Ex-USAID Official EXPOSES Corruption, Trump & Elon GUT Deep State w/ Catharine O'Neill, Texas Lindsay, & Ryan Matta
BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guest: Catharine O’Neill @cathgillihan (X) | https://meriwetherfarms.com/ Ryan Matta @RyanMattaMedia (X) Texas Lindsay @TexasLindsay_ (X) Producers: Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
Over the past week, Democrats have been apoplectic.
They're outraged that USAID, which they call USAID, is being gutted.
They're reporting that as of today...
There's only going to be about 290 people actually working there because somewhere around 12,700 people will be placed on leave.
We don't know for sure exactly how it's going to go down, but apparently, according to NPR and a few other outlets, Marco Rubio is like, nah, we're not going to keep these people around.
And Trump and Elon, they're saying it should be shut down completely.
Now, depending on what you read, if you watch The Daily Show, for instance, they're going to tell you that U.S. Aid, they call it, is foreign aid.
Why would Trump want to stop foreign aid?
And there are actually people outside in the streets protesting, saying, we want foreign aid.
And then if you actually read what's going on from people who are in the know, yeah, this is more likely to be some kind of money laundering scheme, perhaps.
Maybe it wasn't always.
But you take a look at how some nonprofits that are doing, I think, what were they doing?
A transgender puppet show?
No, a transgender opera in Ireland.
People are wondering, $1.5 million, why are we spending that money?
Well, many people are pointing out that this money will go to nonprofits.
The nonprofits then basically fund the extravagant livelihoods of people who live in the D.C. area, who then dump tons of money into Democrat campaigns.
I don't think it's all just Democrats.
I think it was largely deep state, neocons, you know, Democratic establishment.
But since Trump came in, the Republican Party has been kind of different.
So we will get to the bottom of this and figure it out.
Before we do, my friends, make sure you buy some cast brew coffee, of course.
We sponsor ourselves.
And become a member at TimCast.com to support our work directly.
So USAID is the money laundering arm of the CIA, basically.
It's the linchpin that connects our State Department, the Department of Defense, and the CIA. Its budget is twice that of the State Department and the CIA. So what number is that then?
And they use NGO structures like you would use offshore bank accounts, basically.
They use an NGO. They fund an NGO that funds an NGO that funds an NGO that carries out their dirty work, basically.
And Lindsay, you guys can jump in on that.
unidentified
That's absolutely correct.
And I think one of the reasons that Elon is so adamant to go after them, especially one of the first things for Doge to attack, is because they were the ones that were funding the censorship industrial complex.
You know, they went to war with Elon, with the advertiser boycott ban.
Out of the top ten recipients, number two on the list of USAID was Pfizer.
So it's insane that our U.S. tax dollars are going to not only funding these overthrowing of governments in other countries, but it's also funding now NGOs and having them do the work that they themselves cannot do.
When you have a non-governmental agency that comes in to censor people, but it's being funded by a CIA cutout, it's because the CIA can't do that.
It would violate the Constitution, the First Amendment rights.
But when an NGO does it and you have all these other universities and institutions that are joining together to collude and come up with a scheme and plan to censor the American people, it wasn't just during COVID, but it was also during the 2016, I mean, the 2020 but it was also during the 2016, I mean, the 2020 election where they started to form a plan to censor anything about mail-in ballots before mail-in ballots was even talked about by anybody and no one even knew anything about
So they were already putting together a scheme of academics and these NGOs and all of these former CIA directors on these boards were forming a plan before it was even a known issue for the American people of how they were going to censor them and how they were going to keep them quiet when all these mail-in ballots became an issue.
Yeah, so I spent most of my time at the State Department, but in 2016, I was on the transition team.
So I was responsible for combing through all of the congressional budget certifications and going through the line items and identifying.
Some of these issues that we've realized now.
But the momentum from the outside of pressuring these agencies or cutting them wasn't there.
So I had nobody to go to, really.
So here I was, 23-year-old, looking through all these numbers, but there was no one in the administration at the time that was really willing to cut them.
So I spent three years at the State Department.
In kind of the humanitarian area, and then I went back to the campaign in 2020, and then John McEntee, I don't know if you guys have heard about him, he called me when I was on the campaign.
He's like, Catherine, you've got to come back to USAID. We've got to shut it down.
So because I had spent three years at the State Department, so I had a lot of experience there.
And he was assembling a team for the second term because, you know, the first term there were a lot of issues with personnel.
Unfortunately, Trump didn't know who to trust.
So he brought in a lot of people that he thought were good, but ended up not being good.
So John called me and asked me to come back and be the White House liaison and staff the agency with people that were actually going to execute Trump's agenda.
I showed up November, what was it, 6th of 2020, the day after the election, and there were so many people already there in place that just didn't want to change, didn't want to leave, and we just didn't have the top cover we needed, unfortunately.
So we weren't able to accomplish what we wanted to accomplish.
When I turn on the Daily Show, they say Trump is shutting down U.S. aid.
People don't know.
They're talking about an institution, the Agency for International Development, and they think Trump is literally taking water away from dehydrated little children in third world countries.
So I was actually at the State Department yesterday visiting some of my former colleagues, one of whom is running the whole reorganization.
And so Secretary Rubio issued some waivers, you know, because there was a stop order on all foreign aid going out the building, right?
But he issued some waivers saying that if this is life-saving medicines or if this is critical, mission critical or totally in line with our national priorities, then, you know, we'll review them and keep them going per the review.
And there's been so much insubordination that some of these...
Employees are actually refusing shipments and deliveries of the goods that we're sending just in spite of whatever's going on.
So here they are crying, oh, Trump's shutting off all of our funding and blah, blah, blah.
But at the same time, my friend Pete was like, no, actually, they're not doing their job now.
So we can't get these things to wherever they're going.
It's what we saw when Trump shut down the DEI stuff.
You saw that they're like, OK, well, now we're not going to teach about the Tuskegee Airmen.
And it's like, well, listen, we're not saying don't tell people about important things that happened in history.
We're saying stop being racist.
But to spite the machine, these scumbags are pulling moves like this.
unidentified
And saying he was going to cancel Black History Month was another move from them whenever he canceled DEI. But wait, wait, didn't they shut down Identity Months?
He still issued in order to celebrate Black History Month on February 1st, so, you know.
But there wasn't anything said about that when it actually happened by the mainstream media.
But the fear-mongering was there.
Just like there's fear-mongering going on for anyone taking the buyout from Trump to quit and get paid for eight months.
You hear...
Senate Democrats and on CNN today about how there's no guarantee that these people actually get paid on the eight months if they take it now and if they accept the resignation and the buyout by the Trump administration, that they're on their own.
And so although 40,000 people have accepted it so far, there's still 60,000 now, which is good, but there's still a big fear-mongering campaign that you have no legal recourse to collect your money if he doesn't follow through and pay it, which is...
What they are saying is we intend to shut the government down in March once we have the ability to block a continuing resolution, and we will block your pay if you take this deal.
No, and that's what it's really going to come down to.
I mean, this is another issue that we had the last time around.
So when we were finally in office, right, I was at the State Department, you know, reviewing these, the budget that we made, because you make it internally and then it goes through OMB, Office of Management Budget, and then OMB officially sends it to the Congress.
And at the time, Bob Corker, Senator Bob Corker, was the Senate, the chairman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he hated Trump.
So every time that we wanted to cut something, he would just plus it up again.
So this, I think, is going to be another issue that we're going to see because obviously the Congress is in charge of...
So it's going to be interesting to see how Trump's team handles this issue this time around, because I think they're a lot more seasoned.
The momentum is there, like I was saying, and I think the pressure needs to continue, because these members of Congress, at the end of the day, they want to be popular, they want to get funding, they want to, you know, win their elections.
So if there's this drumbeat...
And pressure that's kept on them, we may have a chance to get some of this through.
Well, you'd think, too, that they would go to some of these countries that all this money is going to and get some spokesmen from these countries because you go into these countries that USAID operates in their country and they are literally begging us.
I was just in Guatemala, just in El Salvador.
El Salvador, over, what, like 60 or 70 years that USAID was in their country, El Salvador was turned into the deadliest country in Latin America.
Guatemala, over the last four years, has had 190,052 children have been kidnapped out of Guatemala, trafficked through Mexico, and processed into our border, at our Texas border.
Those are children aged 0 to 17 that our government has taken custody of over the last four years that are just from Guatemala alone.
How do you move that many children out of Guatemala?
You don't.
But five NGOs were just raided on April 25th of 2025 for trafficking children.
And these are the same NGOs that are getting funded by USAID and are operating both.
When you go to their website right now, it just says on Friday, February 7th, 2025 at 1159 p.m.
Eastern, all USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions.
The reporting last night was that it's going to be 290 people from 13,000.
Like I was saying, so I was in an undersecretary's front office at the State Department.
The acronym is J, but it stood for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights, or some long name that really doesn't mean anything.
But, you know, we actually...
We're frustrated with USAID because we had programs, not that I think they're necessary, but we oversaw programs that had their own line items, that had their own funding, that had their own everything.
But USAID was also doing the same thing in similar countries.
So there was all this overlap and redundancy.
And so bringing USAID back into the fold is actually the way it should be.
And that's how it was originally set out when President Kennedy created the agency by executive order in 1961.
So bringing it back into the State Department and realigning it and making sure that there's not funding everywhere and everyone's doing their own thing is actually what we should be doing.
I mean, USAID was actually funding nine out of ten news agencies in Ukraine and still to this day is true.
So when you're funding nine out of ten of their...
That's how you're controlling the narrative for everything there, especially when you're going in there and having USAID with the regime change and installing Zelensky and not allowing any other elections, knowing that the thumb of the U.S. government is controlling and dictating all of that is proof in itself.
But you have to be able to control the narrative in order to do that, and funding the media is a good way to get it done.
NGO. NGO, an NGO, and then the fourth NGO down the line gives that to the news outlet.
Because it's like I said, it's like an offshore bank account.
You've got to go from country to country to country to country, so it's almost untraceable.
You go NGO to NGO to NGO to NGO. The NGO that's actually giving the money to the media outlet might not even realize that that money is coming from USAID. Right.
Well, and the other thing is it's such a revolving door, right?
So actually, there was someone in my office.
I don't remember exactly what her portfolio was, but one day we were sitting in our meeting and she's like, oh.
By the way, I'm going to go work for Open Society Foundations.
Like, oh, okay.
Because Open Society Foundations, which is the George Sorogroos, receives grants from USAID and the State Department.
And so what happens is that you have all these former employees of these agencies that know the system, that know the inner workings, that know how to write this special language to get the grants.
And then they spend a few years I even saw yesterday there was actually a grant given.
unidentified
To teach people how to write grants to get them approved for the USAID. It's absolutely the biggest circle jerk I've ever seen in my life.
But it's a monster.
It's an octopus with tentacles that keep going and keep going.
And they've got their tentacles in every area around the world that hasn't banned them yet.
Because multiple countries have actually kicked out USAID because they didn't want them involving themselves in their politics at home.
So I don't know if anyone has the full list of that, but it's growing.
I don't know if anybody's tried using it recently.
You know, I'm just going to say this for ChatGPT.
I don't know if it's a setting or whatever.
I just don't use it.
It's got a reasoning function now.
So it used to be you open up ChatGPT and you ask it a question and it would give you an answer.
Now it spends two minutes just saying, I'm looking at what you're saying and I'm just like, I don't care.
I go to Grok, I typed in, did the Open Society Foundation receive USAID funding?
And it goes, yes, according to various sources, it did.
However, the specifics of such funding and the total amounts allocated for projects can vary.
To summarize, yes, they do receive USAID funding.
The details are murky, blah, blah, blah.
So then I said, what's the estimate?
There are reports suggesting that USAID provided approximately $260 million to organizations linked to George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
The figure was highlighted in discussions like the funding of various projects, particularly in regions like Albania and Macedonia.
Another source indicates that East-West Management Institute...
Partly backed by Open Society Foundation, received more than $260 million over the years from USAID for projects in countries like Georgia, Uganda, and Serbia.
However, these figures might not represent the total or precise amounts given to OSF as funding can be routed through various intermediaries or for specific projects under broader initiatives.
Also, there might be discrepancies or different interpretations.
So I'll put it this way.
When you do a Google search for how much money USAID may have given to Soros' NGO, It's not immediately clear.
I'm sure if you dig up the documents, you can probably get a better answer than I could just by simply Google searching it right now.
If it is true, regardless, we know for a fact that Open Society Foundation funds NGOs that operate in the United States.
We know that Soros funded many prosecutors, district attorneys across the country, and that would imply, and I'm going to say this with some legal liability shields, if it is true...
That USAID was funding Open Society Foundations.
That would mean that USAID was indirectly funding political overhaul in the United States, which some would describe as a coup or a civil war or just outright simply corrupt.
The exact number of countries where the United States Agency for International Development has been implicated in overthrowing governments is highly debated and often shrouded in controversy.
According to various posts on X and some news articles, there are claims that USAID has been involved in regime change operations in numerous countries.
Some users on X mention specific countries like Thailand, Burma, Pakistan, Serbia, Ukraine, Honduras, El Salvador, Panama, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and others.
Another claim from X post is that USAID has been involved in overthrowing 83 governments over 50 years.
Though this is not backed by official documentation or universally accepted sources.
Specific historical cases involve Iran in 1953. The CIA, with covert funding possibly through mechanisms like those used by USAID, was involved in the coup against Prime Minister Mohamed, how do you pronounce that, Mossadegh?
Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973. Salvador Allende.
However, while USAID has been accused of supporting regime changes often under the guise of promoting democracy or through humanitarian aid, these operations are typically covert and intertwined with broader US foreign policy efforts.
Well, I'll break it down.
They say, important point, there is no official USAID documentation admitting to such activities directly.
Many of these claims come from sources critical of U.S. foreign policy, which can introduce bias, and their involvement in these events is often part of a larger strategy involving multiple U.S. agencies like the CIA. The simple argument that people have made is that what USAID does is fund insurgent groups—I'm sorry, activist groups in various countries.
So have you guys ever heard about the Tales from an Economic Hitman?
Famous story.
You can watch the interview or read the book.
Basically, this guy says, what we would do is we'd go to a country and we'd say, hey, we're going to give you international aid.
We're going to give you development.
We're going to put billions of dollars into your infrastructure, roads, stores.
We're going to bring in McDonald's.
We're going to bring in Starbucks, whatever.
Not specifically those, but that's, you know.
If the country said no, they would then say, okay, you want to play it the hard way?
We'll play it the hard way.
They would then try to fund opposition politicians to change or overthrow the government.
If that did not work, invasion or assassination.
Or I'm sorry, if that didn't work, they would try to take the politician out in one way or another, and then it would ultimately lead to invasion.
So that's like Iraq's and I'm Hussein and Libya with Gaddafi.
that's what's been alleged i i think it's true because i yeah yeah i we would have so we would have and again this was when i was at the state department um but you know just being in the foreign aid uh agencies um so we would have people coming to our office that would allege that especially i remember one guy from macedonia he would come in he was
i can't remember where he was in their government but he was some elected official and he's like please please stop your government whoa please please stop your government from trying to overthrow ours.
Please.
I beg of you.
And unfortunately, I don't know exactly what happened because we were so overwhelmed.
And like I said, there was no top cover.
We didn't have, we had Tillerson who was fired pretty early and then Pompeo who was useless.
So, you know, we were unable to really do anything, You saw this man say this?
Oh yeah, he came into our office.
And I can't remember his name, but he's- Is this like classified stuff?
No, no, it's not classified, but- Because it's all public.
I mean, it's all tax dollars, so you can see.
unidentified
I had a similar experience yesterday.
My driver, they picked me up from the airport.
His name was Abdullah.
And we were in conversation about why I was here and how I was coming to talk about USAID. And he said, oh, I'm very familiar with USAID. He said, I'm from Afghanistan.
He said, and USAID came into our country under the guise that they were going to be helping us rebuild and helping children and all of that.
And he said, All I know is one day I went to sleep.
The next day I woke up and my country was unrecognizable.
I didn't recognize it anymore.
And everybody was flailing and it all started when they showed up.
Well, I just got back from Guatemala, and I believe in 2017, Todd Robinson, with the backing of USAID and the State Department, tried to get Guatemala to pass a law that made abortion legal.
And their country is like 80% or 90% Christian nation, and that sparked the largest mass protest.
I mean, Guatemalans from all across the country, even indigenous people from the tribes in the jungles, came out in March in solidarity and shut it down.
Why is our government involved with trying to make abortion legal in other countries?
unidentified
Well, USAID had a decades-long program called the Population Control Program, and it was ran openly.
It was even covered openly and referred to as a population control program in the 90s to control third-world population birth rates and to curtail them so that it did not impact our resources here in the United States and hurt our country.
You shouldn't call it that.
I didn't call it that.
Actually, they called it that.
They called it the Population Control Program.
And it was really...
There was a fire lit under it when Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State.
And he had a mission in place and installed the president of the Population Program under the U.S. government that would go and...
And try to incentivize, especially in countries like India, they would go to poor villages and use cash to incentivize the men to get vasectomies or even incentivize the women to sterilize themselves and pay them to do so.
So it's absolutely...
Just horrendous thing to know that our country was involved in that and this organization that supported it and propped it up.
And they even praised it.
And this newspaper, the Detroit Free Press, actually, in 1992, was giving the USAID accolades for the decrease in the birth rate in these third world countries and for the work all credited to USAID. So that doesn't get darker than that.
So it's an amendment restricting any of our foreign aid dollars to be used.
I'm reading it right here.
be used to lobby for or against abortion. - So it's not just abortion.
unidentified
Now they just put it under the guise of empowering women and birth control.
- Of course. - But it's all still for the same goal, to prioritize the American empire and so that we do not have to worry about our resources being hindered by a population boom in a third world country and it's crazy. - Yeah, but if the US banned abortion, to prioritize the American empire and so that we do Yeah, but if the U.S. banned abortion...
And was advocating for family policy and putting on TV like moms with seven kids and they were going like, wow, look at the greatest thing ever.
You should be like them.
And then was going to these foreign countries and being like, you should get an abortion.
There's some logic there.
Make other countries not have kids while we have lots.
Instead, it's just across the board, nobody have kids.
So it seems not less interested in anything having to do with America and more having to do with global population control.
unidentified
It's nihilism.
I mean, it's just, it's cheering on your own demise.
I don't know why anybody would want to do that.
But we definitely were encouraging it.
We weren't encouraging it as much at home during the 70s, 80s and 90s, but we were definitely encouraging it abroad in these third world countries and incentivizing people who were hungry and wanted to put food on their table for them to sterilize themselves.
You know, when I was at the State Department yesterday, it was all coming back to me.
I think you have PTSD. I think I might, actually.
But, you know, because this was eight years ago.
And, you know, every day was something.
One of the things that does come to mind, so our undersecretariat oversaw the Refugee Bureau.
PRM, Population Refugees and Migration, which is a very corrupt bureau also.
And one of the things that I think that needs to be reformed is the classification system.
Oh yeah.
Because they weaponize that.
You know, they make things...
And I'm not saying anything classified on air, so don't get worried.
Well, I don't think I have to be worried about that.
No, I know.
Well, I'm just, for anyone watching, I'm not violating anything.
But I think what they do is they use that to manipulate information because you have FOIA, which is Freedom of Information Act, right?
So anyone can request a FOIA. And so they use the class of...
to kind of protect information, to hide things from the American taxpayer, because we should be accountable for the people paying our bills.
So there was one instance where there was a foreign national from Iraq who came through our refugee program.
He's in California.
And he had gone through the vet, right, supposedly.
And he was living in California.
And so when you come to our soil, you have two years to apply for, you're given legal status, and then you have to apply to become a legal permanent resident.
And then after that you can apply to become a citizen.
But his legal permanent resident status was denied because they found out that there was a warrant out for his arrest for assaulting a police officer in Iraq and having ties to a terrorist group there.
But they did everything they could.
They did not want, because this was obviously during the Trump administration, so people didn't want refugees in the country, and they did not want that getting out.
And so they did everything they could to try to hide that.
Finally, it was, you know, it was in the DOJ revealed his name and everything, but it was kind of brushed under the rug because they didn't want to counter their narrative, right?
So, but there were lots of instances like that where The American taxpayer should know what's going on with our tax dollars.
It's not an unreasonable request.
And so I think that by bringing a lot of this funding into one place, because all of it runs out of one office of the State Department.
It's called the Office of Foreign Assistance.
The acronym is F. And everything should be through there.
There shouldn't be accounts in all these different agencies and bureaus and departments.
It should be one account.
The money should come in one place.
It should go out one place.
So there's no confusion on where it's going.
unidentified
But even when it goes out and it goes to all of these NGOs, then they funnel it to someone else and then they funnel it to someone else.
Then it just, even if it all goes out one place, which I agree with you, it should, there definitely needs to be more transparency.
And now there's a huge spotlight on it and hopefully it will get what's needed there.
And that there was an effort, at least to some degree, in the first Trump administration to break it apart.
Now, put that in the context of Democrats saying he's going to dismantle our government.
What they were talking about is this international operation of the U.S. overthrowing unfavorable governments to expand U.S. I don't even want to say U.S. I would say like Western.
I don't even want to say Western.
I guess you'd call it...
Cabal?
I don't know.
How do you refer to it?
I mean, these people don't represent American interests.
They don't represent the interests of France or Germany.
unidentified
They represent the interests of the World Bank and NATO. Those are the two things that they are...
Tied to, and everything they do, their entire mission is to align with the World Bank and NATO. Anything that does not align with that becomes enemy number one, and that's who they go after, and that's one reason they went after Trump.
Trump was a number one enemy of NATO when he took office.
The question is, if Trump won in 2020, would he have gone so hard against these organizations, or was it that he saw how they were weaponized even against him?
I mean, I don't think—I think it would have happened, maybe not as quickly, but, you know, there were people like John McEntee who were ready to turn things around.
However, I will say I don't know if the external drumbeat— He needed everything that they threw at him to get Where we are today.
unidentified
And there's a fire under him that we never saw before.
I've been referring to this as Trump's march to the sea.
You have this great battle in his first term.
It was kind of light.
He was playing ball quite a bit, but trying to do his thing.
And then the empire obviously strikes back in 2020. Now Donald Trump, the first thing he does when he gets in, is he is going scorched earth on deep state institutions.
I think...
His view is he's going to strip them of their resources.
This is why I called the March of the Sea.
Sherman goes down and burns farms to the ground to make sure the Confederates can't even eat food or transport goods.
There's no roads.
There's no railroad tracks.
Trump going in, offering buyouts to the CIA, firing FBI. Now they're saying there's insubordination because the feds don't want – they're trying to sue.
It's crazy.
And then he nukes USAID, and he's doing it so quickly that there's no way for them to respond.
I would just say, you know, my advice, and I'm a lawyer, is I'm just like, Trump should instruct all of his administrators to start firing people individually for various reasons, like, that they can.
That way you don't get a class action.
If Trump, you know what, right now they're saying that there's going to be a lawsuit from USAID staff, because this is a blanket bang.
He said, you're all out Friday.
So, 12,000 people are going to join this massive lawsuit, and if that reverses, they all come back.
But if they start going right now, I mean, maybe with USAID, you just attack the institution as quickly as you can.
With other institutions, just have the higher ups that are saying, you're fired because you were late.
You're fired for that reason.
And when they say you can't do that, they'll say, sue me.
And then that's going to require 10,000 individual lawsuits, which is going to be nuts and impossible for these people to actually deal with.
unidentified
Yeah, it could be a smart move.
I mean, forcing them all to come back to the office, I think, was one strategy because a lot of people got so cozy working at home and moved away and are working remote and not even close to where they need to be to continue to work and come into the office every day.
So I think one thing I do think was a genius strategy on Trump's part is how he set up Doge.
It wasn't a newly formed thing.
He took something that Obama put in place to upgrade the computer systems for the government.
And he just...
Renamed it.
I think it was called the United States Digital Service Agency is what it was.
And knowing that he would need congressional approval to set up Doge, he went in and just took this thing that Obama set up and said, oh, okay, we're going to change this name and you're going to come in and basically update and make our digital systems more efficient, along with a lot of other things.
But I think that was a genius move because a lot of senators, Democratic senators especially, That's how you play the game.
Did you see when they were trucking in the sleep pods?
unidentified
Oh, yeah.
And they're saying that they're going to sue them for giving a gift to government officials because that company said they were going to give them for free.
I'm like, good lord.
Everything that is good or seemingly good that they're trying to help is going to come under attack no matter what.
It took him about two and a half years of his first five-year term.
And at that two and a half-year point, when the cartels finally retaliated back, that gave him the voting power that he needed in Congress to basically temporarily suspend the Constitution.
Then he was able to arrest any gang members that had markings on their face that indicated how many people they've killed.
And they went straight to prison.
They didn't get a court date.
They went right to prison.
And then he also kicked USAID or cut off funding to USAID. Because what he said is, at one point, the money was going to the El Salvadorian government.
Then when Bukele got control of his government, USAID said, you know what?
You're being like a dictator.
We're not going to give the money to your government anymore.
We're going to tell you what NGOs it's going to go to.
We're going to give it to the NGOs directly.
And Bukele says, you know what?
It's not our money.
That money doesn't belong to El Salvador.
It belongs to the American taxpayer.
Just keep your money.
We'll fund our own government.
And in two and a half years, he turned it from the deadliest country in Latin America to the safest country in the world.
It went from having, I think it was 183 gang-related homicides in one weekend to almost not one, I think there was a few gang-related homicides the entire year of 2024. I think there was only 130 murders in the year of 2024 in El Salvador.
It's funny you say that, because I just was at a little mart.
And I interviewed a kid.
And him and his family had to flee five years ago.
And he had just moved back and started a business back in El Salvador.
He was only gone because it was so dangerous that the gangs were coming to him.
And he lived within seeing distance of the police station.
And his buddies from high school were asking him, like, hey, we need to know how many cars are in that parking lot or X amount of cops working right now.
That's like their initiation to try to get him to just do a little bit of work for the gangs and then kind of initiate him in.
And he's like, when they started to contact him, he's like, I knew I was going to be forced to join the gang.
So I'm wondering for like El Salvador, which I don't know the strategic importance of El Salvador to the United States.
Maybe you get some wealthy lawyer in D.C. Who's like, here's an easy way to get money.
Hey, we have an NGO that helps democracy in El Salvador give us $20 million, and they go, fine, write the check, and the guy does nothing.
He funnels some of the money and says, here's what we spent it on, and it goes to random garbage, and then he makes himself well off.
Or are they intentionally going to El Salvador and saying, we're going to give money to legal activist groups that are leftists that will get criminals out of jail so they can wreak havoc on this nation?
So they say Mike Cernovich was saying that he wouldn't be surprised if like half of the economy of the D.C. area is just money laundering.
Government funds being sent to these NGOs where these executive staff pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And you wonder, let me tell you, what's the industry of Loudoun County?
Loudoun County is the highest median income in the country and potentially even the world.
Because, I mean, how do you beat the United States' highest median income county?
Maybe not, though, but per capita for highest income, there's like these enclaves of ultra wealthy billionaires.
So that doesn't count.
For a residential neighborhood.
In an urban area, it's Loudoun County, Virginia, just outside of D.C. We're like 10 minutes, 20 minutes away.
What's their industry?
You know, if we go to Michigan back in the day, it's the auto industry.
It's the Rust Belt, right?
If you go to North Dakota, you know they got frack fields, they got oil production, things like that.
You go to Seattle, they have timber.
So you go to Hollywood, it's culture, it's movies, or at least it was.
What is Loudoun County producing that these people have more money than anybody else?
unidentified
Power over corporate interests.
If you buy the right politicians and you pay them off, your corporations are going to thrive.
And there's no better place to do that than where all of the D.C. bureaucrats live right outside D.C. But let's break down the source of income, right?
Take a look at Guatemala and what's been happening in Guatemala over the last 20 or 30 years.
And I'll just tell you from what the citizens have told me.
I'm no expert in USAID by any means.
But basically they say that USAID comes in in over a 10, 20, 30 year period.
The first thing that they want to do is they build out this network of NGOs.
And then they use those NGOs to basically try to take over failing media outlets.
And they also use organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy as like their recruiting and staffing arm.
And then they basically make job postings for specific Guatemalan nationals.
And then they take those people and they go to the failing media outlet and say, hey, we'll donate $10,000 in subscriptions a month, but we're going to put this person as the primetime host.
Then once they have control of the media, they use that media outlet to amplify the politicians that will do their bidding, and they use it to undermine the politicians that won't do their bidding.
And then over a 5, 10, 20-year period, they've basically installed your entire Supreme Court, your entire electoral college, they've taken over your justice system, they've taken over a majority of your Congress.
And the only thing left standing right now in Guatemala, including the president and vice president, USA played a major role in getting them elected, if you even call it that.
The last thing standing in their way is their Attorney General.
Now, you see USAID has spent the last year Spending millions and millions of dollars to try to attack and discredit this attorney general.
And she's the only one right now who's standing in the way.
She's also getting respected by Tom Holman.
And the Trump administration is working with this attorney general right now.
She's the only one that can investigate the election fraud.
And she's the only one that can investigate the child trafficking that's going on.
She raided five NGOs that were accused of child trafficking.
And for the first time in recorded history, and that's going back all the way to 2012, the amount of children coming from Guatemala to America has decreased by 23%.
In one year.
She rated them in April of 2025, and the numbers come out in October of 2024. Sorry, she rated them in April of 2024, the numbers come out in October of 2024. So that's only a six-month period, and that's a drastic decrease.
According to Mike Benz, it was William Burns, the director of the CIA, who flies to Brazil with 50 of his CIA homies and basically holds a meeting with Bolsonaro where he tells Bolsonaro that you need to stop questioning these Dominion voting machines.
And that was when they started to divert.
Our government, our State Department, was diverting semiconductors during a semiconductor shortage so that they could create more voting machines than Brazil has ever had in any election in Brazil.
And then, wasn't it Mark Milley who flies over there like two weeks prior to the election and starts arresting some of his military generals?
If I'm not mistaken, quote, fact check me on that, but I'm pretty sure that happened.
And, yeah, it was like two weeks before the election, he arrested like five or ten of Bolsonaro's top military generals so that Bolsonaro couldn't contest the election.
I have a funny story about Brazil at the UN. So I was stationed up there at the UN. I think it was in 2018 or 2019. And so have you guys ever been to the UN? No.
So the way that it works is that there are all these different resolutions, and each country has a vote, right?
And so everyone's on the floor kind of working votes.
You know, trying to get votes to go one way or the other.
And so I can't remember the resolution we were working on, but I believe it was something to do with the pro-life.
But, you know, Bolsonaro was president at the time, and their representative, they're essentially their guy at the UN. Was maybe a holdover from the previous administration, and he was not in alignment with whatever Brazil's values were at the time.
So I had met the president's son at an event, and I got his number, and I told him I was at the State Department and whatever.
And so I was with my colleague Ron, and we were having real issues with this guy.
He was not voting the way that he should have been voting.
I sent Eduardo a WhatsApp message.
I was like, hey, I know we met at this event.
I don't know if you remember me, but I'm here at the UN. I'm on the floor, and I just want to let you know that your delegate is not in alignment with your whatever position it was.
Every single ambassador, not every single ambassador, but a majority of ambassadors in these third world countries were actually undermining.
Trump's agenda.
Todd Robinson in Guatemala being such a prime example of that.
And so I think that Trump knew that if he wanted his agenda carried out, that he had to gut the organization that was funding everybody that was working against him.
So in a funny story, or not really a funny story, but, you know, when the elections took place and the attorney general in Guatemala was trying to investigate the elections, USAID... For 180 days, staged a Rent-A-Riot-style protest outside of the Attorney General's house.
And then, when that wasn't working because they were trying to put enough pressure on the current president because his term was ending, they wanted him to violate the Constitution and remove the Attorney General from power before their installed president could, or was forced to, if you will.
When that didn't work, they took the angry mob of protesters.
They took 1,000 people down to her neighborhood.
They stormed the gate of her neighborhood.
Went to her house live-streaming.
This is all live-streamed.
Went to her house, pulled back the foliage, live-streamed her address, and then the screens go off, obviously.
They kick in her front door, they go into her house, and they pee and poop all over the Attorney General's house.
That would be the equivalent of the January Sixers on January 6th leaving J6 with a mob of 1,000 people, going down to Merrick Garland's house, kicking down his gate, and going into Garland's house.
You know what would have happened to those people if they would have did that?
What I'm trying to understand is, how is it that there are still so many liberal podcasters and YouTubers that build audience, get millions of views, despite the fact that what's going on with USAID, foreign intervention regime change, is in our faces?
You go and watch some of these guys' shows and they will lie explicitly about what's going on, but the cat's out of the bag.
The stuff's overt and in our faces.
We know for a fact they spent $1.5 million on a transgender opera in Ireland.
So what are these?
We had a viral video from a guy the other day where he's like, I hereby reject and denounce the Democratic Party.
They've been lying to us.
Elon goes in an audit and we find out they're spending all our money this way.
I'm furious.
And there are still these liberal podcasters being like, everything's fine.
Elon's bad.
Don't audit the government.
unidentified
It's a cult mindset at some point when you can't wake up and see what's happening.
I mean, when you're looking at Trump used to be a Democrat, Elon used to be a Democrat, all these people that are now the faces of the Republican Party at one point were Democrats.
I mean, but if you can't look and see the disgusting things that our government has been funding, I mean, when it turned and started censoring its own people and using USAID funds to do that, that was...
I mean, that's indefensible.
You cannot defend that.
I mean, you'll have Sam Harris come out and say that it is defensible because Trump was so bad, which is laughable because you have to base things on principle, not in just whatever is convenient for your narrative.
The direction we were going, and we may go if Trump doesn't succeed in his endeavors, though it seems he is, would be that there would be a stateless entity of military power over every country.
Not that I would call it a one-world government, but the way things had been going in the United States, the institutions like USAID, the CIA were not beholden to the American people.
They were effectively butting off from the U.S. government to become their own international cabal of intelligence and military power.
And if Trump did not win, the American people...
Would be subjects to this international intelligence and military operation.
unidentified
The playground for this, the test ground, so to say, is Ukraine.
They've launched the digital ID over there.
They've launched all these things that you can't get away with doing.
They've been testing them out on the Ukrainians while all of this has been going on through COVID and everything else.
Billions and billions of dollars, both our corporations and our government, using our tax money to kind of play with the dystopian reality of what that would look like, to have the World Bank, USAID, all the actors involved in that, what it would look like for them to be in control and install a puppet president and not allow democratic elections.
But we also have to point out that USAID also funded over $50 million in total to EcoHealth Alliance, which was working with...
The CIA made a report in the Biden administration that COVID likely originated from a lab, and it was only when Ratcliffe got in that the information got released.
And as he clarified, we did not draft this report.
The report existed.
We're just releasing it, which is important because that means the CIA has known for years this was likely what happened.
unidentified
They funded the research with EcoHealth Alliance through USAID, over $50 million.
And they were working directly with the EcoHealth Alliance president, Peter Daszak, since at least 2013. I worked with the whistleblower to help get his story out, Dr. Andrew Huff, who worked over at EcoHealth Alliance.
And he said the CIA approached them through In-Q-Tel, which is basically the...
What happens without USAID? And you were mentioning that, Ryan, that the world starts to heal.
But I'm curious, like, how does Russia respond to this?
How does China respond to this?
And what does that mean for the global powers?
I think Rubio recently said we're entering a multipolar world.
unidentified
Well, USAID has already been banned from Russia, and they're actually—their news coverage of this has been—if you even say anything about how Russia is happy about USAID being disbanded, you're just spouting Russian misinformation.
At the time, it was largely believed to be sock puppet accounts operated by various contractors.
And Barrett Brown.
At the time, had done some research on something called Project PM, where he uncovered, I believe, I could be wrong about this, the Air Force had been, individuals at the Air Force, had been producing sock puppet accounts on social media that were then distributed to various private contractors for use, where the plan was one individual would operate 50 different Twitter accounts.
And what they do is...
If you post something on X where you're like, I don't think the U.S. should be involved in Libya, you instantly get slammed by 50 responses from various people saying, I don't know, I think you're wrong about this one.
The Libyans need our help.
They're suffering.
And then you get responses from people being like, I'm a Libyan and Gaddafi is killing our people.
Please, we beg of you.
And that's when my friends who are activists were like, I noticed a lot of these prominent accounts are speaking perfect English.
The response officially was, it's because...
The people who are Libyan, who are on Twitter, were educated in the West before going home.
They went to school here, they have friends here, and when they went home, they're using Twitter because Twitter's not largely used in these other countries.
Yeah, nobody bought it.
The argument was, this is U.S. intelligence trying to convince the American people to support revolution and intervention in Libya, which they ultimately did.
unidentified
And they did the exact same thing with the Ukraine war.
I mean, anytime you posted anything about the Ukraine war, you instantly got these little, I just don't understand how bad they are.
But this is an instance, I was just reading kind of just my skimming off the top, this is an instance where the State Department and USAID were not on the same page, according to this report, which probably happens more often than not.
I mean, look at Venezuela in 2019, when the aid trucks were caught on the bridge, and then they burnt the aid trucks down, and they were filled with automatic weapons.
I don't think that's aid.
unidentified
No, and you can even portray this in movies with the USAID trucks that are just full of weapons.
I mean, it's a money laundering and weapons laundering mechanism under the guise of aid.
Fast forward to this week, his truck appeared on Twitter in a decidedly different role.
How did this thing make it there?
There's actually a straightforward explanation for how the truck ended there.
Allegedly, in Syria, the export market for the U.S., across the globe, cars, blah, blah, blah.
The truck likely passed through numerous hands and ended up in a dealer's lot in Syria before Mark I had fully broken in the vehicle to replace his blah, blah, blah.
Hair-trigger conspiracy theorists.
Oh, come on, man.
It's all a big accident that some Texas guy's truck made its way to Syria in the war.
I'm going to give you a simple solution because I prefer Occam's razor.
In the absence of evidence, the solution that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be correct.
Would we like to make the assumption that the truck was traded in, sold and put on the export market, was then auctioned off in a foreign country that was then auctioned off in a foreign country that was then auctioned off in a foreign country and found its way to Syria?
Or how about we say, instead of making all those leaps, which is quite conspiratorial, we can just say someone in the U.S. gave it to Syria.
That's it.
Now, if you want to speculate beyond that, that it was U.S. intentionally providing resources to rebel forces in Syria, we can then dive deeper and say the U.S. had a very, very powerful and vested interest in Assad crumbling and his government collapsing, which, of course, recently happened.
So I'm going to go ahead and say, based on what I know about the Syrian war, the U.S. interests, the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, Ukraine, Gazprom, Russia's gas control into Western Europe, that it's more likely...
That the U.S. was sending resources to rebel factions.
There's a gas field that Iran and Iraq both have access to, and they wanted to build a pipeline that went through, I believe it was Iraq, Syria, Turkey, into Europe, so that it would offset the Gazprom natural gas monopoly in Europe.
The U.S. went to Syria and said, we would like to build this pipeline through your country, and Bashar al-Assad said, we are allies with Russia, and this would damage their economic interests.
We're not going to let you do this.
Of course, Russia has a naval base in Tartus.
So the U.S. got angry and said, okay, fine, I guess, but we're upset because Gazprom controls about a quarter of natural gas flung into Europe, meaning that Russia has an outsized ability to control the market prices.
So what ends up happening next is Syria, Russia and Iran have a discussion and Iran says, look, we can tap the same gas field, send the pipeline through Iraq into Syria, Turkey, and then Russia doubles its control.
The U.S. then said, yeah, if you do that, we will wipe you out.
And back in, I think this was like 2009, the CIA had basically been discussing ways to get Assad out of power because of this problem.
And then The Guardian reported, I think it was in 2012, the intention to overthrow the Assad regime was now apparent in the Beltway.
People knew this was coming.
And when the fighting started in the Arab Spring, this is basically where the reporting comes from, the U.S. had this vested interest in helping rebel factions overthrow their tyrannical government.
Then you can take a look at the Burisma scandal.
Why is it that the U.S. has a former counterterror director from the CIA working on the board of a gas company in Ukraine?
Why does the U.S. want control in Ukraine?
All of this is connected.
The argument on the surface is that the U.S. is – or I should say NATO. It's trying to get a hold on energy prices in Europe.
Remember the riots in France over the price of petrol?
The problem is that Russia does not care of Western interests and is going to charge what they charge.
As the West has tried to negotiate better prices, Russia says, screw yourself.
They're going to work with China.
The argument is, and I don't know if they believe it, NATO wants to get energy prices down to allow rapid expansion in Europe to compete with the Chinese economic bloc.
And Russia is basically blocking that because they're the ones who are dominant with energy.
So when the U.S. tried going to Syria and say, we'll build our own pipeline then, Syria blocked them saying, no, because we're friends with Russia.
The U.S. was then like, well, then we have no choice because there's no, I should say NATO again, or the U.S., whatever.
We have no means of actually controlling prices and expanding the European economic block because you're barring our access.
And you're now going to try and undercut us by going to Iran and having them tap our gas field.
War.
And here we are now.
Syria's collapsed and Ukraine is at war.
And that's completely obvious to anybody who's been tracking what's been going on with this stuff going back 12 years or longer.
I remember back when it was, I think it was General, was it Wesley Clark?
He said there's seven countries we're going to overthrow and he started listing them off.
Libya and, you know, I think Syria is one of them.
And there's, Iran was one of them, I think.
And so I don't know how many of them have eventually been, have eventually collapsed.
But it is fascinating to me.
Going back to 2012, during the Arab Spring, I think it was 2012 when the Guardian reported this, and all of my friends, I had friends who were doing field reporting in Syria and Turkey on the issue, and they were basically saying, like, here's what's playing out.
Russia controls a quarter of the gas through Gazprom.
It's a pipeline that travels through Ukraine.
The West wants to control either Ukraine or get a pipeline in because then they can basically force Russia to drop their prices.
Sure enough...
We get the Maidan movement.
Sure enough, we end up in, what was it, 2021 when the war started?
And it's funny because in the period that Donald Trump was president, everything started calming down.
ISIS got obliterated.
Things were starting to stabilize.
Biden comes in.
Everything starts falling apart once again.
War erupts exactly where tons of people had predicted based on this energy issue.
Now, a lot of people don't believe it's true that they're trying to offset prices to compete with China because the West is particularly deferential to China.
And so it doesn't quite make sense that we need to compete with China when we've given over so much of our manufacturing and economic stability to China in the first place.
Then the question is, what exactly are these powerful governmental and corporate institutions actually doing?
No idea.
No idea.
On the surface, you can take a look at Gazprom, Ukraine, Burisma, Syria and all that and see how it lines up.
What the ultimate goal is, I don't know.
If we want to go Occam's Razor, then it really is simple.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline was strengthening Russia's control of natural gas delivery into Europe.
Germany was basically saying, OK, Russia, we'll buy from you.
The U.S. was saying, Germany, how dare you?
Don't buy from them because that's empowering their economy and we're trying to shut this down.
So what happens?
According to, I think, Germany, they filed a lawsuit against a Ukrainian guy for blowing up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
When that happened...
The Western media was claiming Russia blew up their own gas pipeline by dropping a bomb in it, which made no sense.
unidentified
And then the working theory among people- They propped up Ukrainian that blew up- Exactly.
People believe that it was actually CIA frogmen who went and blew up the Russian gas pipeline to limit Russia's ability to sell gas into Europe, which was strengthening their control and boosting their economy.
And this is another reason.
I mean, this is crazy.
Crimea, why did the U.S. want to secure Ukraine?
Shut down Russia and Crimea because it's their only warm water port, which gives them access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, where they deliver oil.
They have the Sevastopol Naval Station where their fleet is stationed.
The U.S. asking a Ukrainian guy to press the button.
The U.S. gave the weapons and the intel to blow up the Russian flagship.
Then you get these Democrats going, oh, come on, Russia has access to the Black Sea from other areas, not in Sevastopol.
It's like, sure, if they want to spend another $5 billion building a naval base.
Anyway.
unidentified
It makes no sense for them to have to.
To want to blow up their own pipeline.
Using that as the line of defense was laughable.
I don't think anybody could look at that and say, oh yeah, Russia would want to hurt themselves like that, so they would want to blow up the North Stream pipeline.
They just say things like, oh, he's like Hitler and he wants to steal the land.
unidentified
That's the main narrative that they stick to.
One thing that whenever...
We helped install Zelensky after we removed the democratically elected president before Zelensky in Ukraine.
One thing that...
USAID money used their power to enforce with all of these new media agencies that are now funded by USAID in Ukraine, 9 out of 10, was that they are not allowed to air any Russian-talking people on the TVs in Ukraine, which is insane because a large percentage of the people in Ukraine speak Russian.
Just as much as they speak Ukrainian.
So that was one of the rules for them when they took over their media and told them how they could do it.
They used their money and power, USAID money, to tell them you cannot speak Russian on television.
This was end of 2013 and beginning of 2014. Wow, you were right there before the coup.
I was—that was the start.
It was the Euromaidan protests, and I got to see the top—the line of statue they ripped down.
And I ended up leaving, and then it was another crew that went in and actually went into Yanukovych's house.
It was crazy.
Yeah.
The overthrowing of this dude.
He fled to Russia.
But most of the people I met spoke Russian, and a handful spoke Ukrainian, Russian, and Polish.
I mean, my understanding is the languages are relatively similar, but in this area— You're bumping into a lot of these people.
But the Russian thing was interesting because what I was told that in the East, particularly like the Donbass region, everyone there spoke Russian primarily.
Though they could speak Ukrainian, their first language was Russian, and they interacted quite a bit across the border.
And my view is international conflict is going to happen.
I know that kinetic war does happen.
But what the U.S. was doing was soft power.
And that's preferable to hot war.
So if the U.S. is basically saying we are going to fund special interests and Russia is getting mad about it and they're losing that fight, that's the fight I would prefer to have over people blowing each other up and Ukraine being turned into nuclear sludge.
That being said, I don't know the structure by which anything else could happen.
I don't think that there's one guy who's sitting there twirling his mustache and then doing the pinky thing saying, we're going to take Ukraine.
It's a bunch of different interests, and there's a probability.
If one guy says, we need cheaper energy, another guy says, we need cheaper energy, another guy says, we're being blocked by Ukraine.
It's not that one guy stands up and directs the armies to go and invade Ukraine.
It's that...
Special interests across the board start putting pressure in this area.
So again, I mean, it's complicated.
And that's what I'm trying to say is, probabilistically, what was happening in Ukraine with soft power was going to happen no matter what, whether the U.S. wanted it to or not, because all of the business interests, political interests of the West were aligned towards getting cheaper energy and were pissed off at Russia.
So it's a bad thing.
As to what should happen now, I wouldn't be opposed.
Personally, this means very little.
I am not an expert on the region, nor am I a politician, nor should I be.
But at this point, it should simply be the war is over.
That's just it.
Literally, the war stops.
Russia, you stop where you are.
Russia's going to secure a land bridge to Crimea.
The fact that Ukraine could join NATO means that the only real way that this stops is, well, there's a couple ways.
Russia is flattened and Putin is wiped out in hellfire.
Or the land bridge through the Donbass region, down through like Mary Pole and everything to Crimea is maintained and secured and becomes Russian.
The rest of Ukraine remains Ukraine.
But this means that Russia has no interest in moving beyond those borders because Crimea, where they have the Sevastopol port, which is like a like a like a near billion dollar port, is now firmly under their control.
If they don't the simple explanation for why they invaded.
First, let's go back to the seizure of Crimea.
How did they seize Crimea?
Literally, they walked out of the Safastable base and says, here we are.
We're in your territory.
So you can make the argument the referendum was fake and that the people there didn't actually vote in favor of Russia.
Maybe.
But the troops were already there.
It's not like they invaded Ukraine, stormed Crimea, and seized this territory.
They literally were there.
They want to stay there because they have infrastructure there.
They have their naval base.
They have...
I mean, look, if they lose Sevastopol, tons of their intel, technology, plans falls into the hands of NATO. They're never going to let that happen.
The only access they had to Crimea was an actual physically built bridge, which, of course, we saw was bombed by Ukrainian forces, NATO. So Russia is invading Ukraine principally to secure land access into Crimea.
They've taken it.
They now control that whole strip going down into Crimea as well as the physical bridge.
They don't need anything else.
If Trump negotiates, you keep that access.
The rest of Ukraine stays where it is.
There's no reason for any more fighting with Russia.
Russia will not need to advance.
They will have secure access to Crimea in their port.
The fighting's over.
If Trump comes in and says, we are going to repel you and push you out of this territory and restore Ukraine to its full sovereignty, Russia's going to say we won't lose Sevastopol.
It's not going to happen.
So I think the most likely scenario is the fighting just stops where it is and the current drawn borders stay where they are.
But again, it means very little coming for me and I have no idea.
unidentified
There's one aspect though that aside from the energy aspect, you have the bioweapons research labs that are in Ukraine that Victoria Nuland admitted to probably inadvertently accidentally in a hearing.
And Putin did not want that.
USAID-funded bioweapon research lab coming into his country and leaking viruses in the middle of – so we're two years into COVID when he finally invades Ukraine.
And he's brought this up several times when he's addressed why he's invaded Ukraine, and that was one of them.
I said this even a year or two ago, that the moment Trump gets elected, the fighting probably stops.
Not that the war is over, but that it puts a cessation of hostilities unofficially because Russia is concerned that Trump is insane.
And Ukraine's concerned that funding gets cut off.
So Ukraine's going to want to shore up their defensive positions as opposed to offensive.
However, I think the issue is it's, you know, the concern we had just before the election that I did, I did, I said this as well, that Biden has escalated the conflict so far intentionally so that Trump would have no means of negotiating an end of the conflict.
The attack on Russia, the invasion, the attack missile strikes into Bryansk and Kursk would put Russia in a position where they cannot allow anything other than conflict in those areas.
I mean, that is insane.
For what purpose did Ukraine decide they would start bombing the Kursk and Bryansk regions of Russia?
And that was an invasion to Russia.
Plus there were the drone terror strikes in Russia.
Attacking civilian targets.
There was that statue that blew up killing a blogger in Russia.
All of this escalating.
And I think the intention was Biden and the deep state knew they were going to lose this election.
Trump was going to take control, and they needed to make sure that they created so much damage that Putin would be forced to say, I'm sorry, Trump, but unless we get massive gains to accommodate what they've done, there's no end to this war.
Something that Trump can't necessarily negotiate, so I have no idea.
I'm pretty sure that Ukraine is just a vassal of NATO, of the U.S. 100%.
Yeah, they operate under interests.
They're using their elderly men and women to fight a war for American interests.
Now, to be fair, there's a lot of people, when I went there, the surface-level conflict...
For a lot of the protesters, and I'll stress this too, if you want to say USAID was funding the protests and all that stuff, maybe whatever.
But the people there genuinely wanted to join the EU. It was money.
The Schengen zone.
The people I had talked to were not paid by the government or anything like that.
Although activist organizations that do organizing, giving people like that money allows them not to work on other things and they can spend all their time making flyers and telling people where to be.
The average person that I met, they were basically saying, We have an opportunity to stay in the free trade with Russia, the Russia Trade Federation, or join the EU, NATO, and the Schengen Zone.
And if we join the Schengen Zone, it means that a poor Ukrainian who makes $400 a month on average can move to the UK and make $4,000 a month on average.
That sounds good to us.
The EU was concerned that if we open up our borders to Ukraine, they'll all just leave the country because their economy sucks.
So they told Ukraine, you have to develop your economy to a certain degree where people are making a certain amount of money before we can open the door.
There was a split in the East for people who supported Russia and didn't want to join the EU or NATO. But a lot of the people that I met in Kiev were saying, we remember what Russia did to us and were terrified of being a part of whatever it is they want to do.
Russia was saying, we have free trade with Ukraine.
Our products flow to and from your borders.
If you open up trade to the European Union, that means European goods will flood Ukraine and then flood Russia, and it will displace our economy and our manufacturing.
So they said to Ukraine, you have to decide.
Do you want to get cut off from the trade you already have right now to join the EU, or will you just say no to the EU deal?
Yanukovych the president was basically like, I think I can play this game.
The EU offered billions in loan guarantees.
Russia was saying, we'll give you guarantees.
And then finally, the U.S. was like, we're done negotiating.
Storm the castle.
Boot him out.
Russia was then like, that's it.
The soft power fight is over.
And we're about to lose access to our warm water port in the Black Sea.
So they started first with the referendum in Sevastopol to make sure that this was controlled by Russia.
But then the only thing that we put the map again, the only access they have to too much.
Look at this.
For Russia to get in to Crimea, it's a physical bridge that was built.
And Ukrainian forces bombed that, I think, a year or two ago.
So Russia said, we have to secure this entire region.
You've got Kherson, Zaporizhia, you've got Donetsk, and Luhansk, and yeah.
What am I missing?
I don't know.
And that's what they've taken, and it's fairly obvious that they can control their access to the Black Sea.
That's basically how it played out.
There's a lot more to it.
Obviously, it's very surface-level stuff.
But, you know, the way I see this operating, like, I was there right when it kicked off in 2013. And it's funny, too, because I was working for Vice at the time, and I saw the protest starting, and I told the higher-ups there, I was like, we're going to Kiev.
And they're like, what's happening?
And I said, take a look, showed them everything, and they were like, go there and get on the ground.
And so we went on the ground and started reporting on this.
And what I found was genuinely a lot of people hated Russia.
I got to interview a former Soviet general, and he was an old guy, and he was like, the Soviet Union was hell.
He was speaking all in Ukraine.
I don't know what he was saying.
But he was basically saying that Ukraine under the Soviet Union was a nightmare the entire time.
We are terrified of what Russia will do if they get administrative control.
I met tons of young people who were, you know, millennials saying...
My family tells the stories.
We grew up at the end of the Soviet Union.
We want to have nothing to do with this.
We want to join the EU. And Russia is like, OK, well, we're not losing this control.
So Russia was never going to back down.
The funny thing is, when all this stuff was happening, Russia is basically securing Crimea.
There was a huge scandal, whether the referendum was real or fake.
People in the West are like, it's fake.
It's not a real vote.
Trump gets elected.
It was over.
When I was in Ukraine, it was the Maidan protests.
And then you had the emergence of separatist movements in 2014, which people started referring to as the Ukrainian Civil War.
After Trump got elected, I went back to Ukraine, met up with some of my contacts in Kiev, and I said, so what's been going on with the Civil War?
No, no, no, no, there's no Civil War anymore.
And I said, there's no Civil War, it's over.
And they're like, well, it never really got to the point where we thought that would make sense.
So basically nobody says that.
It's just separatist fighters in the East now.
They want to join Russia.
So the Donbass region, Donetsk, etc., the argument was there were many people there that wanted to be a part of Russia but had mostly died down and wasn't that big of an issue when I was there.
It was wild.
I was like, wow.
Then, of course, Biden gets elected and boom!
Now it's full-scale warfare.
I believe that if Trump did not win in 2016, this war would have happened a decade earlier.
Hillary Clinton was projected and expected to win.
I actually wonder if when they came out and said Russia interfered in the election, I wonder if Russia actually did.
Not in the way they describe it, though, because they can't, but that there was some degree of cyber warfare that we are unaware of that screwed over whatever it is, the mechanism they had at play.
So when Hillary Clinton's furious with sunken eyes and bags being like, I was supposed to be president, like, Yeah, the intelligence agencies fully expected that she would be, and there was no reason Trump was going to win.
And then, not that Trump colluded with anybody, but there was a bigger game afoot that disrupted whatever it is they had planned.
I'm not saying I know that for sure.
I'm saying they were caught off guard when they lost.
unidentified
Well, the Russian election interference, I think, was like a predicate for a narrative for them to go in and start censoring on social media, censoring Americans on social media, blaming the Russians would allow them to get away with it.
Blaming anybody, any American citizen that was aiding or sharing Russian disinformation allowed them to go in and start censoring them as well.
And swaths, by using AI webs, they would go in and delete tens of thousands of tweets and social media messages by scanning it using AI, using any of these terms that they deemed as Russian disinformation.
So basically it was just a narrative to enforce that this surprise upset didn't happen again and to censor it to make sure it didn't.
But if if Kamala won, I I think the likely scenario we'd be facing is that there would be some kind of mass casualty event in a civilian population of Ukraine that would be blamed on Russia, resulting in NATO intervention directly out of some resulting in NATO intervention directly out of some kind of fear or or casus belly that Russia has now become a terror state or whatever, and they're killing civilians with Trump in office.
I think the likely outcome is that will not happen.
And Trump is going to negotiate a settlement where Ukraine loses a lot.
But who cares anyway?
And Russia takes what they took.
Like the idea that that the West is dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into Ukraine without explanation makes no sense.
We have a liberal on the show, and I'm like, why are we in Ukraine?
And they're like, to help the Ukrainian people.
I'm like, who's that?
And why should we spend $200 billion for a country that's not an ally?
Not part of NATO. There's no answer.
The real answer, of course, is economic control of the region.
It's great farmland.
It's got, as I mentioned, gas prom, natural gas, all that stuff.
And, of course, cutting off Russia from the Black Sea, things like that.
There's no—it's remarkable to me that when they say, like, Putin wants to seize all of Ukraine and then take Poland, I'm like, bro, Putin is not a comic book villain.
unidentified
He's not sitting there being like, soon I will take all of the world.
If I set up a fake company in eastern Ukraine to build fortifications and then funneled, you know, $100 million or $50 million to myself, an F1 racer in Monaco or a yacht, perhaps?
I would bet everything I have that at least one penny of that money is in Loudoun County.
I would make a substantial bet that large sums of that money found its way to Loudoun County.
But, I mean, in all seriousness, it's not even just Loudoun.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the money that was spent on Ukraine, so when they spend money on Ukraine, they don't fly the money in pallets to Ukraine and hand money to people.
Although, in this instance, they were transferring money to fake companies in Ukraine, yeah.
They spend money in America.
For weapons manufacturing or resources or consulting or security.
So a lot of that money is here and has never left here.
And it's probably two guys in Loudoun County.
And one guy goes, I've got money for Ukraine from the government.
Here you go.
And then hands him a check or something.
And then the other guy in Loudoun says, I'll get my information and security networks on it.
Do you think that Trump should order to have everybody in his cabinet investigated like Bukele did and try to eradicate all of this corruption on both sides of the party?
And they should track every penny to every bank account, to every offshore bank account.
And I'm really curious to see how many government officials...
Like you were saying earlier, we have employees that worked at USAID and they would go to the State Department or they would go to Open Society.
And the girl that I interviewed that worked at USAID said that it was common knowledge.
It was like a revolving door.
They'd go do two years at this NGO and then they'd come back to the organization and they'd go two years.
And then another person I interviewed said that...
One of the whistleblowers that we had that was saying that he was in D.C. He took a temporary assignment from Border Patrol to D.C. And he was the man that was cutting the checks to the NGOs that were involved in the migration and cutting for the ones that dealt with the children.
And he's like, we were cutting $600 million no-bid contract checks to Jewish Family Services, to Lutheran Family Services, to Catholic Charities, and all these different organizations.
And he said, what we're seeing is a lot of government employees were...
All of a sudden leaving our government and going and starting an NGO and then months later that NGO is getting a no big contract for $10, $20, $30 million.
They seem like they're just part of the problem, that we allow these organizations to start up and then they carry out the, they circumvent the Constitution and they're committing the crimes that we technically ban our government from committing.
You don't want a Pulitzer for doing good journalism.
You want it for being a shill for the machine.
The highest award, as the meme goes, when a journalist actually challenges the establishment, the government, or people in power, as we expect journalists to do, is who is that guy?
Who was a reporter who was tracking the crack epidemic and CIA ties, and then he shot himself twice in the head in an apparent suicide, they called it?
If Politico has such great intel, they can sell it to the government for thousands of dollars per person to the tune of a million dollars plus per year.
They're actually just private intel organizations.
Now, it's been stated quite a bit.
The saying, you know, 15 years ago was that you've got public intel and you've got private intel and news organizations are private intelligence gathering.
The argument was, though.
The public institutions are our security apparatus, and the private institutions sell intel to the public.
What we're largely seeing now, though, is these private companies realized governments are better customers.
And the fascinating thing is when the government is spending your money with no budget and they can deficit spend, you can charge them anything you want.
So when it comes to the greatest award in journalism, you don't really see it because these news organizations' best customers are governments.
It's not about the government.
See, what's happening is you've got people saying, like, the government is funding these news outlets.
Well, to a certain degree, some of them are getting direct funding from Congress.
Like, you know, I think NPR indirectly gets funding, PBS. What's happening is the government is buying insane subscription packages that seem to make no sense.
And that's giving a lot of money to these companies.
Call it a kickback.
Call it whatever you want.
If I were to sell anyone in this room...
A candy bar for $10,000, the IRS would come at me for saying, you're trying to evade taxes.
Candy bars don't cost $10,000.
But what if I said I handcrafted the candy bar and put gold on it?
That's basically what Politico and these other news organizations are doing.
So my joke was...
Become a member at TimCast.com for $1,000, and we'll put gold trim on the side of the website.
unidentified
Did you hear what one of the Doge guys did on his sub-stock?
He put, why I left my eight-figure salary job, and you had to subscribe in order to find out why he left.
I think he was like a 22-year-old.
Put the price tag at $10,000.
Somebody...
Paid it, and it was just a blank page, and there was nothing there.
It's like the ultimate troll move you could possibly do.
The one that, my memory is so bad, it's been so long ago, but one of the senior members of the career Foreign Service that Pompeo promoted testified in the...
unidentified
I'm just so glad that Pompeo and Nikki Haley, neither one, he came out and announced one of the first things, that they do not have a place in his administration.
I thought he was going to go down that.
He kind of entertained the idea for a moment on the campaign trail, and I was like...
And another one that got banned from federal buildings, one of the ones I did an article for the Twitter files on was Natabakos.
You know that movie Zero Dark Thirty?
It was said to have been based loosely on her involvement with the CIA and overthrowing and all that.
She was directly reporting to Michael Murrell, who was a former CIA director, but she was working at Facebook and then she went to work at Twitter and was...
I'm helping censor the American people in her former CIA role.
And she sent an email to her, all of her CIA friends at Twitter, because there were so many, they had their own email list.
And she said, hey guys, just so you know, I know I was on the cover of the New York Post today for the 51 spies who lied.
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm aware of it, not to be alarmed.
Hopefully it will blow over.
And I'm like...
What email did I just read?
I have to read this again.
When I came across it, I'm like, oh my gosh, this is insane.
The Assange stuff is, to anybody who is involved, Julian Assange was accused of insane sexual impropriety in Sweden, which to anybody, Richard was like, this makes no sense.
This is not real.
And the actual issue was that he was, and it's funny, like, why would the U.S. have jurisdiction over an Australian citizen?
Who was running a news publication?
I think it's pretty obvious.
So let's break down what WikiLeaks was doing.
WikiLeaks received information from sources and published it.
But they would get information and they would redact things that were threats.
They would publish news stories.
They would put that out.
They even editorialized.
Famously, Colbert called out Assange for when the collateral murder video got released, he titled it Collateral Murder.
And Colbert says, this is not whistleblowing or leaking, this is editorialization.
And, you know, Assange pushed back a little bit and argued, but no, it's true.
Because WikiLeaks was a news publication not too dissimilar to anybody else.
Many of these corporate news outlets have their leaker drop boxes with encryption.
I think the only reason...
The charges got dropped and he got released during the Biden administration was that Julian Assange knows things.
He knows a lot.
And the reason why they raided the Ecuadorian embassy, in my opinion, is that Donald Trump, this is what I believe happened.
Trump sent envoys to the Ecuadorian embassy to talk with Assange and basically said, give us the information on who your source is and what you know about what the DNC and these people were doing, and we will let you go.
We will pardon you.
Assange said no, because he didn't want to compromise what WikiLeaks did for Donald Trump.
Trump said, then we'll do it the hard way.
Trump then wanted to have him extradited, brought to the U.S., where they could force him to reveal this information.
Biden, the administration, whoever was actually in charge, ultimately has Assange released because they were concerned that if Assange was still under lock and key at this point, Trump would get him and would get the information.
And if Assange was let go.
Trump would have no authority to be able to make that move against Assange to get any of this info.
unidentified
And there was a massive campaign from Australia across all their news networks and everything campaigning to free Assange, which I was really surprised by because the Australian media seemed so captured during the pandemic.
If Trump was able to get Julian Assange to confirm that it actually came from a DNC insider, it would have upset the game like crazy.
My assumption is that Assange was concerned If WikiLeaks ever revealed a source's identity, it would destroy his life's work in the organization and the potential things they would do in the future.
So he didn't want to do it.
I don't know if I believe that to be true because the things they were doing to Assange, he could have ended by simply exposing them, but he didn't want to do it, which is weird for a guy who lives his life to expose malfeasance.
So I don't know for sure.
But I do believe the Biden admin ultimately got him out because they were concerned Trump was about to win.
And if he did...
unidentified
I broke this story last year, but someone that used to work with Assange's team did confirm to me that Seth Rich was the whistleblower.
And I had no idea that that was such a big scandal at the time when I broke that because I wasn't following it from the beginning and didn't follow the cover up and realize that it was supposed to be a big scandal.
My phone blew up and I got pressure from all these people I'd never heard of to come forward and reveal who I spoke to.
And I was like, well...
I'm not going to do that, but I would go under oath to say that this was what was said to me, but I can't tell you who my source is either.
So it's a constant circle jerk of protecting your sources, but also wanting to report what you know and what's been shared with you.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on anything, whatever.
I just read a lot, and foreign policy has been one of the biggest issues for me in a long time.
I've traveled to a lot of countries.
I've seen a lot of things.
So I'll just say, hey, look, man, maybe I'm wrong about a lot of this stuff.
But based on what I've read and the stuff that I've seen and experienced on the ground, these are my views as it pertains to Ukraine and USAID and all those things.
So fact check it all.
We're trying to navigate, investigate, and figure it all out.
So in the meantime, it's going to be amazing to see what happens tonight when USAID is effectively over.
And in the coming months, what that means for the rest of the world.
But I want to thank all of you guys for joining and hanging out.
If you guys want to shout anything out before we wrap up.
