Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 4, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:57:15

The Raw Deal (3 June 2022) with Danny Cirrus and Brian Davidson

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Help!
	Help me if you can, I feel it now.
	I love to appreciate being right now.
	Help me get my feet back on the ground.
	Won't you please help me?
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
	And we're all needing help today.
	I had a late one on this Real Deal Media with Dean Ryan, and it was a sensational show.
	Check it out if you can.
	They haven't had me singing the Beatles songs, which of course I love as a huge fan.
	I used to have a show where I began with Day Tripper, every single show I did, and then I would have the Beatles during the breaks, and I'd go on from there.
	I've done a Beatles tribute that I'd love to get on the air.
	I'm hoping we're going to be joined by Danny Suras today, give us the benefit of his expertise about what's been going on here.
	Biden, meanwhile, is claiming he doesn't seek NATO-Russian war regime change in Moscow, even though he said these things, made himself look like a complete idiot.
	As long as the United States or our allies are not attacked, he says, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, either by sending American troops to fight or by attacking Russian forces.
	But he's already engaged because he is sending weapons.
	Well, he insists he doesn't want war with Russia.
	He's also decided to give Ukraine more advanced rocket systems and munitions, likely a reference to the multiple-launch rocket system Ukraine has been requesting for months.
	They're capable of firing rockets up to 190 miles, but the White House has said it won't send long-range rockets capable of striking Russian territory.
	Instead, they're going to receive munition that could hit targets that 40 miles.
	The MS-77 howitzers the U.S.
	has provided Ukraine are capable of hitting targets about 15.
	What in the world does he think he's doing?
	You cannot be providing weapons to an enemy and consider yourself not to be a coal belligerent.
	After this, as a co-belligerent, Russia has every entitlement to strike the United States, and Biden is just putting our head in the guillotine.
	It's absolutely embarrassing.
	Unreal.
	Even after three months, the Biden admin has shown little interest in pushing for negotiations to end the fighting and has banned diplomacy.
	This weapon is pretty formidable that's being sent.
	It's a medium-range rocket system, part of a new 700 million security assistant package, which has run well into the billions, providing with more weapons.
	A high-tech, lightweight rocket launcher, wheel-mounted, giving it more agility and maneuverability.
	Each can carry six GPS-guided rockets, which can be reloaded in about a minute with only a small crew.
	Considered more reliable than other systems the Ukrainian forces are using.
	Unclear how many they're going to send to us.
	Well, I'm delighted to say that Danny Siris has been able to join us.
	And Danny, I'm just talking about Now, Biden's sending all these weapons to Ukraine, but wants to pretend that the United States is not at war with Russia.
	What are your thoughts?
	Hello, sir.
	Can you hear me okay?
	Very good.
	Yeah, much better than usual, Danny.
	Go.
	Well, as usual, I think he's lost his mind.
	I mean, he's getting involved in something he shouldn't get involved in.
	You know, I'm not sure exactly what what they're thinking at this point other than causing World War three but they're doing seems like they're doing everything they can To draw us into into that war by providing those particular weapons.
	I think that's just absolutely ludicrous, sir But anyway, I just think that's absolutely ludicrous, and I don't know what the U.S.
	is thinking.
	I mean, it's just one more example of they've lost their mind.
	I don't know what else to say on that.
	Danny, it's absolutely incredible.
	I mean, Russia has weapons.
	They're even being very emphatic about warning the West of the devastation they can provoke.
	We know they have a sub off the East Coast with a single dirty bomb that could wipe out our entire financial structure, make it uninhabitable for over 250 years.
	What does that do to the United States of America?
	We know they have the Satan II.
	One of as many as 15 multiple independent reentry vehicles that are massive.
	They've even test fired them to convey the message to the United States that this is unacceptable, and that if they're provoked into a war, they are well prepared to defend themselves.
	And it seems to me that's precisely what we are doing, provoking them into a war.
	Four of these missiles could decapitate the United States.
	Most population in most countries are along the coastlines.
	They could take out the entire East Coast with two and the entire West with two more.
	Danny, it's just inviting a suicidal exchange.
	And I guarantee you, the Russians are far better prepared to defeat any of our missiles coming toward them than we are to prepare their missiles coming toward us.
	Well, you know, I do believe that.
	I don't think at this time, I'm not sure if Putin is prepared to hit the United States, but I definitely don't like the fact that they're sending those over there.
	I'm not sure what their technology is, but I'd be willing to bet that they have something to counter.
	That particular missile system should be in use.
	I wouldn't be surprised if we hear that that new system ends up getting struck one way or another by one of their weapons.
	We'll have to wait and see what happens, I suppose.
	Danny, I'm just stunned by what's going on in Canada.
	Here's a report.
	Justin Trudeau moves to ban purchase and sale of handguns in Canada.
	He's introduced a new bill to Parliament.
	Let's hope the hell it doesn't pass.
	That would stop the import, purchase, and sale of handguns, as well as prevent their transfer across Canada.
	It will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in Canada.
	In other words, we're capping the market for handguns.
	Prime Minister Trudeau said, adding, as we see gun violence continue to rise, it's our duty to keep taking action.
	And of course, he's alluding to what's been going on in Buffalo and in Uvalde, but we both know those are totally staged.
	Those are not real events.
	Those are fabricated, but it's a perfect illustration of how to conduct one of these fake events.
	And even though There's a small percentage of the population who recognizes what's going on, sees through it all, is staked and faged.
	The politicians can act as though they were true and authentic, bona fide events, and act on that basis, and the public is hamstrung from defeating it.
	How do you see what's going on here?
	I mean, he's even saying about AR-15, These weapons were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time.
	There's no place, no use for such weapons in Canada.
	That's just bullshit.
	That's complete bullshit.
	If you want an American populace to be citizen-soldiers who can defeat a tyranny, a tyrannical government, which is what the Founding Fathers intended, You cannot leave them with single-shot weapons, shotguns, handguns.
	You gotta have weapons that could be equal to the task.
	The AR-15 is by far the most popular and versatile all-round weapon.
	It's lightweight, very accurate, easy to handle.
	It's even good for home defense, for community security.
	If you had rioters breaking out in your town or a gang of bikers came in and began looting and raping and terrorizing the community, Or, of course, if there were to be an invasion.
	There's been an awful lot of discussion about China invading the United States.
	Well, the greatest source of security we have is no longer our military, which has all been decimated by the Biden policies with a vax.
	They're replenishing real American soldiers with immigrants they know are going to be willing to shoot on Americans.
	It's because we have 130 to 140 million armed Americans that we could cope with an invasion by foreigners just as we did with a British in 1776.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, sir, to me this is just an attack on guns.
	This is a globalist move around the world.
	You know, they know what they've done with the particular jab, you know, with all the death and the injury.
	The same thing in Canada and they're trying to move forward with removing the weapons.
	It has nothing to do with security.
	It has to do with Trudeau and the elite there and their security.
	I'm convinced, sir, that they're commonly worried about the people forming up militias and coming after them.
	As a matter of fact, I saw a video about two weeks ago of a sort of a militia sort of forming and they had their weapons and they warned.
	And I just I think that's what they're worried about.
	They're worried about these people going door to door, coming to their house or getting together in large numbers.
	And not allowing this tyranny to continue at some point.
	And this is so they can advance their agenda and keep moving forward.
	To remove guns from Canadian citizens is absolutely ridiculous.
	They've had guns forever.
	They know how to use weapons.
	There's a lot of shooting sports in Canada.
	There always has been.
	And, you know, when he says there's no need for AR-15s or no need for handguns or whatever, You know, there's no need for him because he has personal security and same with the elite.
	But the average citizen, he wants them to be unarmed.
	He wants them to be vulnerable to crime.
	He wants this.
	He doesn't want people to have weapons to protect themselves.
	That's the bottom line.
	And obviously, they're making a move in Canada.
	We'll have to see what happens.
	But I hope those people in Canada know full well.
	that they can never give up their weapons, because if they do, they'll be sitting ducks, and they'll be open to tyranny from the government, even worse than they've seen so far.
	Yeah, I know.
	I think those are all very appropriate.
	I just got a report from Brian Davidson, whom I'm hoping to bring in there today.
	It appears a sheriff down there in Ubaldi has just disappeared.
	I don't know what to make of this, Nanny.
	It's very, very troubling.
	Everything that's going on is getting worse and worse.
	It seems to me that the government has gone wacko, that the Democrats have, you know, completely lost their way.
	I'm embarrassed by it.
	Here we have the reports of what the Democrats are trying to do.
	They've got a new package, gun control, none of which, or at least six of which, would not have prevented the Uvalde attack.
	They include background checks for ghost guns, gun storage requirements for homes with minors present, additional penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchases, a bump stock ban, a requirement that existing bump stocks be registered under the National Firearms Act.
	The measure changes the definition of ghost gun, so background checks would be required going forward.
	They, of course, use the occasion to give it a nice sounding name.
	Who could possibly oppose Protecting Our Kids Act?
	Danny, the Democrats really don't have anything going for them, and they're trying to manufacture issues that they think are going to benefit them.
	But honest to God, I don't think this is going to work.
	What are your thoughts?
	Well, I mean, we could get into the whole Evaldi thing, and I'm sure we will.
	But, you know, Democrats, I still believe, sir, have nothing to do with wanting safety with guns.
	This is about trying to remove the most amount of guns from Americans, period.
	They don't want people to be able to protect themselves.
	They don't want people to be able to have guns.
	They don't want them to be able to make them.
	They don't want them to be able to make ammunition.
	They basically want to leave them, you know, vulnerable to crime and whatever else we're going to have.
	And let's just hope that cooler heads prevail and this doesn't happen.
	But, you know, Americans are pretty adamant about their guns and keeping their weapons for protection in their home and their personal security.
	I also believe this is part of a larger plan to distract the American people from all that stuff that's going on.
	I mean, we could go on and on about the Sussman trial.
	And it came out that Hillary authorized the whole spying situation, you know, from the terrible economy that we're seeing and all the things that are going on in the economy.
	You know, it's just one thing after another.
	It's nothing but bad news for the Democrats.
	And of course, ever since this happened, you know, it's a good way to clog up the news cycle with this gun issue and this Uvalde scam.
	And that is what they're doing.
	Yes, yes, I agree.
	And Biden himself, of course, he's not just a mental munchkin.
	He's just a teleprompter reader.
	That's all he does.
	I remember when Vanna described herself as a letter-turner.
	I think Vanna brings much more to the table than Joe Biden.
	Here he's saying odd things about 9mm, high-caliber weapons.
	Biden, speaking to reporters on the South Lawn Monday, shared dubious information as part of his effort to increase gun control in America.
	He began by implying the 9mm bullet has the capacity to cause damage, sheer, tough, or unknown.
	He claimed a trauma doctor had once conveyed to him, a .22 caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out.
	While a 9mm blows the lung out of the body.
	I mean, Danny, have you ever heard anything this ludicrous?
	So the idea of these high caliber weapons, there's simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection or hunting.
	It's unclear from the transcript if Biden is referring to the 9mm as high caliber or why hell caliber would be a poor choice for self-protection or hunting.
	Take a .45, Danny.
	45s were issued to military officers, for example, in the Marine Corps, where I qualified with a 45 four years in a row while I was on active duty, is intended for short-range self-defense, because a bullet will stop you in your tracks.
	A 45, very appropriate.
	The 9mm, of course, is a considerably smaller round, and it is going to be very useful for all sorts of purposes.
	I recently upgraded my own family defense capabilities.
	And going through the process, I had to go through an extensive background check.
	I had to, you know, have all kinds of photo ID, the whole bit.
	It took quite a while for it to be processed.
	And I'm just kind of shocked that Biden seems so massively ignorant.
	Say a few words, Danny, and then I've invited Brian Davidson to join us so he can give us an update about what's taking place here with the sheriff.
	Something very peculiar, Danny, first about Biden's ignorance about weapons.
	I mean, how can he be making these stupid things when he doesn't have any idea, not the remotest, what he's talking about?
	Well, one of the reasons why he's bringing up 9mm in my opinion is I believe that's probably the most popular self-defense round in the United States right now for a handgun.
	They do make a few rifles now that shoot that round, but it's the most popular round that people carry in surplus.
	It's the most popular round that they shoot at the shooting ranges because it's a smaller bullet and the price was much lower for the 9mm.
	A lot of handguns can be converted to shoot nine and then go back to another caliber after they leave the range.
	It's the most popular training round in the country.
	The .45 ACP that you alluded to is a great round, but it's a really heavy bullet.
	And it's a lot larger.
	It goes a lot slower.
	The 9mm is a lighter bullet, so anybody can train to fire it.
	A woman, you know, a teenager, anybody can fire the 9mm with some training and learn how to use it for self-defense.
	So obviously, again, like the AR-15, they're going after the most popular handgun round in the country and trying to make something of it that it is not.
	And let's not mention that most sheriff deputies, law enforcement today, a high percentage of them carry the 9mm and most departments train with the 9mm or the 40.
	As a matter of fact, some of the departments now, because of the powder and the upgrades in the gunpowder industry, they're actually moving from the 40 and moving back down to the 9mm because that's a lighter bullet.
	It's easier to shoot.
	It doesn't kick as hard.
	And they can also hold a few extra rounds in their gun, which is more important to the guys on the street.
	So there's kind of a move right now, or a switch to come from 40 back to 9mm, because of the newest technologies with the 9.
	It's a really good round, and it's a great home self-defense round for sure.
	And of course, more people are killed in Chicago, you know, in a week that die in any of these shootings, which are all fabricated and fake.
	I'm pleased to say we got Brian Davidson with us to give us an update about the Ufalti event.
	Brian, what you are telling me is rather startling.
	Please fill us in.
	What the hell is going on down there?
	You know, actually, to protect my source, I probably Don't want to say too much, but we are beginning to develop sources.
	You've all the tips at proton.me.
	It seems to be developing rather well.
	If anybody saw the analysis that Jim and I did, our first run at it, everything I gave you in that analysis is a is a verifiable fact.
	I didn't put any speculation at all into what I did.
	It was all stuff that I had independently researched.
	And there wasn't a single thing about that that wasn't true.
	So whatever happened has to fit within that framework that Jim and I put together and developed.
	You got your sound lost, Brian.
	I don't hear him.
	There we go.
	Continue.
	Can everybody still hear?
	Okay, it's now my theory that... This is rather simple.
	We're the kids at lunch.
	It was 11.30 in Uvalde on May 14th.
	The shooter had to cut through, it's my understanding, the cafeteria, To get to the one room in the building where there was zero line of sight from the outer perimeter that they set up around the school.
	Were the kids at lunch?
	Were they not at lunch?
	Why would you cut through a cafeteria full of kids to get to this particular room where there's zero line of sight?
	I don't know.
	But I think that as a private investigator now, I'm pursuing the theory that I don't think the shooter was the shooter.
	As we're told, I think that we're looking at a black ops agent of some sort that went into the room to stage the scene.
	I think the kids were sewn into other classrooms and that classroom may have been left empty.
	But they had to get somebody in there to get the scene staged out.
	And that explains why The only ambulance to arrive at the scene that I can find arrived around 1240, which is over an hour after 1130.
	Now, if it was true that there was a shooter and he had taken people out around the perimeter or in the building, any self-respecting law enforcement officer is going to call and get an ambulance on the scene.
	That ambulance doesn't show up until 1240.
	One ambulance.
	That's it.
	So guys, I don't believe there were any injuries in this.
	I think they had to control the scene, block it off.
	And I can tell you something that there are some officials in Texas that are very serious people that are thinking the same way we are.
	And there's a lot of questions that are starting to be asked in some of the larger circles.
	Um, That's the only update I wanted to give you.
	This thing's developing rather quickly and I just wanted to let the audience know that UvaldiTips at Proton.me is up and running.
	It's working.
	It's secure.
	I've used some very, very serious people to help set that up and make sure it's secure.
	So if there's any police officers out there or law enforcement officers that are concerned about the event that are listening to this, I would encourage you to please step up to the plate and don't be afraid to send something to that email.
	YuvaldeTips at ProtonMail.me.
	Have I got it right?
	No.
	Proton.me.
	It's a Swiss company.
	They're Swiss servers.
	They're protected.
	Proton.me.
	YuvaldeTips at Proton.me.
	You've all the tips at Proton.me.
	Very good, Brian.
	Look, what you're saying, the story of him going through the cafeteria, which is full of kids, to get to another room full of kids is ridiculous.
	It makes no sense whatsoever, unless if it were a real event.
	But if it's a fake stage event, then they just want to get him into the room where there's no visual access from outside, so they can claim anything took place that they want to claim took place.
	Participants in this, Brian, do you have any sense, or does some of them think it was real?
	Oh, I believe that, no, I believe a lot of the kids absolutely think something happened.
	I did conduct some interviews with some kids while I was in town.
	They were more than happy to talk to me.
	They think it was real.
	I did have some strange anomalies in those interviews.
	I'm not going to show them until I'm ready, but The kids did think that something was going down.
	Now, did 100 rounds go off at 1130?
	That is not the story I'm getting from the kids.
	But they did hear something.
	So, that's about all I can do until I have more.
	There's some early witnesses that were children, and that's it.
	Brian, stick around a few more minutes if you can.
	Danny, would you like to ask questions?
	What are your thoughts about what Brian's telling us now?
	Well, sir, you know, I have a lot to say on this subject.
	I watched your program with Brian the other day twice, actually going through what he had to say with the evidence.
	I sent you a photograph and a news clip.
	I don't know if we're going to be able to show it today.
	I hope so, that I would like to give my own analysis on.
	But from looking at all the clips that I've looked at, here's my personal opinion.
	This thing was a complete false flag drill and nothing more than a drill.
	Um, they actually gave it away on the first day when they show a crowd of so-called police standing together in a taped-off area.
	And when you look really close and zoom in on that photo and that video, you can actually see some guys in some weird color vests and almost like somebody that's staging everybody and directing everybody.
	There's many other observations that I saw by blowing that photo up really, really tight and looking.
	What I've noticed is there's a lot of so-called police standing in that taped off rectangle area.
	It's about a 30 by 40 area and it's the camera is really tight shot on him.
	I noticed several of the guys standing in that group constantly look over at the camera to see if the cameras filming like they're filming B roll.
	And when they're showing these group of officers, they're actually showing that by narrating what happened.
	In other words, they're talking in the news, and they're showing over the shot, but there's no evidence of anything happening.
	And you can see the lackadaisical group standing there, and they look like they just got out of a seminar, and they're sitting there talking.
	I'm noticing that most of the individuals in the group are not wearing any police uniforms.
	Okay, they're not.
	They're not wearing, and Brian will know what this means, but they're not wearing any safety equipment.
	I don't see handcuffs.
	I don't see any sidearms on them.
	I don't see any police credentials.
	I can tell you from multiple scenes, you always have to wear your police credential.
	You always have it on your belt, number one, or you have it around your neck, but you always have your police credential somewhere on you.
	And I see a lot of civilians standing in there.
	What I mean by that is just regular plainclothes people with a vest on, some sort of a tactical vest on that might say state police and multiple different agencies are listed.
	They don't look like policemen.
	I see some haircuts out of place.
	And again, I don't see the weapons.
	I don't see the credentials when I zoom in.
	And I see two or three individuals in like an orange and blue vest that look like some sort of a referee or a cameraman or somebody that's out of place amongst them, talking to them, giving them direction.
	So, you know, and this is all being done while the news is narrating some concocted story and the camera stays zoomed in tight on this group.
	Again, while several of them look up into the camera a few times to see if they're being filmed.
	I don't believe most of these individuals in this particular shot or even policemen at all.
	They're standing around.
	They have no emotion.
	At a shooting.
	Again, some, most of them are not carrying weapons.
	There's only a few with like a rifle on their back and they look like they're kind of debriefing and just sitting around, standing around doing nothing.
	You know, in a small town, right after a shooting like that, resources tend to be thin.
	And if those were real cops, they'd be out collecting evidence.
	They'd be securing the scene.
	They'd be doing things that police do, you know, after, after a shooting like that.
	And there's no presence of ambulance at all in that shot, by the way.
	And this is initially right when the shooting happened, when the news announced that they put the shot in there of this particular group of guys.
	And the more I look, sir, uh, I don't see it.
	I looked for the, uh, jumping ahead and I don't know if you want to do it later in the show, but I also tried to do a background on the two, uh, crisis actors, uh, that you guys show.
	The two fathers that claim the same daughter and of course there's close to 200 people with that last name and first name both individuals in that in that area and it's very hard to run those individuals down when you have a selection like that when you have no age and it's very hard to zoom in and I don't believe any of those crisis actors that we saw on TV that's actually actually their name.
	I like to just throw that in there.
	But I believe this is a complete false flag.
	It was a drill.
	Nobody was shot.
	Nobody was hurt, just like Sandy Hook.
	It's a it's 100% false flag drill, and they just took over this school.
	We don't know exactly what happened into the school, but I believe more and more details are going to leak out soon with that tip line.
	And, you know, we already have enough evidence to see that, you know, Anderson Cooper being on the scene with those big TV trucks right after it happened.
	You know, every time we see Anderson Cooper in a shooting, it's always been a comical.
	False flag like Sandy Hook.
	And sure enough, he made his first fatal mistake when he interviewed the father's, you know, the claim the same daughter.
	So that's just a tail sign.
	But again, that that that scene in the field in the taped off area with the fake officers and all the details I gave you, there's too many missing signs.
	There's too many signs in that group of showing a debriefing after a drill.
	There's no shooting that happened.
	At this location, sir.
	This is a complete 100% stage false flag in my opinion.
	Brian, would you want to add to Danny?
	No, I I think he's right, you know.
	Just to be clear.
	Doing a proper investigation on this could take a long time.
	I don't want to say anything that's not a fact.
	I don't want to.
	I don't want to engage too much in speculation because I do think that we'll get the story.
	And I want to make sure for our audience that we get it right.
	I don't want to chase anything that's not correct too early.
	Everybody has to have theories.
	We have to pursue the theories and prove them wrong.
	And you know, I'm going to tell you something about my research.
	I'm proud of the fact that 50% of my theories fail.
	I'm proud of it.
	I love testing my own theories.
	And when they fail, they fail.
	I'm fine.
	I throw them out.
	I do make some mistakes here and there.
	I try to double check them and try to fix them.
	But if you continue to tune in to our projects and our programs, I think you can be pretty sure that you'll get as close to the truth as can be done out there.
	The media hasn't got it right.
	The media wasn't even notified about the event until close to 1245 when the scene could be controlled.
	1130 is when the shooting supposedly started.
	The accident happened.
	The big smoking gun is what is the identity of the person driving the truck?
	Who assisted him to get into that structure and get into that room?
	And who had credentials big enough to keep The cops that were not in the know, and some of them, I guarantee you, were not in the know.
	Who had the power to do that?
	Because nothing else makes sense except this is a small team that made an entrance.
	And I'll tell you one other thing.
	Watch the money.
	Uvalde ISD was down $20 million on their budget shortfall last year.
	$20 million.
	This is a 20,000 person town.
	20 million dollars shortfall.
	So let's just pay attention, try to make sure that we get everything verified and double verified.
	And I want to try to promise the audience one thing.
	If I say it, it's going to be right.
	You know, if it's speculation, I'll tell you.
	If it's a theory, I'll tell you.
	But if I say it as a fact, I'm going to try to make sure it's a fact.
	Yeah, no, that's wonderful, Brian.
	I'm just delighted you could be here with us today.
	I know you're in route to carrying out other responsibilities, but I'm just delighted you could be here today.
	So thank you very much for that update.
	Was there something about the sheriff in particular that you had, you wanted to... I can just say that there are some very serious people looking for him.
	And they can't find him.
	That's pretty damn peculiar, is it not?
	Do you have any speculation about what's going on or prefer not to?
	Well, let's just wait to hear the guy's story.
	He's either hiding or missing, but he doesn't seem to be doing his normal duties like a normal sheriff would.
	Let's just say that at this point in time.
	I think we should wait for further developments on that.
	Okay.
	I think it might be important.
	Well, Brian, I'm just ecstatic you could join us.
	Thank you for the, and your tip line again, Uvalde at- Uvaldetipsatproton.me.
	Uvaldetipsatproton.me.
	Uvaldetipsatproton.me.
	Brian, thank you so much.
	I look forward to further reports from you.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	Bye-bye.
	Danny, I would like to go back with your analysis again of the situation here.
	Can you post that picture, sir?
	Is that possible to even put that picture up for later on for our, you know, the people that watch on video?
	If you have a chance, I put it in the Skype window.
	If you can see one of the photos, you can see all of them standing together.
	I could probably resend it if you can't find it.
	But I would like to add, if I could, on what Brian said about the sheriff disappearing.
	You know, sheriffs do not disappear, even when they go on vacation.
	They're in constant contact, wherever they are, and people know.
	So, something weird is going on.
	I don't know what's going to come out of that or where he could be, you know, or what's going on with him.
	You know, he's in charge of the whole county and what's going on as far as law enforcement goes.
	So we'll have to keep our eye on that as far as him disappearing.
	But there's a lot of other details with this Uvalde thing that I would like to bring out.
	And one of the things I want to talk about, sir, is the it's called a rabbit trail story.
	And I would like to explain for the audience what a rabbit trail story is.
	Often in any of these fake events, what they will do is they will put out A story that tries to legitimize the main story and the story that they put out is a small story that tries to follow along or get people to go.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's very suspicious, but it never happened.
	An example would be, you know, this the story they put out about him having these expensive Guns that he used or this very expensive vehicle that he used and those stories will often be put out To try and legitimize Okay, the fact that this event actually happened when in fact that those stories were leaked Out okay and completely false.
	I don't think the expensive guns and the expensive vehicle had anything to do with this particular situation at all.
	I think those are a rabbit trail story leaked out to try and legitimize that there was a real shooting and here's the guns that he used.
	How did he have this vehicle?
	It's trying to make this character that they're saying did this more real and lifelike when in fact what I believe Sir.
	Is that the photos they showed of this particular person, I think are just a photo of any individual that they picked.
	OK, and you know, he had nothing to do with this other than being in that photo.
	And this was done as some sort of an op by a group of people authorized to carry out these false flags.
	And that's just one more story that they posted those photos similar to the Sandy Hook photos, where they posted a bunch of fake photos all over the place and created all these crazy stories all over the place.
	Ended up not being true or whatever.
	It was full of rabbit trails.
	You know the George Floyd thing that's gonna break That they're really nervous about Candace Owens is getting ready to break My understanding is some very big news that we already covered at nauseam with George Floyd But she's been doing her on-the-ground investigation going around talking to all these characters now and she's going to come out officially and I believe.
	And she's going to be giving some bombshell information about that particular story that, you know, was never true.
	And we, you know, we covered that story.
	But getting back to Yuvaldi, I don't believe that these weapons were true.
	I believe that was a planted rabbit trail story.
	I don't believe the vehicle that he purchased, this so-called $80,000 vehicle or $70,000 vehicle, there's different reports of it.
	I don't think he purchased any vehicle whatsoever.
	I don't think his grandmother is real.
	I think that lady is fake.
	She's a crisis actor.
	That's my opinion.
	I haven't been able to find her through background yet, which doesn't make any sense.
	Which one, Danny?
	Which one are you saying is fake?
	I'm saying that the relatives of this supposed shooter are fake.
	I don't think they're real at all.
	I tried to run them down and can't find them anywhere.
	And I would like to give an explanation about that as well.
	Every time I look into any shooting, and particularly recently I sent you a photograph of a shooting in Chicago, a real mass shooting, and they particularly arrested two people that were responsible for shooting these people.
	And when I do a background check and do a record search on those two individuals, you can actually find them.
	They show up, you can see them, you can see their rap sheets, you can see a lot about them.
	They're real people.
	But every single time, sir, we see one of these high-profile shootings with the media, particularly CNN there, Anderson Cooper, and we see all this attention, The characters don't show up in a background check or a background report.
	There's no way to ever verify any of them.
	All the characters around this come up as a ghost.
	And I don't understand.
	This is each and every time we do this with these high profile cases, we can never find these people.
	They never come up as real.
	And the people associated and the witnesses around it never come up as real.
	And I find that very strange when in a real shooting, they come up as real.
	Every single time I can find them, but in these instances, nobody can show up.
	I looked at the two witnesses that claimed the daughter, okay?
	And I told you there's over 200 possibilities of finding somebody with those first and last names.
	And it's amazing how many people have that first and last name in that area.
	I mean, it would take a long time to run those down, especially when we don't know the age or the actual city that they live in.
	And I don't believe by looking at them that that's even their names.
	I just think these are two particular people, particularly that first guy wearing the Ray-Ban sunglasses that's pretending to cry.
	He's doing a terrible job.
	I don't even think that's his name.
	I think that he's particularly somebody else that they use to step into that role.
	He's an actor.
	He's pretending to be an actor.
	And he's just, you know, he's up there just, you know, fake crying for Anderson Cooper saying, oh, my daughter, this, my daughter, that.
	It's just a bunch of BS, you know, and the weapons, the weapons are complete BS.
	There's no way a kid could go out at that age and use and purchase expensive weapons like that.
	Um, he, you know, he wouldn't be able to do it with the optics and all the equipment that's on those firearms, uh, including the vehicle, but, and, and have the training and, and carry all the ammo there said he can, you know, that he had and all that, all, all, all the particular ways that this went down, uh, it just wouldn't happen.
	He wouldn't have the emotional fortitude.
	He wouldn't have the know-how.
	You know, it takes a while to learn how to use that operating platform.
	There's so many...
	I think we're going to find out who this particular character is in that photo down the road.
	happen and I know for sure that that that's just not that's a fallacy it's a rabbit trail story you know the vehicle the the the weapons all that kind of stuff and eventually I think we're going to find out who this particular character is in that photo down the road we might not know now but through a tip or somebody's going to tell us hey that's actually so-and-so you know it's going to come out sir We're going to get to the bottom of this.
	That's why they're trying to rush the gun control.
	And I'm glad that Brian is, you know, on the ground and he has that tip line out there.
	You know, if, if this, if, if the governor of Texas, sir, I'd like to point out really wanted to break this open.
	He's the governor.
	Okay.
	He's all powerful.
	So if I was working in his office and he were to look over at me and of course, let's, I'm just kind of pretend maybe you're the governor and you look at me and you say, Hey, Danny, I want you to figure out what's going on.
	Okay.
	I'm going to appoint you a special law enforcement in charge.
	I need you to go over there with a couple of guys and I need you to break open.
	I want to know the details of what's going on.
	Okay.
	So now I'm appointed officially by the governor.
	I guarantee you that I'm going to go into that scene very strong.
	Okay.
	I'll bring the governor with me in a helicopter if I need to, and we're going to go through that school and I'm going to bring him around and we're going to find the pot marks.
	We're going to look for the blood on the ground.
	We're going to look for any kind of bullet damage.
	Okay, I want to see the bullet casings.
	I'm going to go to the morgue.
	I want to see the bodies.
	Okay, as the governor, I want to see all this stuff.
	Okay, it wouldn't be very hard.
	at all for me to blow this open in minutes.
	I would grab those crisis actors and put them in the box and ID them immediately.
	I would fingerprint them and find out who they were and this thing would be over very, very quickly.
	But the governor's not doing that.
	He's not going to the scene.
	He's not forcing the issue.
	He's just kind of letting this play out on TV.
	So to me, I believe that he knows that this is a false flag.
	I believe there's a lot of people that know because they're not doing anything to send real law enforcement in there to bust this thing open.
	They're not doing any of the things that could easily be done very quickly to bust this open with several of the crisis actors.
	I mean, it wouldn't be hard for the governor to grab Anderson Cooper.
	He could take Anderson Cooper into custody on the scene, okay, and tell him, look, you're going to tell me what's going on here.
	You're committing treason here.
	There's a lot of things that could be done by real guys with real authority.
	If he had to, he could bring a team of National Guard investigators in there.
	Okay, and stir up the hornet's nest and quickly figure out what's going on.
	Believe me, if I had authority, sir, and had a couple of guys working with me, and we had law enforcement authority through the government, or through the governor, to go in there, believe me, in a very short order, sir, there'd be some guys placed in handcuffs, and I would get to the bottom, and you'd be getting a phone call with me in a couple hours, and I'd be, oh look, Okay, he told me this is part of a government drill.
	He, you know, he can't talk about it, but he admitted it's fake.
	There's no kids.
	I've been to the morgue.
	There's no bodies.
	Okay, there's no shell casings.
	There's no pot marks in the school.
	This thing is completely fake, and you'd be getting that phone call in short order, and I'd be letting you know this thing's completely fake.
	It wouldn't take me long to crack those crisis actors.
	You put them in a room, you put them in a box, and you tell them, listen, I know who you are.
	I just ID'd you.
	You lied.
	Okay, I ran your fingerprints.
	You're really so-and-so, okay?
	If you don't tell me what's going on right now, you're going to go to prison for a long time.
	You know what I mean?
	And you just get the story, okay?
	And I'd like everybody to remember that.
	But we don't ever see that happening.
	That's not happening, okay?
	Now, if that's happening in the background and we don't know about it yet, so be it.
	But we certainly don't see any of that playing out in real life or on television.
	And I would challenge the governor.
	If this gets back to him, go to the scene.
	Bring a camera.
	Bring a couple of guys from the National Guard.
	Bring a couple of your own appointed law enforcement and go through the school yourself.
	Roll through.
	Look for pot marks.
	Look for blood.
	Look for any evidence if there was a shooting.
	See if anybody tries to resist you when you get on the grounds and telling you you, the governor, cannot walk through the school or go through the property.
	We won't allow it.
	Find out who those individuals are.
	See if there's any feds on the ground guarding this thing, keeping regular law enforcement out of there.
	Interview the sheriff deputies that are on patrol in that area and see what they know, or the officers, okay?
	Go through the 9-1-1 radio calls and find out what's going on.
	Talk to the real dispatcher at the dispatcher and see what they actually know, the people that were on duty.
	Sir, this would be very easy to put together and short.
	I love that.
	I think that's all wonderful stuff.
	It's very consistent with everything that Brian has had to say about it, too, of course, as well.
	So, I mean, I think you're giving very complementary analyses.
	Well, we had several glitches, of course, as you're no doubt aware, including we had two different fathers claiming to be the father of the same little girl.
	It was just ridiculous.
	One was a particularly pathetic crisis actor who was trying to fake that he was sobbing, but they both had pictures of the same little girl.
	That was ridiculous.
	Then they had another party there, who was supposed to be one of the teachers, who had been a teacher at Sandy Hook.
	Her name is Victoria Soto.
	She was at both locations.
	They're doing this all the time.
	It's reminiscent of the woman who played Susan Brough in Charlottesville, also being the woman who plays Donna Soto in all these legal cases.
	Danny, it's insulting!
	It's insulting beyond belief how they rub our noses, our faces in it.
	It's just disgraceful.
	I would agree, sir.
	This is a false flag being played out using Operation Mockingbird, which they can control.
	They control the media.
	They control Anderson Cooper and all the principals doing this, okay?
	We've shown that time and time again with these false flags in the past.
	I mean, I don't know how many of these we've done.
	And we can see Operation Mockingbird controlling the people, controlling the story, trying to control the narrative.
	But something else completely different is happening behind...
	People don't understand how important that point is that we have the two men claiming the same daughter with the same last name.
	That's very, very strange.
	They both have the same last name, at least in the video report that I saw, that the name is the same, but the first name is different.
	It's a very popular last name in that area, and they know it's very difficult to run that name down and try to pin it.
	The guy with the Ray-Ban glasses, he looks like a white guy to me, but yet they're using a Spanish last name on him and with the Mr. Fake Crier.
	I mean, he could, he's, you know, Robbie Parker did a better job than he did.
	And I'm not joking.
	I watched that clip several times and he's completely full of it.
	You know, Anderson Cooper with the nudge on the arm and the, He reaches up and grabs his arm when the guy's fake crying and there's a scene where they turn the camera during the interview and you can see all the tents on the street lined up for the media and you can see a lot of people in those tents looking over at Anderson while he's actually doing the video if you slow it down and look at it.
	That thing is as fake and as phony as it can possibly get.
	All those tents set up right there.
	I mean this thing was set up ahead of time.
	You know I can't see any video.
	I wish I had some kind of a satellite photo or something so I can see the grounds and catch these people setting this whole thing up.
	But this thing They've already been caught.
	There's enough rabbit trail stories.
	There's enough crisis actor mistakes already that they've been caught.
	They got wiped out in Buffalo.
	It was Buffalo was so disastrous.
	It was comical.
	They got wiped out.
	They had crisis actors everywhere.
	There's one of a Black man that played two different parts in the media.
	He changed his name on two different networks.
	I mean, it just never ended with Buffalo.
	And this time they're trying their best to keep it, you know, a little bit more vague, a little bit more, you know, with all these unanswered questions.
	But they're making mistakes, sir.
	And Anderson Cooper made a big one when he did that particular interview.
	Yeah, well, Anderson Cooper, I understand, even arrived at Sandy Hook before the event, as did many of the other media.
	I mean, it's just getting embarrassingly bad, Danny, and I think if Biden thinks he's going to get gun control out of this, but then he's a mental munchkin anyway.
	The guy has no cognitive competence.
	This is a teleprompter reader, and he's committing a lot of blunders.
	His utter incompetence In this role is showing very, very badly.
	How the Democrats think they're going to make it through the midterm is beyond me, other than to create a lockdown.
	I've even been given the suggestion that there could be an imposition of martial law as early as next week, end of next week.
	Oh, are we going to have a new variant?
	They're going to activate Marburg, these little capsules that were in the vax by use of 5G, which at certain frequencies, three dose, three exposures at those frequencies at a certain interval is going to cause these
	Little capsules in the bloodstream to burst and you're going to start bleeding from every orifice and appear to have Marburg, which will be so dramatic that he'll impose a lockdown and then there will be no election or only voting by mail, where the Democrats are the past masters at stealing elections by voting by mail.
	In third countries, they don't even use it because it's so obviously corrupt.
	Danny, I'm just embarrassed.
	I'm ashamed of the United States.
	The government of the United States is just miserable, fake, phony, nothing but liars.
	I mean, it's disgusting beyond belief.
	Well, there's a lot of paid-off liars, there's no doubt.
	You know, let's take a guy like Ted Cruz, okay?
	If Ted Cruz, he's a senator, if he went to Uvalde, okay?
	And he's a senator, there's a lot of things he could do.
	He can send an investigative team there, he could go there himself, okay?
	He's got law enforcement friends, he's got, you know, that guy's got, he's plugged in, he's got contacts all over the state.
	He could go to that scene and he could break this thing wide open.
	It wouldn't be hard for him to go there and ask to walk through the school.
	Go through the school and see who's actually physically going to stop him from walking into that school and looking for evidence like I suggested.
	Okay?
	Nothing.
	There's nobody that's going to stop him from asking to talk to those crisis actors.
	Okay.
	I guarantee you, if he were to question them and ask for their real name, okay, or have somebody like me, any of his police friends, and we know they're vast, anybody, any detective that he knows, which is probably many of them, You know, any law enforcement entourage he would bring with him, okay, and they brief ahead of time and then go there and go on the scene, it wouldn't be difficult at all.
	It would be very easy.
	If I was tailing with Ted Cruz, walking onto that scene as law enforcement, okay, believe me, I would just be right there and there'd be no way we wouldn't get to the bottom of it very quickly by walking around.
	If anybody tried to stop me, tried to keep me from going into a door, into an area, you know, I would raise a stake, okay?
	And I would quickly figure out that this is, you know, who's in charge in this operation very quickly by somebody who tried to stop me as a law enforcement officer, who tried to stop me from looking around that scene and figuring out what's going on.
	It would happen very quick.
	I would suggest I would go there with the governor and Ted Cruz.
	And we, I mean, it would be complete, in my opinion, panic.
	Pandemonium would break out if that actually happened.
	And we just snuck onto that scene and surprised everybody there.
	It would just be absolutely panic because they know they could not stop the governor from going into the building.
	They just nothing they can do.
	They could just arrest on the spot.
	The governor can have anybody there arrested and taken away on the spot and nobody could stop him.
	I don't care if it was feds.
	It wouldn't matter who it was, you know, and also with the sheriff, the sheriff could go in there and bust this thing wide open as well.
	And he knows it's a fake.
	Maybe he disappeared because.
	He doesn't want to come out with us.
	I mean, we can just speculate where he is or what's going on.
	We don't know at this point, but maybe he knows what's going on and maybe he just, you know, doesn't want to talk about it.
	Who knows why he disappeared?
	We don't know, but that's very developing.
	Did you find that photograph, sir?
	Danny, not yet.
	Hang on, hang on.
	We got an audio problem that Mitch and I are going to try to fix over the break.
	We're going to take callers earlier.
	I've seen a photograph of a cop standing around, Danny.
	So whether we get it on today is incidental.
	We know it's out there.
	It's included in many of the other presentations I've made.
	So I don't think that's a real issue, but there is a real issue with the audio.
	So stand by, everyone.
	Mitchell and I are going to try to fix this over the break so you'll be able to better hear Danny and we'll be taking your calls early.
	So stand by.
	We're about to hit that break and Mitch and I will do our thing.
	Danny will be standing by and we'll take your calls when we come back.
	Okay, Jen, you here?
	Yeah, I'm here.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	On the bottom right corner, if you close your, um, your chat box there.
	Close my chat box.
	Well, where you get the messages on, on the side of the site, Skype screen.
	Yeah.
	Unless you were using another men, another.
	Okay.
	I'm looking at location schedule and call create poll one drive.
	Oh, here, here.
	No.
	Okay.
	On your, on your.
	On the Skype screen where my picture and your picture are doing this call, right?
	Okay.
	Yeah, there I am now.
	Okay.
	On the bottom right-hand corner, there's three dots that says more.
	Right.
	Pull up menu.
	Right.
	I got it.
	Go to share screen and click on it.
	Okay.
	And then there'll be a box that says sound kind of in the middle of it.
	Did you click the sound box?
	I did the share screen.
	In the share screen dialogue, before you hit OK, there's a box to share sound also.
	Share sound also.
	Well, no.
	I'm seeing an audio and video settings.
	No, not there.
	It won't be there, Jim.
	OK.
	It's not there under video settings.
	It's not there.
	Stop sharing your screen.
	Just stop sharing.
	OK.
	Stop sharing.
	All right.
	OK, now start sharing your screen again.
	And when the box comes up in the middle of it, there'll be a little box that you can check to share sound also.
	Share sound.
	I don't know.
	When you go to share screen... I'm on it!
	Okay, right above where it says start sharing though, it says share computer sound.
	I don't see it.
	It says downloads, telegram, zoom meeting, authentic skype.
	That's not... no, that's your... are you on skype?
	Yeah, sure, I'm into skype.
	Yeah, I'm looking at this to connect with you.
	Okay, here.
	Okay.
	Now, I'm not sharing my sound, but I'm sharing my screen, okay?
	Okay, yeah.
	In the Skype box, in the bottom right hand side, you can see me pull this menu up.
	Right.
	And when you hit share sound or share screen, it comes up a box.
	And inside that box right above where it says to share screen, it will say share, share computer sound.
	Mitchell, I don't know why it's not showing for me.
	I don't know why.
	Okay.
	Well, um, have, uh, share your sound, share your sound or share your screen and then have Danny and them talk for a minute.
	Okay.
	Danny, go ahead and say a minute, will ya?
	Say something.
	Can you hear me okay?
	Testing, can you hear me okay?
	Can you hear Mitchell?
	I can hear, but you're not sharing your screen.
	Oh, okay, here we go.
	You have to share your screen.
	Go ahead.
	Danny, Danny, speak.
	How about now, sir?
	Testing, can you hear me?
	Hear my voice?
	Yeah, that's a lot better.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	You do that.
	See, and what I'll do from now on is I'll get with you before we start the show and we'll do an audio check.
	We'll make sure that's straight and then we'll go if you've got to use it.
	Very good.
	Very good.
	All right.
	I'm going to add the studio back.
	Today, things were desperate.
	I was running late and I got a legal thing and everything was fucked up today.
	It was a miracle I got on at the time I did.
	I haven't even taken a shower for God's sake.
	Good thing you didn't have to take a shit.
	All right.
	Hold on, Jeff.
	We'll be right back.
	We're at the studio now.
	All right.
	Just on this radio station, its programs and its website.
	The hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Well, believe it or not, Danny, Mitchell walked me through, and we may have an improvement in the sound quality for our listeners, which is a very good thing, especially and we may have an improvement in the sound quality for our listeners, which is a very that is so valuable and important
	In fact, I'd like to review your key features of your diagnosis, how this Uvalde thing was completely fraudulent, how Buffalo was an embarrassment.
	It was so amateurish.
	And of course, Buffalo was based on the Christchurch shooting.
	Which was totally fabricated amateur.
	It was like a video game.
	You had no shell casings ejected from the weapon.
	The weapon was painted up, pointing at victims.
	You heard a sound, but there was no blood.
	Bodies on the ground before they were even shot.
	Coming into a room with a big stack of bodies.
	They fired from a short distance.
	You saw a little blast of air.
	I'm talking in New Zealand.
	But yeah, very similar in Buffalo.
	You got the weapons all painted up.
	No shell casing being ejected.
	Bodies are falling before they're even shot.
	You got, you know, it goes inside and then from a virtually point blank fires at a body line on the ground, but there's only a blast of air.
	Danny, it could not be more amateurish.
	And I think that they wanted Uvalde in part to change the Paul Schrag narrative because Buffalo hadn't fallen apart so completely, but it looks as though now Uvalde's doing the same.
	Danny, I think this could open the eyes of a lot of Americans that this is all complete and total bullshit.
	Your thoughts?
	Yeah.
	How's the sound, sir?
	Can you hear me okay?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	The Buffalo thing, I mean, you know, Brian did a great job of covering it.
	You know, I noticed even more anomalies going through that video.
	Like the, you know, the guy was off aim on a couple of the victims.
	So he would have missed anyway, high left.
	Uh, there's other things, but the, you know, the tail sign errors, no, no casings coming out of the gun.
	That's a major CGI glitch.
	Okay.
	And we know that that was CGI video, uh, completely fake, you know, again, with the victims laying on the ground before he even went in there, that was complete fake phony.
	That was a, A bad Hollywood production, that whole thing.
	We caught so many crisis actors in that particular thing, even in the news crew.
	I mean, it was over the top comical, down to the clown shoes that the, you know, supposed shooter was wearing.
	And we can't even figure out the IDs of anybody in that thing, except for the registered sex offender crisis actor.
	You know, he's a convicted felon.
	Uh, you know, we can ID him, but we can't really ID anybody.
	So that was the complete comical clown show.
	There's no doubt about it.
	Everybody that I know that's looked at that said, how could they even put on something like that?
	It was so comical and fake.
	But, you know, to change the narrative, And to change the tune, we were talking about monkeypox and how fake monkeypox was.
	We had the whistleblowers coming out showing they were showing pictures of shingles and people with blisters on their hands.
	That was actually a adverse reaction to the vax.
	There was all kinds of photos being shown and that stuff was all coming out.
	And then they put this on.
	And that got put to the side.
	All of a sudden, now they're not talking about monkeypox now.
	What happened to that all of a sudden?
	You know, it's really weird.
	All of a sudden, they're not talking about the Sussman trial and the things that Hillary got caught doing, authorizing all that stuff in the first place.
	They're not talking about that.
	You know, they're clogging the news cycle, sir, with this Hollywood stage show production called Yevaldi.
	And we've got enough evidence to know now that this is a contrived fake.
	Sponsored false flag.
	What we don't know is the exact person that's doing this, who's in charge there on the scene, and who's officially running this operation that's there.
	Okay, we don't know those particulars, and to know that we'd have to get on the ground.
	But again, I would challenge the governor.
	I would challenge Ted Cruz to go on the ground, bring some law enforcement with him, and walk on the ground and figure out what's going on.
	It wouldn't take long.
	He could walk around that place in 30 minutes to 45 minutes if I was walking with the governor, and just talking to people and saying, "Hey, we're gonna go into the school now." And somebody just said, "Hey, not so fast." And I'd be like, "No, I don't think so.
	You're going in cuffs if you stop me from going into that school." There would be some confrontations that would quickly give up who's in charge.
	Some feds would pop up really quick.
	All kinds of stuff would happen if you actually stood foot and went on that scene.
	If you tried to interview some of these crises, I want to talk to this guy in the sunglasses myself.
	The governor wants to speak to him.
	It would be over very quickly, sir.
	I would be able to figure out who that guy is in real life and find out exactly what his involvement was just by interviewing him for a few minutes.
	People crack when they know that there's a threat of, you know, that they might be placed in handcuffs at any second.
	And I've seen a time Again, it would happen here.
	This is a complete false flag.
	It's filled with rabbit trail stories that didn't even happen to try and further the story, you know, and get people off looking in the weeds and other things.
	You know, we can see in the beginning that I talked about the fake cops standing around, okay?
	Most of those guys are not cops.
	They're just thrown on a vest, look like an actor wearing a vest.
	They're debriefing.
	They're not carrying weapons.
	They don't have credentials.
	They're standing around doing nothing in that little area looking over at the camera constantly.
	That's a big tail sign, sir, is that video and that photograph I sent you.
	And that was the narration playing over the top of supposedly what happened.
	But yet we have no crime scene, nothing going on yet.
	There's more to come out.
	I'm very happy that Brian's on this with his tip line.
	I'm sure he'll get to the bottom of it.
	More is going to leak out.
	But that's my personal opinion, sir.
	And I'm going to stick with it.
	Nothing happened here.
	There's no, there's no dead bodies in the morgue.
	There's no nothing.
	This is a Sandy Hook production, sir, a rushed one.
	And all the, all the, all the details are starting to leak out and you're on top of it, sir.
	You're on top of this minute by minute.
	And you know, who knows, we know what we know today.
	Who knows what we'll know tomorrow and who knows what we'll know by Monday.
	But it's just coming out and they're trying to rush their gun control and push all this emotion and all this stuff while all this stuff is being covered up.
	But once this blows open, and I'm confident that it'll completely blow open as the days move on, this gun control stuff hopefully is going to fade.
	And let's hope the governor and the other officials of the state actually go there and try to blow this open.
	I don't see that yet.
	I don't see anybody going there and trying to interview anybody or walking through the school or doing anything.
	They're just letting this whole thing, this saga, play out on TV.
	So we'll have to see what happens.
	Are they cowards?
	I mean, what's going on here?
	Are they afraid to expose a truth that they're going to be accused of being conspiracy theorists?
	My God!
	If you're not a conspiracy theorist today, you don't have any idea what's going on.
	You're out of touch with reality.
	Danny, I can't believe it.
	Why doesn't Abbott take some more forceful action?
	He's already been played.
	Well, I mean, let's try to do this to DeSantis in Florida.
	Let's reverse it.
	Do you think Governor Ron DeSantis would allow this nonsense to happen?
	Okay.
	He would go to this scene.
	He'd start pointing with National Guardsmen if he needed to and said off with his head.
	Jail, jail.
	I want him gone to jail.
	I mean, it's not going to happen.
	The governor is allowing this to happen, sir.
	If he wanted to get to the bottom of this himself, okay, he can have a few special investigators go in there, appointed by him, okay, and he could break this open.
	We don't see it.
	We don't see a visit to the school by him.
	Okay, we should see that.
	We should see him walking around the school inspecting the evidence.
	I would do it.
	If I was governor, absolutely 100% I would be on that scene.
	And I would be walking around checking stuff out for myself with my own police and my own investigators.
	And I would, if I was governor, I'd be asking Ted Cruz, Ted, you want to join?
	Join me.
	I want you to come.
	We're going to go walk around the school.
	We're going to find out exactly what's going on.
	I would go to the Sheriff's house.
	I literally go right to his house and knock on his door and say, Hey Sheriff, you want to tell me what's going on here?
	I want to know what's going on.
	What is up here?
	And I would get to the bottom of this quickly.
	I would say, I want, not only are you going to walk with me and Ted, but we're going to go down to the morgue and we're going to look at these bodies.
	And I want to see a lot of bullet holes and a lot of kids.
	Okay.
	And if I, you know, I would get to the bottom of all this stuff and break it open.
	It just would not happen, sir.
	It would be broken open very, very quickly.
	So the governor is being complacent here.
	There's a lot of people that can break this thing open.
	That's being very, very complacent.
	Okay, let's not forget the governor.
	The governor can even appoint the National Guard and they can get send some investigators over there to break this thing open.
	There's all kinds of options that we're not seeing.
	We are just seeing Operation Mockingbird play out on the media.
	Everything you reported is fabulous.
	Now, a dear friend and research colleague from the UK is on the line, Nick Hollerston.
	Nick, join the conversation, my friend.
	I'm delighted you're here.
	Nick?
	Nick, can you join?
	He was here, and then it looked like he just dropped a second ago.
	I'm calling him right back, Jim.
	OK, OK.
	Here he is.
	Nick, are you there, my friend?
	I'm just delighted to hear from you.
	Oh, yeah.
	Hi, Jim.
	Yeah, hi.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, we can hear you, Nick.
	I don't want to interrupt.
	Are you in the middle of a session?
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	We're talking about Uvalde, Texas.
	Do you have thoughts about it?
	And Muffalo, those were such obvious frauds, Nick.
	Do you have any reflections about it?
	We can talk later.
	But yeah, you're on the air with me and Danny Serris on my show, The Raw Deal.
	Speak, Nick.
	All right.
	That was great, Jim.
	Yeah.
	I'm afraid not really, not too much, no.
	I was going to suggest something with Olladamagard later on.
	Okay, okay.
	But perhaps I'll email you later on it.
	That's fine.
	Perfect, Nick.
	Well, thanks for dropping by.
	Very much.
	I look forward to our correspondent.
	Take care.
	Meanwhile, we're going to... Thank you, Nick.
	We're going to open the lines of callers.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452. 540-352-4452.
	Mitchell has somehow managed to get me to make the right connection to improve the audio quality.
	Danny, let's return to your further thoughts.
	I mean, the Democrats are so desperate.
	It seems to me they are.
	They're just pulling this out of their anal amateur.
	I mean, it's unbelievable.
	And I think you're right.
	It was hasty because Buffalo fell apart much faster than they had anticipated.
	Well, this was rushed, sir.
	There is no mastermind professional.
	Like, for instance, there's no PhD like yourself behind this false flag in a war room somewhere calling the shots.
	Because if there was, they wouldn't be making all the mistakes that they're making.
	Okay?
	Again, we have not seen one Bullet hole or evidence of any kind of a shootout whatsoever in the school.
	If there was any evidence of a shootout in the school, okay, we would see it.
	I guarantee you the media would be allowed in and they would show a pot mark or bullet holes in the wall and some casings.
	How many times, sir, have we seen a shooting in an inner city on television, OK, on television where we've seen dead bodies covered up by a sheet or a blanket?
	OK, how many times have we seen bullet casings on the ground?
	How many times have they showed bullet holes, breaking out windows, going through police car doors?
	You know, just evidence of a gun of a gun battle.
	Constantly we see this.
	Constantly.
	Okay?
	But in this particular one, we are not allowed to see any of the evidence of any kind of a gun battle whatsoever.
	We can't see a pot mark in the concrete.
	We can't see a bullet hole through the door.
	We can't see casings laying on the floor.
	Supposedly their story is he fired all these rounds, you know, and they're very heavy.
	So was he wearing some sort of backpack that was packed with magazines already that he can just quickly change?
	You know, what was the apparatus that he was using to carry this many rounds?
	You know, a professional operator normally will carry six magazines with his AR in his carrier, and that's pretty heavy.
	When you put six magazines together, 30 rounds each, it's pretty heavy.
	I don't know the exact weight, but you know, if you hold an empty magazine and then a full magazine with 30 rounds, it's very substantial.
	And you put six of those together.
	So how many magazines would you have to have for this guy to have all the rounds that they're saying?
	That would be a lot of weight.
	And how is he carrying all this stuff?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	They're also not talking about that.
	But we should see all this type of evidence.
	And for emotional effects, sir, they'd be showing this kind of evidence.
	They'd be showing blood on the floor.
	They'd be because they want that emotional Stop gun control.
	But you know what, sir?
	They don't have it.
	If they had it, they would show it.
	They're just telling us an elaborate story using Operation Mockingbird, making a multiple of mistakes of which you are catching each And every one of them, OK, as they develop.
	And this is just absolute nonsense.
	And I hope the American people can see through.
	They can see the governor is not going out there to get to the bottom of this.
	They can see the sheriff is not going out there to get to the bottom of this.
	OK, and we are not seeing any physical evidence.
	that any shooting took place whatsoever nothing happened just a constant story that we're hearing with no evidence and the evidence that we are seeing completely contradicts the story okay completely contradict this is 100 sir in my opinion this is 100 a government stage some agency i don't know what agency is running this but this is a full-on operation Uh, it's a false flag operation.
	100% guaranteed, sir.
	This is just as good as it gets.
	And it's just going to be an ongoing developing story as this evidence falls apart day by day.
	And we're on top of it.
	And thankfully we got somebody like Brian there on the ground.
	With the tip line, it's also analyzing this.
	I mean, you know, it's failing, sir.
	It's failing.
	Anybody who listens to your show, nobody believes this.
	If you're watching CNN all day long and you're not going outside, you're glued to the television, maybe you're one of those people that believe it because you're listening to Anderson Cooper all day long.
	Okay, but anybody living in the real world, okay, with all the evidence that you were presenting, sir, that's showing the conflicting evidence that conflicts against this story and what we can see, okay, this is a fake false flag drill, some kind of an op, and the only thing we don't know yet is who exactly is putting this on, but I'm sure we'll find out soon who that is.
	We got a caller here from the 724 area.
	Please, please join the conversation.
	Give us your name, first name and state and join the conversation.
	Hello, can you hear me?
	Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
	Yeah, yeah.
	My name is Zach, and I'm in Pennsylvania.
	I just wanted to ask you, I was reading over your Supreme Court filing with the Supreme Court about your Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	And you know, obviously, as it relates to everything, I just wondered, I mean, have you thought about the fact that, you know, typically when you typically when you file an appeal, you know, you have to There's a rule that basically says that if you haven't raised this, the issue or briefed it in the lower appellate courts, that it's waived on on federal appeal.
	So it seems like some of the things that I because I had read some of your old filings, it seems like some of the things that you're raising, you're attacking this kind of, it was more about the summary judgment statute in Wisconsin than it was about The First Amendment issues that it seemed like you had been raising in the lower court, which made me wonder, which made me wonder whether they're going to just be able to dismiss it on the ground that, oh, you haven't.
	Why didn't you raise the summary judgment constitutionality issue of that statute in the Wisconsin court?
	And that kind of made me a little bit concerned there because, you know, the Supreme Court tends to look for little avenues like that.
	In order to escape ruling on the merits of your case.
	And it also seemed to me that, you know, going to the merits of it, you know, especially with the Texas shooting and what you know with Sandy Hook, it seemed to me that you didn't ever, you never were able to find a or depose one of these people that you claimed participated Or served as a role.
	I mean, obviously, the guy that sued you, there was a deposition of him.
	But I don't know if you've been able to identify any of the other participants.
	If you had been able to do that and actually get people to testify that they participated in it, it would seem to me that you would maybe have had a stronger case.
	So that's just all I wanted to raise with you.
	You know, the issue was, and typically also, I'll just put an end cap on it, when people appeal, a lot of times they kind of just raise all the issues, they make sure to kind of argue all of them in their appeal, but it seemed like you were more kind of foregoing some of the First Amendment arguments that you made in the Wisconsin Appellate Court, and you were just going after the constitutionality of the summary judgment statute.
	So that's, I'm just interested to hear your thoughts on that.
	Oh, I think you're a very discerning, very articulate and very knowledgeable caller.
	I'm very impressed with everything you've had to say.
	I was unaware that Wisconsin had an outlier in terms of its summary judgment procedure until I'd gone through and discovered both the appellate court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court were siding with a circuit court when he was suppressing all my evidence.
	On what I only gradually came to realize was the grounds it was unreasonable.
	When I first read up about summary judgments, and I understood yet that the court had to take all the defendant's assertions as true in order to determine whether or not there were any disputed facts, I felt very secure.
	I was unaware at the time that I would I was reading about the practice of summary judgment in most courts, but that Wisconsin is peculiar.
	Now, you're not entitled to raise a constitutional issue until the highest court of the state has rejected your appeal.
	In this case, the highest court that actually gave a response, gave a reasoned opinion, was the Appellate Court for the Fourth District.
	But the fact is that this difference between the administration of summary judgments in Wisconsin is different, and I use a contrast case of Texas, but Texas is far more representative of those across the country, makes it a constitutional issue for the Supreme Court.
	I didn't have any ground for raising a constitutional issue before the Supreme Court when I was still in the Wisconsin system.
	It was only after I emerged.
	So I do not believe that that will be an issue here.
	It was docketed.
	That means they took my petition to submit pro se as having been validated.
	I had to submit, you know, all my financials to show that I wasn't in a position to afford an attorney.
	Now, what I think is really good about this case and on your You made such a very thoughtful commentary here.
	I'm very, very much appreciative.
	I learned from a retired professor of law who's taken a keen interest in my case that the major problem with the judiciary, the administration of justice throughout the United States, is the abuse of summary judgment.
	Now, I think the features of the faulty Wisconsin procedure whereby the judge is allowed to determine his own facts by exercising his subjective opinion as to whether they're reasonable or not, which led him to set aside, you know, not even allow me to introduce a mountain of
	of evidence I had that Sandy Hook had been a staged event, including the FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012, showing that in Newtown during that year, under the heading of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, the number was zero. under the heading of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, the number Well, if it had been legit, it should have been 27.
	The fact that I even discovered the FEMA manual for the drill The fact that everything going on on the ground, which has been widely reported, for which we have photographic evidence, the presence of porta-potties, the pizza, fire water, the sign everyone must check in, wearing name tags on lanyards, parents bringing children to the scene.
	And this was the day of the rehearsal on the 13th, and then on the 14th, no surge of EMTs, no string of ambulances, no medevac, and all that.
	You're well familiar, I can tell, with all that evidence.
	But the judge basically just set it aside, just as he set aside when we focus exclusively on the death certificate.
	And mind you, The one that I had published had been given by the plaintiff Posner to my research colleague Kelly Watt.
	And in the book, she and I were co-authoring a chapter in the book talking about it, where I made the assertion that it was non-authentic.
	And by the way, I think now because my case is before the Supreme Court, That I can't actually talk about it, but let's just take this.
	The judge has admonished me that I cannot repeat the assertions for which I was found to be guilty of defamation.
	So let's just say I'm talking about how the case developed and evolved, but it's very clear from the petition, which you have obviously read very, very carefully.
	The judge just set aside the two forensic document experts who were confirming that I was correct, and that there were at that point four different versions of the death certificate for the same decedent, where all of them claimed he had died at Sandy Hook on 14 December 2012 of multiple gunshot wounds, and yet the judge had said My views about whether anyone died at Sandy Hook were not relevant to the accuracy or the truthfulness of that death certificate.
	I mean, how could that possibly be?
	As a matter of logic, if nobody died at Sandy Hook, then there can be no legitimate death certificate for someone dying at Sandy Hook.
	So there was clearly a joining of issues.
	There was clearly a dispute, in fact.
	But bizarre beyond bizarre, And it only, you know, it took me a long time to figure out what the hell was going on here.
	Even the Court of Appeals, in virtually consecutive paragraphs, stated the official narrative of Sandy Hook and declared there was no ground for disputing.
	It was unreasonable to question what had happened here.
	And then mine, because I had managed to work in enough, I mean, it was in my answer and a whole lot of my other briefs as to what evidence I regarded as most important.
	They summarized my evidence quite accurately.
	There could hardly be a more clear-cut case of a disputed fact, and yet the judge simply ruled in my opinion, you know, based on subjective opinion and wrongly.
	Until I had undergone the harm of all of this, I wasn't in the position to dispute it before the court.
	All right, we have a break coming up and I'll continue right after this.
	I listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back.
	We'll be right back.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we'll be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	RevolutionRadio.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	- Yeah, we do so. - Yeah, we do so. - we do so. -
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zone.
	With host, Zandra Sia.
	At FreedomStuff.com.
	The People Station.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it?
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes?
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S.
	Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9-11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons of the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read American Newt on 9-11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners, or chatters, are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Hey, everybody. everybody.
	Welcome back.
	Mitchell, Mitchell, I'm here.
	I'm here, yeah.
	I went to get a cup of coffee, and it took a few minutes longer.
	I think this is a wonderful call, by the way.
	And I believe I was not in a position to raise a constitutional issue until Wisconsin had completed its abuse of me through an improper summary judgment procedure.
	So I don't believe that will be a problem.
	As far as a focus is, yeah.
	Oh, sorry to interrupt.
	No, so typically, the way this works is you could have raised it.
	So I'll give you an example.
	So there's, let's say there's a statute, for example, I'll give you an example.
	So there's a statute that said you can bring in medical records under a hearsay exemption, you know, in a state, for example.
	And this is a statute that's on the book.
	And let's say there's a criminal case and somebody's convicted of, you know, a DUI or something, and they use a medical record, a hearsay exception to bring in medical records that said that they are, you know, they have, you know, that they were intoxicated through that exception.
	At that time, what the, and you know, under the state law, that would be allowed.
	At that time, what should have happened is somebody should challenge that state law in the district, in the circuit court, whatever your state, As a circuit court, and then the state appellate court, then the state Supreme Court, and then finally, you would go to the federal.
	So you can actually raise, and I can just tell you that that exact situation has happened where a state appellate court will rule on the federal constitutional issue of the admissibility of evidence, for example, under that hearsay exception.
	And they say that, okay, that violates your, in that particular case, That hearsay exception violates the confrontation clause that you have a right to actually confront that witness in that case would be the person who administered the drug test or whatever.
	But in your case, it seems what you did was you lost the summary judgment and you started arguing the merits of it on these First Amendment grounds.
	You never challenged the constitutionality of the Uh, Wisconsin summary judgment procedure on due process grounds in the circuit court, the state appellate court, or the state Supreme Court.
	Although you kind of did in other ways, in a fact-driven way, arguing it as applied in your particular case.
	But then in the Supreme Court, you argue that the Wisconsin system affords you different due process protections than the state of Texas does.
	You know, it's a difficult issue because I don't know if you're aware of the federal briefing from the federal Supreme Court on what is allowed to be done in a summary judgment.
	But typically, and this is language directly from the federal Supreme Court, it says that summary judgment can be granted against the non-moving party if their defense would rely on it says that summary judgment can be granted against the non-moving party if their defense would rely on improbable inferences or there's a number of things or obviously if your defense was deemed to
	So it does afford the court some flexibility to say, OK, I don't think that Dr. Fetzer's defense is reasonable because of X, Y, and Z. And so therefore, I can say that no reasonable jury would find in his favor.
	So I think that that's You know, and I'm not saying I agree with that, you know, I'm just, you know, or whatever.
	I'm just saying that that's the standard.
	So it seems to me ultimately that it came down to the judge saying that your defense was not and the evidence that you presented when he waited no reasonable jury could find in your favor that that you didn't do this now.
	What I was wondering is why you didn't try, you know, because obviously you've studied this case in great detail, you know, why you didn't try to actually find some of these people or, you know, when that case was ongoing, you may have had the ability to subpoena in records or obtain a lot more than you did beyond, you know, just you and the person that sued you.
	And if you had tried to do that, and the judge had denied your ability to conduct that discovery, that broader discovery that I'm talking about, which gets to the merits of the actual incident, and you had been denied that opportunity, I think then you would have really had a good argument to say that the judge didn't allow me to go down this rabbit hole.
	But, you know, when I read your pleading, it just seemed like there was this one comment that he said, we're not going down this rabbit hole.
	And then you never seem like you never tried to conduct that kind of more expansive discovery.
	Anyways, I don't want to take I like all this.
	Obviously, you're an expert in the law.
	I presume you have no relationship to any of the parties here.
	Your dissection seemed to me to be highly objective.
	I tried many modes of discovery and I was rebutted on every single one.
	There's all kinds of evidence.
	I could have churned up, but the judge cut me off and curtailed me every single time.
	They were making demands of me.
	They never even granted my status as a journalist, even though I'd given the judge a seven-page summary of my credentials, which are really quite extensive.
	And he would never even rule on my status as a journalist, which meant, of course, they had a lower standard to meet They never established I'd been negligent or done anything wrong.
	That was a matter of inference based upon his use of what is reasonable and unreasonable to determine facts.
	I agree, of course, that inferences from facts can be reasonable or unreasonable, but what I was subjected to was a non-jury trial where the judge made up his own facts based on his reasonable standard.
	And if the Supreme Court doesn't find that sufficiently meritorious to deserve its attention, I can't imagine what would.
	I even believe it will be expedited for the following reason.
	They're using this improper practice of summary judgment in Wisconsin every single day.
	In other words, Virtually every citizen of Wisconsin is subject to an improper procedure that's clearly violative of our 7th and 14th Amendment rights.
	And my case brings that front and center.
	So while I agree with you that they can quibble around the edges, I think they will accept the fact that this case is sufficiently clear-cut to warrant the attention of the Supreme Court.
	And I believe that I'm going to have a successful outcome of this.
	And it will be one of the cases where a pro se Applicant, as in Gideon, actually made a difference to the administration of law in the United States.
	But I greatly appreciate your commentary.
	You're very sophisticated and very knowledgeable, and I'm very glad you called in.
	Yeah, thank you very much.
	And obviously, I wish you the best.
	You know, I don't.
	I'm just looking at it.
	I don't, I'm not necessarily sure.
	I don't even know if the other party, the other side is going to We'll see if they do.
	And I'm interested to see what arguments they raise.
	And obviously, I mean, I don't know if you're familiar with, you know, the next thing to do will be if you do lose to make sure that they don't get a penny out of you.
	by going on a nice cruise to the Bahamas with you and your wife.
	We actually went to the Bahamas on our honeymoon, ironically, but I don't have the money to do it.
	I mean, look at my plea for pauper status.
	You know, you got my finances right there.
	I'm massively in debt because of these judgments and still owe my attorneys, those who assisted me up to this point, about $100,000, which is why if anyone wants to review the details of this case, and the caller here has raised fascinating questions about it, go to givesango.com, fundingfetser. and the caller here has raised fascinating questions about it, GiveSendGo.com slash funding Fetzer.
	You'll find access to the links to the Supreme Court.
	You can download the petition we're addressing here and the supporting appendices.
	You can actually even download all my financials.
	They're out there for God and everyone to see.
	That was necessary for me to attend the status of a pro se self-representing applicant.
	It's all in the docket of the Supreme Court.
	They have until the 21st of June to respond.
	If they don't respond, that's also interpretable as because they just don't have any defense.
	And I, you know, I won't be surprised either way.
	And I do appreciate everything you're saying here.
	So I repeat, I also give a whole history of the case, by the way, as it developed through the courts and public commentary about it from figures who are Pretty knowledgeable.
	Mike Adams, when the book was first banned, interviewed me about the banning of the book, which was really an extraordinary event in American history.
	And now, of course, today I've had six books banned by Amazon.
	In my opinion, you might or might not agree.
	I think there's a whole First Amendment issue right there with Amazon, because I'm convinced they were acting as an agent of the state.
	I mean, after all, if they're a book dealer, they ought to be exhilarated By a book that sold nearly 500 copies after being on sale for less than a month when they banned it, so I believe there's a case there.
	But there are a whole lot of other issues.
	Kevin Barrett, who sat in on the trial for damages, wrote an absolutely sensational, capturing exactly the quality of the trial for damages, which was ridiculous.
	They projected an image of this Noah Posner, whom, by the way, in my evidence I show is a fabrication.
	He's a fictional character made up out of photographs of his older stepbrother, Michael Vabner.
	I also explained in my docs that the individual came to Wisconsin and testified under the name of Leonard Posner is not even Leonard Posner.
	He's an imposter by the name of Ruben Vabner.
	The judge would not allow me to pursue any of this.
	So if you want to look at an outrageous case, just trace a history.
	And by the way, there's a very nice review of the book by Brian Wright that I also linked there where you can read where he observes that to an epistemological certainty, nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	And I believe that's exactly what the book established.
	Yeah.
	Further thoughts.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I'll just wrap up.
	So well, well, I mean, the other thing I'll just just to just Conclude is if you do happen to ever file a bankruptcy by any, you know, by any, you know, to discharge the judgment, they, you know, you could potentially have another trial.
	Because if you filed, if you were able to file chapter 11, chapter 13, or, you know, or chapter seven, depending on how, how it went, if they've tried to oppose the discharge of their judgment, which is what they, what they will try, they may try to do to come into the bankruptcy case, They have to then prove in the federal system that you're defaming them.
	You wouldn't have a chance to re-litigate some of the underlying judgment, but they would have to prove in like a second trial that it was willful or malicious conduct on your part in order to avoid the judgment being vacated or being discharged in the bankruptcy.
	So that's the one thing, and maybe that is where this will end up.
	The other story, you know, if you did want to go that way, I mean, at the end of the day, it seems like that may be your best way out.
	Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but, you know, I'll just leave you with this final thought, is that, you know, you're a logic professor, and obviously you focus on, you know, these things, and you always say, you know, what you're doing, but And what you believe and whatnot.
	But the reality is, and what you said, you know, about how they're projecting a big image of the child up in the courtroom, from a logical point of view, that shouldn't have any impact on the decision at all.
	But the reality is, the legal system isn't necessarily about who's right, or, you know, the facts.
	It's about convincing 12 people of something, you know, and People typically, they will go into a courtroom with a damages jury and they'll bring in all the pill bottles that the person has ever taken.
	They'll put them on a display right in front of the jury to say, look at what this person has to live with.
	And you'll have plaintiff, you know, a plaintiff coming in the courtroom with crutches and stuff.
	And I mean, this, this happens.
	It's all about inflaming, inflaming the passions of the jury to, to, to, to rule against you.
	And to be honest with you, Even if you had been allowed to pursue your case the way you want to have a jury and present all your evidence, I'm just going to tell you, I mean, from my point of view, I don't think you'd have won there either, because I think they would have been successful in defaming you.
	You can see what happened.
	And you're talking about summary judgment in Texas.
	You can see Alex Jones lost.
	No, no, no, no, stay, stick around, stick around, stick around.
	I got a couple more comments for you.
	Alex Jones has never lost on the merit.
	No case has gone to the question of did anybody die at Sandy Hook?
	They've all been decided on procedural grounds or other grounds.
	Some of them are as ridiculous as there are two cases that were cited in going to the Wisconsin, by the appellate court.
	Which I had an attorney at the time who probably observed that the two cases they cited were mere dicta because they were decided on procedural ground.
	There's never been a judicial determination of whether anyone died at Sandy Hook.
	Mine was the one that would come the closest, but they had that precluded.
	Now, when you come to juries, I think my case in Madison, which is a very liberal town, They had a panel of 12 jurors, 11 women, one man, all 30 years or younger, each of whom professed under voir dire that they never even heard of Alex Jones.
	Now think about it.
	I would compare this to the Sussman jury, where they had the simple question of, did he lie to the FBI or not?
	And you had 12 Democrats who think Hillary is a cat's meow, And they said they didn't even think that the case should have been brought, as though that were their role or determination.
	So I agree with you about... So why didn't you challenge?
	Why didn't you challenge?
	So that would be what you would call a challenge to the array.
	So why didn't you challenge the array?
	challenge the array, you know, or challenge the challenge the jury for being non representative of the, you know, of the population.
	Well, I've been pro se all the way through, you know, the summary judgment hearing, which was, in my opinion, just abuse of the law.
	I mean, this is a form of weaponization of the law.
	There was no merit to the case to begin with, as you may or may not be aware.
	The death certificate attached to the complaint was completely different than the one I published in the book.
	I think in Texas it would have been thrown out immediately and therefore I think there are just a host of issues that are going to warrant Supreme Court review of this case and I believe that there are few enough occasions for them to set things right that when it's teed up as clearly as this case tees up the question of summary judgment as it's practiced in Wisconsin and because it's an ongoing offense Because this improper methodology is being used again and again.
	Every citizen of Wisconsin, I believe the court is actually going to expedite this case and act on it promptly.
	But look, I think you're a brilliant guy.
	You obviously know the law from A to Z. I'm very impressed.
	This is probably the single best call I've ever had having anything to do with my case.
	And I'm very grateful to you for calling in.
	We'll see how it plays out now.
	As far as not raising, once I obtain legal representation, I presumed that my rights would be represented, but every attorney has his own strengths and weaknesses.
	And while I thought he was very able and wrote a wonderful brief, for example, not only to the Court of Appeals, but also to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they were all embracing this flawed methodology that entitles the judge to make up his own facts based on whether or not he thinks that's reasonable.
	And it was very clear from the post-verdict motion, which is amply cited in my brief, that this judge made up his mind that Sandy Hook was real and that anything I had to say about was unreasonable from the beginning.
	Now, if that's not a case for the Supreme Court, I cannot imagine what would be.
	You know, I like everything.
	I think you're quite a brilliant guy, and very precise, and very knowledgeable.
	And my God, if I lose this thing, I hope you'll reach out to me so we can discuss my future options, because I don't want to let this... Yeah, definitely.
	Think about, if you lose it, think about the bankruptcy thing, because if you do, they will have to file You know, before they, they will immediately be unable to collect against you and they will have to go to the federal court.
	They will have to file what they call an adversary complaint, an adversary proceeding against you where you're entitled to like a new mini trial in the bankruptcy case.
	So, I mean, they would have to, and they would have a much heavier burden because I noticed they stripped out from their complaint.
	They dropped the punitive damages claim because I guess they could, they didn't think they could prove that you acted maliciously.
	So because they're stripping that out, they may have difficulty proving or getting them to prove that their judgment is immune from discharge.
	So just think about what I said, but I appreciate your call.
	Oh, I think you're wonderful.
	I think this was a sensational call.
	I can't thank you enough for calling in.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you so much.
	Danny, I know this isn't really your bag, but do you have any thoughts about what the caller had to say?
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, he must be a lawyer or maybe a college professor in law or something.
	And, you know, I liked what he had to say, and I hope you'll keep in contact with him because he obviously has a lot of knowledge.
	But here's my opinion, sir, on the whole thing.
	You know, this whole thing is happening to you based on corruption.
	The Sandy Hook was, in my opinion, after looking at all the evidence, and I've looked at all of it from the very beginning, all the way from, you know, Wheeler to, you know, all the stuff.
	We don't have to rehash it all.
	It was obviously fake.
	Okay, no doubt.
	They knocked the school down because they don't want anybody to see the evidence.
	They had the construction crew sign a nondisclosures because they don't want them to talk about what they didn't see.
	And that's the fact that that school have been closed a long time.
	And there's a lot of lot of witnesses out there that you could dig up on that.
	And I'd like to point out that they're already talking about knocking the Evaldi school down.
	That way the governor or nobody can ever get in there and see that this whole thing is a complete freaking lie.
	But your whole case was based on corruption, sir.
	The whoever the powers to be that are putting on what I would call the Sandy Hook op.
	have tentacles everywhere and they were able to get to that judge to use the submarine judgment and to carry that forward on to the Supreme Court there of Wisconsin and you know somebody like me would break through that as far as you know I would walk into the courtroom with the kids alive and well and they would just explain to the judge this is an op I'm not dead I was forced to move We have photographs, sir.
	Witnesses and photographs.
	We know the kids are alive and well.
	We know they are, okay?
	They changed their name.
	They're in another state.
	You know the investigator that actually talked to the kids.
	You know him personally, okay?
	There's things that can be done here.
	If the judges were at all wanted to know the truth about this, They can make a few phone calls, okay, and they would know the kids were alive, okay?
	They could reach out and figure out the kids are alive.
	I can only imagine if I walked in with a bunch of the Sandy Hook kids from witness protection and walked into the courtroom that day when you're there through the summary judgment.
	Would he say it's unreasonable that you brought these kids into the courtroom to explain to me that they're still alive?
	I don't believe that these are the kids and I'm not going to listen to these kids and good for them.
	But this isn't the kid.
	I mean, how far would they be willing to take it?
	And that's as far as they want to take it.
	And that's what they're doing, sir.
	And it will take the Supreme Court to iron this out, no doubt.
	Danny, I think you're right.
	I want to squeeze in, and Paul is on the line, and we've only got a couple of minutes.
	I'm going to be doing a debate with Rebecca Karnes about Sandy Hook tonight from 7 to 9 p.m.
	Eastern Time on The Perfect Triangle, hosted by Giuseppe Fangulo.
	Rebecca will be there.
	I'll be there.
	You want to check it out.
	The Perfect Triangle.
	It's on speakfreeradio.com, but it's also going to be broadcast on Twitch.
	Check it out.
	Rebecca versus the Fats on Sandy Hook.
	Friday, 7 to 9 p.m.
	ET.
	The Perfect Triangle.
	Paul, you got a minute or so, maybe a minute and a half.
	Your thoughts.
	Okay.
	If I was appointed Supreme Dictator of the United States, and I said, Danny, I want you to be my Homeland Security Chief.
	And I give you an order to execute by firing squad, Joe Biden and all facsimiles of Joe Biden, Michael Moore, Beto O'Rourke, and every other Democratic faggot that's been calling for gang control.
	Would you have any problem carrying out that order?
	I would get the military involved and let the MPs and the military court do that.
	I wouldn't do it myself, but I would definitely be involved in setting that up and getting the right people lined up to do that, no doubt.
	All right, you're keeping your job then.
	Thanks.
	I think everyone might enjoy this debate with Rebecca tonight.
	I've been a huge fan of Rebecca.
	I feature her many times.
	She was a Newtown mom who came to the gradual realization it had been fake, But now she's had a reversal.
	Now she's attacking Sophia Smallstorm, Wolfgang Helbig, and me.
	I'm supposed to be some kind of AWP.
	I think she's going to try to make her case tonight during a debate.
	Danny, yeah, you get the final words here, my friend.
	Well, I would show the photo, sir.
	I'd have a nice glossy 8x10.
	I have it.
	And show the kids alive and well.
	Uh, that, uh, the investigator turned up that they sent to him.
	And the kids are alive.
	And that, that ends the debate.
	Here they are.
	Here's their photograph.
	They're alive and well.
	They're in witness protection right now.
	They could come forward.
	And the Supreme Court, I'd like to say, sir, the Supreme Court, anybody that's left on there that's honest, any of those judges could bust right through any witness protection.
	And get those kids in their courtroom, even in chambers, and get to the bottom of this.
	Any one of them can get on a plane and go out and talk to those kids, okay?
	And break this thing wide open.
	This is a case about suppression, okay?
	They're trying to keep this op going.
	You've broken it wide open and they're just dragging you through the mud, trying to keep this out and delegitimize you breaking this open.
	That's all this is about.
	And we're going to find out if the Supreme Court, how corrupt it is.
	Either they're going to, you know, get to the bottom of this and see the Sandy kids are alive.
	Well, of which the witnesses are out there and the kids are alive.
	They could show up in the courtroom if they were told to.
	And this thing will end.
	Or are they going to just keep doing this whole sweeping under the rug?
	It's not reasonable.
	You can't show me photos or bring the kids into my courtroom.
	You have no proof.
	Those are the real kids, even though they're giving me the whole story.
	You know what I mean?
	This all can be settled with fingerprints.
	I mean, it's very quick to get to the bottom of this thing.
	Very quick.
	And corruption.
	Eddie, I can't think.
	Can't thank you enough for being here.
	I appreciate the callers.
	The one was simply excellent about a critique of my case before the Supreme Court.
	Check out Rebecca versus the Feds tonight.

▲