Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 14, 2023 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas

01:55:10

Wray Dayz The Cover-Up Crew Continues | Reality Rants with Jason Bermas

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
	Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
	We think too much and feel too little.
	More than machinery, we need humanity.
	We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat.
	As if that's the way it's supposed to be.
	We know things are bad, worse than bad.
	They're crazy. Silence!
	The great and powerful Oz knows why you have come.
	You've got to say, I'm a human being!
	God damn it! My life has value!
	You have meddled with the primal forces of nature!
	Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder!
	Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
	Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
	-$5,000.
	-$5,000.
	Yeah, thank you. You're beautiful.
	I love you. Yes.
	You're beautiful.
	Thank you.
	Ha-ha.
	Shh.
	It's...
	Showtime!
	And now, reality hit with Jason Vermis.
	And who loves you?
	And who do you love?
	Good morning, everybody.
	It is Reality Rants. I am Jason Bermas.
	Happy Thursday to you all.
	And today is Ray Day.
	It's Ray Day.
	Chris Ray, one of the...
	Top members over at the cover-up crew.
	Remember the guy that cozied up to Bill Barr and fixed all the problems so there didn't need to be any prosecutions via the Barr and Durham investigations that I told you were going nowhere.
	Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere.
	And I'm not happy I was right about that.
	I'm not happy that no one's going to be held criminally responsible.
	It's just reality.
	And this dude just sits there with his smug little Muppet face and says whatever he wants.
	I'm seeing people posting, did Chris Ray just perjure himself about January 6th?
	No, because he always frames it to, not to my knowledge, and I'm not aware.
	And I'm not sure.
	So there's always plausible deniability baked in to these guys' bullshits.
	And that is like the Christopher Wray story.
	I'm establishment.
	I've got establishment answers.
	If you speak to me in an accusatory tone, I will shame you.
	I almost want to play Wray...
	Basically telling you that if you're not getting behind the FBI, there's going to be more child predators.
	All of a sudden they care about child predators.
	There's going to be more child predators on the street.
	There's going to be more gang violence.
	There's going to be more this and that and this and that.
	And it's this response...
	As though all that corruption...
	It's not that it doesn't exist.
	It doesn't matter.
	Yeah, I'm going to sit up here and say it doesn't exist and that we're stalwart and we treat everybody the same.
	No one actually believes that.
	But if you go too far, if you dare to question the authority of the FBI, Ray will just sit there and tell you how bad it would be without the FBI. Everything would be awful.
	The sky would fall.
	Now... Do I think that we need a federal agency to go after entities that operate in a federal manner?
	Absolutely. Absolutely.
	Is the FBI that agency?
	More than likely.
	The problem is there's zero accountability when you get to the upper echelons.
	And instead of accountability, you get Chris Wray up there.
	First of all, You've got the other side of the aisle, the opposition party.
	And believe me, these guys are all terrible.
	It's tough because, look, it is the Republicans, and there's a couple on here that I have great respect for.
	Thomas Massey being the biggest one.
	But I've got my problems with Gates, no matter how well he did.
	Or a Jim Jordan, no matter how well he did.
	Some of the other clips we have, Wesley Hunt, Chip Roy.
	Look, they did their thing.
	But then on the other side, you've got Ted Lau.
	And what's he bringing up?
	Oh, how many criminals were in the Trump administration?
	And it's not your fault, FBI, that there's just so many criminals that surround themselves around Donald Trump.
	And he just loves criminals.
	Joe Biden, he's Uncle Joe.
	He's Zombie J. He's America's grandpa.
	He's never been corrupt in his life.
	There is no corruption in the Zombie J administration.
	And that's why it's humorous every time there's a relevant question into Joe Biden and his criminal activities, etc.
	It's just an ongoing investigation.
	We don't know.
	The stuff that's in the public arena, we know.
	We know. I'm going to be at no loss for clips today.
	I promise you that. I've got quite a few queued up.
	Let's just kick it off.
	Let's start it with Chris Ray, victim.
	Let me repeat that. Chris Ray, he's a victim.
	Here he is warning you what would happen.
	If you defunded the FBI... We would have hundreds more violent criminals out on the street, dozens more violent gangs terrorizing communities, hundreds more child predators on the loose, hundreds more kids left at those predators' mercy.
	See, they're so concerned about children all of a sudden.
	Isn't that great?
	It only took a hearing where he's asked about January 6th, the Biden administration, the
	January 5th pipe bomber, etc., etc., a burisma, that all of a sudden Chris Wray cares about
	kids and child predators.
	He cares a whole bunch.
	Instead of being rescued, scores of threats from the Chinese Communist Party
	Oh, domestic violent extremists!
	Oh, domestic terror!
	You see how this Johnny nonsense now works too?
	That's going to be equated with all the child predators they take down.
	Oh man, that domestic terror threat here in this country.
	There's a white supremacist hiding around every corner, just like there used to be an Al-Qaeda or ISIS member around.
	Every corner, man.
	And they're coming after you.
	If it weren't for the FBI to wipe our bottom dollar, we'd be in some deep shizzle.
	Not prevented.
	That would succeed against Americans.
	Single seizures of fentanyl.
	It is not uncommon right now for a single FBI office in a single operation to seize enough fentanyl to wipe out an entire state.
	So many, many, many, many more of those lethal doses Wipe out an entire state.
	You know how dumb that is?
	Like, even Rhode Island's numbers.
	No. No, Chris.
	Now, I'm not saying that FBI agents haven't found massive amounts of fentanyl.
	Take out an entire state.
	I mean, that's a hyperbolic statement.
	Again, obviously, states range widely as to their populace.
	You have 20 million people in New York.
	Is your one-time seizure of fentanyl going to take out 20 million Americans if it gets on the street?
	No. Is it enough to?
	No. But it doesn't matter.
	You're Chris Wray. You get to say whatever you want because you're above the law.
	We don't criminally charge nor investigate FBI directors.
	No, instead we aggrandize them with ridiculous hero worship like so many people did with Robert Mueller on both sides of the aisle.
	Let me repeat that. On both sides of the aisle.
	There are so many people during the beginnings of the War of Terror that thought Robert Mueller and people like Richard Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, They were beat beyond even asking a tough question.
	They're heroes, brah. And then, when we got to Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, and the denial there, you had a certain sect of people that, instead of the TDS and the Russian collusion nonsense, and by the way, we got a piece on Julian Assange I also want to get to during this two-hour broadcast.
	Thumbs it up, subscribe. And share.
	No, they thought that Robert Mueller was working with the Trump administration to bring down the deep state.
	And you just wait. The Mueller report's going to get them all.
	We've already got the secret indictments and the people in Guantanamo Bay.
	Go, Robert Mueller.
	Go, Robert Mueller.
	And I'm like, wow, that's delusional, huh?
	That's about as not real as it could ever get, huh?
	And people are like, Jason, what do you mean?
	He's not taking out the deep state?
	No. Robert Mueller at that point was even a figurehead.
	He could barely talk at the hearings.
	He was barely knowledgeable of the cover-up he signed off on.
	He's upper-level management that basically thwarts certain parts of the investigation and the report.
	And then leads people off into red herrings and rabbit holes that go nowhere on purpose.
	And he doesn't really have to know much about it.
	He just has to know the talking points.
	So that when he's grilled, he can sit there like Chris Ray and have his plausible deniability.
	They love lawyer language.
	Okay? So, you know, again...
	When somebody like Ray is asked directly, are you protecting the Bidens?
	FBI Director Ray is torched by his harshest GOP critics as he has read Hunter's shakedown message to Chinese Communist Party business partner during Congress grilling.
	Doesn't matter to him.
	They'll just say it doesn't exist.
	Or they just didn't have enough information or evidence to criminally prosecute.
	No one's above the law.
	And if you dare, dare to question the FBI, there will be a terrorist around every corner and a child molester around every corner, according to Chris Wray.
	We have close to 400, I think it is somewhere between 300 and 400 investigations into the leadership of the cartels trafficking that fentanyl.
	So you would have a significantly greater threat from the southwest border, from the cartels.
	So those are just a few things that would happen.
	Ultimately, the people most hurt by some ill-conceived effort to defund our agency, the people most hurt are the American people that live in every district represented on this committee.
	If we go down, boy, it's just terrible for the American people.
	It doesn't matter that we have a long, long, long history of being politically involved on the wrong side of the spectrum.
	It's too bad that we have a history of programs like Cointelpro, where we went after black leaders.
	It's too bad that we have a history of Of state-sponsored terror in regards to the 93 World Trade Center bombing when it was our asset, our recruit Ahmed Salam, that built the bomb supervised by the agency FBI, his handlers including John Antisev, and the ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
	All that's our FBI too, Chris.
	We can't talk about that, can we?
	We can't talk about 9-11 hijackers living with and renting from FBI informants.
	We can't talk about what you did to whistleblowers.
	Hmm? Hmm?
	Like Robert Wright and others that knew how the money moved prior to 9-11.
	And we're trying to get things done.
	No, we can't have any of that, Chris.
	No, instead we'll just have devastation everywhere if we don't bend the knee to the FBI. And look, 85-90% of the people there, they're there to do the right thing.
	And on a day-to-day basis, most of them are.
	In any human institution, you're going to have corruption.
	You're going to have some devious stuff, especially when you're talking about law enforcement and money and power of that nature.
	Sure. But the big-time sociopaths, the big-time cover-up crew folks, the guys like Ray, who Bill Barr joked about On Brett Baer's program, that they'd solved everything.
	That there was no need for any kind of criminal prosecutions in his investigation or Durham's investigation.
	Because me and Chris, you know, the Bar Ray team, we solved it all.
	We did it. Yeah.
	Corruption over with.
	When we come back after this break, thumbs it up, subscribe and share, we're going to start playing a bunch of these clips.
	Of Chris Ray being asked real questions and giving ridiculous responses.
	You're still looking good.
	I'm still feeling good.
	You know, I've got all your MyPillow products.
	Mattress topper, bed sheets, MyPillows, towels, slippers, blankets, sleepwear.
	Whoa, whoa, Charles. Everyone now can get MyPillow products at huge discounts at MyPillow.com.
	That's right. Now's the time to go to MyPillow.com or call the number on your screen.
	Use your promo code to take advantage of our 3-in-1 sale.
	We're bringing you exciting new products, overstock specials, and closeout deals you won't find anywhere else.
	For example, when you buy one of our brand new MyPillow 2.0s, you get another one absolutely free.
	And with our overstock sale, you save 50% on our luxurious Giza Dream bed sheets.
	That's as low as $29.99 for the best sheets ever.
	And with our biggest closeout special, you get our all season slippers for only $35 or our sandals and slides for just $25.
	Quantities are limited and once they're gone, they're gone.
	RVMRumble.com is where you're going to find the second hour.
	I still haven't even posted the second hour from yesterday anywhere else.
	So the second hour from yesterday is still exclusive over at RVMRumble.com or just over at RVMsRumble, which you want to give a follow to and let people know about the channel.
	Alright, let's kick it off with Matt Gaetz.
	And again, I've had my problems with Gaetz in the past.
	Certainly, you know, in the issues of drone warfare in China and Google.
	However, he's been extremely good on the military industrial complex.
	He has continued to speak out against the war in Ukraine.
	He is one of the best voices on the January 6th Here we go.
	Here's Matt Gaetz with Chris Wray.
	The American people need to understand what just happened.
	My Democrat colleague just asked the director of the FBI whether or not they are buying information about our fellow Americans.
	And the answer is, well, we'll just have to get back to you on that.
	It sounds really complicated. But I have other questions.
	I'm sitting here with my father.
	I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.
	I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.
	That's Biden.
	That's Hunter Biden.
	And these are messages that are now in the public arena that the FBI has known about for a long, long time.
	And they knew about them before the 2020 election.
	Okay, and that should let you know it was a selection.
	And that they selectively enforced the law.
	And that they manufacture narratives instead of, quote-unquote, treating everybody equally.
	They installed this guy and shielded him from criminal prosecution.
	That's a place called reality.
	Sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it, Director?
	I mean, look at his face!
	There it is. There he is, sitting in a chair, smiling at you.
	You wonder why that's the headline?
	Because he's in the chair, smiling at us.
	Like the smug son of a bitch he is.
	Sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it, Chris?
	Heheheheheheheheheheheheh Heheheheheheheheheheh
	I'm not gonna get into commenting on that.
	You seem deeply uncurious about it, don't you?
	Almost suspiciously uncurious. Are you protecting the Bidens?
	Absolutely not.
	I mean, you can see the look on his face.
	They can't even hide it.
	Francis Collins had similar facial features when he was talked to by I believe it was Joe Kennedy and him talking about the World Health Organization and their relationship with China.
	That's the same kind of smug smile in your face I'm above the law attitude you get from these unelected bureaucrats that are placed in these positions to do what you're seeing obfuscate the truth and instead insinuate if you're asking questions about our corruption you're the problem you're the criminal you're the one that needs to be vilified Well, you won't answer the question about whether or not that's a shakedown, and everybody knows why you won't answer it.
	Because to the millions of people who will see this, they know it is.
	And your inability to acknowledge that is deeply revealing about you.
	But let's go from the uncurious to the downright nosy.
	Oh, now he's concerned.
	Downright nosy. Let me stick my nose up.
	Let me furl my brow a little bit.
	I'm not quite as old as Chris.
	I don't have quite as many marks, but I can furl.
	I'm furling! How many illegal FISA queries have occurred under your leadership of the FBI? Well, he would argue none of them are legal.
	Because, hey... Even before 9-11, we've had secret programs where we were tracking, tracing, and databasing in real time.
	All communications.
	All communications.
	Norris Insight Systems.
	Does that mean that a human being was sitting there listening?
	No, they were using algorithmic technology then and keyword technology, software like Promise and Carnivore.
	So, you know, the illegal FISA thing is a joke to them because they just get around it all together.
	They have programs like signature reduction.
	The FISA court.
	What a joke. No, this is them netting as much information as possible.
	You know, when I play that clip of Bushnell...
	Talking about the global brain, he just openly says that they're going to read every single email and ingest every single piece of data out there.
	Listening to every single phone call.
	Everything. Zero privacy.
	Zero privacy. Okay?
	So here's Ray with his smug, furrowed brow being asked about illegal FISA surges.
	There's nothing illegal to this guy.
	He has the power!
	Well, there are reports that have come out with different numbers about compliance incidents.
	More than a million illegal ones?
	Because that's what the Inspector General said.
	The Inspector General said that in the 3.4 million of these queries, more than a million were in error.
	3.4 million.
	3.4 million.
	Do you have any basis to disagree with that assessment by the Inspector General?
	I'm not sure actually that's a correct characterization of the Inspector General's findings on that.
	The internet will remind you of that in moments, but let's now go to what the court said.
	The court said it was over 200,000 that have occurred on your watch.
	Do you have any basis to disagree with that assessment?
	Again, I don't have the numbers.
	I just don't know.
	I'm not very well educated on how we conduct our non-criminal activity.
	Because none of it's criminal.
	Because I'm above the law. I'm Chris Wray.
	And I'll just sit here and act like I don't even know what's going on.
	And that the characterizations that you're making aren't true.
	You see how this works?
	You see how they use semantics and Bernaysian talking points and tools to obfuscate directly answering any of these questions so that later on they can continue with their quote-unquote plausible deniability?
	Seems like a number you should know.
	How many times the FBI is breaking the law under your watch, especially if it's like over a million to not know that number.
	And I'm worried about your veracity on the subject as well.
	Play the video. And we're all sitting here in silence waiting for the investigation of the Capitol.
	I don't believe FISA is remotely implicated in our investigation.
	So there, Senator Lee's asking you whether or not FISA was in any way involved in your January 6th investigation, and you say no.
	Was that truthful?
	I said that I did not believe it was.
	Okay. See, I didn't say no.
	I said I did not believe.
	I mean, this guy, he can believe in pink unicorns that are going to come over and fly over his house and shat gold.
	Onto his backyard.
	He can believe that.
	And he can tell you what he doesn't believe.
	You notice there's no commitment to a factual statement.
	I said I did not believe that was the case.
	Doesn't matter whether it was true or not.
	I set up my plausible deniability answer.
	Do you like my smug little smirk in your face?
	I've got smircles for you.
	Okay, so now let's pull up what the court said, which was something a little different than what you said.
	Poor Gates. So here, nope, that's not the right one.
	Yeah, here we go. Right there, it says, the government has reported additional significant violations of the querying standard, including several relating to the January 6, 2021 breach at the Capitol.
	So I guess the question, Director A, is did you not know when you were answering these questions that the FBI was engaging in these illegal searches, or did you perjure yourself to Senator Lee?
	I couldn't perjure myself.
	I certainly didn't perjure myself. At the time that I testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I didn't have that piece of information.
	I will add... Well, that was a court order.
	You didn't have that piece of information because the court hadn't yet rendered a judgment.
	Did you not know when you gave the untruthful answer before Senator Lee that this was going on?
	It was a truthful answer.
	I did not believe FISA had been involved in the January 7th.
	It wasn't an untruthful answer.
	Don't you understand? I'm talking around the point.
	I wasn't making a definitive statement so I could say whatever I want.
	Fauci pulled the same thing.
	Collins pulled the same thing.
	All these punks pulled the same thing.
	It's part of their talking points.
	It does! So you didn't...
	The answer is the FBI has broken so bad that people can go and engage in queries that when you come before the Congress to answer questions, you're like blissfully ignorant.
	You're blissfully ignorant as to the unlawful queries.
	You're blissfully ignorant as to the Biden shakedown regime.
	And it just seems like it gets into a kind of a creepy place as well.
	Go to our next image on what the court said.
	Like, just so the American people realize, The court has smacked you down, ruling FBI personnel apparently conducted queries for improper personal reasons.
	People were looking themselves up.
	They were looking their ex-lovers up.
	Who has been held accountable or fired as a consequence of the FBI using the FISA process as their, like, creepy personal snoop machine?
	Their creepy personal snoop machine.
	And that's the low-level stuff.
	That's the super low-level stuff.
	And there is no accountability.
	I mean, I'm sure that there are some people that have been reprimanded within the system.
	Others that have been possibly even set up.
	It's selectively enforced, just like anything else.
	And it can be used to compromise and blackmail those inside the FBI. There have been instances in which individuals have had disciplinary action and who are no longer with it.
	I can't get into it here, but we can follow back up with you.
	But don't you see that that's kind of the thing, Director A., that you preside over the FBI that has the lowest level of trust You won't criticize it.
	They won't properly investigate or prosecute it, Matt.
	I think that's a bigger deal.
	And the investigation is really there to tie up the loose ends of other whistleblowers and other evidence that may come out that's damning.
	This is the cover-up crew.
	Respectfully, Congressman, in your home state of Florida, the number of people applying to come work for us and devote their lives working for us is up over 100%.
	We're deeply proud of them, and they deserve better than you.
	Well, good luck. Because that's the kind of guy they love.
	They love a Christopher Wray.
	He did everything perfect right there.
	He maybe should have toned down the smircles in the beginning.
	But overall, to the establishment, he's knocking it out of the park.
	He's talking about, well, we're not unpopular.
	Our recruitment's up over 100% in the state of Florida.
	People can't wait to join the FBI. Really?
	First of all, you've knocked down the standards for your organization so far that you run ads saying you're going to recruit overweight, mentally ill people.
	Let me repeat that to everybody.
	That's a fact.
	They had commercials where they were embracing mental illness while showing you some overweight woman A woman of color, of course, because she has to check every single box.
	How they're joining the FBI and we've got a new FBI and mental illness is okay.
	No, it's not!
	Now, we all go through our mental struggles, but you don't purposely hire somebody in a upper echelon law enforcement agency that you know to have mental health issues.
	What planet is this?
	We're going to hit a break. Thumbs it up.
	Subscribe. Share. Remember rvmrumble.com for the second hour and redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored for two extra interviews every single week.
	Chad Lavral and Nick Bryant, I'll be interviewing Nick later today, will be up this weekend.
	You're not going to want to miss those.
	And now a word from our sponsor.
	We interrupt today's programming to bring unfortunate news.
	Biden's dangerous plan for a digital dollar is underway.
	Don't be fooled. It won't benefit you.
	So take action now.
	The Federal Reserve's phased deployment of FedNow began on July 1, 2023.
	Be prepared. This may catch many off guard and put your hard-earned assets in jeopardy.
	But here's the good news.
	There's a simple legal tax loophole to opt out of the digital dollar.
	Speak to someone at American Alternative Assets for a free wealth protection guide and discover how to safeguard your
	wealth with gold and silver IRAs against a failing dollar and volatile markets
	The number two USA gold This invaluable guide provides precise steps to transfer
	your IRA or 401k into precious metals without any tax consequences
	Don't let Biden force you into using the government's new digital dollar.
	Call 833, the number two USA Gold.
	Yes, call now. 833-287-2465.
	Act swiftly. 833-287-2465.
	Alright, we are back.
	It is Reality Rants. I am Jason Bermas.
	We are halfway through the first hour.
	Remember, you can catch that second hour over at rvmrumble.com.
	And they run until 8.30 p.m.
	Eastern Time. We're 9 to 11 a.m.
	Monday through Thursday here.
	Eastern Time as well.
	So make sure to check out what's going on via Red Voice Media throughout the day.
	Okay, ton of clips left.
	That's just one exchange.
	I think we're going to go to the Jim Jordan, Thomas Massey, J5, J6, Ray clip next.
	Now there's an extended Massey clip that I also want to play that there might be some overlap in, but we're going to start it here because January 5th is a big deal.
	January 5th is a huge deal.
	In fact, it's something I discussed with Chad yesterday.
	What's going to be really interesting about the chat interview for everybody that's unaware is that's somebody that I met up with.
	First of all, I've known the guy for almost 20 years.
	He was at the original 9-11 Truth Conference in 2006 in Chicago.
	So we briefly discuss that.
	We also talk about the atmosphere and what we were doing on January 5th and then actually meeting each other.
	Not on purpose.
	We didn't plan it. But we saw each other at the Ellipse.
	And after the Ellipse moment, when everything starts to kick off at the Capitol, that's pretty much the end.
	We don't see each other. We talk about those experiences.
	And I was unaware that Chad had actually seen Ashley Babbit's dead body being wheeled
	into the ambulance, you know, he firsthand saw that and
	Chad was with his girlfriend and his young child at the time was like one years old in the stroller and
	He said, you know if things were starting to get crazy before then
	That was the nail in the coffin that it was time to go and get out of here and anything positive that had happened
	at these events You know was about to go down into a downward spiral
	Now, I think that January 5th was a contingency plan.
	I think if they were not able to goad the public into breaching certain areas of the Capitol and instead staying lawful, Going to the proper place where there was indeed a permit, I think there's a great possibility of one of these devices, if not several of these devices, that were planted the night before by somebody who's still not been arrested, would have gone off.
	And it would have been blamed on what?
	Some dumbass patsy.
	Because if you think that they're going to bring the pipe bomber to justice at this point, come on now, man.
	You don't think they have way more footage than they're showing you?
	Seriously? And if, in fact, the FBI doesn't know who this is, and this person was smart enough to somehow circumvent all the CCTV camera footage, all the forensic evidence...
	All the GPS data that would be located on this individual's device as to where they started and where they ended up?
	I mean, is this person a part of signature reduction?
	It's a great question. And you know, I want to remind everybody that I became aware of that signature reduction article probably within 48 hours of it being out there because of Annie Jacobson, whose work I constantly reference because it's so damn good.
	And on the Annie Jacobson front, you'll notice that Annie hit that like button or that heart button on a tweet I was mentioned in from Sarah who is a supporter and a fan and Annie basically showed another picture of the latest draft of her book and She stated, Sarah said, I'm going to guess the subject matter is what at Jason Bermas believes it's about, transhumanism.
	So just realize, everybody, just 100% realize that if you're watching this show, we're ahead of the curve.
	I don't know that anybody else has discussed what Andy Jacobson's book is going to be about.
	That doesn't mean we're necessarily going to get around the program.
	I sure hope we can. You know, that's a book that is going to be high on the list.
	And I'm about to hit the road tomorrow for New York.
	So you know what's going to be loaded up into the magic box so I can listen.
	Oh, that's nice. That's great.
	Good job, Jason. Good job.
	Just keep breaking stuff. It's going to be Annie Jacobson's work.
	You know, those are books that in audio format are like 16 to 24 hours long.
	It's about a 14 hour drive.
	So, you know, you can't go wrong with Area 51, Operation Paperclip, The Pentagon's Brain, Surprise Kill Vanish.
	You can't go First Platoon.
	You can't go wrong.
	These are dense books about real issues.
	And they're done at such a high level of academia.
	And they are as bias-free...
	As I've ever seen a work of non-fiction.
	Just saying. So, Annie Jacobson, very much looking forward to the new book.
	And I'm not sure, obviously, what it's going to be called.
	But I can tell you right now, the subject matter is going to be transhumanism.
	All right! I've ranted enough in this segment.
	Let's get to Jim Jordan and Massey talking to Ray Day.
	The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes.
	I think the chairman...
	Director Wray, in light of information provided to us about the FBI's investigation of the January 6th pipe bombs, in an interview with Assistant Director Steven Duantuano, Chairman Jordan and I sent you a letter a month ago.
	Some of the information that we found in that interview was that phone data that could have helped to identify the pipe bomber was corrupted.
	It was unusable.
	He also wasn't sure who found or how the second bomb was found at the DNC. Do you know how the second bomb was found at the DNC? And when do you plan on answering our letter?
	Well, as to the letter, I will work with the department to make sure we can figure out what information we can provide.
	As you know, this is a very active, ongoing investigation, and there are some restrictions on that.
	Yes, we can handle classified information, and we fund your department, and so you need to provide that.
	It's not, respectfully, it's not an issue of classification.
	It's an issue of commenting on ongoing criminal investigations.
	They love that. Ongoing criminal investigations.
	We just don't comment until we fully got the cover-up in lock.
	And then we'll put information out that we deem necessary.
	Because I'm Chris Ray and I'm part of the cover-up crew.
	Which is something that by long-standing department policy, we are restricted in doing it.
	In fact, the last administration actually strengthened those policies partly because...
	That's not our policy, though, and we fund you, so let's move on.
	Do you know how the second pipe bomb...
	Can you tell us how the second pipe bomb was found at the DNC? Again, I'm not going to get into that here.
	900 days ago is when this happened, and you said you had total confidence we'd apprehend the subject.
	We've found video that looks like somebody, a passerby, miraculously found this pipe bomb at the DNC and then notified the police.
	Miraculously, I say, because It was specifically the precise time to cause the maximum distraction from the events going on at the Capitol.
	Can you show this video that we have, please?
	I'd like to know if the director has seen this.
	And here's the deal.
	To believe anything that the FBI is putting forward to this is they don't want to tell you about a mad terrorist bomber, a real domestic terror threat that they didn't thwart.
	And they don't want to give the public any information.
	But they're not worried this person might strike again.
	Or that they might be successful next time.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Not at all.
	900 days ago.
	My goodness. This is somebody with a mask on, wearing a hat.
	They're walking in front of the DNC, which is out of the view on the right-hand side.
	You'll see him come into view.
	He goes to one police car.
	He goes to another police car.
	He's holding a backpack. He's got a mask on.
	He's talking to the police.
	And within a minute, they start scrambling.
	You'll see the camera turn.
	To the pipe bomb, the location of the pipe bomb.
	By the way, I believe the Metro Police are now getting out of their car, and that's Vice President-Elect's detail in the black SUV, I believe.
	Parked about 30 feet from the pipe bomb, eating lunch.
	Okay, now we go over to the location of the pipe bomb.
	The cameras are scrambling.
	It appears to me That that's not a coincidence, that the person with the backpack who walked by that bench and then went up to the police and the detail didn't do that accidentally.
	They had a purpose in mind and then what transpired after that was the result of information that person gave to them.
	If that person found the pipe bomb, would they be a suspect?
	Well, again, I don't want to speculate about specific individuals.
	You don't want to speculate about specific individuals.
	Better question, was that person ever questioned after the fact or detained for any reason?
	And is that person's name part of any public record dealing with this investigation?
	I will tell you that we have done thousands of interviews, reviewed something like 40,000 video files, of which this is one, assessed 500-something tips.
	Have you interviewed that person?
	We have conducted all logical investigative stuff.
	Again, he doesn't even want to answer whether or not they interviewed that person.
	Instead, it's a semantical retort.
	That they've exhausted all avenues.
	Epson interviewed all logical individuals at this point.
	It's 900 days.
	You need to tell us what you found, because we're finding stuff you haven't released into the public.
	In my remaining minute, I want to turn to another issue.
	George Hill, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst in the Boston field office, told us that the Bank of America With no legal process, gave to the FBI gun purchase records with no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a Bank of America customer.
	Is that true?
	Well, what I do know is that a number of business community partners all the time, including financial institutions,
	shared information with us about possible criminal activity.
	And my understanding is that...
	Shared information with us about possible criminal activity.
	So, again, no real criminal activity.
	I'm not going to answer your question.
	I'm going to talk around it, and I'm going to give my bullshit statement, which is what gives me plausible deniability every single time and protects me and my agency and my real bosses.
	That's fully lawful.
	Did you ask for that information?
	In the specific instance that you're asking about, my understanding is that that information was shared with field offices for information only, but then...
	Recalled to avoid even the appearance of any kind of overreach.
	But my understanding is...
	It's his understanding.
	My understanding. You understand?
	So my understanding may have been wrong.
	You see how that works? That's a fully lawful process.
	Was there a warrant involved?
	Again, my understanding is that the institution in question shared information with us, as happens all the time.
	Did you request the information?
	I can't speak to the specifics.
	Okay, well we've got an email where it says the FBI did give the search queries to Bank of America and Bank of America responded to the FBI and gave over this information without a search warrant.
	Do you believe there's any limitation on your ability to obtain gun purchase data or purchase information for people who aren't suspects from banks without a warrant?
	Well, now you're asking a legal question, which I would prefer to defer to the lawyers.
	I'll defer to the lawyers.
	I'm not going to answer that question.
	You know, I'm just going to tell you what my understanding is.
	I've got some understandings.
	Since I'm not practicing as one right now, including the department.
	But what I will tell you is that my understanding is that the process by which we receive information from business community partners Across a wide variety of industries, including financial institutions, sharing information with us about possible criminal activity is something that is fully lawful under current federal law.
	Yeah, no, his understanding is we're not breaking the law.
	We've got to go to a word from our sponsor.
	One more segment in the first hour.
	rvmrumble.com after this.
	Support the broadcast at redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
	Try it for a week for only one dollar-y-do.
	It may be lawful, but it's not constitutional.
	I yield back. Attention Americans.
	Breaking news. Biden's dangerous plan for a digital dollar is underway.
	Don't be fooled. It won't benefit you.
	Take action now.
	The Federal Reserve phased deployment of FedNow began on July 1, 2023.
	Be prepared. This may catch many off guard.
	Your hard-earned assets are in jeopardy.
	But there's a simple legal tax loophole to opt out of the digital dollar.
	Reach out to American Alternative Assets for a free wealth protection guide and discover how to safeguard your wealth with gold and silver IRAs against a failing dollar in volatile markets.
	Visit ProtectFromBiden.com This invaluable guide provides precise steps to transfer your IRA or 401 To get your free guide and get started.
	Again, that's ProtectFromBiden.com.
	Alright, we are back.
	Final segment of the first hour.
	Remember, that second hour is over at rvmrumble.com.
	Next clip up, let's do Chip Roy and Christopher Wray.
	You know, Chip Roy is one of those guys that I believe...
	Does have the best of intentions, has shaken things up quite a bit, and he's far from perfect, but he does a good job here.
	So here is Chip Roy with Chris Wray.
	Thank you, Director Wray, for appearing.
	Brian Otten was one of the FBI intelligence analysts who interviewed Igor Danchenko, the principal source of the Steele dossier, in January 2017, correct?
	I believe that's in the Durham report.
	And Danchenko explained that the dossier allegations were BS, yet the FBI did not reveal that to the FISA court.
	Instead, the FBI continued to use those allegations in two more sworn FISA applications about President Trump and Putin, correct?
	Well, again, I want to let Mr.
	Durham's report speak for itself.
	Okay, but as director of the FBI, those are the facts of the FBI under your watch.
	Well, no, no, sir. I'm sorry.
	It's important. Not under my watch.
	Those are the facts. I'm getting...
	Oh, they're not under my watch.
	No, no, no. This is important. No, sir.
	Not under my watch. I don't...
	Am I wearing a watch?
	I'm not sure I'm even wearing a watch.
	So it's definitely not under my watch.
	I'm getting to the part under your watch.
	The FBI conducted an internal investigation of Otten and sought to suspend him, but Otten appealed, correct?
	I can't discuss a specific pending personnel matter.
	Anything that's pending, I can't discuss specifics.
	Ongoing criminal investigations, no.
	Pending personnel matters, no, no, no.
	I might as well be another little Leslie Stahl.
	Only I'm one of the bureaucrats that you didn't elect that's heading up one of the most important law enforcement agencies that's been weaponized in the country.
	Okay, well, according to recent reports, those are the facts.
	Nevertheless, in 2020, after Senators Grassley and Johnson highlighted evidence of potential financial crimes and corruption against the Biden family, the FBI assigned Auden to compile an assessment which was used to characterize the Biden revelations as Russian disinformation.
	The evidence Grassley and Johnson had collected were mostly financial records and could easily have been corroborated as authentic.
	And by then, the FBI had the Hunter laptop in its possession.
	For over a year. So it knew the lucrative payments of the Bidens from corrupt and anti-American regimes were authentic.
	How on earth did the FBI empower an agent under investigation for potentially corrupt performance and abuse of FISA in one politically-fraught investigation, a Democrat-operative-driven case against President Trump?
	To play a key role and to undermine a second politically fraught investigation, a case against the Bidens.
	How is that possible?
	How can you allow that to occur in the Federal Bureau of Investigations?
	My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say the elite law enforcement agency of the United States.
	How does that occur? I can't.
	At the moment, discuss a pending personnel.
	I can't discuss anything of any significance.
	What I can do is give you broad statements of plausible deniability and what my understanding of the situation is.
	And then I can assure you how good my agency is.
	And I can assure you that my hair is parted in such a manner that I deserve to be the head of the Federal Bureau investigation.
	I assure you.
	Can we get a hundred thumbs up over on the YouTubins, everybody?
	Let's get the thumbs up, the subscribes, the shares.
	And remember, we're nine minutes away from rvmrumble.com and that precious, uncensored second hour.
	It's a pending personnel matter.
	I can tell you that every employee who in any way touched the Crossfire Hurricane matter has been referred to our Office of Professional Responsibility.
	Are you concerned about this activity by the FBI and what was communicated to the FISA court?
	Does that concern you as the director of the FBI? I consider the conduct that was described in the Durham report as totally unacceptable.
	Oh, he gave you the sternness.
	Ooh, look, there's that furrowed brow.
	I took that Durham report really seriously.
	I mean, there's not going to be any actual criminal prosecutions, but I took it very seriously.
	That does not represent Chris Ray's FBI. There have been consequences as a result.
	Has Mr. Auden, has he had consequences?
	Well, again, I can't speak to pending personnel matters.
	As you would perhaps remember from your own time in law enforcement, because we were working closely with Mr.
	Durham and I assigned agents to help him, at his request we slowed down the administrative process to allow his investigation to complete itself.
	Now that it is complete, our personnel processes are very much ongoing.
	Okay. Ridiculous.
	We slowed the processes down.
	We slowed the processes down so we could assist on the cartoon cover-up that gave what?
	The conservatives their talking points and it gave the left their talking points.
	And never shall there be a consequential prosecution in the matter.
	Never ever are we actually going to get the core of corruption and hold the criminals within these agencies accountable.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	That's not how we roll here.
	I think it is more than troubling that under your watch we see that this continued to occur and you have Auten being continued to be empowered after there was an investigation and after there was an effort by the FBI to look into why he would go to the FISA court and give wrong information.
	I mean, the issue here has been wrapped up in a cloud of politics, but the fact is the American people deserve to know how the FISA court is being abused and how it's being abused against the former president and against them in light of the reports that we saw Mr.
	Johnson from Louisiana put forward that was in a court filing, in a court report.
	I want to move on to another topic.
	We're going to cut Roy there.
	We are going to go with which one's next?
	Here's a clip of Ray just saying that there's been this long-standing federal law in collusion with social media.
	When social media hasn't been around for there to be long-standing laws of that collusion.
	I just want to point that out.
	But again, long-standing could be...
	What? It could be a year, five years, ten years, longstanding.
	That's up for interpretation.
	Just want to point that out.
	Why would the FBI offer Christopher Steele a million dollars to verify a dossier about Trump-Russian collusion and then the same FBI offer three million dollars to Twitter to squash a story on the Hunter Biden laptop?
	Do you have any idea why a law enforcement agency would be playing into elections?
	Well, you raised a number of different issues there.
	So, first, as to the Steele dossier, that, of course, is a subject treated at great length in the Durham report, which we, and again, predates my time as director.
	I understand that, but it was the same agency paying a million dollars to push one story out or try to collaborate one story and three million dollars to quiet another story for political opponents.
	I don't quite understand. As to the second part related to Twitter, I would disagree with your characterization respectfully.
	When there are payments to social media companies, that is by long-standing federal law going back, I think, about four decades, where we have to pay companies for their costs in responding to legal process.
	So they're telling you right now That long-standing laws for companies now apply to social media companies.
	When we tell them to censor and what to do, we will pay them so that they can take care of their legal fees.
	And they can talk with their lawyers.
	How insane is this?
	He's openly telling you The FBI is paying and colluding with social media companies to censor information.
	And they'll just characterize it as misinformation or disinformation.
	Why in the world?
	And that's our taxpayer dollars.
	All of it. That's why these things, I constantly refer to them as what they are.
	Trojan horse civilian systems.
	The circle of plausible deniability.
	Well, we didn't want to do it.
	We were told to do it by them.
	Well, we didn't tell them to do it.
	We were just making suggestions. And round and round it goes in the world of Chris Wray and misinformation.
	It's not just social media companies, it's other kinds of businesses as well.
	Well, when those stories get out, and you understand, it's certainly the dossier story, and I know that wasn't under your watch, but also the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	That, to me, looks political.
	To the American people, it looks political.
	And I'm just an everyday guy. I'm not an attorney, Mr.
	Wray. Just an everyday guy.
	But to me, it looks extremely political.
	And that is why you're having trouble Keeping the FBI's reputation afloat.
	I mean, the FBI's reputation is total and complete garbage.
	It's total and complete garbajo.
	Period. Garbajo.
	Period. They are not looked upon as heroes, nor should they be.
	You know, in the upper echelons, they are fixers.
	They are oppressors of the public.
	They're the ones that sold you on this idea that Vladimir Poot-Poot was behind every, every single story that was pro-Trump and anti-Biden.
	That was pro-Trump and anti-Hillary.
	Right? It was Russia, Russia, Russia.
	And you know what? Not to give a pass to the Trump administration.
	Because when they were sitting up there at the OPCW and the hearings with Duma, they blamed that.
	The fact that there was no gas attack in Duma.
	And that Assad wasn't gassing his own people.
	What did they blame it on? Russian disinformation.
	We got one more ad.
	RVMRumble.com is where you're going to find that second hour.
	We're going to come back briefly to YouTube and encourage you to come over there.
	I do want to remind everybody, I actually use this VPN. It's a great product.
	We love the internet, but the internet is tracking everything you do.
	Take control of your online privacy with IPVanish.
	people with malicious intent are everywhere watching you criminals can hack your Wi-Fi while broadband providers and advertisers monitor your data with IP vanish on your device your internet activity is encrypted no one can see what you're doing your location your connection completely hidden protect your internet privacy today with IP vanish rvmvpn.com all right Come on over.
	RVMRumble.com. Remember, RedVoiceMedia.com slash Uncensored if you want to support the broadcast.
	$10 a month, $100 for the year.
	The two interviews coming up this weekend are going to be Chad Lavral and Nick Bryant.
	They're ones you're not going to want to miss.
	On the other side of this...
	If you go over to rvmrumble.com, you're going to be seeing misinformation and the FBI. Plenty more with Chris Wray to come.
	But YouTube, we've got to say sayonara and we'll see you on the flip side.
	All right! We are full board.
	Second hour right here, right now.
	Doing it big, big, big.
	That's how we do it. We do it bigly.
	And I want to thank all you people who have come over to Rumble and the alternative platforms out there.
	We're doing much better numbers on Rumble.
	We're not gaining a ton of subscribers.
	We need to do that.
	But roughly anywhere between 250 and 400 people on the regular are watching our live streams at any moment on any one stream.
	Whereas at this point...
	It's tough for me to even get 200 people live at YouTube with 70,000 plus subscribers.
	And I'm losing subs every day.
	Every day. Every week.
	Every month. Why?
	I believe it's because Google is another Trojan horse civilian system.
	And, you know, guys like Christopher Wray that want to tell you about misinformation and paying off social media companies to censor.
	That's the plan, Stan.
	That's the norm.
	That's the agenda.
	We love the internet.
	The evidence shows you, your agency, the people that directly report to you, Suppressed conservative-leaning free speech about topics like laptop, the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origin, the effectiveness of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election, security of voting by mail, even parody about the president himself, negative posts about the economy.
	The FBI made the social media platforms pull that information off the internet if it came from conservative sources.
	They did this. Not just conservative sources.
	I'm not a conservative. Let's stop.
	I hate that narrative.
	Hate it. Hate it.
	It's not just the lab leak theory.
	It was pointing out that biolabs had this thing all over the place.
	It was pointing out that the sequencing of the virus itself showed it had HIV in it.
	It was pointing out that the only solution were hate and lie shots produced by the Defense Department, DARPA, in association with Moderna and its other strategic mRNA collaborators, all on record.
	And those are just some of the things they were censoring.
	It's under the guise that it was disinformation.
	Can you define what disinformation is?
	What I can tell you is that our focus is not on disinformation, broadly speaking.
	Well, wait a minute. Yes, it is. Wait a minute.
	That's not the answer.
	He asked you what disinformation is.
	He didn't care what you're saying your agency is broadly focused on.
	It doesn't matter. You're Chris Wray.
	You're a lawyer. You know how to speak.
	You know how to give yourself an out over and over and over again.
	You know how to talk around actual questions, actual concerns.
	You can in a minute. Your star witness said in the litigation, Elvis Chan, who's in charge of this, said they do it on the basis of disinformation.
	We need a definition of what that is.
	Our focus is on malign foreign disinformation, that is, foreign hostile actors who engage in covert efforts to abuse...
	Mr. Ray, that's absolutely not real.
	That's absolutely not real.
	They constantly, constantly...
	And here's the thing, it's not just the FBI. It's their little weasels and cohorts within the system that...
	Inherit this talking point of he's a Duganist.
	Remember that? They're Duganists.
	Oh. That's Putin disinfo.
	Don't give a rat's ass about that.
	Again, they knew back in 2016, during the 2016 elections, if you think the FBI doesn't know that their Russia story was all hype and total nonsense, it's all us, not Russians, and we're not going to stop.
	They tell you it's hysteria.
	It's not real.
	They point out the real network.
	Mackie. Makani.
	Brower. MAGA 3X. Not Russians.
	Not Russian misinformation or disinformation or foreign maligned disinformation.
	Chris Ray is a joke.
	He's a bad joke.
	If you ever thought Chris Ray was on your side, I'm sorry.
	Extremely gullible.
	Just like if you ever thought Bill Barr was on your side, I'm sorry, extremely gullible.
	I hope that this is a life lesson.
	It needs to be. All right, let's continue on.
	Our social media platforms, which is something that is not seriously in dispute.
	I have to stop you for time.
	That's not accurate. You need to read this court opinion because you're in charge of enforcing it.
	The court has found that...
	And Elvis Chan testified under oath in charge of this for you.
	He said 50%.
	He had a 50% success rate in having alleged election disinformation taken down or censored.
	That wasn't just foreign adversaries, sir.
	That was American citizens.
	How do you answer for that? Well, first off, I'm not sure that's the correct characterization.
	I'm not sure.
	It's my understanding that.
	I would disagree with the context.
	like every time Since they don't do it directly and they only make suggestions, he has his plausible deniability baked in.
	See how that works?
	He has what?
	Plausible deniability baked in.
	Okay. Let's get to who's next.
	Hunt versus Ray.
	Next up. President Biden's home, however, was respectfully browsed.
	President Trump is facing up to 400 years in federal prison for allegedly being in possession of classified documents he obtained as the commander-in-chief of these United States of America.
	And meanwhile, President Biden is facing no charges for the classified documents he had held at his time as a senator and a vice president, not the president of these United States of America.
	And last I checked, he had no legal authority to declassify those documents.
	Assuming President Trump was in possession of said classified documents, would those documents be more secure, surrounded by Secret Service at Mar-a-Lago, or in a box, in a garage, behind your Corvette?
	No, they answered that question.
	Question for you, sir. What can you tell us about the status of the FBI's investigation of President Biden's classified documents found next to- He won't be able to comment on ongoing investigations, obviously.
	He's Chris Wray. He's got a furrowed brow.
	His Corvette in Delaware and those found at the Penn Biden Center.
	Do we have an update on that, sir?
	What I can tell you is that there is an ongoing special counsel investigation led by Mr.
	Robert Herr and we have FBI agents affiliated with it, working on it, working very actively and aggressively with him on that case.
	And I'm telling you right now, I think that that's going to be the takedown of Biden.
	I think that right now that they're doing this in a manner that will be just enough to get him to step down and never really criminally charge him.
	And it'll be excuse after excuse after excuse.
	So this is the cover-up crew in action right now as we speak in real time.
	I obviously disagree with your description of the two standards.
	In my view, we, at least under my watch, we have one standard, and that is we're going to pursue the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it.
	And I add that last part, because especially in sensitive investigations, Almost by definition, somebody's not going to like it.
	I understand, and that's actually why I live with the sentiment of the American people.
	I understand that's your sentiment.
	I do want to finish this.
	So I want everybody to talk about this dichotomy that we have seen.
	I get your point, sir, but that's just not what we see as the public, as we the people.
	We see one case being fast-tracked and one case being slow-walked.
	We see one president's home being raided, the other president's home being kindly searched.
	You have one government agency, the Secret Service, protecting the former president and his home, and another government agency, the FBI, raiding the same home.
	Now, to me, sir, that's tragically ironic.
	And we expect more from a functional constitutional republic, and these things shouldn't be happening.
	Now, it's my opinion.
	Joe Biden is the most unpopular president we have seen in a century, and that's why he knows the only way to stop President Trump from beating him in November is by putting him in jail.
	Dude, he's the most popular president.
	81 million, baby.
	How dare you allude to the fact that people don't like a poopy pants puppet zombie supposedly running the show with his crackhead son running around.
	It doesn't get any more American than that.
	Duh. How dare you insinuate otherwise?
	You talked about this, Mr. Fry.
	In the 247 years of this existence of this great nation, only one president has ever been indicted by the DOJ and is homerated by the FBI. Now, some have said that President Trump's indictment means that no one is above the law.
	Okay. All right.
	I would love to see that.
	But what about Hillary Clinton?
	And what about Joe Biden?
	And what about Hunter Biden, who is America's favorite son?
	Let me tell you something. I got a four-year-old daughter and a two-year-old daughter at my house.
	Hunter Biden to me is like glitter.
	He is on everything and you cannot get rid of him.
	And yet nothing is going to be done about this.
	We're sick of it. Not only is nothing going to be done about it, they tried to reshape that guy's public persona as an artist victim.
	As an artist victim.
	Making jokes about searching for crack and smoking Parmesan cheese that he thought was crack cocaine that he picked up out of rugs.
	That's what they're telling you.
	James Comey decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton despite overwhelming evidence that she committed crimes.
	And as I recall, it was the position of the FBI to not prosecute because they didn't want to interfere with the presidential election.
	What do you call this?
	The Iowa caucuses are in six months.
	Six months. I think the American public would expect to see this from Cuba and from Venezuela and from Russia and from China, but not here.
	The people expect us to have blind justice.
	They expect equal justice under the law.
	I don't know that Americans that have been paying attention expect that.
	A lot of Hopiates out there might expect that.
	Might even think it's actually going to take place.
	Sorry. This is what's on display for the rest of us.
	This is the Cockshore cover-up crew letting you know who's in charge.
	It's not the job of the DOJ or the FBI to prosecute Joe Biden's top political opponent who is leading in every single primary poll, and the Iowa caucuses are in six months.
	Let the people decide.
	It's our job to uphold the Constitution.
	As a West Point grad and military veteran, this is the Constitution I give my life to protect, and I expect us all to uphold it likewise.
	Thank you. Christopher Ray.
	We've got more.
	Don't worry. We've got it.
	Let's do it!
	Right now, I think this is Troy Nels, and he's going to be talking to Ray about Ray Epps.
	Get it? Ray and Ray?
	The Ray Days! Here we go.
	We need to go into the Capitol.
	Into the Capitol. Into the Capitol.
	What? We are going to the Capitol where our problems are.
	It's that direction.
	Please spread the word.
	All right. No, David, one more thing.
	Yeah, so can we go up there? No?
	When we go in... Are we gonna get arrested?
	Can we go up there? We don't need to get shot.
	There he is, breaching the line, going in at the first breach into the Capitol grounds,
	Mr. Ray, you have arrested hundreds of people related to January 6th.
	And there have been people arrested for breaching Capitol grounds.
	Cooey Griffin is an example.
	Rachel Genko is an example.
	And then we go to Mr. Brandon Stretka.
	Brandon was arrested for disorderly and disruptive conduct, which included yelling, I quote, go, go, go, as rioters tried to empty the Capitol.
	These three never went into the Capitol.
	They never assaulted anyone.
	So let's be honest with each other.
	There is very little difference between the actions of Ray Epps and Brandon Stricka that day, but yet Stricka was arrested and Epps wasn't.
	Epps also testified to the January 6th committee.
	He was back at his hotel when video evidence showed that he wasn't.
	He lied. He was on the Capitol grounds just as Brandon Stricker was.
	Epps even texted his nephew at 2.12 p.m.
	and said, I quote, I was in the front with a few others.
	It was on the video.
	I also orchestrated it.
	Now look into the camera, sir, when you answer my next question.
	Are you going to arrest Mr.
	Epps, yes or no?
	I'm not going to engage here in a discussion about individual people who are or aren't under investigation.
	So in other words, it doesn't even have to be a pending criminal investigation.
	Just Ray Epps is this sacred cow.
	We're not going to make comments on it.
	Doesn't matter what he's on video doing.
	When I get a commitment, you just watch the video.
	I'm an old law dog.
	I understand a little bit about probable cause.
	He did very little, there was very little difference what he did, and Mr.
	Streka, you can see him.
	He's encouraging, I almost think he's in sight in a riot.
	He's encouraging people the night prior to go into the Capitol.
	The day of, go into the Capitol.
	And he was at the first breach, and he breached the restricted area.
	Everybody, a lot of people getting arrested for not going into the Capitol.
	But you're in the restricted area.
	But yet, Ray Epps, who many people feel, fed, fed, fed, right?
	And there's a lot of clout over this.
	So my point is this.
	You arrested a lot of folks for unlawful activity.
	You just saw the video.
	And I will tell you, Mr. Ray, if you don't arrest Mr.
	Epps, there's a reason behind it.
	I believe you know what it is.
	And it appears to me you are protecting this guy.
	I strongly recommend you get your house back in order.
	With that, I yield back. Mr.
	Chairman, if I might briefly.
	Gentlemen, we're responding. We've got a couple point of orders.
	It has never been appropriate for an FBI director in congressional testimony to be weighing in on who is or isn't going to be arrested.
	That's ridiculous.
	Like he's literally saying to you, I don't ever have to answer this question because it's inappropriate.
	My agency and what it's doing is none of your damn business.
	And how I direct it is none of your damn business because it's inappropriate.
	I'm the boss here.
	I'm the boss. It doesn't matter what video evidence you show.
	I'm the boss. I'm Chris Wray.
	And who is or isn't going to get charged with a prosecutor's decision?
	If you are suggesting that the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources or FBI agents, the answer is no, it was not.
	And to suggest otherwise is a disservice to our hardworking, dedicated law enforcement profession.
	Can I respond to that now that...
	The point is, he was number 16 on your list.
	He was 16 on your list.
	You never arrested him. Hundreds of Americans were arrested.
	Shame on you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for unanimous consent.
	Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent for all members have five legislative days to submit any additional materials as well as any questions for the record for the director and I would hope that those questions for the record we would submit would receive more timely responses than some of our letters have.
	I would further seek unanimous consent.
	That the WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden I used earlier in the hearing be submitted for the record.
	Without objection, the gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request that an article from the Daily Mail dated today with the headline, January 6th Protester Ray Epps reveals he's forced to live in an RV in hiding after death threats over FBI informant conspiracy.
	Feds confirm he's never worked for them as he slams right-wing theorists using...
	So again, the feds have said, we don't know the guy.
	We've never worked with the guy.
	They're allowed to say whatever they want.
	And Chris Ray right here is going to tell you again, I'm not sure if this is just a repeat of what was said right there, I think this is a different clip, that just no, we were not involved at all.
	Thanks here, and please don't distract here because we're focusing on those who were there in an undercover capacity on January 6th.
	How many were there? Again, I'm not sure that I can give you that number as I sit here.
	I'm not sure there were undercover agents on scene.
	I'm not sure there were undercover agents on scene.
	So, I'm not going to give you any numbers, and then I'm going to allude to the non-fact that there were no federal agents on the scene.
	This is the complete antithesis, the complete opposite of what the Tuckins just told Russell Brand, that Stephen Sund, the head of the Capitol Police, said that they were crawling, crawling with federal agents on Crawling with undercover federal agents.
	But again, he's using semantics.
	He's not saying that they weren't there.
	It's his understanding, and he's just not sure.
	He's just not sure.
	So everybody thinks that if he perjured himself, he didn't.
	He's always gotten out.
	He's a lawyer. He's always gotten out.
	I find that kind of a remarkable statement, Director.
	At this point, you don't know whether there were undercover federal agents, FBI agents, in the crowd or in the Capitol on January 6th?
	I say that because I want to be very careful.
	There have been a number of court filings related to some of these topics, and I want to make sure that I stick with them.
	I understand that, but I thought I heard you say you didn't know You did.
	He said he's not sure, so he doesn't know.
	He's not sure.
	He can't be certain. Human sources in the Capitol or in the vicinity on January 6th.
	Did I misunderstand you?
	I thought that's what you said. Well, I referred very specifically to undercover agents.
	Yeah. Yes. I referred very specifically to undercover agents.
	I'm not so sure there were any undercover agents.
	So now we're talking about the plausible deniability of assets or informants.
	And you can bet there are agents there too.
	But, I mean, look at that smug look on this dude's face.
	I rarely, rarely dedicate so much time to one hearing or one incident or one person.
	Chris Ray, you earned it, bro.
	You earned it today.
	Ain't no doubt. We got more Ray clips after this one.
	I think we have the extended Massey Ray clip.
	Hopefully there's not a lot of overlap there.
	We've also got a clip after this one runs through, I'm going to put it under there right now, that, you know, he admits that Biden's under investigation, but once again, just by admitting that, then you don't have to say anything else.
	Then you're just like, well, we can't comment.
	Can't comment on ongoing investigations.
	Okay. All right.
	And so are you acknowledging then there were undercover agents...
	As I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on scene.
	As I sit here right now, it's my belief.
	It's my understanding.
	It's my belief.
	Again, you can believe anything you want.
	It doesn't make it a factual statement.
	So here he is talking about the fact that the Bidens are under investigation.
	Did Joe Biden take payments As you may know, there is an ongoing investigation being led by the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, Mr. Weiss, appointed by President Trump in the last administration.
	That our Baltimore field office is working with, and I would refer you to him as to what, if anything, can be shared.
	So the president is under investigation?
	I'm not going to confirm or speak to who is or isn't under investigation for what.
	So he's not under investigation?
	I didn't say that either.
	By long-standing department policy and practice, I'm not going to be confirming or denying who is or isn't under investigation.
	It's a long-standing practice.
	We've got long-standing practices here.
	That's how it works. Did I mention it's a long-standing practice?
	Oh, boy.
	Here's Daryl Issa and a short clip with him and Ray ducking questions.
	Shocking. How many individuals were either FBI employees or people that the FBI had made contact with were in the January 6th entry of the Capitol and surrounding area?
	So I really need to be careful here talking about where we have or have not used confidential human sources.
	Was there one or more individuals that would fit that description on January 6th that were in or around the Capitol?
	100%. 100% in or around the Capitol.
	100%. I believe there is a filing in one of the January 6th cases that can provide a little more information about this, and I'm happy to see if we can follow back up with you.
	I just want an answer.
	Was there one or more? I mean, you would know if there was at least one individual who worked for the FBI who entered the Capitol on that day.
	I can't. Again, I just can't speak to that here, but I'm happy to get the court filing.
	Look, it's been two years.
	And you're now come before us.
	The gentleman asks these questions, makes all kinds of insinuations.
	Two and a half years.
	Okay, two and a half.
	And you nod your head yes, and then I ask you simply, was there one or more?
	And you won't answer that.
	So I'm going to make the assumption that there was more than one, more than five, more than ten, and that you're ducking.
	Well, you're certainly welcome to make any assumptions you want, but I'm not so sure.
	...the question because you don't want to answer for the fact that you had at least one and somehow missed understanding that some of the individuals were very dangerous and that there were others inciting individuals to enter the Capitol after others broke windows.
	So I'm just gonna move on.
	I'm just gonna move on because we're not getting an answer.
	Okay? We're not getting an answer.
	That's how it goes.
	Okay. I believe I have the Massey versus Ray.
	And there may be some overlap here.
	I'm not 100% sure.
	But when I first watched this clip, it was different than the Jim Jordan one.
	So here we go. In my remaining minute, I want to turn to another issue.
	George Hill, former FBI supervisory intelligence analyst in the Boston field office, told us...
	That the Bank of America, with no legal process...
	So once again, this is that end where he talks about the personal data and the guns, and Ray talks about the possible criminal activity.
	Okay? So there's about a minute overlap here, but there's some stuff afterwards we're definitely going to want to watch.
	...was gave to the FBI gun purchase records...
	With no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a Bank of America customer, is that true?
	Well, what I do know is that a number of business community partners all the time, including financial institutions, share information with us about possible criminal activity, and my understanding is that that's fully lawful.
	Did you ask for that information?
	In the specific instance that you're asking about, my understanding is that that information was shared with field offices for information only, but then recalled to avoid even the appearance of Of any kind of overreach.
	But my understanding is that that's a fully lawful process.
	Was there a warrant involved?
	Again, my understanding is that the institution in question shared information with us, as happens all the time.
	Did you request the information?
	I can't speak to the specifics.
	Okay, well we've got an email where it says the FBI did give the search queries to Bank of America.
	And Bank of America responded to the FBI and gave over this information without a search warrant.
	Do you believe there's any limitation on your ability to obtain gun purchase data or purchase information for people who aren't suspects from banks without a warrant?
	Well, now you're asking a legal question, which I would prefer to defer to the lawyers, since I'm not practicing as one right now, including the department.
	But what I will tell you is that my understanding is that the process by which we receive information from business community partners across a wide variety of industries, including financial institutions, sharing information with us About possible criminal activity.
	About possible criminal activity.
	I mean, again, possible criminal activity.
	Legally owning a gun.
	And what guns you purchased with your bank account.
	Is possible criminal activity.
	To these people it is.
	Because you're the criminal all the time.
	You're the domestic terrorist all the time.
	You're the one that's opposing their great narrative.
	Federal law. Maybe lawful, but it's not constitutional.
	I yield back. The gentleman yields back.
	Did the FBI ask financial institutions to turn over their customers' debit and credit card purchase history in the Washington, D.C. area for January 5th and 6th, 2021?
	I don't know the answer to that as I sit here right now.
	Well, we do. Because Bank of America gave her this email from the FBI to Bank of America.
	Well, I am aware that Bank of America provided information to the FBI, but what communications occurred between the FBI and Bank of America about it?
	Let's read it. To recap our morning call, we are prepared to action the following threshold.
	Customers transacting debit card, credit card, Washington, D.C. purchases between 1-5-21, 1-6-21.
	That's scary enough.
	But then the next bullet point's even more scary.
	Any... Any historical, capital letters, all capitals, any historical purchase of a firearm.
	You guys asked, financial, it's at least Bank of America.
	We think more. Did you guys ask him?
	Again, I don't have the full sequence of the back and forth.
	You've got one, looks like you've got one email that I haven't seen before here.
	He just, he doesn't, he hasn't seen the emails.
	He's not aware of the footage.
	He doesn't know about the agents and assets.
	He can't talk about this.
	He can't talk about that.
	I mean, I get the frustration from those of which that go, well, nothing's gonna be done to this guy.
	You're right. You're right, and I'm telling you, man, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel.
	Maybe, maybe, and it's a huge maybe.
	Somehow, someway, you get the trump and sauce back in there.
	Maybe, maybe there's some criminal prosecutions.
	But you can't expect them to be going to prison in the way that they should.
	I mean, even look at Michael Flynn.
	They wanted to put Flynn in jail really, really bad.
	Really, really bad.
	And he fought tooth and nail.
	They smeared him.
	Obviously, it was quote-unquote trumped-up charges.
	Yucca, yucca, yucca. And they were only able to go after him so much, right?
	Roger Stone, however, they were able to convict in a court of law and try to put him in prison.
	Again, dealing with WikiLeaks, and I've got a WikiLeaks piece that we're certainly going to play.
	I think that's coming up next.
	We're going to do that with Glenn Greenwald discussing the fact that...
	All charges need to be dropped.
	He needs to be let out of Belmar's prison.
	And the bottom line is they don't really want to try that guy.
	They want him to die in prison so that they have an example to set and say, hey, you do this.
	We don't even have to take you to trial.
	We're going to torture you for a decade.
	We're going to put you in unlivable conditions at the very end.
	And we're going to hope you take your own life.
	Or you just die on your own from the unhealthiness of the things going on in prison.
	No big deal. Do I have the full exchange?
	Well, does this email trouble you as much as it does members of the Judiciary Committee?
	That the FBI is asking for every single...
	I mean, we had members of Congress here that week.
	First time they're getting sworn in is a new member of Congress, their family in town, and you're sweeping...
	And they may happen to be a customer of Bank of America, and you're sweeping up every debit
	and credit card purchase of their family who were in town that week because their husband
	or their dad or their mom is getting sworn in as a new member of Congress?
	And then you're also saying, overlaying that information with, did this person buy a firearm?
	And the question is?
	I'm just nervous about that.
	Are you nervous about that?
	As I think I've testified before, my understanding is that our engagement with Bank of America was fully lawful, but that we recalled the leads that were cut to field offices.
	This whole thing of, yes, everything was lawful, but, you know, at the end of the day, we recalled that, no, you've had the information.
	You've had systems in place of large-scale data collection.
	Large-scale. And this, honestly, isn't even that large-scale because it's honed in.
	It's laser-focused via one bank.
	But don't think the Bank of America is the only one doing this sort of thing.
	It's not even close. That was my next point.
	If it's lawful, why did you say we're not going to use these leads?
	That's what Mr. Jensen testified to when we deposed him, the director of the terrorism unit at the FBI. That's what he testified to.
	Why did you not use the leads if it was lawful to get the information?
	Chairman, it's one minute and 18 seconds over time.
	Look at Nadler just jump right in.
	Nadler, you shut your mouth, Jordan.
	You shut your mouth.
	I look like the damn penguin.
	Sir, there are plenty of times where there are things that we lawfully can do, but that we decide is better that we not do.
	And I think that's what happens. The idea that Mr.
	Massey said earlier, that this is lawful, that you can ask this, is scary.
	This is something else we're going to have to change.
	With that, I would yield in my remains.
	It's not constitutional by any means.
	It's against the Constitution.
	Therefore, for is it really lawful?
	No. All right.
	This is a...
	Mainstream media. Of course, it's outside of the United States.
	I think it's a Canadian broadcast.
	It might be BBC. It might be CBC. But they're talking about Assange.
	And don't get me wrong, they've got their ridiculous talking points in here where they say, well, didn't his information put lives at risk?
	Shouldn't we be charging him with this espionage act?
	The answer, quite frankly, is no.
	Family and supporters of the detained WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are refusing to give up their fight to stop his extradition to the U.S., despite losing another legal appeal in a London court recently.
	Assange's wife Stella and children were granted a private audience with the Pope at the Vatican on Friday as she leads the campaign for her husband's release.
	She has exhausted virtually all legal avenues of appeal.
	Assange is wanted by U.S. authorities on 18 criminal counts after WikiLeaks published thousands of classified documents and diplomatic cables in 2010 and 2011.
	His supporters see his prosecution Totally full of shizzle.
	Yeah, the lives that are being put in danger are those of the establishment and their cronies in the predator class that are committing war crimes.
	So why hasn't the U.S. dropped the charges and what will this mean for other journalists?
	To answer these questions, we've reached Glenn Greenwald.
	He's an independent journalist and the host of System Update on Rumble.
	We've reached him in Rio.
	Thank you for joining us today.
	Thank you for having me. A lot of people have been urging the U.S. to drop the charges against Julian Assange and recently even the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, said there is no point in this continued prosecution.
	So why hasn't the U.S. dropped these charges?
	Yeah, it's a very good question.
	Literally every major press freedom and civil liberties group in the West, often which agree on very little, have united to urge the Biden administration to do so on the grounds it's the gravest threat to press freedom in the West.
	The history of the U.S. security state, the CIA, and the NSA and Homeland Security is very much that if somebody exposes their secrets, even when those secrets are evidence of crimes or other deceit and corruption, as is the case here, they want to punish the person to the fullest extent to really destroy them, mostly as an example to warn others that if they discover evidence of criminality and are thinking about doing the same thing, their lives will also be destroyed.
	So I think letting Julian come be free, even though he spent almost a decade in captivity of various forms, would be just simply too much for them from that perspective.
	And I'm going to say it again.
	They want him dead. They want that example to be F around, find out, and die in squalor in a prison.
	Now, the U.S. is saying that Assange put many people's lives at risk by publishing the leaked documents.
	What do you think of that argument?
	I would challenge anybody who believes that to identify even a single person that has ever been put in harm's way as a result of these publications.
	This is what the U.S. government says in every instance where someone comes forward and blows the whistle on their conduct.
	They said that about the great Pentagon Papers whistleblower, Daniel Goldsberg, who just recently passed away.
	They said that about my source, Edward Snowden, when he gave us the material to report on the NSA that won the Pulitzer Prize.
	They say it in every instance, and yet when pressed on specifics, they can never claim who it was who's harmed because the reality, the only people who are harmed from these kind of revelations Are the people in power whose crimes have been exposed?
	It wasn't like the names of any covert agents got exposed or anything like that.
	WikiGeeks has always been very careful with the information it releases.
	They worked with The New York Times and The Guardian to do it.
	So it's just a way of trying to demonize people who expose their corruption and their deceit.
	So by prosecuting Assange under the Espionage Act, what message is the U.S. sending to journalists around the world?
	It's interesting, when the indictment was first unveiled under the Trump administration, I wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post warning that this would put investigative journalists at risk all over the world.
	Two months later, I was contacted by a source who enabled me to do some extremely earth-shattering reporting here in Brazil that led to the release from prison of the current president, Lula da Silva.
	And when Brazilian prosecutors tried to prosecute me for that reporting unsuccessfully, they used the template That the United States was using against Assange, because the theory is that if you work with your source to help them avoid detection, or you encourage them to get additional information, which every good journalist not only will do, but has to do, should do, that's your ethical obligation, they're trying to criminalize the heart of investigative journalism.
	And that's why even people who dislike Assange politically are so concerned about the press freedom implications of this prosecution.
	They have weaponized the justice system against whistleblowers, journalists, and those that would simply put out or quote-unquote leak valid, legitimate, real information.
	Now, does it make a difference that some people may not view Assange as a journalist?
	They might view him as either a troublemaker or someone who deals in stolen or illegal documents.
	In your view, does he qualify as a journalist?
	Well, I would hope that all journalists on some level are troublemakers.
	That's kind of our job, is to create problems for people in power by telling the public things they want to hide.
	And some of the best reporting, in fact, if you could pick up, if you pick up The New York Times, The Washington Post, if you listen to the CBC, if you read The Guardian or the BBC, every day there's information that is in some way stolen.
	Sources come forward and give us classified information that the government says.
	That's the stuff of investigative reporting.
	So if somebody now becomes a quote-unquote non-journalist because their source has taken information and given it to them against the law, that means most journalists are now non-journalists.
	And that's the reason why this precedent would be so threatening.
	And the other thing I would say is the Constitution of the United States protects not a special class of people called journalists.
	It protects the act of journalism.
	You know, back when the Constitution was enacted, ordinary citizens like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine, they weren't professional journalists.
	They were using the printing press to warn against the abuses of the British Crown.
	It's the activity of journalism that is protected, not a special privileged group of people called journalists.
	And before we go, you've gotten to know Julian Assange over the years.
	How would you describe his current mood and how is he holding out?
	You know, his own doctors have said that he is on the verge of both physical and mental collapse after all this time.
	I remember before he even went to prison, he spent eight years inside the Ecuadorian embassy where he had asylum because the Ecuadorians feared the U.S. would try to do this.
	He hadn't seen sunlight. He hadn't gone outside.
	And the prison he's in is no joke.
	It's called the British Guantanamo.
	It's where they put terrorism And that was originally why the judge ruled that Assange was not going to be extradited.
	That changed pretty quick, didn't it?
	Changed pretty quick. All they had to do...
	We're gonna make sure that he doesn't take his own life.
	We're gonna make sure that he doesn't have that No big deal.
	No big deal. We've talked quite a bit today about narrative control and management.
	There was a clip yesterday that I wanted to play.
	Couldn't play in the first hour.
	It's something that would get me kicked off of YouTube.
	I want to warn people that the audio quality on this thing goes up and down in a big pain in the ass.
	I know a lot of you see me right here going up and down with the volume, but this is a cut-together clip.
	of a bunch of narrative control monsters and there are certain parts that are super low.
	I'll apologize for that in advance.
	It's about a six and a half minute compilation and it's a powerful one.
	So here we go. Conspiracy narratives.
	We try to really limit our use of the word conspiracy theory to particular allegations that someone is behind this, that there is a person behind a curtain, there is a cabal, there is a group of people who are doing a thing to a community.
	We also face a new threat that the next epidemic has a good chance of originating on a computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus or a contagious and highly deadly strain of flu.
	So the point is that we ignore the strong link between health security and international security at our peril.
	Whether it occurs by the quirk of nature or at the hand of a terrorist, epidemiologists show through their models that a respiratory spread pathogen would kill more than 30 million people in less than a year.
	And there is a reasonable probability of that taking place in the years ahead.
	Bioterrorism is a threat.
	It's very, very difficult when you have to prepare for something that might not ever happen.
	So I have been very much involved in the preparedness for biodefense by developing vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics for the category A and B agents that are of the highest calculated risk by our Homeland Security officials.
	And so we try to keep that terminology quite distinct.
	And so for this, you get it again, the lab leak hypothesis doesn't count as a conspiracy theory.
	There is some argument about its plausibility.
	The vaccine is a bioweapon.
	The lab leak was deliberate because the Chinese government wanted this in the world.
	That's where we get into the realm of conspiracy theory.
	And we try to differentiate a little bit on this because there's different ways to respond in terms of how communities process their information.
	Hi, everyone. My name is Andy Carvin, and I'm Managing Editor at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab.
	It's my pleasure to welcome you virtually to our conversation, Weaponized, Understanding the COVID-19 Narrative Arms Race.
	Today's event is hosted by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, or DFR Lab.
	The DFR Lab exists at the intersection of government, media, and technology, and works to ensure accountability and transparency online and around the world.
	The team... Once again, look how unimpressive these people are.
	I mean, this guy's reading off a script and he can barely do so.
	And notice this woman. You're not allowed to talk about it being a bioweapon.
	Again, doesn't matter if it was from a lab.
	Doesn't matter if it had HIV. You're allowed to talk a little bit about maybe it could have been a leak.
	But you can't say it was purposely put out there by the Chinese government.
	Forget about talking about a cabal.
	That was referenced earlier, right?
	And it is a cabal outside of a nation-state.
	That's the reality.
	...promotes objective fact as a foundation of government for and by people and protects democratic institutions and norms from those who...
	Democratic institutions and norms.
	Is the FBI a democratic institution?
	Because you sure hold water for them.
	The CIA? Democratic institution?
	NSA? Democratic institution?
	Or are they just norms?
	undermine them online.
	Today we're going to be discussing the findings of our recent report, Weaponized, which takes a look at narratives that spread around the world last year regarding the possibility that COVID-19 had somehow been created as a biological weapon or purposely released on an unsuspecting public.
	So this research is biodefense.
	It was funded explicitly as biodefense.
	It is listed as biodefense research on NIAID websites and NIAID appropriations.
	It identifies bioweapons agents and those bioweapons agents inherently pose both materials risk of accidental release or deliberate release and information risks of copycat.
	These are really important questions, not least because this kind of research continues Including in laboratories that many scientists say are totally inadequate for preventing another pandemic.
	So I think what we're looking at, just to put a fine point on it, is that we may be in the process of creating future pandemics from lab leaks And in part because there has been so much resistance and cover-up of what U.S. government has funded in the past in China in terms of doing this coronavirus research to make the virus more infectious.
	So I kind of can't think of a more shocking scandal.
	And I think that it's time for Congress to act because it's clear that the Biden administration and the intelligence community is intent on continuing with this cover-up They are the cover-up crew.
	Of course they're intent on it.
	Dr. Fauci was dishonest to Congress when he was asked about gain-of-function research being funded by the NIH. And he also was apparently involved in Evergrande, the Chinese company, trying to give a donation to Harvard Medical School at the same time that scientists were discussing the origins of the virus.
	Yet, Dr. Fauci has just been hired on at Georgetown University as a distinguished professor.
	Why is academia so intent on protecting someone who Well, exactly.
	I mean, I think that the academics have been part of the disinformation campaign, attacking the lab leak, part of the censorship.
	And I just want to make a point here because I think that there's so many things that have happened in the last few years, even the last few months.
	That this term conspiracy theorist has been thrown around.
	I think it's worth reminding ourselves how many conspiracies have been proven.
	So we know that they covered up evidence of a lab leak.
	They framed Trump as a Russian asset.
	That Joe Biden's family was involved in influence peddling.
	We know that there was Pentagon cover-up of UFO evidence, as confirmed by Senator Marco Rubio.
	We know there was a disinformation campaign around Hunter Biden's laptop.
	We now know the World Health Organization is indeed trying to seize excess powers.
	And we know there was an effort to censor disfavored voices.
	So after you see so many of these conspiracies, which is the proper definition of them, proven true, I think that if you're not a conspiracy theorist, if you're not considering the ways in which government officials have been secretly acting against the public interest, then you're either a dupe or perhaps a propagandist for the continued cover-up of those conspiracies.
	For me, that's the big takeaway from this event is that we should be more impatient and angry and distrustful of these government officials given how many conspiracies have been proven in recent months.
	Boom! Boom!
	100%. Alright, we've got a few other stories here that I did want to hit on in the final few minutes.
	Tens of millions of Americans' private details compromised after three major tax preparation companies accused of sharing information with Google and Meta, H&R Block Tax Act, and TaxSlayer used tracking technology embedded in websites to share information.
	No kidding.
	Listen, if it's out there, if you're using the web, you are vulnerable.
	Period. Amen.
	You are vulnerable.
	Period. Amen.
	That's the reality.
	Biden's Commerce Secretary emails hacked by Chinese spies.
	I'm not even sure that this is Chinese spies, but every time I hear cyber espionage and cloud accounts, etc., etc., and we're talking about the government, I cannot reiterate enough why it is so important to That you only utilize cloud technologies and the internet as a tool and you must realize that anything that you do on a device that is connected to the internet can in fact be hacked and anything you do on your device Okay, that is connected to the internet, whether or not it is on the internet.
	So in other words, you got Photoshop.
	I save directly to a hard drive.
	Okay, that's what I do. By saving directly to a hard drive, I know I have a hard copy.
	I don't have to insure on the cloud, but at the same time, I'm not an idiot.
	And I know that through back doors, you can still get access to my hard drives.
	That's an issue, right?
	That's a problem. The only way to ensure that your stuff cannot be taken is to literally do your work on a device that is not online.
	Obviously, that's not possible for doing a live broadcast worldwide that I am spitting out to several formats.
	No. My web browsing history, all that, the saves, etc.
	Now, at the same time, I also...
	I'm a big advocate of things like Dropbox.
	It's a great tool. Google Drive is out there, but it's work.
	I don't put anything on Dropbox out there that I wouldn't want in the public arena.
	In other words, if there's something that's just so private, why would I put it in Dropbox?
	Now, I'm not...
	You know, Danny D picks or any of that kind of thing.
	But at the same time, I like a semblance of anonymity and freedom when it comes to my content, period.
	So it's not, you know, again, go look at my social media platforms.
	It's not selfies. It's not family stuff.
	It's news, news, news, news.
	It shows, shows, shows, shows.
	And it's fighting the That being said, we are on the final minute of the broadcast.
	And I want to let everybody know that I am a documentary filmmaker and that all of my films are, in fact, free.
	Loose Change Final Cut, Fabled Enemies, Invisible Empire, A New World Order to Find and Shade the Motion Picture.
	You can support this broadcast from...
	By going to redvoicemedia.com.
	Redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
	Sign up for a buck today. Get that first week for a buck this weekend.
	What's it going to be? Nick Bryant, the guy behind the Franklin scandal and publishing the Epstein Black Book.
	And then my friend Chad Lavrow, who was at the Capitol on January 6th giving us his first-hand account.
	Guys, I absolutely love you.
	Stick around. Chad Canton and I'm fired up.

▲