is a lawful is lawfully in the United States, and is on the verge of being deported. Um he might not be as famous as Jimmy Kimmel. He was never on the man show, but he is um just as worthy a cause for people to to to get behind. And the Freedom of the Press Foundation has called attention to his case. Yes. Yes, we have, as have plenty of other organizations, uh Free Press, the Committee to to Protect Journalists. There's a whole coalition behind Mr. Gua's case. Uh but so far to no avail. He is he is facing deportation. um as is Ramisa Sterk, although she is out of jail finally. Um she still has deportation proceedings open against her again for nothing more than writing an op-ed. This attempt to link advocacy or journalism to terrorism is sort of another layer of the abuse of national security. We saw a bill that fortunately failed that would have given Marco Rubio authority to deny or revoke passports based on his decision that someone's a supporter of terrorism. He's the same person who decided that Ruma Sterk is a is is is a supporter of terrorism. We've seen these attempts to go after nonprofits, including nonprofit news media, for supposedly supporting terrorism. Again, according to people like Marco Rubio and others in this administration who who who see any divergence from the administration's foreign policies as support of terrorism, yesterday, I believe Trump declared Antifa a a domestic terrorism organization, a a a designation that doesn't exist for an organization that doesn't exist. So, um ask you about Antifa. So Antifa is means anti-fascist presumably, right? And um somehow it got conjured up um from some people who adopted that label during the the 2020 period. and uh Trump um somehow regards them as this shadow organization a an immense conspiracy there there's no organization of this you know by its very nature it seems to be anarchist if if it's anything there no there's no leadership there's no membership but how can he after having signed an executive order uh wield the power of the executive against the press, which is your purview, using such um a broad and vague order. Well, we saw where this is headed in the Cop City case um down in Georgia. There you had a group of protesters against the police training facility often referred to as Cop City who are indicted under RICO charges, the racketeering and conspiracy law simply for being part of a protest movement. Essentially, the theory was there were a few protesters that were part of this group who vandalized property, set fires, and the rest of the protesters, even though they had nothing to do with vandalizing property or setting fires, are still part part of the conspiracy, not because they actually conspired to set those fires, but because they are advocating for the same cause, stopping Cop City. So you had an indictment issued, a RICO indictment that alleged that acts as simple as holding press conferences or writing essays for for Z or shaping messaging for the media or recording police. All very con very much centrally constitutionally protected conduct. All of those things are acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy. Fortunately, that was dismissed a week or two ago on procedural grounds, but it's going to be appealed and and and and and might be back. And one of the allegations that was core to this indictment is that these folks were anarchists. Um, I don't remember if they were specifically accused of being Antifa, but they're being anarchists was central to the whole thing. I should mention just to as a as an additional show of bad faith, the prosecutors in in in this indictment listed the start of the conspiracy as the date that George Floyd was murdered, even though Cop City had not even been proposed on that date. So read into that what you will. Now, not soon after, not long after that Cop City case was dismissed on procedural grounds, you heard the Trump administration, Trump himself and uh Todd Blanch floating the idea of using RICO charges against protesters, against people like Antifa, and now you have this Antifa designation. So, I think it's it's pretty clearly all part of the same plan to be able to come after activists, to come after protesters based on their being part of a movement regardless of whether they did anything actually illegal as part of the movement. And as we see at protests all the time, once you come after the protesters, the journalists go hand in hand. The journalists are there covering the protests. The uh authorities attempt to conflate the acts of journalists with the acts of protesters. Protesters are often sources for journalists who are covering their movement. They are chilled from coming forward from speaking to journalists when there's a pro a crackdown on the protest movement overall. And we saw in that Georgia indictment speaking to journalists was one of the acts and furtherance that were alleged. Um, authorities often crack down on encrypted communication, VPN, other methods used by journalists and protesters alike to communicate securely and confidentially. Uh, you know, Pete Pete Hagsath knows a little bit something aboutations, but I don't think that he would um be eager to protect journalists right to use the same uh the same tools that he uses. Yeah. So, not to get, you know, paranoid, but how far can this go? Um I mean when you've got um this executive order on Antifa, you've got arrests of elected officials who are doing their um duty uh uh as part of their offices to monitor um immigration courts and ICE procedures who have been arrested. Um could they be charged with RICO? Could they be said to be part of Antifa? Who knows? Domestic terrorist. Yeah. What happens on the universities? Um what h you know could you know is a lawyer who defends these people? Can they be charged as well? How far does this go? I mean um once you have that kind of executive order, you're no longer under what we used to call the United States. Um you're somewhere else. Um it's very much like um Turkey or Egypt or Russia or you know another despotic regime when and um the Supreme Court of course is um lolly gagging along and allowing them to commit uh all of these acts um before they can come to a decision to whether or not they're going to allow them. Um so that there are fetical pleas uh which you know as far as the vast majority of the American people are concerned are violations of constitutional rights. But back to my original question, how far does this go? Like so many other things, it depends on the courts holding the line and it depends on the public speaking up. Um the Trump administration, I think, is going to push it as far as it can. Um, we've seen the courts at times serve as an effective backs stop at times um, not as much. But in the case of ABC, we we we we saw the power that the public has to stop some of these actions in their tracks. There's been push back on the Pentagon policy I mentioned as well. So, it's a key point in time now for the public to make its voice heard. um not only in reaction to the fires that are currently burning, but as you're saying, in anticipating where this is next going. Um I I was speaking last night to an incarcerated journalist who occasionally contributes to Freedom the Press Foundation. I'm not incarcerated for his journalism. He's been covering Prisons from Inside for 27 years. His name's Jeremy Busby. and he was saying that from where he's sitting, it seems obvious that there are going to be a lot more incarcerated journalists pretty soon because journalists are going to be locked up for their journalism. So, it's high time that press freedom advocates and the public at large get concerned with the problems that journalists who are currently in prison are are are facing. That's the kind of foresight we need to we we need to have. Jimmy Kimmel getting suspended. That's a great great response to that and a good success getting him back on the air. But we also need to be thinking about what comes next. Yeah. In your wheelhouse is also the uh the obviously meritless suits that Trump has been filing against news organizations lately. The New York Times that was dismissed out of hand rather quickly by a a federal judge. Yeah. Tell tell us about that suit and where that might lead and what the intent is on the part of the Trump administration to mute, silence, and intimidate the press and press freedoms. Well, one of many strategic lawsuits against public participation that Trump has filed. Of course, this has long been his mo. Um, and he's bragged about it in the past about the the the fact that even if these lawsuits don't go anywhere, he's making his adversaries spend some money. and in many cases he has more money than his adversaries do. The suit against the New York Times in particular was almost comically frivolous. It was illustrated like a children's book. He would allege that he has tall buildings and then there would be a picture of a tall building to prove his point. He spent, I don't know, 80% of the complaint establishing how wealthy and successful he is for purposes of setting up the absurd proposition that New York Times reporting could cost him $15 billion with a B in damages. And then, as the judge recognized in throwing out the suit, had virtually no legal or factual allegations to back any of it up. It was essentially a a his a a a biography of Donald Trump disguised from Donald Trump's perspective, of course, disguised as a court complaint. Now, I do commend the judge for throwing it out, but the attorneys who filed it should have been sanctioned. Um, and I was disappointed that that didn't happen because the judge in his order dismissing it essentially made the case for sanctions. It was a frivolous, legally baseless, factually baseless complaint and the attorneys who filed it should have known better. The judge said all those attorneys have great future prospects for Trump. Um, department high officials and then federal judgeships for being his monkey. A milove and Todd Blanch. I want to um say something about um um the fi the suit against the New York Times which was about um the birthday book the Epstein birthday book and uh reporting on Trump's salacious contribution to it. Um, and the one thing, uh, now Glenn Maxwell was interviewed by Todd Blanch, deputy attorney general, and then moved to a, uh, club fed in, uh, as a reward. Um, and she lied her head head off about many, many things, but interestingly, she didn't lie she didn't lie her head off about the birthday book. She didn't bring that up. Maybe, you know, if they bring her back with Todd Blanch, she can lie about that. But um you know it's just an interesting footnote to me. Um the um but uh they have a a a whole plan for attacking the press and Brendan Carr, if we can come back to him, is very much in the center of this, isn't he? He's sort of the uh chief officer. Can I just ask just to clarify for our for our viewers exactly who Brendan Carr is and what is his background? Who is he? We know he's a thug, but what where does he come from? Yeah. And why does he think the way he thinks? Yeah. Well, he doesn't. He's being disingenuous. If you two years ago when he wasn't the chair of the FCC, that's his position now. He is the chair of the Federal Communications Commission. Before that, he was an FCC commissioner. Before that, he was a communications lawyer. At some point he was always conservative, but he was a serious person. He wasn't this MAGA stoogge that he's become who wears Trump's bust as a lapel pin. That's a new development. If you go back a couple of years, he was adamant that the FCC has no power to regulate content. He was an advocate for the First Amendment. He was on the record saying that many times. Political satire is an important form of expression that the government shouldn't interfere with. That's Brendan Carr. That's what Brendan Carr actually thinks. What he's saying now isn't what he thinks. It's just he's a he's become a Was he involved in Project 2025? He did, I believe, author the chapter of Project 2025 that deals with the FCC. And I believe the other day someone pointed that out on social media and he posted um a meme intended to confirm that he is essentially going through the project 2025 um checklist. But Brendan Carr, I don't know what his endgame is here. He was, as I said, at some point a relatively serious person who has taken this kind of heel turn as this absolute stoogge. And as Ted Cruz says, I I find myself agreeing with Ted Cruz these days. odd, kind of odd, but um he is he's behaving him like a mafioso, as Cruz said, straight out of um Good Fellas. And you know, that's the reason we're coming after him with these bar complaints. He is someone who historically has been a a serious lawyer and who still wants to be regarded as a serious lawyer. He attempts to justify his absurd actions within the confines of the law. He still wants respect in the legal profession and he shouldn't have it. He shouldn't be able after he's done serving in this administration to cash in with a gig as a partner at some big law firm where he exploits all the connections he's made stooging for Donald Trump. Um he should not be allowed to practice law. As we said in in in in the complaint and as you referenced earlier, either he is malicious or he's incompetent. That's how we set up the incompetence claim. We think he knows better. If he doesn't know better though, he is incompetent to practice law. Well, um, with that, um, uh, we want to thank Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation and note that, um, uh, they have filed a supplementary disciplinary complaint against Brendan Carr before the uh, DC Court of Appeals about his uh, recent actions involved in the ABC News um, Jimmy Kimmel case. Um, and we want to thank him again for appearing on the court of history. He is a true friend of the court here. Um, and on behalf of Sean Menz and myself, the court of history is now adjourned. Can't get your fill of legal AF? Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF Substack. Every time we mention something in a hottake, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the Substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called, wait for it, Morning AF. What else? All the other contributors from Legal AF are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes where Legal AF on Substack. Come over now to free subscribe. [Music]
