Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 25, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:54

The Raw Deal (24 August 2022) with Patrick Bergey

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I need somebody.
	Help!
	Not just anybody.
	Help!
	You know I need someone.
	Help!
	When I was young, so much younger than today.
	I never needed anybody's help in any way But now these days are gone, I'm not so self-assured But now I find a gentline, I've opened up the doors Help me if you can, I'm feeling down And I do appreciate you being round Help me get my feet back on the ground
	Won't you please, please help me Thank you.
	Well, this is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Raw Deal.
	I'm looking forward to featuring my special guest.
	I'd look forward to introducing him when he makes an appearance.
	In the meanwhile, we have a new development in regard to the Democrats' ongoing gun control agenda regarding the false flag that occurred at Uvalde, just as they have gone after Alex Jones over Sandy Hook.
	Where Alex appears to have capitulated, he's now going to invite Scarlett Lewis, who's supposed to be the wife of Neil Hesslin, who claims to have held his son Jesse in his arms as he died, contradicting Wayne Carver, the medical examiner, who explained during his press conference that the parents were not allowed to come into contact with their children, that there was a time for that.
	That they were identified on the basis of photographs, which is I have explained appears to be appropriate because most of these kids only appear to have existed in the form of photographs.
	In any case, we know that.
	Now that I have a petition before the Supreme Court.
	There may be an opportunity here to get things at least partially right because in all these court cases involving those involved with regard to Alex Jones, they have failed to establish whether anybody died at Sandy Hook.
	They have what's technically known as begging the question.
	That means you take for granted what requires to be established on independent grounds.
	The phrase begging the question has come to be used in conventional parlance to mean invites the question.
	That's OK, provided we're aware of the ambiguity of the phrase, because technically in logic and critical thinking, begging and even in the law, begging the question is to take for granted.
	It's like the leading question in regard to You know, lawsuits and interrogations in courts of law, leading question has a presupposition so that the leading question is begging the question in the form of a question.
	You know, in the Alex Jones, everything that he was asked was basically a leading question predicated on the assumption not yet established that kids had actually died at Sandy Hook.
	Well, in my opinion, Alex compromised himself by being on both sides of the issue.
	Now, we've only seen the first of what are going to be three different trials against Alex Jones for millions of dollars.
	You've already heard about the suit against Remington, which was purportedly settled by the insurance companies, four insurance companies, for $73 million.
	It's completely absurd what's going on here.
	This would be like suing General Motors because one of their automobiles was involved in an accident, or even quite a few.
	General Motors would not be responsible any more than Remington would be responsible, had the shootings been real.
	What has dumbfounded me is that Remington has shown no interest in establishing whether or not anybody actually died in Sandy Hook.
	So I sought to intervene in the Remington case.
	I sought to intervene in all three of the Alex Jones cases.
	Specifically explaining my reason for being there to wit that in none of the cases that are being cited was there any determination that the 20 kids and six adults that actually died at Sandy Hook.
	Now, the Neil Hesselin case is very striking because it's not possible both that Wayne Carver, when he reports that children were not, the parents were not allowed to come into contact with their children.
	And Neil Heslund's claim, I held my dying son in my arms, can't both be true.
	They cannot both be true.
	I pointed this out to the Alex Jones people.
	They showed not the least interest.
	I sought to intervene in all three of his trials, not only Was I opposed by the Sandy Hook parents, which was unsurprising in the extreme?
	I was also opposed by the defendant.
	Alex Jones and his legal team had no interest in having Jim Fetzer be a part of the legal matter because he was stirring up the pot by asking, how come there's been no notice taken of the fact that we have never had a judicial determination of whether anybody died at Sandy Hook?
	So they're going on a pace in relation to the Alex Jones.
	I even volunteered to be an expert witness.
	After all, I brought together 13 experts, including six PhDs.
	We established that the school had been closed by 2008.
	It was loaded with asbestos and other biohazard damage by a hurricane.
	There would even be floods in the region.
	And there was one in 2007 of which I was unaware when we published a book.
	But the fact is the school was uninhabitable we had a fellow who is in south of contractor visiting a friend in nearby monroe who i don't say him.
	His host was going over to sandy hawk to pick up some gas for his kids on the cheap but he went along with him and he just reported in a lengthy.
	The commentary about how the school was in decrepit condition.
	He couldn't believe anyone was would be using it, and the caretaker said he expected it was going to be torn down.
	All of which confirms what we found in the book that was published in 2010.
	in 2010, I mean, the book occurred, appeared in 2015, "The Book of the It was immediately banned.
	He was there in 2010.
	The book was immediately banned by Amazon.
	It was published in advance of my publication of the book, so it's completely independent.
	It's just like a mayor of Boston going on the air on this show called Greater Boston that hosted by Andy Rumi's daughter, where he was boasting of his friendship with a vice president, then Vice President Biden.
	You know, the vice president, this is like in November of 2012, how the vice president was boasting that gun control would be a done deal by January 2013.
	And Andy Rooney's daughter was just floored.
	And she said, well, what could possibly happen for legislation to pass so fast?
	The mayor was unwilling to say, but obviously they were talking about Sandy Hook.
	This appears to have been a Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder event.
	Eric Holder traveled to Connecticut on the 27th of November.
	Less than three weeks before the event, he met with a governor.
	The governor would later state during a press conference that he and the lieutenant governor had been spoken to that something like this might happen.
	Leading me to conjecture something like this, what could he possibly mean?
	That he'd been warned someone would go nutty and come into a public school and shoot up a bunch of kids?
	Or that he'd been told that they were going to take an abandoned school, conduct a drill, and present it as mass murder to promote gun control?
	And it's very clear it was the latter and not the former, because he took no steps to warn the school systems to upgrade their security, which as a governor of the state, having been warned, he would have been obligated to do.
	But being told they were going to conduct a FEMA drill and present mass murder at an abandoned school, he appears to have been just fine with that.
	Indeed, he would later denied even said that even though we have his press conference recorded video online.
	I talk about it in the book.
	Wolfgang Halberg, with whom I traveled to Newtown in 2014, actually went to the governor's office and asked the governor by whom he was informed Yeah, there was going to be something like this was gonna happen and the governor and we have this on video to tonight ever saying it.
	I mean, how absurd is that when you get major contradictions like this between a reported Sandy Hook parent and the medical examiner where they cannot both be true, but where they can both be false.
	And by the governor of the state himself contradicting what he said in the wake of the event and then denying he even said what we have him on video saying, it's just absolutely stunning.
	You know, something is terribly, terribly wrong.
	Well, of course, the book blows it all apart.
	Not only did we discover that the school had been closed by 2008 and there were no teachers or students there, but that it had been a FEMA drill for which we even found the manual, technically a mass casualty exercise involving children, where in fact all the events on the ground correspond to what you'd expect from a FEMA drill.
	There was a portable sign, which get this the first select man a new town a position equivalent to mayor held by Patricia Lord under oath during a hearing that Wolfgang Halbig had motivated under oath.
	Acknowledges sign it but thereby the Department of Homeland Security well if the official story were true there'd be no role for the Department of Homeland Security to have anything to do with Sandy Hook but FEMA of course is a branch of the Department of Homeland Security.
	FEMA was running the drill.
	The sign which said everyone must check in was in accord with the manual because it says right in the manual, everyone must check in with a controller upon arrival so they can eventually pay them for their participation.
	So we have this thing locked down.
	This is why even though Amazon.com had 20 books about Sandy Hook on sale, In October of 2015, they banned my one of the 20, the only book that contested the official account.
	Nobody died at Sandy Hook.
	They banned it on 19 November, even though it had sold nearly 500 copies in less than a month.
	Now, you would think that a book that sold nearly 500 copies in less than a month would be destined to be a runaway bestseller.
	But that was a problem.
	So they banned the book.
	They gave one of these generic explanations for violating their guidelines, but the book had actually been produced by CreateSpace, which is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, and they'd had no problem getting it up and being published on Amazon.com.
	It would turn out to be only the first of a whole series of my books that Amazon would ban because what I have done is to pioneer a methodology that's virtually foolproof by bringing together groups of experts to sort out what really happened, including those who are expert in areas where I am not.
	I've offered all these courses for 35 years in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.
	I'm not an expert, for example, on the interpretation of x-rays.
	I'm not an expert on wound ballistics.
	I'm not an expert on editing photographs and films.
	So I brought in individuals who were in my early work and all this began back in 1990 to 30 years ago in the wake of the release of Oliver Stone's film JFK, which is a masterpiece.
	And while it's not flawless, Oliver did not know at the time that Lee Oswald was actually standing in the doorway when the JFK motorcade came by, which meant that he not only cannot have been the lone demented gunman, but he cannot have been one of the Eight shooters, it turns out, where I've identified six by name, rank, and serial number, the shots they took, the effects they had.
	Uli Dhalmagard has identified a seventh, with which I agree.
	We only have one remaining shooter.
	And because each of them seemed to be representatives of different sponsors of the assassination, By argument of elimination, I suspect the last shooter we've yet to identify was on the grassy knoll on the south opposite the grassy knoll on the north, from which multiple shots were fired.
	There was a lone tree there, and you wouldn't think it would be possible for a gunman to be there, but I've observed photographs in the company of two experts on JFK, two different photographs of him standing up holding his rifle.
	So there's no doubt that he was there.
	Uh, meanwhile...
	I brought together a world authority on the human brain who is also an expert on wound ballistics, a PhD in physics from Wisconsin, who is also an MD from Michigan and board certified in radiation oncology, which is a treatment of cancer using x-ray therapy, which makes him an expert in the interpretation of x-rays.
	I brought in a leading expert.
	On photographs and films, I brought in a physician who was actually in trauma room number one, when JFK's moribund body was brought in, and then two days later was responsible for the care and treatment of his alleged assassin, Lee Oswald.
	I brought in another PhD in physics, this time with a specialty in electromagnetism and properties of light and of images of moving objects, where he did a brilliant
	Tutorial analysis of the whole movie known as a brooder film and found that well, it was 98% technically perfect that the other 2% gave it away, including, for example, misplacing the Stemmons freeway sign when they reconstituted the film after taking it apart, blowing up the frame, painting out the blowout at the back of JFK's head, editing a massive film frame so that they
	Instead of showing two different shots to the head that were witnessed, where after the driver, William Greer, pulled the limousine to the left and do a halt, Jack had already been hit twice, once in the throat from in front and once in the back from behind.
	He slumped forward.
	He was wearing this very heavy corset because he suffered back pain every single day.
	Practically everyone grew up knowing about The PT-109, and now JFK actually saved a fellow sailor.
	So he was wearing this very tightly wound corset to ease his back brace, which limited his mobility.
	So after William Greer brought the vehicle to the left and to a halt, Jack was a sitting duck.
	He was hit in the back of the head by a shot fired from the Daltex.
	He slumped forward.
	Jackie eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by a bullet that caused his brains to be blown out of the back of his head, including a big triangular chunk that came to be known as the Harper Fragment.
	And then Jack just slumped to the left.
	This is at the time Jackie was climbing out on the back of the trunk.
	Some think she was trying to get away from the shooter.
	No.
	She's going after a chunk of Jack's skull and brains that was on the truck, which he held in her hand all the way to Parkland.
	And after they pried JFK's moribund body from her arms and she collected herself, she entered trauma room number one and turned to the anesthesiologist, Weber Jenkins, extending her hand, asking, will this help?
	Easily the most poignant moment in the history of the assassination.
	She knew a lot about Theater, art, literature, music, painting.
	She knew nothing about ballistics, brain surgery, neurology.
	You know, the brain isn't a Lego set that can be put back together.
	And after having half his brains blown out in Dealey Plaza, the man was dead instantly.
	Indeed, Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician who prepared the body for the funeral.
	Well, they decided to have a closed casket and observed that there was no discoloration to the face, which meant that he had died instantly.
	And that tends to be the result when you have half your brains blown out.
	So in any case, Amazon not only banned my book on Sandy Hook, where I release it for free as a PDF, that I believe, the perps who are trying to cover all this up did not anticipate and where A friend of mine who follows these matters believes they've been downloaded millions of times.
	I think his upper estimate was as many as 10 million, which I welcome, because that meant there was a whole lot of the American people with access to really a rather definitive treatment of what actually happened at Sandy Hook, whereas I began to explain by bringing multiple experts together, in this case 13 experts, including six PhDs,
	We have the effect of double checking each other's work and the probability of being wrong about something major becomes virtually zero.
	I mean, if I had a 1 in 10 chance of getting something wrong, Then if someone else only has a 1 in 10 chance, you know, the probability we got something wrong is only going to be 1 in 1 followed by 13 zeros.
	I mean, it's just going to be incredibly improbable we're going to have anything wrong.
	And indeed, while there are a couple of trivial issues, for example, perhaps a single most damning photograph is one of a Crime scene vehicle already in the parking lot.
	There's crime scene tape up.
	There's a flag at full mass.
	You got Wayne Carter Carver leaning against the wall with his arm folded, awaiting the arrival of his portable mortuary tent.
	But a string of windows in Classroom 10 are intact.
	After the event, they'd be blown out.
	So what that means is this photograph, and where Bryan Davidson is not only tracked back to the magazine where it was published, but also to the original in the files of the Connecticut State Police, this photograph means that either they were there, present before the event took place, or The event had already taken place, but they hadn't finished fabricating the evidence.
	In particular, they hadn't dealt with the windows in Classroom 10.
	I also published how the windows at Classroom 10 looked before and after, and indeed, we have a photograph of several of the perps inspecting the windows to figure out what to do about it, where they would eventually drill holes in the aluminum frame Into which they inserted pink rods all of which are perfectly parallel to one another and ninety degree angle to the window pane i mean it's completely absurd no one would believe that was a little bit shooting and guess what.
	Brian discovered while he was there.
	Hundreds of photographs taken by the Connecticut State Police who were apparently conducting and running the whole op from inside, you know, behind the scene, but photographing every element, including a photograph down the hallway of the school where two bodies were supposed to be located.
	There are not only no bodies, but there's no blood.
	Multiple photographs inside Classroom 10 where there's supposed to be a whole pile of kids' bodies.
	There were not only no bodies, there was no blood, there were no pockmarks on the wall, and guess what?
	As a sign of consciousness of guilt, the Connecticut State Police had removed the metadata from these photographs so they couldn't be introduced as courts of law in terms of the location and the times and the photographer by whom they were taken, but This one photograph showing they're there already and the windows in Classroom 10 are undamaged speaks for itself and may be the most damning photograph of all.
	Well, they use Alex Jones to go after everyone who was speaking out about Sandy Hook, Sophia Smallstorm, James Tracy, Wolfgang Helbig, and me, and even took my blog, where on the 27th of July, I was publishing stuff about Sandy Hook, including proof that they staged the photograph showing a string of kids being evacuated.
	Because it turns out there was a photograph taken minutes earlier where you see a whole group of parents present, arms folded, hands in their pockets, casually looking on, leading me to describe this photograph as lounging at the massacre, showing not the least anxiety or concern.
	I mean, after all, if this had been real, if there were a parent there, there's no reason in the world why there ought to have been.
	You'd snatch your kid and get the hell out of Dodge.
	Instead, they're all casually looking around.
	Well, They want to play this for all it's worth, so now we have the latest report on the new blog.
	They took my blog at jamesfetzer.org and turned it over to point to posnervfetzer.com, which is some of the documents from the lawsuit that led to the taking of my blog, so that the following day on July 28,
	During the Alex Jones trial, when they began smearing those of us and referred to yours truly as batshit crazy, it wouldn't be possible for the public to find out what this batshit crazy guy had to say because they'd taken the blog, which is a veritable repository of information about Sandy Hook.
	So what's the latest development now?
	I've had to create a new blog at jameshfetzer.org.
	Remember the H, jameshfetzer.org.
	And this morning I published a new story, Yuvaldi Families to Sue Gun Manufacturer Gun Store as Part of Massive $27 Billion Lawsuit.
	Now this is coming from Infowars, which is continuing to report Adam Salazar, author, will also list Uvalde City and County Police of Texas Rangers as half of the Department of Public Safety and the U.S.
	Border Patrol and Defendants.
	On its face, I regard this as simply absurd.
	Here's my editor's note.
	Brian Davidson, P.I., with whom I authored the Law Enforcement Paul Slag Stage Event Checklist, which you can download here, discuss the Uvalde school shooting event, which appears to be modeled after Sandy Hook.
	And I've now embedded our interview.
	Brian Davidson, P.I., and I discuss the Uvalde school shooting one July 2022.
	Instead of shooting his mother, he shoots his grandmother, and instead of shooting 21st graders and 6th adults, he shoots 19 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders, where even one of the Sandy Hook teachers is recycled for the event.
	This is so embarrassingly bad.
	more when we return from this break.
	music
	We'll be right back.
	Management would like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
	This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	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 will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	Freedom Substance dot com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio.
	Hey, everyone.
	It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up.
	And the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSledge.com, the people station.
	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.
	Now, I mentioned before they've banned five more of my books.
	They have banned a book about the Boston bombing.
	I mean, again, in each of these cases, I bring together groups of experts that sort out what really happened because of our success, not our failure.
	They're banning these books so you, the public, cannot learn what actually happened.
	Not only.
	Boston bombing, but Orlando and Dallas.
	I mean, let me give you a thumbnail sketch about the Boston bombing.
	Police on bullhorns were broadcasting.
	This is a drill.
	This is a drill.
	The Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And then They had a second tweet, one would be set off a minute from now in front of the library, and a minute later in front of the Boston Public Library, one of these puff bombs was set off.
	Now, as an artillery officer in the Marine Corps, I can assure you these were not powerful enough to kill anyone, unless perhaps you were sitting right on top of it.
	They were for theatrical effect.
	And they even use a smoke machine.
	I was told by a Hollywood producer director and actually cast one of those who participated in this fraud.
	A guy wearing a cowboy hat known as Carlos Aredondo that he cast him in a film of it.
	He had himself directed in the past where Carlos Aredondo wheelchairs, one of the alleged victims who was supposed to have his legs blown off, but who turns out to be an Afghanistan veteran who actually had lost his legs in Afghanistan.
	I mean, this is just ridiculous beyond belief that they'd use a.
	Studio quality smoke machine, so I poured through all the images I had, and by God, yes, he was right there, a studio quality smoke machine.
	So, when you have the cameras peer in, you found, yes, there were bodies lying there, missing arms and legs, but there was no blood.
	Now, as Dr. Lorraine Day has been emphasizing from the beginning, It is a physiological impossibility to have limbs blown off by explosives and there to be no blood.
	The blood only showed up later.
	And well, you know, the promo for the books as it came out of a tube actually came out from little orange duffel bags.
	These were fake blood kits.
	And there were about a half a dozen strewn around the area when it was cleared away.
	It came out of these little blood kits.
	But the fact is, it was totally fraudulent.
	In Orlando, what happened?
	Well, the permit for the club had expired three years before.
	Dr. Ewan was the first to uncover that.
	The club had originally been painted white.
	They repainted it black because it was closed.
	It only had 11 parking spaces.
	It only had 150 legal occupancy.
	They claimed they had over 300 crammed in.
	Over 300 in 150 legal occupancy, they would have been like sardines.
	They also claim there's only one exit.
	No one could get out, but in fact, a diagram, a floor plan shows there were six different exits.
	They had to have been streaming out in every direction.
	They produce a fake video, which does not have a date timestamp, purporting to show individuals in the club dancing, but they're well separated.
	There's plenty of space.
	It's not even possible, as taken inside the Paul's Club with over 300 packed in.
	That would have been impossible.
	for them to be as spaced out.
	So that was totally fraudulent.
	And by the way, in all three of these cases, in all three of these cases, we had no surge of EMTs into the bill.
	Sandy Hook, Boston, Orlando, no surge of EMTs, no string of ambulances, no medevac chopper called.
	In fact, it's amazing in Boston, they were actually turning away bonafide physicians from reaching to the victim because they would have seen they were amputee actors and it would have blown the cover.
	In Orlando, it was completely absurd.
	You had reports of bodies being thrown in a pickup truck.
	Well, you don't do that.
	You can only have EMTs deal, but there weren't any EMTs.
	There weren't any ambulances.
	If you pick up a body, you may aggravate an injury and bring about a death that might have been circumvented, and therefore you're going to find yourself liable for a lawsuit.
	So no one ought to do that.
	But they were portraying it as, you know, a heroic citizen responding to a desperate situation, but it was fake.
	It was a drill.
	They don't use actual medical resources for these phony events because they have to reserve them for bona fide emergencies, so they won't participate in drills.
	I'll come to Uvalde as another illustration.
	And then in Charlottesville, they banned my book about Charlottesville too.
	That whole thing was completely contrived.
	Yeah, the governor of the state, have the mayor of Charlottesville, have the local police stand down so he could use the Virginia State Police to put the crowd, which had been permitted, it was peacefully protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, into a violent confrontation with members of Antifa and BLM that had been bused in by George Soros, often even on the same bus.
	And meanwhile, blocks away, they had a contrived event where they had two vans preposition, no one in them.
	And then you had a Dodge Challenger crash into the back and back out.
	Now, let me tell you.
	This was also completely staged.
	They had two different Dodge Challengers.
	One had a racing stripe, one did not.
	One had a sunroof, the other did not.
	Two different drivers.
	A 20-year-old diagnosed schizophrenic with thick prescription glasses who'd be put on trial.
	A 32-year-old military veteran who commanded a battalion of reservists in Ohio.
	Who is actually driving?
	We have the images of the driver in the car compared to their images.
	It's obviously not the schizophrenic.
	It's obviously the military guy.
	I mean, this is just insulting beyond belief.
	And they had multiple takes.
	You got some photographs of the car just driving in the crowd, no vehicles around.
	Then, of course, there's where he's driving and crashing into the back of the van.
	And when I watched him back out, It was what with such alacrity, I thought I was witnessing a NASCAR driver.
	I mean, it was phenomenal how accurately he was steering that vehicle.
	And then you got a third, which was posted on the cover of The New York Times, which is supposed to be the driver heading into the crowd.
	There's a pickup truck, a Toyota pickup truck you don't see elsewhere.
	And he got a couple of stuntmen flying through the air.
	I mean, that's how bad it is.
	That's all exposed in the book on Charlottesville Parkland.
	Well, it was a holiday, Valentine's Day, so they sent the kids home at one o'clock.
	They had 3,500 students there, but they sent them home at one o'clock because it was a holiday.
	And that's why you don't have a whole lot of cell phone photographs and videos from the alleged shooting.
	In fact, what we do have is one of the students walking off campus in the company of Nicholas Cruz explains he was talking to him as they walked off campus.
	And they were hearing shots being fired in the background, and she said to him, I'm surprised it wasn't you.
	And he looked at her and says, huh?
	Well, she now is alleged to have committed suicide.
	She'd be a very inconvenient witness.
	They used a guy in a hazmat suit firing a SIM gun.
	It fires simulated ammunition, which is made out of beeswax and laundry detergent.
	So that it won't even penetrate the skin.
	It'll create a welt, but it won't penetrate the skin.
	Even the New York Times ran a piece about the massive damage done to bones by actual AR-17 slugs.
	And where, in fact, they had several of the girls who supposedly had been shot in a fake doctor just as they had fake doctors in Orlando claiming, one, By the name of Maddie had been shot in the torso and in the chest that these were large caliber slugs and she was very lucky, but young people heal very fast.
	So this is just about as absurd as it gets.
	If you're shot in the in the in the in the abdomen or the chest by an AR-15, you're not only not walking around days later, you're dead.
	And it's a small caliber.
	It's a 223 caliber, just slightly larger than a 22.
	So he didn't even know the caliber of the bullet.
	I mean, this is just as absurd as I get.
	And then there's another student, Samantha, who similarly was supposed to have been shot in the legs.
	And even given the New York Times showing how it shatters all the bones, she's walking around days later with only band-aids over her AR-15.
	It's no wonder they wanted to ban that book.
	So you got Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, Orlando and now, oh, Orlando.
	Well, I've already talked about.
	It was neither technically nor physically possible to go to the moon.
	We didn't have the propulsion power.
	We didn't have the computing power.
	Well, they could have had multiple motives there, because not only is there massive proof that we did not go to the moon, it was neither technically nor physically possible to go to the moon.
	We didn't have the propulsion power.
	We didn't have the computing power.
	We didn't have the ability to transit through the Van Allen radiation belt without the astronauts being fried to a crisp.
	They just ignored all that in faking.
	It was really an incredibly dumb stunt.
	I also have a section about the death and replacement of Paul McCartney, which to my astonishment generates just enormous emotional response.
	When you look at the evidence, however, it's very obvious that before 9-11-1966, and yes, he appears to have died, actually been murdered, actually, for political reasons, hence an assassination, if Richard Balducci has it right, and I believe he does, killed by an MI5 agent named Maxwell using a silver hammer obtained from the Vatican.
	I mean, it's a really stunning story.
	Paul before 9-11-1966 was four inches shorter than Paul after 9-11-1966.
	Paul before 9-11-1966 had bad teeth and a narrow palate.
	Paul after 9-11-1966 had normal teeth and had a normal palate and good teeth.
	I mean, he can't possibly be the same person.
	And I just say, look at the evidence.
	If anyone wants to do a take on the Paul McCartney thing, because it does evoke such emotional responses, please go to my blog, James H. Fetzer, and search for why Ringo's story, we replace Paul, why Ringo's confession, we replace Paul, appears to be authentic.
	And you'll find where my dear colleague of longstanding Kevin Barrett disputed, thinks it's all nonsense.
	Well, to my astonishment, as you now know, Kevin Barrett, who featured me on his show Friday to talk about Sandy Hook, thinks Sandy Hook was real.
	I mean, I'm flabbergasted.
	In addition to about Paul versus Fall for false Paul, there are two chapters about the
	The first death of Osama bin Laden, who was actually killed on 7 April 2003, just three weeks into the Iraq invasion, by a B-1 bomber pilot who was given new coordinates, told this is a big one, dropped two 500-pound bombs on a restaurant on the outskirts of Baghdad and killed Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and 50 or 60 members of his general staff.
	Even Dick Cheney, then Vice President, acknowledged, I think we got him, that his lifeless body was dragged out of the rubble.
	But all that was massively suppressed when they were going to have the Great victory celebration mission accomplished on the USS Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, where I served two years, four years as a regular officer in the Marine Corps.
	The first as a series commander with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command.
	The second at the regimental headquarters revising the training program.
	So we could train twice as many recruits in less time, going from 8,000 in 11 weeks to 11,000 in 8 weeks using the same facilities.
	When they were going to have a Mission Accomplished celebration aboard the USS Liberty, a Lincoln, apparently someone, and we suspect it was Donald Rumsfeld, realized that if W now announced we got the Dom, he'd be violating executive orders signed by three presidents, Carter, Reagan, and Ford, against the assassination of the leaders of foreign nations.
	So while they had got Saddam and they did congratulate themselves, the whole mission accomplished event was a bit of a fiasco because they couldn't announce what they wanted to.
	I mean, Bush tried to hint at it, but it was really kind of covert and clumsy and didn't come across.
	Then there are two chapters about the second death of Osama bin Laden.
	Who actually died on 15 December 2001 in Afghanistan.
	Osama was our man in Afghanistan.
	He was instrumental in getting Stinger missiles into the hands of the Mujahideen, which they used to shoot down Soviet helicopters and planes.
	He was an officer in the CIA, Colonel Tim Osman.
	And an official from the agency actually visited him in a hospital in Dubai shortly before his death in Afghanistan from his medical maladies.
	It's tough to get dialysis machines in and out of those caves in Afghanistan.
	And where there were local obituaries about his death, where he was buried in an unmarked grave in accordance with Muslim tradition.
	And where CNN and Fox News both picked up on the story and on the 26th of December 2001 reported that Osama bin Laden was dead.
	But that was inconvenient to Barack Obama, who had him resurrected and die again in a fake raid on a compound in Pakistan where no one had ever seen Osama, because of course he wasn't actually available for public appearances, and where it appears they put all the SEAL team that was responsible for the raid into an old Chinook helicopter they had shot down so they couldn't talk about participating in a stage event.
	That's Barack Hussein Obama!
	Who also nullified the Smith-Munn Act of 1948, which precluded the use of the same techniques of propaganda and disinformation within the United States that, until its nullification, were only permissible outside by the Smith-Munn Modernization Act of 2012, which meant that, just in time for Sandy Hook, that they legalized these phony staged events, phony shootings, all that.
	Barack Obama!
	Barack Obama!
	Barack Obama.
	And then, of course, in the final section I have a whole series of essays, probably the best collection in any one place by the best experts on World War II and what did or did not happen.
	Disputing the official account of six million having been put together in death chambers using Zykon B, but it turns out they were using Zykon B to kill body lice because that was spreading typhus and dysentery in the camps.
	And they wanted to maintain the health of the inmates for the simple reason that you cannot get work out of a corpse.
	And I believe, actually, it was because of those essays, the ADL asked Amazon.com to ban any book that disputed the official narrative of these events, and Amazon obligingly did banning between 200 and 2000 books, including one of mine.
	Now, all of those, except for The Sandy Hook book, which is presently in limbo, but if my petition before the Supreme Court is reversed, I'll be able to release it again to the public at moonrockbooks.com.
	Go to moonrockbooks.com.
	I encourage you, because who knows, this out-of-whack administration is fostering all kinds of censorship.
	It's outrageous beyond belief, and now they're having Induced Alex Jones one way or another to capitulate, where he's now claiming Sandy Hook was real and featuring parents on his show.
	I mean, it's just outrageous what's going on here.
	We have what looks like a reprise at Uvalde.
	Here's the article coming from from Adam Salazar for InfoWars.
	Listen to this.
	A gun maker and a gun shop are listed as defendants in a massive $27 billion class action lawsuit set to be filed on behalf of parents of victims slain at the Robb Elementary School mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
	Announced Sunday, the families represented by the law offices of Bonner & Bonner are seeking to hold a litany of defendants liable for the shooting that claimed the lives of 19 young children and two school staffers, including several city, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, which simultaneously failed to stop gunman Salvador Ramos back in May.
	According to San Antonio Area ABC Affiliate, KSAT, the lawsuit lists Rob Elementary School Police, Farmer's School District Police Chief Pete Arredondo, Uvalde City Police, Uvalde County Sheriffs, the Texas Rangers, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and the U.S.
	Border Patrol's defendants, gun manufacturer Daniel Defense, Which made the gun used in the shooting in the Oasis Outback Gun Store, which legally sold Ramos a gun he used, also listed as defendants.
	That will be some additional institutional defendants as well, such as school boarders, such as city councilors, such as the city of Uvalde, Attorney Charles Boner told KSAT.
	Boner claimed the lawsuit was being filed to serve the community.
	What we intend to do is to help serve this community to file a $27 billion civil rights lawsuit under our United States Constitution, one of a kind in the whole world.
	A lawyer argued law enforcement agencies ignored the U.S.
	Constitution 14th Amendment by depriving people of life.
	This is a novelty indeed.
	People have a right to life under the 14th Amendment, and what we've seen here is that the law enforcement agencies have shown a deliberate conscious regard of the law.
	Bonner says a nearly $30 billion price tag will ensure what happened in Uvalde, where several police units were caught on camera hesitating for over an hour to confront the shooter never happens again.
	Everyone in this world Hurting and bleeding about what happened here in Uvalde and sometimes make sure it doesn't happen again, Bonner said.
	The attorney did not elaborate on how the gun store, which followed all the protocols in selling the firearm, or the gunmaker, had any responsibility in the shooting.
	The Daily Caller reports Daniel Defense and Oasis Outback did not respond to requests for comments.
	The U.S.
	Border Patrol And the city of Uvalde stated they would not comment on pending legislation.
	Lawyers say they'll fire the suit in September after the Justice Department concludes their investigation into the shooting.
	The lawsuit targeting Daniel Defense is reminiscent of the wrongful death suit filed by Sandy Hook victims' parents against Remington Arms in 2014 that resulted in a landmark $73 million settlement to nine victim families seven years later.
	The suit comes as gun control group Uvalde Strong for Gun Safety demanded the Osasis Outback Gun Shop stop selling assault rifles and ammunition or face protests outside their store.
	Well, I've embedded two different interviews I did with Brian Davidson where we took about the Uvalde shooting.
	Among the anomalies, you have two different adult males claiming to be the parent, the male parent of the same little girl named Amory Garza.
	They have the same last name, Garza.
	There's been an attempt to deflect by claiming one was a stepfather, but then he would have a different name.
	They're both showing the same image of her with some honor roll certificate.
	I mean, it's totally fraudulent.
	We also have The Matthew McConaughey coming down to Uvalde to make an appearance and talking about how one of the victims claimed that she could only identify her child on the basis of a green Converse sneaker she was wearing.
	And then they show a green Converse sneakers right out of the box.
	I mean, the laces are just the way they are when they come out of the box.
	These shoes have never been on anyone's foot.
	And guess what?
	When Matthew McConaughey shows up, he comes with his wife, and guess what she's wearing?
	Green Converse sneakers.
	I mean, this is just as absurd as it gets.
	So what you got to understand is all this is calculated to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms.
	Remember, as I observed in a note at the bottom of the back of the Sandy Hook book, Mao Zedong observed, That the people must, the Communist Party must command the guns so that the guns cannot be used to command the party.
	As Dave Hodges long since reported, there were 19 democides during the 20th century, which are the slaughter of all the citizens by their own governments.
	Democide, 19 democides in 2020, each of which was preceded by gun confiscation.
	We can't let it happen here and allow America to become number 20.
	Think about it.
	This is serious, serious stuff.
	My petition is before the United States Supreme Court.
	There's an opportunity here to set things right.
	And since I shared this, there have been a couple of comments from those who were recipients.
	Here's one from Neil.
	$27 billion.
	Nice work if you can get it.
	Here's one from Todd.
	These people control the media.
	A good number of lawyers and judges.
	That's why they use all three.
	Lying liars.
	back after this break.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting This is a Drill, This is a Drill on bullhorns during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do!
	And we must fight back!
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, you burn with us.
	Good evening.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio. Revolution Radio.
	Amazon banned my book so you wouldn't learn what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	It was a FEMA drill presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	Then they sued to shut me up, and the Wisconsin courts played along.
	I have the proof and the law on my side.
	What I don't have is the money.
	They want to do to us what they've already done to Canada.
	Take guns, impose tyranny.
	It's on the way with Remington's help.
	First insurance, then registration, then confiscation.
	I'm asking SCOTUS to stop it.
	GiveSendGo.com funding Fetzer.
	Check it out.
	This is for all the marbles.
	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.
	Well, we have a lot going on with the FBI raid, and if we're lucky, I'm going to have someone who's in a position to give us really inside information about it.
	He's very, very knowledgeable, not only about the lawsuit, but about the Hunter Biden laptop, if you would believe.
	So that in fact, there's a whole lot going on here that is worthy of our contemplation and discussion.
	This is all over and beyond, of course, the attempt that is being made to bring about a nuclear catastrophe in Ukraine.
	I'm really stunned that that continues to take place, where it appears that Zelensky is hoping That in fact, the NATO would respond to a contamination that might be leaked from the from the.
	Nuclear power plant, if they're able to shell it and they're using American artillery to do it, some M-77.
	M77 howitzers, I know they're not going to be able to do it.
	I mean, this is a really bad idea.
	There's a report we have now, just to move back to the domestic issues, where my guest, and I'm hopeful he will be joining us momentarily, Trump had no legal basis.
	A former president's rights under the Presidential Records Act trumped the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.
	This is very important.
	By David B. Rimkin Jr.
	and Lee A. Casey.
	Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump's residence at Mar-a-Lago?
	The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it.
	But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no.
	The FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.
	The warrant authorized the FBI to seize all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S. Code 793, 2071, or 1519. or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.
	Emphasis added, illegally.
	These criminal statutes all address a possession and handling of materials that contain national security information, public records, or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.
	The materials to be seized included, quote, any government and or presidential records created between January 30th, 2017 and January 20th, 2001.
	That is during Trump's term of office.
	It was outrageously broad.
	I'm really delighted to say that I have Patrick Berge here to join me and that he is a very expert on these matters.
	Pat, I want to pick up here with a raid at Mara Lago and how it appears to have been contrived, especially the affidavit by Patrick Byrne that focuses on a meeting at the White House.
	Pick it up from there.
	Hey, Jim.
	Yeah, actually, I'm at the train station right now in Tampa, Florida on my way to West Palm to submit an affidavit that
	Adds more context to Patrick Byrne's affidavit, which I believe was contrived, was part of a setup by Byrne, Flynn, Powell, those in attendance at that December 18th meeting that was even planned well before that, I would argue, going back to 2019.
	back to 2019.
	I put that together and I'm going, I put together, like I said, an after day of myself and I'm going to submit it right now in West Palm Actually tomorrow, I'll be submitting it tomorrow.
	That's sensational.
	That's sensational, Pat.
	Tell us more about what you think is going on here, as though it were not obvious that they're trying to find a pretext to preclude Trump from running again in 2024 because they're scared shitless he's going to clean their clock, just as he did in 2016 and 2020, where he would have prevailed massively but for the manipulation of the vote.
	Your thoughts.
	Well, um, I think you can look at the people that were around Trump advising him, right?
	Or supposedly protecting him, uh, that weren't doing a very good job.
	I was an information assurance security officer with the Department of Defense for a decade from 2005 to 2015.
	I held an above top secret clearance and I understand, uh, and even enforced, um, the, uh, classification requirements for documents.
	So I understand.
	Every aspect about it, even how it's implemented.
	And nobody around Trump that I can see gave him very good advice.
	Trump's not supposed to understand how this stuff works.
	And he may want certain things done a certain way, but there are rules and regulations that his people who are supposed to be there protecting him are supposed to make sure he's aware of.
	And it doesn't seem like that's been the case, right?
	I agree with Trump that he has basically plenary authority, right, to declassify while he's in the presidency.
	He's a classification authority.
	The very definition of that title makes it pretty clear that all classification of government documents really falls under his authority.
	There are additional administrative requirements that go along with any decisions that he makes.
	And those don't seem to have been followed.
	But those are administrative things, right?
	These aren't things that you raid someone's house for.
	And the fact that clearly Trump's Mar-a-Lago was at one point a certified skiff, and I imagine likely still is, Certified SCIF being a secure, compartmentalized information facility that's authorized to keep classifications of materials above top secret, right?
	So, all that being said, there was nothing there, in my opinion, that would really justify it.
	It was not smart, and he was ill-advised, but I think that there's a much larger thing at play, I believe, at least in part, Um, the warrant was based on, um, uh, testimony that was given to the J six committee.
	I believe it was a testimony relating.
	Now, this is my opinion based on the evidence in front of us, but I believe there's a very good likelihood that the.
	At least in part, the justification for the warrant was based on Patrick Burns testimony.
	Uh, about the events of January...of December 18th in 2020, in which I was actually there in...at the Willard, in that area, working with them at that time.
	And the subsequent testimony about 10 days later by Pat Cipollone, who was also in that meeting.
	Cipollone had already testified.
	He was being called back to apparently answer some questions that new testimony had Brought to the committee's attention, and I'm assuming that they brought him back in to, you know, either confirm or deny some of the new revelations being made.
	I believe that was involving Burns' testimony.
	It makes sense.
	Could it be somebody, something else?
	Yeah, but I think at least in part, that was the case.
	Now, I believe Part of, well, at least one component that was included in Patrick Byrne's affidavit was a meeting that he had in January of 2022 with Rudy Giuliani, Patrick Byrne and Rudy Giuliani.
	And at that time, Patrick Byrne stated that in his affidavit that Giuliani had told him at a meeting they had in Miami that, oh, by the way,
	Uh, I spoke with Trump for like two or three minutes kind of privately after everybody had basically left and you guys were already on your way home thinking that, uh, Sidney Powell was the special had been appointed special counsel thinking that, um, uh, general Flynn was now going to be in charge of, uh, you know, logistics and everything on, on implementing their, their plan.
	Uh, and, um, When he, uh, when he said that to Rudy, when he stated that Rudy Giuliani told him that in 2022, it's like, why, you know, uh, why did it take a year for Rudy Giuliani to tell him that?
	I was at the Willard in January about, I think it was around the 12th and this is in my affidavit.
	Uh, around the 12th, I was at the Willard in the round room, the little war room that they had.
	And, uh, I was, uh, uh, uh, I met up with Patrick Byrne there, along with Rudy and Garrett Ziegler.
	Garrett Ziegler was reportedly the staffer that let Trump, Flynn, and Powell into the White House, kind of circumventing the security protocols that they had in place there.
	Um, on the, uh, the sub during that December 18th meeting.
	So I asked the question, right.
	With all three of them with, well, with burn Giuliani and Garrett Ziegler all there in a meeting, uh, just a few weeks after that December 18th meeting, uh, and, and burn leaving.
	So, you know, ticked off the way he would, he looked really upset when he was leaving.
	Uh, and, um, I spoke to him just for a moment.
	Uh, he said he was like heading out of DC at that time.
	He was kind of sick of this and done with it, but the statements that they made then, you know, I'm just like, are you telling me that Byrne and those guys didn't ask Giuliani then in January of 21?
	What happened to the appointment?
	Why was Sidney Powell never authorized when we left there thinking that she had been, you know, that just that just escapes Uh, it escapes logic for me.
	I, I'm, I would be certain, you know, you would, you would be certain that they asked.
	So if, uh, burn puts in a sworn affidavit that, uh, he heard for the first time in January of 22 in a meeting that he had, uh, with Giuliani, uh, just a few miles from, uh, Mar-a-Lago, uh, with Giuliani and, uh, with, Millie Weaver from InfoWars, the producer of Shadowgate that I was featured in, her husband Gavin, and this woman Tori.
	Now all of these people were very active in pushing what I believe was disinformation, foreign influence-based disinformation to Rudy Giuliani, Drew Patrick Byrne, up to Trump.
	Uh, from basically the middle of December, uh, middle of November that I can verify to all the way up until, you know, post January 6th.
	So, um, uh, you know, I've got, I'll keep rambling on about this, but that's largely the basis of my affidavit was pointing out the, uh, two main components of what were in, uh, Burns affidavit.
	Uh, the Giuliani comment in January 22.
	And, uh, the comments that he made about the meeting in December of 20.
	Well, Pat, now I have read the Bernie affidavit and it's all about that meeting.
	I don't see how that could possibly even remotely warrant a raid on Mar-a-Lago.
	I mean, how is that supposed to happen?
	It's such a stretch.
	It seems to me completely absurd that that was the basis.
	Well, um, if he did, uh, if, if multiple people verify, uh, two people verify that he had appointed Sidney Powell as like special counsel, right.
	Uh, and had, uh, issued her a top secret clearance.
	Well, right there is going to require, uh, uh, several administrative steps, right?
	Uh, you can't just appoint someone and then everybody just guessed later on that that person has this clearance.
	No.
	Um, steps have to be taken at that point.
	And once that, uh, clearance or that appointment has been, uh, taken away or removed by the president, then, uh, additional steps have to be taken.
	Um, so if let's say let, and I'm just this, I don't know, but let's say, uh, uh, uh, Patrick Burns testimony, uh, suggested to the January 6th committee that there was documentation that showed Trump had.
	Uh, both authorized this and then, uh, uh, then remove the authorization.
	Well, if the January 6th committee didn't have that documentation and both, let's say both Byrne and, uh, uh, Cipollone, uh, confirmed that he did, then that would justify a warrant.
	If you, or at least in part, like with the other things, with the other classified documents, because they clearly didn't want, uh, they clearly didn't and don't want, um,
	The target, uh, uh, being Trump, they didn't want him to, uh, fully know what the entire, um, what the, what the, the basis was behind the raid because, and they were keeping that, you know, because what they said then was, if we told you, if we show you the justification for the warrant, it would, uh, give them an idea as it would give them a lot more information as to
	What, uh, what they were looking at for their investigation and the police and the Department of Justice wanted to keep that private.
	So I would argue, um, that would be, uh, at least one component.
	Or because the Democrats are trying to get them with sedition or treason.
	Right.
	Uh, and if you, if you know, I not, uh, an attorney, but I would say that it would be pretty easy for the Democrats to try to push a sedition charge on Trump by actually taking actions, actionable steps to appoint Sidney Powell as special counsel to try to overturn the results of the election.
	I can see at least one scenario there where the Democrats could try and the Department of Justice could try to make the argument that that was an act of sedition and it was something that was documented, a documented act that was sworn to by two people that were party to it, which is required for sedition and treason.
	But Pat, we have overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen.
	If he were to appoint someone to investigate, to verify the theft of the election and try to set things right, how could that be viewed as sedition?
	That's acting in accordance with the Constitution.
	I just don't get it.
	Well, they don't, you know, I've paid close attention to this.
	I like very, very, very specific fact based evidence.
	And at that time I was there on the ground at that time.
	And I didn't see anything that would justify it.
	I did see around December 14th that my, the people, all the States submitted the results to their election and president Trump is sworn.
	It has the president to, uh, faithfully.
	Move forward with that, right?
	Um, if you don't have, you know, indisputable evidence of, uh, election fraud, then you literally, you have the responsibility as president to ensure the integrity of the election process.
	Even if it was stolen, if you don't have enough evidence, you, you know, one of the biggest dangers, in my opinion, to our democracy would be to.
	Um, uh, lose that trust in the election process, which is already happening, has been happening since 2000, right?
	I mean, these aren't new things that they're talking about.
	These are things that, that, that's been going, that went on in 2000 that went on in 2004, right?
	Except for the Democrats were whining it about it then.
	And the Republicans were telling him to go pound sand.
	The same people that are doing that now.
	We had Hillary and a host of other Democrats who were contesting that Trump was an illegitimate president.
	They went on to insisting this for years, Pat.
	How can they not be guilty of some offense for doing that?
	I mean, I'm very curious.
	The double standard is just overwhelming.
	And by the way, of course, we all witnessed, I witnessed myself, when they had the vote, it was all trending Trump, he was massively ahead, and then they stopped the vote in the key swing states, and when they resumed later, all of a sudden, they'd adjusted the vote and now Biden was ahead and he continued to have a slight margin in those swing states.
	I consider that to be prima facie proof of theft of the election.
	Your thoughts?
	Um, actions are what matter.
	Um, I, I, and you know, like everybody in the MAGA community, and by the way, I'm trying to play like the devil's advocate here because it's really important in my opinion to understand if you, what your adversaries are likely trying to do, you know, tactical, right?
	And I, so I'm pointing these things out to say, Hey, you better pay attention to these.
	Because, you know, maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm not wrong, uh, even if, even if it's not true, uh, they can use this to influence the 2022 midterms, right?
	So we have to be very careful, um, how we, uh, proceed and how we address these things.
	Now to your, to your comment about like Hillary Clinton and Obama, yeah, they whined about it a lot, but to our knowledge, Obama didn't take any on-the-record official action to try to alter the outcome of the election after the December 14th thing.
	In 2000, Bush v. Gore, they ran it through the court system as long as they legally could, then Gore stepped back and said, okay, and I tell you right now, That election was freaking stolen in 2000, right?
	Bush stole it from Gore, right?
	Elections have consequences even when they are stolen, right?
	But if the Democrats had behaved like the Republicans and stormed the Capitol in 2000, you know, it would have torn apart our government.
	And I think people understood that back then, enough of them on both sides, to say, okay, we're going to have an orderly transition.
	You know, of course, all the Republicans, all the Democrats take all the W's off the keyboard.
	I actually kind of find as an IT guy that a little funny.
	But literally, legal action was taken by the Department of Justice for destruction of government property when the Democrats got all pissed off and left.
	Taking the W's off the keyboard, right?
	There's certain things you don't do when you're transitioning out after an election, Jim.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	And of course we know, we're well familiar here, we've discussed extensively the January 6th event, how the Capitol Police were involved, how the FBI was involved, how Antifa was involved, how the whole thing was A fabricated event where Ray Epps took a key role, where the magnetically sealed doors to the Capitol could only have been opened from the inside, how the whole thing was a manufactured event.
	Trump appears to me to be 100% innocent of any incitement of an insurrection.
	We even had a Federalist doing a very nice job of explaining Insurrection entails imminent lawless action.
	He was a mile and a half away at the ellipse.
	He didn't finish speaking until 111.
	The activities had already begun taking place at 12:45.
	Trump people had nothing to do with it.
	He told them to be peaceful.
	And of course, in January 6th, he's edited all that out.
	He offered to provide the federal troops, the National Guard, On the 4th, that the mayor declined to receive them, which was necessary for them to be present.
	On the 5th, already the Capitol Police had intel that there was going to be an attempt to storm the Capitol.
	All this was so rigged, Pat, I'm just outraged that, you know, they get all this propaganda mileage out of such a phony event.
	And you're suggesting they're trying to play a hyper-technical that for 10 minutes or whatever that Trump might have sought to appoint Sidney Powell to be a special counsel to straighten it out.
	And that may have been technically illegal or improper.
	That's what I'm understanding, and this is what they're after.
	And why they issued the warrant and what the FBI was all about.
	What did they expect then to find at Mar-a-Lago?
	Well, okay, let's say that that was at least in part the scenario.
	What you would need to find is like the actual documents that showed the steps that were taken, right?
	Because that's presidential record stuff.
	That meeting that happened in the White House Oval Office, that's presidential record stuff.
	And so, um, if it didn't exist, well, that was wrong.
	Uh, and if it existed and then was maybe, uh, destroyed or shredded or burned, uh, then that is actually even more wrong.
	So let's say, let's say just for, uh, you know, uh, to play it out, let's say there were documents and Cipollone saw them and, and, and, uh, Byrne saw them.
	But now they don't exist.
	Well, that's a, that would be a huge problem, right?
	Um, that could be, it would be a huge vulnerability that the Democrats would be stupid not to exploit from a tactical perspective.
	Right.
	But can I point out one thing that you mentioned like about like, uh, uh, on January 6th with, uh, um, Trump not pushing anything.
	I can actually buy that.
	Right.
	Because Trump has been a businessman.
	He doesn't understand the, the, the psychological warfare component.
	Right.
	Um, so, uh, yeah, you know, he's a civilian.
	He doesn't see it like me.
	He doesn't see it.
	But when it comes to like general Flynn, who was actually very much responsible for bringing these people there or telling them for bringing them there under the pretense, basically that their country was being stolen.
	A three-star general with his background in psychological warfare, with his background in intelligence, would absolutely know the potential for that just being a powder keg, and that you're easily setting yourself up, like let's say for the Democrats, to put a few MAGA hat-wearing Antifa in there, and
	You know, stir people up, and then you have the crowd that just will follow everything afterwards.
	General Flynn cannot sit there and say, oh, wow, I didn't see that coming, right?
	No.
	He can't.
	Can Trump, arguably?
	Yeah.
	You know, although most people probably should have realized that, hey, we got a lot of people here.
	There's a very important thing.
	Most of these people are here thinking that their country is about ready to be taken away from them and that all of this does have a very high probability of turning into a powder keg.
	Right.
	So we have to be very careful.
	We have to act quickly.
	If we really don't want violence, if we really don't want these things, things needed to be done in an orderly and professional fashion.
	Right.
	And that didn't happen.
	But is that Trump's fault?
	I know.
	Is that the fault of someone like General Flynn who absolutely or Phil Waldron or people like this that have my background who were advising Trump and who were actually organizing the events there.
	Right.
	To those people, they absolutely should have known, and the fact that they didn't take additional actions and steps, and also based on my interactions with them at the time, with many of them, like Oh, who was that?
	Ivan, right?
	I can't think of his last name.
	Ivan Reikland, right?
	Nice guy, prior military.
	I met with him for lunch.
	But no, these guys were planning on reversing the outcome of the election.
	And even like, you know, like Ivan Reikland, he had been promised, he told me that he'd been promised like the Secretary of Defense position.
	By Flynn, if Trump were to stay in the office, right?
	And I get it.
	You don't want to lose.
	It sucks losing, especially if if they cheat.
	But if you don't have enough evidence, strong enough evidence that you've been able to present, like through the system, through the courts and such, and I get it, the courts are jacked up.
	But hell, a lot of people in the court, a lot of the judges on the courts were appointed by Trump.
	So there's only so much you can bitch about that.
	But if you don't take those steps and you know that that's the case, then you don't get a pass from me.
	Right, Tim?
	So that's just my opinion.
	Well, let me just say, Pat, suppose there were a hypothetical violation Trump had committed Uh, suppose they were to find evidence there.
	I have two experts, these guys I was just reporting as you joined.
	Rivkin and Casey have practiced appellate and constitutional law in Washington.
	They served at the Justice Department, the White House Counsel's Office, and the Reagan and George H.W.
	Bush administrations.
	Where they're saying in essence that the warrant was unconstitutionally vague and that he had any documents he had he was entitled to have and it suggests to me that since the warrant said everything, any document from his administration, it fails on specificity here and would be thrown out and therefore anything that might have been obtained here
	Even if it could, under some construal, be held against Trump, seems to me as the fruit of a poisonous tree and would be inadmissible in a court of law.
	Not that the Democrats give a damn about law.
	Everything they're doing is lawless, this whole thing with our cross-examining, bringing in witnesses.
	Yeah, it's all rhetorical, it's all political theatre.
	But it seems to me, if we're going to talk about the strict application of the law, that this warrant was unwarranted, not justified, and that anything that resulted from the search would be excluded in a court of law.
	Your thoughts.
	Well, I agree.
	Right.
	And that's why I'm submitting this affidavit.
	My affidavit is truthful based on fact witness test.
	My fact witness statements about what I saw happening that it actually impeached the credibility, in my opinion.
	And I believe probably the court will see the same way of the testimony of the sworn affidavit by Patrick Burns.
	So, just, let's say I am right, and again, if I'm wrong about how all of this evidence ties together, hey Jim, no harm, no foul, right?
	I'm not sitting here accusing anyone of anything, I'm just putting out some facts and saying, Y'all better freaking look at this, right?
	And if they look at it and I'm wrong, no problem.
	But if I'm right, uh, then, and, and the, uh, the January 6th committee did in it, even in part use Patrick Burns testimony, uh, for even in part, any part of that warrant.
	Um, and my affidavit impugns his testimony.
	Then you're right.
	I mean, it would invalidate the basis for the search warrant.
	That's why I'm doing this.
	But if they look at it and they find... But if they look at it on the same note, I'm a patriot.
	I fought for a flag, not a man, right?
	So if they turned around and found that he was guilty of something, then they should frickin' go forward with the charges, right?
	In my opinion.
	I don't see that evidence, and I hope that Excellent, excellent.
	I agree with every word you've just said, Pat.
	that it would invalidate what Byrne is saying, and it would invalidate, it would be the fruit of the poison tree at that point.
	Excellent, excellent.
	I agree with every word you've just said, Pat.
	I admire what you're doing.
	I, as a Marine Corps officer, took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
	My allegiance is to the Constitution and the rule of law, which the Democrats have savaged.
	They have no respect for the Constitution.
	They're acting in an utterly lawless fashion.
	Which could not be embodied more clearly than in their mantra to defund the police, which has led to surging crime all over the country.
	You got these Soros supported DAs who are revolving door.
	They don't believe in bail.
	They don't believe in punishing criminals.
	It appears they want to create a lawless society.
	I think the idea is to have American society collapse and reconstitute it under a form of a communist totalitarian dictatorship.
	The way they're running the White House seems to me to be a very model where all these executive orders, every action that Biden has taken since he came into office has been destructive of America one way or another, economically obviously, but in so many other respects.
	Asserting a political interpretation of what's going on here.
	I really do respect everything you've been saying here about your role in all of this, and I think it's completely appropriate you are doing what you are doing, and I just say Godspeed, Patrick Byrne.
	I say Godspeed, and I want you to be Protected and carrying out your responsibilities.
	I think you're acting in an admirable fashion in accordance with the Constitution, and that's what every one of us ought to be doing, and what, in my opinion, the Democrats are demonstrably, repeatedly, and egregiously not doing.
	Well, I thank you very much for that.
	You know, it's not easy.
	I'm a Republican, right?
	Registered Republican.
	It's not my job to clean the house and keep the house of the Democrats in order.
	It's my job to, um, uh, if they do or say something that, that, you know, I don't like or something, it's my job to try to make a stronger point against it.
	Right.
	Uh, and that's our representative democracy.
	Um, I, you know, uh, it's not easy though, when you stand up and, Uh, are attacked by the people within your party because they're saying, Oh, you're going against it.
	No, I'm actually, I believe that everything I'm doing is my responsibility.
	Now it's my responsibility to do it, uh, as best I can without my, any personal bias.
	Right.
	And which is almost impossible to do, but I try.
	Right.
	And I try to.
	I'm just trying to do the right thing, Jim.
	I'm just trying to do the right thing.
	And it sucks sometimes, but I believe as long as you know in your heart that what you're doing is right, that it needs to be done.
	And I think we'll know soon enough whether or not I was right on this.
	That's the way I look at it.
	It's not like one of those things you have to look at, all this is going to happen a year from now or something.
	No, we'll know pretty quick.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Within days, I would surmise, within days.
	And I just, I'm concerned about your physical safety between now and then, Patrick.
	Take every precaution.
	I mean, I'm telling you, the stakes are so high that I put nothing past the Foul creatures who are running the shop in Washington, D.C.
	I put nothing past them whatsoever.
	And we all know there have been repeated efforts to take out Donald Trump.
	I have reports of a dozen attempted assassinations, even in relation to Mar-a-Lago, one of which was a drone firing through a window.
	And had it not been I agree.
	I agree.
	recently replaced with bulletproof glass, it would have taken him out.
	I mean, this is as unscrupulous as it gets.
	This is utterly immoral.
	This is utterly corrupt to the max.
	And it's shocking that the United States had deteriorated to this grim state in my lifetime.
	I am stunned, Patrick.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	Things are really messed up right now, Jim.
	But there are a lot of that, in my opinion, a lot of that has been enhanced and fabricated and enhanced beyond, you know, like the racism and things like that.
	In my opinion, a lot of that is what they've been pushing as part of the narrative, you know, to, you know, as part of their IIA operation, right?
	Their influence operation to Uh, discredit their opposition and, um, to control the narrative and they do.
	Right.
	Um, I don't know anything about the voting machines.
	Uh, well, I do.
	I mean, I, I literally ran for office in 2004, uh, for supervisor of elections in Pasco County with no political affiliation.
	Right.
	Um, I was an it guy and I was opposing, I was absolutely a thousand percent opposed to touchscreen voting machines.
	Right.
	Uh, uh, running against a 26 year incumbent Democrat that had just switched parties midterm to the Republicans.
	And the Republicans were just like, they couldn't just, they couldn't embrace them, grace this guy into their bosoms any, any faster.
	Right.
	They absolutely protected this Democrat that just switched into their party after 26 years and said, here, we want you to count the votes because you've got an hour behind you.
	And that looks like a win for us.
	Right.
	But now the Republicans are like, oh my god, I can't believe these touchscreen voting machines are allowed to do this.
	And I'm sitting over here with my hand up going, hey, dumbasses, y'all attacked me back in 2004 when I was trying to warn you about this, and you attacked the Democrats.
	And now during the 2020 election, after that, you're like, oh, I can't believe this is allowed to happen.
	And I'm sitting there saying, hey, Stop pretending that you didn't know this was going to happen, right?
	Shadowgate had elements of it, of foreign election influence, like the Seidel stuff.
	That had nothing to do with anything that I was involved in as a whistleblower in Shadowgate.
	Mine was strictly the component of social media psychological warfare, the partnerships developed between Um, Obama's National Security Advisor as the Chairman of the Board for Atlantic Council, when he put together the partnerships to restore election integrity worldwide and to combat, uh, fake news, right?
	Those partnerships were what they, that partnership right there was what they used.
	Obama's National Security Advisor used and controlled the Facebook and Twitter platforms that ended up Eventually, you know, removing Trump from their platform, but blocking every mega shadow banning and blocking.
	If that, you know, that is absolutely election influence and that is absolutely verified, verifiable by our own Department of Defense, that these tactics and capabilities will be used and can be used to influence the outcome of an election.
	So if, if, if they cheat doing that, or they cheat at the voting machine, You know, what's the difference?
	They still cheated.
	They still altered the outcome of the election unethically and morally bankrupt, uh, by, by I'm talking tens of millions of votes that either didn't come in, uh, that would have otherwise voted for Trump or that changed their vote because of the misinformation and disinformation, uh, being controlled and put out by Obama's national security advisor.
	Right?
	Basically controlled by him.
	And it's not like a conspiracy theory.
	You can literally go and look up these, uh, memorandums of understanding that were put together.
	Right?
	So we've got nobody to blame for ourselves.
	I think Republicans got to be careful about all the whining that they're doing.
	Uh, and you know, and I say that respectfully, but I also say it kind of pissed off.
	Right?
	And we need to focus on fixing the problems.
	Fix the problems with the machines.
	Absolutely.
	Those are major problems.
	But do it in a transparent way so that you can bring the Democrats on board, who were bitching about the same thing back in 2004, and actually make a difference.
	You're not going to do that by appointing someone like, let's say, Phil Waldron.
	For 30 years, I think, he was a psychological warfare and influence operation.
	Is that how you instill trust and transparency in an election recount?
	No, it's not.
	It's how you look like you're just as corrupt as the other side that you're calling out.
	And that's my opinion, but it's also based on, you know, getting off my couch.
	It's based on my personal interactions and personal experiences in the election process itself, Jim.
	Oh, yes.
	I think everything you've said is spot on.
	Complaining forever.
	I mean, to restore democracy or some semblance thereof, we have to, first of all, get rid of electronic voting machines, return to paper ballots and hand counts.
	We have to get rid of gerrymandered districts, use the Iowa model of retired judges.
	We have to get private money out of national elections.
	I believe all should be federally funded.
	And oddly enough, I believe we have to restore the draft so that American families care about the decisions of war and peace.
	The United States gets involved in one endless armed conflict after another without any responsibility, without Congress making a declaration.
	Since Nixon abolished a draft to take the air out of the sails of the anti-war movement, American families have just been...
	Nonchalant negligent about all these military interactions by the United States because they know their sons or daughters are not at risk.
	Well, we got to restore that.
	Set the balance and bring some semblance of responsibility back to Washington, D.C.
	regarding these executive actions that have no congressional warrant.
	Those are four platforms I think are indispensable.
	But get rid of electronic voting machines at first and foremost.
	We've had experts from the beginning, Pat, who could show how they could hack any of these machines in less than five minutes.
	I remember when Princeton experts were doing that right off the bat.
	And just because one party thought it was going to be advantageous to them at the time, and then later they live to rue it, just as you were pointing out.
	This is good for the goose, good for the gander, bad for the goose, bad for the gander.
	This is catastrophic.
	This is bad for democracy.
	This sabotages the Constitution and the rule of law.
	It's indefensible.
	Yeah, I agree with everything you said except for I would caveat the Uh, hand, the, uh, hand counting.
	Uh, I would caveat that with, um, you know, I was in, uh, in Iraq in 2008 during the elections.
	And I tell you what, they had pretty damn good elections there that were put together with, uh, that, that were where the people would just walk in, they would dip their finger in an inkwell after they voted and you were done.
	The ink doesn't come off your finger for like a couple of days.
	And that even put a mark on him too.
	It was a, you know, It made them potential targets, but still they had a bucket.
	I don't remember the exact thing was like 85, 90% turnout.
	It was spectacular, right?
	Even though they had those risks.
	But, um, you know, in 2004, when I ran for election supervisor, I was, I'm completely fine with like, uh, the, the, the optical scanning systems.
	Uh, but you have to also be careful how those are networked.
	Right.
	But if you put a couple optical scanning systems in there.
	If you have a machine that scans a million votes, it's guaranteed by the voting machine manufacturer to have like a point zero something percent of inaccuracy, right?
	But if you do those same million ballots by human hand, you're guaranteed every time to have even a greater discrepancy.
	So, in my opinion, if your goal is to really have as many people as technologically possible actually have their vote counted properly, then use some of this new technology.
	But there are a gazillion limits that have to be put on that from a security perspective, right?
	From an IT perspective.
	But those touchscreen voting machines are the internet access that they have.
	No, those are stupid, and they're just expensive, and they're just ripe for corruption.
	You know, they don't have paper ballots to them, right?
	You want to do a recount with a DRE system?
	You hit print times two, and it prints you two frickin' receipts, Jim.
	It's like, if it's been corrupted, how would you know, right?
	But, I would also argue that a lot of the stuff they were looking at, like They focus on the voting machines.
	And in my opinion, from a cybersecurity perspective, if you're looking at somebody coming in and trying to influence them from outside, you need the routers, you need the switches, routers, data, the IPS, the Staple Packet Inspections.
	You need these devices that were already on the networks or should be on the networks as required by like different organizations to meet requirements.
	You should have gotten those, right?
	And I even submitted a memorandum to Patrick Byrne on, like, November 10th that said, listen, you need to get these because they're going to, by policy, start overwriting themselves or removing that data in, like, weeks or months, right?
	Even though a lot of this stuff is supposed to be held for seven years.
	Those are unfunded mandates.
	I worked for IT for the government for a decade, right?
	And the government says, oh, we got to do this, but then they don't pay to do it.
	And so you end up going, you end up having a problem years later, and these IT guys in these different counties and stuff saying, we didn't have the resources to do that.
	Yeah, I get you wanted us to save all of this data for seven years, but that would cost like a million dollars, and our county never gave us a million dollars.
	How are we supposed to do it, right?
	There's ways to do this using the technology, right?
	That can actually make it better.
	But you gotta have that paper backup.
	You gotta have that ability to go back and do a frickin' hand count if necessary.
	Or just recount to the machines again, because even the machines, even the manufacturers tell you, tell us, they aren't perfect, but they are actually more perfect than people.
	Oh, big surprise, right?
	And even in like the failures with the voting machines, with the scanning systems, those failures are usually in the handling of the ballots, not in the machine itself, right?
	So even with the machines, it largely goes back to human error.
	Well, let me just comment.
	Here in Wisconsin, where I reside, we have paper ballots and optical scanners.
	Just the combination you suggest is the right combination.
	None of these programs should be held secret.
	None of these programs should involve any patent or copyright, which they do with Dominion, because you're talking about the simplest possible performance of a machine of taking a number N and adding it to it 1, so you get a new number N plus 1 to count up to tabulate the vote for each candidate.
	What they're doing with these machines that have these proprietary claims is, say, simply reversing the vote.
	So if you got X and Y, the Republican and Democrat, if you anticipate the Republican's gonna win, you simply have the votes cast for the Republican counted for the Democrat and vice versa.
	Simple as pie.
	You got the right total overall vote.
	It's just not distributed the way it was cast.
	So you have to have those safeguards.
	But, Pat, I agree with all that you are saying here, too.
	With Dominion, they were designed to steal elections.
	They even have a built-in vote printer capacity.
	They can produce, they can print their own votes.
	If it's not turning out the way they want, the way it's pre-programmed, the Dominion machine will print their votes to make it come out the way it's predetermined.
	Just outrageous!
	Outrageous!
	Well, you know, I'm not going to argue with you that that capability exists with them, and I'm going to a thousand percent agree that controlled transparency, right?
	Those companies should not be the only ones, but people, very specific organizations within our government, guys like me, IT guys that are like Working for the contract for the government or even government employees, right?
	Should be able to look at that code, right?
	Absolutely, but should that be available to the to the public?
	No, right?
	Because then as from an IT guys perspective, that creates greater potential for vulnerabilities, which are always going to exist in every freaking computer to my knowledge, it's ever been made.
	Uh, and will be made.
	There will always be a vulnerability to it, no matter what we do.
	Um, and, uh, you know, somebody will figure out a way, right?
	So once you understand that, uh, you gotta realize that you have to keep some of these things private, so people can't exploit them.
	You gotta, but you have to have trusted organizations within our government that are completely non-partisan, completely, uh, you know, not, not, uh, career people.
	Uh, at all, right?
	You know, rotate them out of there.
	And, uh, but make sure that they, that these, uh, security protocols that are put in place are followed, right?
	And you can't have that, you can't just have Dominion not allowing you access, uh, to their proprietary data.
	That's a no-no, right?
	That's a no-go right there, uh, from a security perspective, but you can't just have it released to the public Uh, uh, which actually happened, uh, during the, the, the, the, you know, in 2020, uh, in ways that I didn't like, right.
	Uh, from an it security guys perspective, right.
	You go in there and you, and you, you pull this stuff out.
	Now you don't know who has access to that, uh, stuff, even though your intentions might've been the best from a security perspective, that's dangerous.
	That's bad.
	Well, Patrick, you're sensational covering all these bases.
	I'm so grateful we were able to connect today, especially when you're on such an important mission.
	I would like to have you back in a couple of weeks to talk about issues we never address, because I know you are acquainted with the contents of a certain laptop that ought to have long since made public and where the FBI has been as protective of Biden in relation to Hunter's laptop.
	That's Christopher Ray.
	This is James Comey with protective of the Anthony Weiner laptop in relation to Hillary's prospects.
	And both were just loaded with devastating information that ought to have vitiated any candidate thereby exposed.
	And the FBI played a completely corrupt role here.
	Which I find just as offensive and despicable as any action ever taken by that agency in its history.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Who could, who could disagree with that?
	I've seen that laptop.
	There are things you can't unsee.
	That whole family is, and I saw it as a person that was, uh, that was tasked by Rudy Giuliani to authenticate it initially, right?
	This was back in like April of 21, right?
	Uh, before these other guys, I don't know, about the same time these other guys have it.
	Um, but, uh, you know, and, and I did see stuff on here and this stuff that I saw was fricking horrible, right?
	But the problem is our government failed, right?
	The FBI failed on that hugely.
	And so anything that's ever extracted, and I told Rudy this, right?
	I'm like, this is fricking horrible.
	Any moron on the planet can look at this and say, this is fricking.
	It's obvious, it's horrible, but the chain of custody was broken on it.
	Because the failure of the FBI, the chain of custody was broken on that, so anything that I were to verify, and I probably could verify the majority of it, but some things I just simply couldn't, because we have the ability to go in there, you saw in the vault seven leaks and such, we literally have the ability to go in and modify the You know, the header contents on stuff and it won't even show it's modified, right?
	So, uh, really, you could present a false flag in that because it's lost its chain of custody.
	So it could never be used in a court of law.
	And that sucks.
	And that's not my fault.
	That's not Jim's fault.
	That's not Ruth's fault.
	That's not the guy who owns that Apple store's fault.
	It's the FBI agents that were involved.
	Not even the agents, right?
	It was their leadership, their deputy, their director that failed them and failed us.
	Patrick, I can't wish you well enough for your present mission.
	Godspeed.
	Be protected.
	I want to bring you back in a couple of weeks and talk about all the things we have and the outcome of what you're undertaking now and its ramifications for the country.
	You are a great patriot and I want everything to work out well for you and what you're doing on behalf of the nation.
	Be safe.
	Thank you very much, Jim.
	Thank you very much, Jim.
	I'm so grateful to have you here today.

▲