Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 20, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:46:52

Great POTUS Debates: "Donald Trump" Interviews Prof. Jim Fetzer for National Security Advisor: pt. 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is the Matricist Warrior Chronicles, where we search for the one.
	As part two of the great POTUS debate starring Professor Fetzer, Game Rolls heard at start of part one.
	Rather, did I say that wrong?
	This is part two, Game Rolls started part one.
	In brief, we play as if DJT, current POTUS, aka US President Jim Fetzer, plays himself as pioneer in conspiracy history studies.
	Ready, Jim.
	I am ready, Mr. President.
	Ring, ring, ring.
	This is the Secret Service.
	Is this Mr. Fetzer?
	It is.
	It is.
	Hold for the President.
	Click, click, click.
	Hello, Jim.
	I have more questions to resolve before you replace the Director of National Intelligence.
	First up, I saw your most recent Inconvenient Truths episode and have never heard you as emotionally passionate in your oratory as then, as if due to these unrecorded private conversations I'm having with you, you've gotten the idea that maybe your messages will reach the White House if you put as much emotional power into them as possible.
	Your thoughts?
	Your foreign policy, Mr. President, in supporting the Israeli genocide against the Palestinians, you could end it overnight, sir, if you would only cut off weapons the bombs are using against this wonderful population that has an historic entitlement to the lands of Palestine, which the Israelis, who are an occupying force, do not.
	If you've been following the news, as I know you do, as a news hound, I've recently been making efforts to see if we can get all of those people out of there, seeing how Netanyahu seems intent to penetrate the land and destroy everything he can.
	In any case, let's deal with the script and we'll get to that in time.
	Returning to 9-11 for a minute or so, do you or do you not in your two 9-11 books?
	Have the passenger manifest for the two actual flights that you say were flying that day, and thus a way to contact possibly some of the surviving passengers of those flights that did exist but did not crash into Shanksville, Pennsylvania, nor into the Pentagon, nor into the two Twin Towers.
	Your thoughts?
	I do not have those benefits, but it's an excellent idea because, yes, Flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana after it officially crashed in Shanksville, 175, over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, after it officially hit the South Tower.
	It's a really good idea.
	To your knowledge, has anyone done this?
	Not to my knowledge, but, I mean, there's been a...
	I'm not familiar, of course, with the vast range of 9-11 research, but it's an excellent idea.
	I do like the thought.
	Does memory serve enough to perhaps approximate the number of individuals that were on the two flights that your research shows was flying and never crashed?
	Was there 10, 20, 100?
	Well, I don't have to depend on research.
	Flight 93 had 45 when the occupancy of the 757 was 289, and Flight 175 only 65 when its occupancy was 351, which are indications, since they were only partially full, that this was a staged, orchestrated event.
	I mean, these airlines, United and American, can't be profitable if they're traveling Cross-country with planes that are only partially full, and these were relatively minuscule.
	Have you seen the Hollywood movie, United 93, that purports to depict the events on that flight before reportedly, according to the official story, crashed into Shanksville, Pennsylvania?
	Have you seen that?
	This is where the parents, the passengers are supposed to have taken control or tried to take control and the plane flipped upside down before it crashes into the field in Shanksville and allegedly disappears into an abandoned mine.
	I mean, you know, I can't recall specifically, I haven't seen it, but I know the plot and it's rather ridiculous.
	There's a far better, more interesting Operation Terror.
	A film out there where it depicts Flight 93 landing in Cleveland.
	And we do have newspaper reports even that the mayor, who was black but whose name was white, was reporting Flight 93 landing there.
	And in this Marc Olivier version, the passenger offloaded and put into a huge container.
	Allegedly for their safety, but it's actually to destroy metal and material permanently.
	I mean, it's quite a horrific scenario.
	Operation Terror.
	I recommend it highly.
	It seems incredible that there could be an entire movie made about Flight 93 out of Hollywood, and at no point do the writer, producer, or the actors...
	Realize that this is a complete fiction, unless some of them do.
	Well, but Hollywood is Zionist-controlled.
	9 /11 was a Zionist.
	Even Oliver Stone fell woefully short when he did his film on the World Trade Center, which was pathetic, feeble.
	Rescue movie had nothing to do with exposing the truth about 9 /11, which has caused me great concern about him, frankly, because his 9 /11, his JFK sequel, JFK Revisited, was equally pathetic about the magic bullet theory, but didn't even feature David W. Mantech, MD, PhD's proof.
	That the magic bullet here isn't even anatomically possible.
	So here he spent all this time.
	He had some very good people like Doug Horn.
	We'll get to JFK in a moment.
	Forgive me, I have to interrupt you, but you have a tendency, as I recently told you, like the vinyl LPs of the days gone by, with a scratch on it, to repeat things that you've said again and again.
	Because the powers that be are not listening.
	And you're enough to do anything about it.
	So you keep repeating it.
	You fall back into these habitual mini-rants.
	Forgive me putting it that way.
	Mr. President, you haven't spent 35 years in a classroom, as have I. And frankly, if you don't repeat the most important points, the students don't get it.
	So if I may say so, sir.
	It's got to do with educating an audience that may be extremely naive and riddled with false beliefs, where you have to find the right way to penetrate through that envelope of disinformation in order to get the truth out to them through their defense mechanisms or prior false mistaken beliefs.
	If I may say so, there's a...
	A method to the repetition.
	Agreed, but we have limited time, so I'd like to deal with some of the materials that are concerning me before I make you D&I, Director of National Intelligence.
	Suffice to say, if there are living survivors of the two flights that you say did exist on that day but did not crash, it's reasonable to believe that those individuals have not come forward because they realized doing so.
	puts them perhaps in jeopardy to say I was on the flight, here's the ticket it couldn't have crashed because I was there and I still have the ticket to this day, agreed?
	Yes, yes, yes.
	And by the way, the operation there was Art Olivier.
	I had the wrong name.
	Go for it.
	Yes, Mr. President.
	Okay, speaking of JFK, I have another issue with him before we move on to HRC, also known as Hillary.
	Regarding JFK, is there anything...
	To the claim that the number one reason he was terminated with extreme prejudice was he was going to make public the so-called UFO file, i.e.
	United States knowledge of and /or exposure to ETBEs, which stands for extraterrestrial biological entities, aka non-human aliens, and /or their craft.
	Whether interstellar, intertemporal, or interdimensional, and /or that he was going to share that knowledge with the Soviets, which groups like Majestic 12 felt had to be kept secret at all costs as a national security threat, leading to the creation of things like Area 51 and DUMBs, which stands for Deep Underground Military Bases, and the widely reported secret space program.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, I've read Vanderbilt Bush's report about Area 51, you know, the alleged event.
	Well, I believe it is a credible report.
	I can assure you for a certainty that revelations about ETs and all that were not major motives for taking out Jack.
	This all originated in Los Angeles in 1960 when Lyndon lost the election.
	On the verge of being dumped from the ticket, in fact, Jack had already decided he wouldn't run with him again.
	It was confided in Evelyn Lincoln, his personal secretary.
	He was contemplating Terry Sanford as his running mate, the then governor of North Carolina.
	But Lennon was driven to become president of all the people in large measure, really, to save his own skin.
	In fact, there was a vote in the Senate scheduled for that very day, November 22nd.
	1963, on the Bobby Baker scandal, where Bobby had been Lyndon's bag man, and it was widely recognized in the Senate that this was likely to tarnish Lyndon so seriously that he couldn't run again with Jack, or he decided he wouldn't run with him again.
	If you want to get the insight on his character, you must look at Phil Nelson's book, "LBJ Mastermind: The JFK's Assassination." But, specifically, I have not, in my research, found reason to believe that a potential for exposing E.T. was a factor in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
	You're telling me, in all the things you've read and people you've talked to, you've never seen that issue come up.
	This idea that he knew about the UFO issue that went back to Roswell incident and wanted to share it with the Soviets.
	And he wanted to share this, if not share it with the world, the Soviets, then share it with the world.
	There's nothing to that, as far as you're aware.
	Mr. President, I'm not saying there's nothing to it, and there are some who hold a belief that it was a factor.
	I'm simply reporting, based upon my research, my collaborative research with the best experts to ever study the case, I have not found any reason to believe.
	It was a significant factor in his death.
	But you don't deny it may have been a factor.
	Yes, I don't deny, sure.
	We have heard it before, years ago, and we heard it repeated again.
	There's someone called Dark Journalist who is convinced of this.
	You would agree, being that you insist and your research, you say, shows there were at least eight shooters, maybe another shooter, maybe ten shooters, but of the eight would mean there were at least eight different reasons why they wanted him to die that day, yes?
	Yes, that's correct.
	There were not ten.
	There were eight.
	Okay, and of those eight, which would you say was perhaps the most powerful?
	In other words, of the...
	8 to 10 to 15 to maybe 100 different reasons why many wanted JFK to die that day, if not sooner.
	What would you say was the most compelling reason?
	That LBJ wanted to be president?
	You think that topped everything?
	Number one, and he was able to bring in the CIA because Jack was threatening the agency to be shattered into a thousand pieces and appears to have recruited Alan Dulles to put the pieces together.
	Well, it was a very elaborate plot that was, if you wanted a literary parallel, like a murder on the Orient Express.
	You know, it was not A or B or C or D. It was all of the above.
	But absolutely, if it wasn't that Lyndon wanted to be president, you don't think it would have happened?
	Because he was the key, he was the center of the real conspiracy?
	Yes, even Jack Ruby said if someone else like Adlai Stevenson had been vice president, this would never have happened.
	He was right.
	Do you want to repeat briefly in 60 seconds or less the story about he will not live out his first term and die a violent death?
	Because I interrupted you on that issue in part one.
	Do you want to repeat that story quickly, please?
	Well, when one of Lyndon's wealthy backers learned that he was going to be on a ticket with Jack, he burst into the Johnson suite cursing and swearing, because now Lyndon was going to help Jack become president.
	So Bobby Baker took him into a boardroom, explained what they had in mind.
	He came out all smiles, saying he thought that was an excellent plan.
	And later, in public, Bobby Baker declared, Jack would not live out his first term and would die a violent death.
	And in the sequence of events, Lyndon would send his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure all the arrangements were in place for the assassination.
	And approximately how many days, weeks, months before the assassination did Bobby Baker say that?
	And approximately how many people witnessed it at this public event?
	I'd have to dig in and turn it up, but that ought to be pretty easy to find.
	Approximately.
	Roughly.
	Two?
	Ten?
	How many people heard him say that?
	And when did he say it?
	Weeks?
	Months?
	Days ahead?
	I think it was published, but if you want me to research that specific point, I'll be glad to do that.
	Okay, so you're not certain.
	Okay, let's move on to HRC, a.k.a.
	Hillary.
	Do you recall when I was campaigning for election as POTUS?
	At one debate, I promised to appoint a special prosecutor to, quote, look into her situation.
	Close quote.
	With regards to the thousands of emails she reportedly destroyed on the internet computer device, which geeks refer to as a server, that she'd used at home to process and restore.
	Government, agent, eyes-only communications.
	And the crowds that later chanted, lock her up and drain the swamp.
	Does that all sound familiar?
	Oh, of course, of course, of course.
	I mean, she used in the, what was it called, bleach bit, you know, to try to destroy the recording.
	She even took a hammer to it to make sure it happened, obviously.
	And it was a private server.
	So this was to avoid, you know, government oversight.
	She thought she could get away using the private server with all these classified documents and so forth.
	It was a gross violation where my inference has been the reason you have been unsuccessful in pursuing is she has such a high level clearance.
	My inference is she has a highest level clearance that makes her virtually untouchable legally.
	I'm going to get to that.
	Do you agree that there is no, absolutely no, immediately verifiable evidence that HRC did what is reported to have been filmed as having occurred in that so-called frazzle drip video?
	Well, there's a video.
	Anthony Weiner laptop.
	A dozen hardened New York cops were reduced to Sears watching it.
	But you haven't, if there is in fact video, you haven't personally seen it.
	And you only have hearsay essentially that it is on the laptop and that others have said it.
	I have a report about it in my Pizzagate expose on my...
	That's what I'm referring to.
	That's what I'm referring to.
	But where is the evidence that it...
	It exists.
	All we have is stories that it does exist.
	Oh, I don't think there's any doubt yet.
	A dozen hardened New York cops who watched it and said that even Hillary's most hardened supporters aren't going to be able to excuse her for this.
	But you have not seen it.
	No, no, I have not seen it, no.
	You know of anyone that has seen it other than allegedly, reportedly, those hardened cops?
	Well, I've got...
	Well, I'd have to go back and review what I have related to this, but it was pretty direct about Huma and Hillary having committed this grotesque offense.
	Now, I bring it up because of the dozens of things that she's been accused of doing.
	I'm not aware of anything that's more...
	Horrific, would you agree?
	Yeah, I agree.
	Yeah, Vince Foster is childlike compared to this, yes.
	And the basic idea is somehow removing the skin of the face of a young girl, and that girl, the skin, obviously probably bled out, died.
	That girl is no longer around.
	Hillary.
	She purportedly cut off her face and danced around wearing her face, and she was calling out, "Why are you doing this to me?" She had a lot of spunk!
	Now, and this would be purely for...
	Who had spunk?
	The 14-year-old girl.
	They were in the process of butchering.
	I mean...
	There is a photo that's on the internet that reportedly is the photo of the face of the young woman, the girl, after the skin has been removed.
	Or during?
	Have you seen that photo?
	You know the one I speak of?
	I have not.
	I'm not sure I would want to.
	Well, if you simply search Frazzle Drip on the web, you should probably see the photo.
	If it's not on Google, you could probably bring it up on Yandex.com, one of the ones that are not censored.
	But again, the point is, that's just an image on a computer screen, and if it were to be printed...
	On a piece of paper, it's still just an image.
	And I'd like you to admit in this private, unrecorded conversation, just admit to me, I won't say man-to-man, we're obviously adults here, but just as a student and professor of logic and evidence and matters legal litigious, just because reportedly some cops saw something doesn't mean it exists.
	All we really have is a story about an alleged event.
	Would you agree with that?
	Well, we have a story that is seemingly confirmed by a dozen tough cops, and all the evidence, circumstance, and otherwise supports it.
	In my judgment, it is a fact, but I certainly agree that in a courtroom context, one would use every trick of the trade, you know, document all the evidence, chain of custody, all that.
	So one would have to admit that if this were in a court of law, it could be contested, even though I believe, I'm convinced it indeed did in fact happen.
	But you would agree, just because you've read and heard the stories and you're convinced doesn't mean it's true, yes?
	Yes, of course, of course, of course.
	Okay, and you may have recalled in one interview...
	HRC said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy against her and her allies.
	Yes, do you remember that?
	Yeah, that's ridiculous!
	In theory, I'm not trying to take sides here, for or against.
	I'm only trying to stand as the leader of the free world.
	I'm trying to take a position in support of the truth and the demands.
	How we arrive at the truth.
	Just because we believe things are true doesn't make them true.
	In fact, if there are conspiracies against we, the people, it would make sense there could be counter-conspiracies against they, the perpetrators.
	It benefits those who are against her to float false information out there, to increase the hatred, the vitriol against her.
	For things that she maybe didn't even do.
	For example, these hardened cops, I believe there's allegedly six or eight of them.
	Aren't half of them dead?
	I think there were a dozen, Mr. President, and 11, I understand.
	Okay, and this part of the story is that the reason they're dead is because they were killed as a way of silencing them, because dead men cannot tell tales, yes?
	Sure.
	But then again, if someone is dead and there's no witness to produce, that maybe means that the witness doesn't exist.
	Yes?
	President, your administration has access to the Anthony Wiener laptop.
	It's easily verifiable that it's there or it's not there.
	So I would simply suggest you instruct Cash Wattel to produce.
	The Wiener laptop and the video in question, which would readily confirm the fact of the matter.
	Well, let's hope that happens, along with all the other disclosures that have been promised by my administration.
	Let's see.
	Moving on to the next issue.
	You agree no one should be above the law, even if they are, because the so-called two-tier system, no one should be above the law.
	Yes?
	Of course.
	Then what, to quote HRC, what difference does it make whether she has a certain security clearance or not?
	That shouldn't put her above the law, correct?
	Of course.
	Okay, and in fact, you would agree that as the highest law enforcement official, as POTUS is referred to, President of the United States, even the President is not...
	Completely above the law in the sense that he or she can be impeached, provided they're doing impeachable offenses, correct?
	Absolutely.
	So the security clearance that the president has will always be about anyone such as HRC, being that she's never been president, correct?
	Correct.
	So if the president is not above the law, she is not above the law.
	What I'm trying to do is, it's very frustrating to repeatedly hear you accuse her and others of doing things in the various things I've heard you produce on the internet, and yet you'll simultaneously float this idea that some security clearance can make her untouchable.
	That, to me, is logically inconsistent.
	Mr. President, may I say, it's well known.
	Bill Clinton came into office wanting to know, number one, were there UFOs, meaning ETs?
	And number two, who killed JFK?
	And he was told he wasn't.
	He didn't have the clearance.
	So I think there are plenty of historical press that what happens in practice may not correspond with what might be contemplated in theory.
	So put differently, I think you're trying to say that even though she should not be above the law, The lawyers have created a system whereby she may nonetheless be above the law in certain ways and at certain times, as far as the operation, putting it into effect.
	Yes, theory versus practice.
	In theory, no one's above the law.
	In practice, there is a certain ultra-elite that appears to have that status of being legally untouchable.
	Obviously.
	And as the most transparent administration...
	We hope that that can change.
	In any event, could it be possible also, and if you were to guess, if she has what some call a dead man's switch, that if you prosecute me, I will do X, Y, and Z, what could she just theorize, unless you already know based on your research, what could she be holding above the heads, whether against myself as president or anyone else, that if you do...
	Prosecute me, whether for the alleged frazzled drip or anything else, that I will do this in retaliation.
	What could she possibly have over us?
	Well, most certainly it would be sex dossiers.
	You know, it would be equivalent of Jeffrey Epstein that Hillary gathered along the way.
	And she's been deeply involved in Pizzagate, child sex trafficking.
	No doubt she has videos of...
	Prominent figures, just as did Jeffrey Epstein.
	So I think it would be out in that order.
	Okay, so before we move on to that very issue, which is next in our topics here, approximately how many individuals and organizations have had their security clearances removed by my administration, to your knowledge, and how many more are out there?
	Are there 10,000, 4,000, 100?
	I think you've been moving in the right direction, Mr. President, by, you know, vacating the security clearance for a whole host of miscreants who, for example, endorse the Hunter Laptop as being Russian disinformation, which was ridiculous, and a host of others.
	My guess, I don't know, 100 to 200 you may have had their security clearance removed.
	Yeah, I commend you for that.
	Excellent.
	Good moves.
	The right thing to do, Mr. President.
	I'm on board.
	To your knowledge, as a layman, based on your research, how many more security clearances exist out there?
	Whether held by individuals or law firms or various corporations?
	Security clearances are ubiquitous.
	I mean, you've got different levels, you know, from confidential to secret to top secret, and then everything far above top secret.
	I mean, so the question isn't, you know, low-level security clearances, which there may be millions and millions of low-level security clearances.
	The question is who has access to the highest level?
	Which, of course, would be your primary concern in that particular region of responsibility.
	Yeah, and we recall, but have not verified, the highest clearance is, I believe it's called cosmic, because that includes the UFO file.
	In any event, regarding my alleged criminal record, specifically my alleged pedophilia, Photos with, and this is in quotes, quote-unquote, my photos, quote-unquote, with Jeffrey Epstein.
	On what evidence do you say I am or was once a pedophile based upon my reportedly being in this or that photo with Epstein when at least one photo I've seen on the internet has Melania as well, my then-girlfriend or wife.
	Who was also in the photo?
	Shouldn't that prove that Melania is or was a pedophile as well?
	I hope you don't think that because she's obviously not.
	Photographs of the kind you're describing were common.
	I mean, you were in social interaction with many, many of the celebrities and elite in New York City.
	The photographs, in my opinion, are per se inconsequential.
	I happen to have a colleague, Joaquin Agopian, who may be the world's leading expert on pedophilia in politics, who published a five-volume series, and he's informed me that your name appears, I don't know, 24 to 54 times in his five volume.
	More significantly, however, has recently published an article of 10 Different pedophile cases settled out of court for considerable sums that I found very disconcerting because my belief has always been that because you were,
	you know, handsome, charming, rich, playboy as it were, as well as an entrepreneur and brilliant businessman, you know, women would be falling at your feet.
	But it appears, rather to my surprise and acute disappointment, I must add, that there are 10 cases that have been legally documented of your settling pedophilia cases with underage, some very young.
	I find this extremely distressing.
	It rather broke my heart to think that my preconceptions in this domain appeared to be misplaced and contradicted by the examples that those substantiated.
	So I'm really unhappy about that, Mr. President.
	I really expected more.
	I'll get to that in a moment.
	So then you would agree that given that Jeffrey or Epstein or whatever you want to call him was famous for being in many parties to find those who he would purportedly blackmail or was working on blackmailing with these so-called child abuse torture videos.
	So he wound up being photographed with many people.
	That was inevitable.
	And you would agree, therefore, that just because he's in a photo networking with many doesn't mean that the people he's in the photo with Prove anything.
	All it means is a moment of time.
	Right, absolutely.
	And most of these abuses occurred on Little St. James Island in the Caribbean.
	And I've seen photographs of Jeffrey with a beautiful young girl who was, she was pegged down.
	On the ground.
	I mean, she was secured by a very sophisticated arrangement that made her sexually accessible to anyone.
	It was rather...
	Okay, but this is not about Epstein.
	I'm tempted to call him Jeffrey because I once thought of him as a friend, but saying Jeffrey makes it sound like we're more familiar than we actually were.
	And I detest what he, what has been known now, he's have done.
	Accused of having been done and obviously did do.
	But my point is, so I'll flip back and forth, whether I say Jeffrey or Epstein.
	My point is the photos prove nothing.
	And in fact, to your knowledge, none of the photos that I am with him, provided they're real photos and not fakes, a computer-generated image, none of these photos are me on the Lolita Express, his private airplane, or at this island or any of these other pedophile...
	Crime locations, correct?
	They're just at parties in Las Vegas or New York City, correct?
	We're talking about circumstantial evidence of which there appears to be a superabundance, Mr. President.
	I'm sorry.
	Okay, but circumstantial is not evidence.
	That just means I was in his orbit or maybe he was in my orbit and he was making a point to take photos, correct?
	The photos prove nothing.
	They're just leading to the idea that I've had conversations with him, and the question is, what was the substance of those conversations, and what were the consequences of those conversations, ultimately?
	Yes, as far as individual actions I took in private, reportedly, allegedly, with this or that young woman, correct?
	Mr. President, since I've been photographed, nothing is ridiculous.
	Approve, photograph, poo viewer.
	In his company and having a conversation with him, and guess Lane Maxwell.
	Correct, but that's all that they proved.
	Would you agree with me that Jeffrey Epstein has been photographed with any...
	You can maybe find dozens to hundreds to thousands of photographs out there with individuals, and would you agree with me that most of the people that appear in that photo with him are not guilty of pedophilia?
	Yes?
	Or would you say the probability is that most of them are guilty of pedophilia simply because they're in that photo, as part of probative evidence, yes?
	No, I don't think there would be any problem arguing to a jury, for example, that the photographs, he was photographed with a lot of people, he was moving in the high social circles, constantly being photographed.
	Thousands of times.
	And, of course, the mere fact of being photographed with Jeffrey Epstein did not, if so facto, of its own accord establish a pedophilia association in relation thereto.
	So, of course, that point is a technical legal point is impeccable.
	Okay.
	I'm not sure whether to call it your experience as a student of logic, teaching, education.
	Or your instincts as a man, as a human being, with a hard soul.
	If you were to guess, would you say most of the people in those photos are guilty of pedophilia or not, that have been photographed with him?
	Probably half, something like that, I would surmise.
	Okay, okay, so then if we just go by the photos...
	If we go just by the photos, there's at least a 50% chance that I'm absolutely innocent of...
	Correct?
	That's better than...
	I mean, because the problem is there's so many ignorant people out there.
	All they need to do is see photographs of someone with a criminal, and they say, oh, you must be a criminal.
	You're agreeing at least there's a 50% chance when it came to Epstein that I was not involved in any pedophilia, yes?
	If I were not familiar with these 10 cases where you settled out...
	But in fact, you're not familiar with them, are they?
	And that's another point.
	Yes, Joachim Hagopian, he produced that book, and there's all kinds of names mentioned in the book.
	But just because you're mentioned in the book doesn't mean you're guilty of a crime, correct?
	Well...
	The issue is not, put differently, the issue is not whether my name is in a book.
	The issue is whether a particular sentence that has my name is saying, well, someone said he did X, Y, and Z. So you have not said that.
	You have not said, well, these 54 instances of my name in the book show that I have 54 instances of pedophilic acts based on allegations, correct?
	He is the expert in this area, not I. You have not read the book.
	You have not read the entire book or all the passages that mention me to know whether or not these are accusations of actions, correct?
	The best source I have in this area, alas, has been forced to the conclusion that you have committed instances of pedophilia, which breaks my heart.
	I'm very upset.
	What is the best source?
	Would you say he's the best source?
	Oh, he's, I think Joaquin is probably the world's leading expert in pedophilia and politics, yeah.
	So that if I could perhaps, in theory, conjecturize with me, if that's even a word, if I could perhaps put him in charge of my department to end all pedophilia, at least within the United States, he might be willing to do so as part and parcel have a conversation about by.
	Yes, that's an excellent idea.
	I highly recommend it.
	And perhaps after we finish our part two, part three, whenever we're done, you could maybe refer him to me because I would like to speak to this man.
	Yes, that would be my pleasure, Mr. President.
	I would be glad to do that.
	Okay, well then, being I'm the one with the spotlight, I'm many more times famous than you and much more powerful than you will ever be as far as what I can bring about.
	Good and evil in this world, you can imagine that however much it distresses you to have accusations of pedophilia against me, you could hopefully imagine that it distresses me far more than it distresses you if I consider myself innocent.
	Yes.
	Okay, because I want to get to the bottom of this.
	So then you would agree in order to get to the bottom, we actually need to know the details of these alleged cases that were I concur.
	Okay.
	Pursuing this in another way, I just want to make sure, I do have notes here, and I want to make sure I say these things so nothing goes uncovered.
	Do you agree that does not prove all those people are now, still, or once were pedophiles, the ones in the photos, so such photos prove?
	Whatsoever do not prove, as this is merely guilt by association, which is no proof of guilt at all.
	We've dealt with that.
	Haven't you, Jim, been seen in photos and /or in videos that you yourselves have published on the internet with others you now regard as villains, but differently?
	Just because you're in a photo or in a video talking with someone on the internet doesn't mean you're a villain, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, let's deal with the particulars, these alleged 10 cases that were settled, presumably through an attorney of mine.
	Now, did you say, was this an undisclosed amount of money?
	Or is the amount of money known?
	I mean, I recently included it in the stories.
	You know, I was covering for RBN, where I have a show called Authentic News.
	I would want to.
	Call up the story.
	Honestly, I don't think I'm the best source on this.
	I think Joaquin would be far superior, and I would defer to his expertise.
	Well, I don't know that I will ever be able to speak to him because I've seen him and heard him speak repeatedly with your, I forget what they're called, the state of the nation or something, whatever.
	He sounds like he truly hates me.
	And the man will not be willing to speak to me.
	Well, I think under these circumstances, he might.
	I will seek to induce him to have a conversation with you, Mr. Bresson.
	Let's go with the idea that I'm guilty of everything he imagines I've done that can be substantiated in these closed cases that have been settled for a certain amount of money.
	should that be I would preclude my ability to continue to act as POTUS for the benefit of we the people, not only with my America First policy, but for the sake of humanity in general, being that where America goes, the world goes.
	America goes down, the whole world goes down.
	Put differently, should I be impeached and removed from office if in fact I was guilty of these crimes that occurred 20, 30, 40 years ago?
	Probably not, particularly since they were settled.
	They're settled.
	These are not current live issues.
	They're settled.
	They're past legal matters.
	I would not believe they ought to have effect on your present term of office.
	Put differently, let's put aside the law, because much of the law is just a phantasm created by...
	Psychopaths that have convinced society to believe are legitimate, reasonable people, also known as lawyers.
	We know that.
	There are very few people called lawyers that have integrity.
	Putting aside the law, just as a matter of principle, what is right, what is good and true and just, should I end my reign as current POTUS, despite all the good I could potentially do, perhaps better than anyone else?
	for the next three and a half years because of these crimes that I may have in fact have committed 30, 40 years ago.
	That would not be my conclusion, no.
	Why is that?
	Example being, I haven't admitted to this yet, but I've become aware that there are millions of people that have been either killed or maimed for life as a result of that stupid...
	fake vaccine that what you call Anthony the rat Fauci was able to play me to warp speed to not only Americans but to the world as well.
	Yes.
	It distresses me no end that people are wanting my head on a noose, you know, hung from the neck until dead because of my misstep with that vaccine genocide that I unintentionally brought about.
	Should I be precluded from continuing to do the good I can do because of the stupid mistake I made with warp speed?
	No, I believe you should continue to do all the good you can do, but you need to do some corrective actions, acknowledge that you were played, and I do believe you were played.
	Shutting down the country to flatten the curve was the worst.
	You have ever made, if I may say so, Mr. President.
	It essentially wiped out the middle class.
	David Icke was calling it out.
	He had a bright, enormous transfer of wealth.
	There were no deaths during the purported pandemic that were excess deaths.
	They all occurred after the vax was introduced.
	And while I commend that you didn't mandate that everyone had to take the vax, which would have been perhaps of Well, let's hope it comes to that.
	But then you do see the analogy, the parallel between alleged pedophilic acts and obvious...
	Crimes against humanity, unintended however much through this vaccine genocide.
	The evil that I have done doesn't preclude, may have been done or did do, doesn't preclude the good I can still do.
	I mean, how many other individuals have my charisma, my intelligence, my drive, my energy, my record for what I've done in the last 115 days?
	Who else?
	Do you think Vance or anyone else that can suddenly step in my place?
	If they whack me, I can do what I'm doing.
	The avalanche, the tsunami of good that I've done.
	I've been down the escalator with Melania.
	I've been a very enthusiastic supporter.
	I voted for you three times.
	I've made innumerable defenses or explanation or praise of your efforts.
	So when you're right, you're right.
	I'm going to praise it.
	When you're wrong, you're wrong.
	I'm going to criticize it and hope you will do better.
	So that leads us to a lot of current issues, of course.
	Okay, then before we move on to the Gaza-Israeli conflict, touching on this pedophilia issue, this, I don't know what to call it, a SOAR, a SOAR whatever.
	A solid past.
	Again, I'm reading off notes, and I just want to go through them quickly and then see if I can formulate a question, ask you your thoughts.
	There's the issue of the MKUltrad, as in brainwashed, the famous ultimate mind controls thing the CIA did, what I call the anti-intelligence people.
	Presumably they learned it starting with the Nazis, the so-called...
	Paperclip, importing Nazis from Germany.
	All that powerful mind control techniques that can create these assassins.
	It's well known within the studies of Joaquin Hagopian that part of the reason for the creation of pedophiles, not pedophiles, the victims of pedophiles, these young girls, is to use these young women to secretly,
	surreptitiously bring Secret messages from one pedophile to another and /or to act as spies to inform on their clients and /or as assassins, potentially, of their clients.
	Given that whole MKUltra phenomenon and this woman that you've repeatedly accused of, who she claimed to have been sexually assaulted in the Bergdorf Goodman clothing store, who you've called a flake again and again, being that she made an accusation of something that I did, but wouldn't say either the year or the month or the day, so how could I have an, what is the word you used, an alibi?
	Yeah, what's the difference between, put simply, what's the difference?
	Oh yeah, and then there's the issue of my allegedly peeing, actually urinating, on prostitutes while in Russia or some such.
	What is the difference between this woman, who you call a flake, an adult woman, and these young women going back 30 or 40 years that I supposedly engage in pedophilia with?
	How do we not know that they're not MKUltra?
	These women.
	And we're talking about young women, because by pedophilia, it's by definition underage, which would be under the age of 18 or 16, depending on the jurisdiction.
	You see where I'm going with this?
	What is the reliability of these alleged witnesses when we haven't actually opened up?
	And that brings another issue.
	Being that it's a closed case and it's sealed, how can we know the truth of what's in it, whether it's just a flake?
	Or someone who's mentally insane or a product of MKUltra or they've been...
	It's a vast conspiracy against me and we the people to impugn my integrity and so they'll have less followers.
	And so these people, they're being put up to it.
	They're being paid to make accusations that are false.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, I've spent the last 30 plus years sorting out the difference between real evidence and all.
	Real events and fabricated events and evidence.
	It's obvious that, as in the case of the Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, who had a series of women who were Democrats who felt they were entitled to lie about his engagement in rape activities and the like.
	See, Jean Carroll thing was just fantastic.
	The idea she would have been assaulted by someone like herself in a dressing room in Bergdorf Goodman is just ludicrous on its face.
	But more importantly, how could it go to trial when she couldn't even remember the year of the event and therefore denied you the right to have an alibi?
	You could have been playing golf.
	You could have been in Alaska.
	Who knows?
	Abu Dhabi.
	Just ludicrous.
	This is an indication of corruption in our legal system at a profound level.
	And all of that is such a stunning indictment of our judicial system and of the willingness.
	of district attorneys and judges to violate the procedures of due process and the requirements of the law and the Constitution.
	Those cases are all ridiculous.
	They brought one after another against you, lawfare in spades, four different cases intended to tarnish you, lead to your impeachment, removal from office, disqualify you from running for office.
	Those were all, however, relatively transparent to those who took the time to study the case.
	The other situations, it seems to me, are in a different category because they appear to have been properly adjudicated and resolved out of court.
	But nonetheless, they're sealed.
	If the case is sealed, are you willing to give me the benefit of the doubt that if it was opened to you personally, privately, I could somehow get access of this material and share it with you privately?
	You might discover there's really nothing to it.
	Yeah, I might.
	I might discover there's nothing to it.
	I find that improbable.
	But it's possible.
	It's possible.
	You're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt?
	In principle, yes.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Have you ever heard the term, no doubt you have, Trump derangement syndrome?
	Of course.
	Have you ever heard the term swarm as another way of referring to the deep state, in other words, the criminal element within hopefully legitimate government?
	Yes.
	Have you ever heard the term I'm now coining and have recently, deep state derangement syndrome, a.k.a.
	swarm derangement syndrome?
	Have you heard that term yet?
	No, but it's obvious to its meaning, and I expect it's rather widespread.
	Well, let me posit an idea here.
	Could it be, don't take this the wrong way, I just want you to consider things, being that you've been under the sway, the influence of the excellent scholar and, as I understand, graduate of the military academy, Joaquin Hagopian, could it be that you and or he are suffering from quote-unquote swarm, a.k.a.
	deep state derangement syndrome?
	Given your past love for me, voting for me, three times for POTUS, and your now jaded disappointment for anything I do that deviates from your personal prescription for my preferred path, hence your anger and disappointment in me, causing you to bitterly complain, alleging hypocrisy.
	Put differently, you want to believe in me, but because I anger you so sometimes, Your emotions kick in and not your logical side.
	And so you tend to believe things that maybe if you got to the brass tacks, you'd discover there was nothing to it, such as the avalanche of indictments that were put upon me by the other side.
	It's a fundamental principle of rationality of science, specifically, but of rationality more generally.
	That when you acquire additional evidence or alternative hypotheses, in other words, new explanations, you may be compelled to reject hypotheses or conclusions you previously accepted, except conclusions or hypotheses you previously rejected and leave others in suspense.
	Joaquin Agobian and I and my other associates, including Russ Winher, Susan Bradford, Bill Benetati, Carl Herman, Brian Davidson exemplify high degrees of rationality.
	So were we to encounter new evidence that was authentic, that affected our previous beliefs in ways that would justify changes, we would change our opinions.
	I must say it's been the case that I was in denial about your having any engagement in any pedophile activities until I came across the 10 cases.
	And if those 10 cases proved to be somehow not as they have been presented, I would gladly change my opinion again.
	But this is not a function of emotion.
	have Trump derangement syndrome in space, including my own wife.
	The most intense argument we've had in our life, and we've been married since 1977.
	That's like 48 years have been about you, Mr. President.
	Those have been the most intense disagreements we have had in our life, and my opinion is she has a very considerable Case of TDS.
	Well, this is not about your wife, because I'm not considering her for the position of Director of National Intelligence.
	I'm simply trying to say to sum up, it distresses me no end.
	I hear a lot about this through my son, my young boy, who, well, he's rather tall now.
	He's become a man.
	He's continually on the Internet.
	He and others tell me about the things that are out there, such as you.
	I can't deal with everything.
	I can only deal with the priorities of the United States right now.
	But I can't hire someone as DNI if they simultaneously believe that I'm a pedophile and such things.
	It distresses me no end that you're jumping to conclusions.
	I'm asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt.
	Until the day that you've actually seen the cases, have been opened up, so you can personally read, figure out the circumstances, determine are these Again, were they put up to it?
	Were they bribed?
	Are they MKUltra graduates?
	Well, let me say, Mr. President, I'm open to that, but I would not be a worthy candidate for any office if I were not completely honest with you.
	So if you ask me a question about my opinions or beliefs, I'm going to be completely candid.
	Whether you or I are happy about it or not, I could not be a worthy member of your administration under any other circumstance or conditions.
	That's fine.
	I just want the benefit of the doubt.
	In any case, let's move on.
	Actually, there is another thing.
	There's the age of consent defining what is a child versus a woman.
	And invariably, in most cases, in allegations of pedophilia, it's usually...
	A man, a young woman or a girl.
	As you know, depending on the jurisdiction, a female is defined as a child or an adult woman based on her age.
	But then there's the issue of biological ability to have a child.
	Is a female actually a child if she can get pregnant?
	In other words, just because in these 10 or 12 cases where I'm closed cases, settled for some disclosed sum of money, or undisclosed sum of money, it's important, I would argue, to distinguish if in fact the female was indeed a woman.
	If she can get pregnant, I would argue she is a woman.
	She's not a girl, so it's not pedophilia.
	And it doesn't matter what the age of consent is.
	Because that varies.
	The reason laws are different from one place to another is these are just political disagreements.
	The thing we cannot disagree upon is whether a female can biologically get pregnant.
	If she can, she's not a child.
	She's a woman.
	And plus there's the other issue of consent.
	Consent.
	In these 10 cases in which I allegedly committed pedophilia, What if the female consented?
	What witnesses exist showing that she did not consent?
	No doubt you've heard of the somewhat or very famous cases.
	Typically, it'll be a sports icon, some basketball star or a boxer, or some woman says, oh, well, he raped me 15, 20, 30 years ago.
	But then there's evidence to show that it was entirely consensual.
	Go ahead.
	Statutory rape means even if it were consensual, it's nevertheless rape.
	And of course, we're all familiar with puberty.
	And that is when girls make the transition to young women, because post-puberty, they're capable of...
	Conception and reproduction and pre-puberty, they are not.
	Look, I'm glad to say that if it turned out there were peculiar circumstances here that these cases were not as they on their face appear to be, I'd be very glad, happy, and even astounding to learn that.
	I'm just trying to understand.
	I'm not approaching you here as a matter of the law, because the law is fickle and different from one place to another.
	As a student and teacher of logic, of morals, ethics, would you agree with me that no matter what the law is, if the female can get pregnant, she is not a child.
	She's a woman.
	And /or on another level, there's the issue of responsibility.
	Even if she can get pregnant, if she is self-sustaining.
	Does work and is able to pay her own bills.
	Doesn't that make her an adult?
	Not under the laws of the United States?
	Again, not the law.
	I'm not interested.
	I don't care what the law says, quite frankly, between you and me privately.
	I'm talking about what is right and wrong and what is reasonable.
	Would you agree that if someone can, a so-called child, a youngster, is doing work and pays their own bills?
	They're self-sustaining.
	They're acting like an adult.
	And they should be regarded as an adult.
	Yes or no?
	I'm very troubled by this whole line because it's, in a way, seeking to justify the idea of, you know, having sex with underage children or with those who are not...
	Traditionally regarded as eligible.
	I have to get into this issue because the very idea of underage.
	What age?
	Again, depending on the place in the world, adult can be 16 or can be 18. And some say, no, it should be 14. And some say, no, it should be 12. Why 12?
	Because girls start to become women sometime in their teens.
	In all candor, Mr. President, I'm a bit troubled by this whole line of argument.
	I think it would not be in your interest to pursue these attempts to justify what is generally not viewed as acceptable behavior.
	I think it would be better if you had...
	What I'm asking is your personal view.
	Based on your understanding of right and wrong, morals, ethics, biology, at what age is a female a woman?
	And you personally, Jim Fetzer.
	You're asking me at what age is a young woman capable of giving consent that is appropriate?
	Yeah.
	Somewhere between 16 and 18. That would be my best surmise, based on my life experience, somewhere between 16 and 18. Okay, and so whether or not she can become pregnant is irrelevant as far as the biology defining whether she's a female or an adult female.
	It's not a sufficient condition to satisfy the entitlement to grant consent to sexual experience, yes.
	16 days.
	So then what you're really talking about is whether or not she can pay her own bills.
	It doesn't matter whether she acts as an adult in terms of her finances or economics or her biology in terms of getting...
	No, I'm talking about...
	What we're really talking about is the ability to give consent.
	Yeah, I'm talking about an age at which it would be reasonable to suppose she would know what she was doing.
	And that would be, I'm suggesting, between 16 and 18 based upon my life experience and that I find reflected in...
	Okay.
	Then would you agree with me just because that is your personal view?
	Jim Fetzer, 16 to 18. In another part of the world where someone says, oh no, it's between 14 and 15. Who is right in this case, and who's to say?
	Well, you asked my opinion, Mr. President.
	I'm not going to say there aren't alternative opinions out there.
	You asked mine, which I have given, as it were asked and answered.
	I'm simply trying to show that this issue is not cut and dry.
	Well...
	If I were to get these 10 cases, if we were to be opened up to you to see the details.
	As a philosopher, I have investigated alternative moral theories, including simple subjectivism that says an act is right if you think it's right, family values, an act is right if your family approves, religious-based ethics, an act is right if your religion approves.
	Cultural relativism, so an act is right if it's approved by a culture, versus four different philosophical theories.
	Ethical egoism, if you make a calculation as to what action you take would make you the most happy regardless of the consequences for others.
	Ethical egoism, limited utilitarianism, if a group makes a calculation about the action that would induce the most happiness for the group.
	Regardless of the consequences for others, classic utilitarianism, namely, whatever action brings about the greatest aptliness for the greatest number is the right act, or deontological moral theory, which entails treating every person with respect and never merely as means,
	then it's the question of Whether an action is treating other persons with respect not merely as mean, not subject to coercion or any other form of manipulation, coercion or constraint, that people are acting Voluntarily in accordance with their own beliefs or their own values.
	Okay, okay.
	I don't have, you know, I'm trying to run the world here.
	I don't have the time for a full detailed philosophical analysis.
	Bottom line, bottom line, if we're to sum up, if I were to get these 10-ish cases, 8 or 9 or 12 or whatever they are, and you could see the details of them.
	Yes.
	You...
	Would say, I am guilty of pedophilia, even if the evidence clearly shows it was consensual so-called sex, of whatever form or type or variety of sex.
	It was consensual.
	You wouldn't care if it's consensual if the female, however we define, you know, adult, whatever, if she's under the age of 16, it was pedophilia.
	Period.
	End of story, as far as you, Jim Petzer, is concerned.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	Good enough.
	Okay, so now, if there's something more you want to add to that, I'll move on to the Gaza-Israeli disaster.
	Please.
	Okay.
	Do you agree it may be that I'm a genuinely sincere, I don't know any other way to put it, religious fanatic, i.e.
	a so-called Christian Zionist?
	And or a closet, also known as crypto, secret, Zionist Jew, or whatever you think I may be or am, when it comes to dealing with what you call the Gaza genocide.
	And so this influences my thinking.
	Is that a question?
	That's a question.
	What do you believe I am?
	What do you know for sure or believe I am as far as my sincerely held religious beliefs?
	Christian Zionist, closet crypto, or obvious open Zionist Jew, or some other thing?
	What's your knowledge of that?
	I believe you converted to Judaism in 2017.
	You received an astounding assortment of awards that are historically only given to Jews.
	You traveled to Israel for the...
	Rabbi Schneerson, you know, regarding him as a major figure when he has, when others have suggested he was the Meshiach, he has denied it, saying he can't be because there are still Christians alive on earth.
	I'm very troubled by all of that, Mr. President.
	If you do right acts, I don't care about your religious beliefs one iota.
	But supporting a mass genocide in Gaza is wrong.
	You could end it by cutting off the supply of weapons to Israel, and you ought to have done that a long time ago.
	You should not be continuing to support or provide any cover.
	The very idea of turning Gaza into the Riviera or the Mediterranean is a manifest absurdity.
	It makes it appear as though you're more concerned about having a Trump Tower in Gaza than you are about the well-being of one of the historically most important populations of world history, the Palestinians, who have a legitimate historical entitlement to the lands of Palestine.
	And frankly, this is among the issues that most trouble me.
	That would lead me even to believe that if you were to be subject to an impeachment, a bona fide impeachment, I suspect this would qualify.
	On what evidence do you say I'm a Zionist Jew?
	Again, is this similar to the Frazzledrip video or the other things we discussed where you believe but you're not sure?
	Oh, I'm pretty sure, Mr. President.
	I've seen those photographs with all this tree of life and every other award you've received.
	Oh, I don't know how many dozens of awards they're historically only given to Jews.
	Your travel to Israel, your subservience to Bibi Netanyahu, which many of us find appalling because it does make you look as though you were a puppet.
	That's very bad.
	Many believe you're making Israel great again rather than America.
	Now, you must be aware of this.
	And of course, you're well aware that I've expressed these opinions many, many times in public arenas.
	So it will come as no surprise I feel that way today.
	But bottom line, you're not 100% certain, but you're persuaded.
	That I am a Zionist Jew, and I would assume that you agree that if in fact I am, and if not that, then definitely a Christian Zionist, that this influences my thinking.
	In other words, I rationalize this so-called genocide as acceptable because it serves the greater good.
	You're going to say that.
	Correct?
	You support Christians, but you're not a Christian.
	I believe you are sincere.
	You're not a Christian.
	You're not a Christian Zionist, which in my opinion is an incoherent position, because as Rabbi Schneerson revealed, the Jewish supremacist Zionists want to kill all the Christians.
	So Christian Zionism is an absurd position, and yet Mike Huckabee, whom you made our ambassador to Israel, holds exactly that position.
	Ludicrous, in my opinion.
	Now, I wouldn't care.
	I don't care about a person's religious beliefs.
	I care about their actions.
	So I wouldn't care whether you were a Zionist, a Jewish supremacist, or whatnot, as long as you treated human beings with respect.
	But by supporting the genocide in Gaza, you're doing the opposite.
	And the very idea of you're working to move a million Palestinians to Libya is offensive on its face.
	That's promoting the ethnic cleansing.
	Would you rather they be bombed and driven into the sea and completely exterminated?
	If you had a choice, one or the other.
	To live and thrive and survive, which you could easily make possible by cutting off supplies to Israel.
	All you have to do is stop.
	Supporting the genocide.
	You really believe that?
	You don't think they have a backlog supply of weapons that they could continue to do what they're doing for at least several weeks to several months, enough time to kill every last woman and child in the Gaza Strip?
	You really believe that, even if I stopped all weapons?
	If you spoke out against it, it would end.
	Bottom line, brass tacks.
	Do you think it's my religious beliefs or that I'm financially bought off because I took donations from this or that quote-unquote Zionist Jew as far as my motivation?
	What drives me?
	Well, I can't see that.
	Or both.
	Money and...
	I can't infer that donations haven't made a difference, for example.
	Sheldon Adelson gave you 100 mil and he wanted the embassy to move to Jerusalem.
	He wanted the Golan Heights to be declared a part of Israel.
	I mean, you did those things.
	It's pretty obvious.
	I don't think anyone is seriously contesting that this massive contribution affected you.
	And then you have his widow, Mary Madelson, giving you 250 mil.
	And she'd like the West Bank to be annexed by Israel, and so it's moving in that direction.
	But the very fact that you're talking about this fantastic land grab of America taking control of Gaza, freedom, whatever, freedom, frankly it comes across as a lot of unadulterated bullshit, Mr. President, may I say so?
	And you have a marvelous capacity to be persuasive.
	To appear to be completely sincere and authentic even when you are not.
	It's a remarkable...
	Go on.
	Have you not heard it said recently, reportedly, that I've broken with the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, that I'm now dealing without him?
	Yes.
	I've heard it said.
	And you're going far with negotiation with Iran without consulting Israel.
	Doesn't that tell you something?
	Well, it's a question of whether it's feigned or real, because you're also opening a second front with Ukraine, and you're threatening Iran if they don't make a quick decision.
	Mr. President, I've been appalled that sometimes you seem to be talking as though Iran were trying to develop nuclear weapons.
	Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons.
	Is this about them from the beginning?
	How can you know for sure?
	What are your sources of...
	I've seen clips, part of all of various discussion stories you've done on this, I think you call it the real deal and variations of that.
	What are your sources?
	What are the top three, five, ten sources that you apparently...
	Consider the gospel as to what's really going on in that part of the world.
	I don't consider any source to be the gospel.
	I don't even consider the gospel to be authoritative.
	Maybe you don't know what I mean.
	You take them as factual rather than merely allegations.
	I have a vast variety of sources.
	Al Jazeera, RT.
	You know, Responsible Statecraft, Zebra Hedge, Gateway Bunded.
	I get sources every single day.
	I go through hundreds of articles to sort out what seems to fit with my background knowledge and what appears to be going on in the world so I can report it.
	We can get it out there and kick it around and figure out what actually is going on, given that we have to take for granted that.
	There's no single source that's going to be completely reliable and authoritative.
	But among those that are not, the New York Times, the Washington Post, you know, ironically, Haaretz!
	Haaretz!
	The Israeli paper is more accurate about what goes on in the Middle East than either the Washington Post or the New York Times.
	Pravda!
	Tass!
	Gives more honest reporting of international events than do the American mainstream media, CBS, ABC, NBC.
	I mean, it's a situation where for a country that claims to be so open and free and devoted to the truth that we get so little of it presented to the American people through the mainstream media.
	Well, we all know that that's part of the fake news, corporate horror propaganda.
	Mr. Rex, I cannot commend you strongly enough for calling out the fake news.
	That was one of the greatest contributions you have made to America in your political career.
	Marvelous!
	I have raved about it again and again.
	Because the public...
	I believe the mainstream is authoritative and it's anything but.
	It's an 80% propaganda.
	Okay, so you say hundreds of articles you go through a day.
	What does that mean?
	You just read the headline, and if it's compelling, you may scan the article itself?
	I make an evaluation and judgment about what I share with my audiences as to how I'm seeing these things.
	I mean, I'm being used as a standard.
	I mean, that's what happens when you're a reporter or a political analyst.
	You're applying your background and knowledge to reports of contemporary events to sort out what's really going on.
	I would like to see those links, and I'd like to know, is it that you get Google Alerts, that you've programmed Google or other such search engines?
	Every show I do on RBN, Mr. President, there's a list of stories I'm going through, and it is published on RBN for every show.
	And there are typically 30, 35 stories each day that I'm reporting on.
	So the video has, under the video and the text, you actually have the links to each one of the articles?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	That's impressive.
	In any case, so you're confident that you're sure of your facts, because they are, in fact, facts.
	I'm doing my best.
	Obviously, we're all fallible and we get new information.
	We may have to revise what we've been reporting because there have been additional developments.
	I'm just doing my best.
	Bottom line, what do you think drives me?
	Is it campaign donations or my religious beliefs or neither?
	Something else entirely.
	Well, you're a very complicated individual, Mr. President, and I think there's a whole host of motives competing, and I do think you have great love and affection for America, but I do believe you also are very committed to Israel.
	How many times have I heard you say you're going to be the best president Israel has ever had in controlling our Congress?
	I mean, it's described as Israeli-occupied.
	Territory.
	Yes, yes.
	Most of them have a handler.
	You should require AIPAC to register as a foreign agent.
	Jack wanted to do that with the World Jewish Congress or its precursor.
	We know what happened to him, but it's the right thing to do.
	Now, you know how much I like to be in control of my own situation, correct?
	In fact, some have described me as a control freak, yes?
	Yes.
	Well, could be sad, yes.
	Okay, then, based on that and everything you've ever read or heard or seen about me, has it ever occurred to you that I don't even like those people?
	It has.
	That I took the money from the Zionist donors, as you call them, for my campaign to become POTUS, and I continued to take money so I'd get into office.
	And once in office, I could then double-cross them by doing all that I can to prevent nuclear war and ultimately to stop the major genocides, not the minor ones, that a few dozen, maybe a hundred thousand have to be sacrificed because I'm dealing with the issue of what will ultimately happen to the millions and the billions worldwide.
	You've heard of the Samson option.
	Do you think it's real that Israel actually has nukes?
	And that's always on my mind, that if I push them too far, we'll all pay for it.
	So it's a very difficult game I've had to play over the years, gradually working my influence into making them believe that I'm with them, that I was never with them.
	Has that ever occurred to you?
	Of course it is.
	Now trying to take back control.
	It has occurred to me and it's a tight rope walk and it's very hazardous and very difficult to navigate.
	And I just worry about how all this is going to play out.
	None of us can read your mind.
	We all hope for the best.
	We all hope for the best.
	I thought your first term in not getting the U.S. into any additional wars was masterful.
	I thought your foreign policy was better than it is today because you seem all too willing to support Israel in this genocide that is turning the world not only against Israel but against the United States because they couldn't do it without our support, Mr. President.
	You are a philosopher, not only in practice but in training.
	And you've had to become something of a military strategist.
	You were once a Marine.
	Correct?
	Not a Marine.
	Or was it Marine?
	Yes.
	You have military experience.
	So you're familiar with the concept of pawn sacrifice?
	Sure.
	And I also play chess.
	And you've repeatedly told others that it's not evil to make a choice between If you choose the lesser of the two evils, it's ultimately a good, given the alternative, maybe far worse.
	Even St. Thomas Aquinas said to choose the lesser of the two evils is a good.
	Aristotle as well.
	So you would perhaps agree with me then that if it means saving millions or billions so that humanity can continue?
	That if the price is sacrificing a few hundred thousand, that it must be done?
	This is very, very difficult.
	Isn't that what we're dealing with?
	Nuclear war?
	Sounds like a utilitarian argument.
	We should all be adhering to the Geneva Convention, the international law, to the UN Charter, a relation between nations.
	Again, I don't care what the law is.
	I just use that as a means to an end.
	I care about most of humanity surviving.
	I care about America surviving.
	And I've made a lot of choices I'm not happy with.
	I'm still not happy with.
	Do you understand the situation?
	Can you even begin to imagine what it's like to know at any moment one of your own could take your life?
	Your so-called secret service?
	Yes.
	The sacrifices you have to make.
	Do you ever wonder why, knowing that the election was rigged, why I let it happen?
	The kind of threats I may have been up against, against my family, against America, that if I didn't abdicate the throne as I did?
	Years ago, even though I knew I won.
	2020.
	Imagine how difficult that may have been, knowing I'd won, that I stepped away.
	The damage that was done to the nation by the Biden regime, and it wasn't even the real guy.
	I mean, we had an imposter president for four years, literally and figuratively.
	Unbelievable, Mr. President.
	Look, I've got to respect your role there.
	You are the only one who's familiar with all the issues and conflicts and pressures that you confront, so I respect that.
	But I do think the situation with Gaza is extreme and extraordinary and wrong, and that you ought to bring an end to it.
	Well, I have.
	You know, if you'll reread some of those articles and re-look at some of your own videos, you'll acknowledge I've been more and more talking about what's happening to the people in Gaza is terrible.
	And more than anything, I want them to live.
	Otherwise, I wouldn't talk about getting them out the hell out of there.
	Because it is hell.
	And Bibi, he just, I don't know what to do.
	He just doesn't stop.
	Thank you.
	Understood.
	Have you heard it said of late by types like Alex Jones that I don't even like what Joe Olsen is repeatedly referred to as "nutty yahoo" and that I've broken with him by doing things my way?
	Is it possible that I really am playing the so-called three or four or fifth dimensional chess, not merely one dimensional checkers?
	Like the unsophisticated amateurs do.
	We all hope that is indeed the case, Mr. President.
	Here's an example.
	Go ahead.
	We want that to be the case.
	Here's an example.
	Recently, one of the things you've bitterly complained is my speaking out against and efforts against what I call antisemitism.
	Yes.
	Simultaneously, on February 6th of this year, Due to executive order, also known as EO, I have a task force now to eradicate anti-Christian bias that was hereby established with the Department of Justice under the Attorney General to serve as chair of the task force.
	And using that, even though they seem to be completely contradictory, a way to deal with this anti-Semitism attack on free speech.
	It can be as simple as saying, hey, you have an anti-Christian bias.
	Using my liberty of conscience, my God commands me as a Christian to defend against restrictions of my freedom of speech.
	My God commands me to stop genocides.
	My God commands me as a Christian to complain about all the actions of the state of Israel that perpetuates genocide.
	The theft of Palestinian land.
	And this administration has provided cover under its executive order against anti-Christian bias.
	Has it ever occurred to you that I've given you the tools as a Christian or as one who sympathizes with Christians and that's a hedge against this anti-Semitism thing I do to appease the extremists?
	That have their hands on nuclear weapons in the Middle East?
	The problem, Mr. President, as I see it, is that we have classic anti-Semitism on the one hand, which is to discount or disvalue the worth of a person or their opinion because of their religion or ethnic heritage because they're Jewish, which is virtually non-existent in America today as I see it.
	On the other hand, Broadening the definition to include any criticism of Israel on any grounds whatsoever is now a new version of anti-Semitism is wrong and absurd and a violation of our First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
	Such a bill should never pass in America.
	It compromises the very character of our nation, violates the Constitution.
	Frankly, I believe the Supreme Court would find such a bill.
	Which was recently pulled because they didn't have the votes, I'm glad to say, from a vote in the Senate as unconstitutional.
	You should not be in any way, shape, or form supporting anti-Semitism in that broader sense.
	You should be opposing it.
	And to take Harvard, for example, and to punish Harvard, take away federal funding before By virtue of alleged anti-Semitism, which is actually anti-genocide or pro-Palestine sentiment, which every American ought to be entitled to express, is completely and utterly wrong.
	And I condemn your administration for taking those actions against our institutions of higher learning on grounds that compromise our First Amendment right and their institutional right to academic freedom.
	But more profoundly, The people's right to have freedom of speech.
	Well, I have to be careful about what I say here because you may be recording this without my knowing it.
	So I have to touch upon these issues indirectly.
	I just want to suggest that it could be that I agree with you completely, that I know exactly what I'm doing.
	The problem ultimately became I got tired of seeing the demon crap party and these Rhinos, these fake Republicans destroying this country.
	I couldn't see anyone else that had potential to become POTUS, that once they were in, could gradually move this world to a point of peace.
	And no, I don't like the genocides.
	I don't like all these things.
	But I can't get into a deep philosophical or religious debate with you because ultimately I don't know that I would persuade you.
	I just want you to know.
	That I do care.
	And I don't like it.
	It wasn't easy accepting money.
	I don't like accepting bribes.
	But I did what I needed to do to get into power.
	Because now I can double deal and sometimes double cross these people if I want to.
	Not to say that I have.
	But it certainly looks that way, doesn't it?
	As things move forward, step by step, they're losing power.
	And we, the Americans, are gaining power.
	Well, doing the right thing, it'd be very risky, dear health and welfare, as JFK discovered, needless to say.
	Yeah, it would be a lot simpler if there weren't so many different parties out there with their hands on nuclear weapons, and so many so close to you that can betray you.
	I can't do what I'm doing if I don't stay alive.
	And if I anger too many people, I end up being dead.
	In any case, moving on, let's deal a little bit deeper with this anti-Semitism issue.
	So, you would not say that you are an anti-Semite, or perhaps you are, given that some would argue, well, the State of Israel are the true Semites.
	And so if you're against us, you're an anti-Semite.
	You don't agree with those definitions.
	No, no, no.
	I mean, the real Semites are Palestinians.
	DNA studies have even shown that the population of Israel today is like 97% Ashkenazi Jews are from the region of Ukraine, which is part of why Zelensky is talking about Ukraine becoming the new Israel.
	I think that was part of it.
	That is, Marcel, why this Ukraine war continues to this day.
	But again, we're dealing with matters of biology, evidence.
	That is what you say.
	Well, genetic study and this, that, or the other would be necessary to get into the details of that.
	What is genetics?
	How do we verify it?
	How can we rely on the...
	The so-called scientific study proving that these people or that people are the real ones.
	This is well established, Mr. President, that the Palestinians have bona fide ties to the ancient tribes of Israel, especially that of Judea, that the Israelis today do not.
	They don't have an historical entitlement.
	They don't even have a legal entitlement.
	The International Court of Justice did a thorough investigation here and a barrister from the UK on behalf of South Africa demonstrated there was no legal entitlement for Israel to occupy, for Jews to occupy the lands of Palestine.
	None.
	It's all wrong historically, and it's because of the support of the United States.
	The atrocities of this level are allowed to take place, of which they should not.
	The Houthis are showing themselves to be absolutely heroic, robust fighters for truth having declared war on Israel, but they're the only Muslim nation to have done it.
	I admire them beyond words.
	And being a newshound, you're aware there was a recent ceasefire agreement that they'll stop.
	Firing bombs, and we'll stop bombing then.
	You're aware of that, yes?
	After a thousand attacks by the United States on the Houthis, to no discernible effect, yes, the Houthis always said they wouldn't be attacking America in the ships except for America attacking them.
	So America not attacking them, they're not attacking American ships.
	But their war against Israel continues unabated.
	As a matter of philosophy, who would you say owns and controls, or controls but does not own, or owns but does not control the meaning of the words that we use?
	Specifically, in connection with the fact, or rather the allegation, that there's a group of people out there who call themselves Jews, and believe only they should have, or rather, The so-called,
	the group called Israel should not have that land because the true Jews, they call themselves Orthodox, and they very much look like the Amish dressed up in black.
	They say their God commands them not to have a nation, and therefore the state of Israel has no right to exist until the end times.
	You're aware of that group out there?
	There's essentially a civil war between One group and another, each side saying, we're the real Jews, and the other saying, no, you're not.
	Put differently, how can we know who are the real Jews or neither of them really Jews?
	Who owns that word, Jew?
	This is an extremely complicated question.
	I mean, we could spend an hour on that question alone, I suspect.
	But the fact is...
	Historically, the lineage goes to the Palestinians who are true Semites, not to the present occupants of Israel who are not, which means that, ironically, Israel, by condemning the Palestinians or the bona fide Semites, are the greatest practitioners of anti-Semitism in the world today.
	Sad to say.
	Okay then, moving on.
	I agree that it's a muddy issue and perhaps ultimately unresolvable.
	I just find it very interesting that if you study the details, it reminds me very much of the game show.
	Will the real such and such please stand up?
	You remember that game show?
	This goes back to the 70s.
	I have to ask, will the real Jews please stand up?
	And then you see both...
	Multiple people standing up at the same time.
	And they're arguing amongst each other.
	No, I'm the real one.
	This is the fog of war that I'm having to deal with on a constant basis.
	And if it drives you nuts, you can be sure it gives me a headache every time I think too much about it.
	In any case...
	Do you still have time?
	Because I wanted to hopefully get into January 6th and the so-called throne election, the moon, the moon rocket, what do you call it, the moon rocket shots and landings, issues pertaining to Alex Jones, China's...
	Yes, yes, yes.
	I'm glad to address all those issues, but it might require us to have a third...
	If that would be agreeable with you, it would work for me.
	Well, the position of Director of National Intelligence is important enough that I can't move forward on that issue until my remaining issues with you are at least addressed, if not resolved.
	So it's a question of you.
	How much more time do you have?
	Three minutes.
	Okay, three minutes.
	Well then...
	And let's sum up with one of the shorter paragraphs here in my notes.
	Regarding January 6th and the so-called throne election, are you aware of the news, the evidence, the information out there to indicate that I was aware that the election had been rigged, stolen four years ago?
	Of course.
	And so when I stepped aside, I did it knowing that I'd won.
	Correct?
	I assume, yeah.
	I mean, you've asserted that on many occasions, and the evidence that was stolen is simply overwhelming.
	We had Mike Wendell bring out experts.
	We had Ron Johnson bring out experts.
	We had Dinesh D'Souza as a 2,000 mule.
	I mean, Jerry Corsi has even uncovered an algorithm that Democrats were using to control the outcome of elections.
	I think that the case for the stolen election is overwhelming.
	Only someone who's really not paying any attention, doesn't know what they're talking about, would dispute it.
	But of course, on political grounds, many who know the truth assert positions that are false by denying it was stolen when it was a classic overwhelming case of electoral theft.
	Well, this is something that really troubles me because, you know, as the highest officer of law enforcement, as president of the United States, more than anyone, I'm required to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
	Yes.
	And being that I could have used the military or some other means, my bully pulpit, to refuse to abdicate the throne, to step down, it could be argued that I was guilty of treason.
	By leaving, knowing that the election had been rigged.
	Correct?
	It's a debatable proposition.
	But you see the difficult position that I was in, where on the Supreme Court and other courts were continually throwing out the cases.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	This is the problem.
	On the one hand...
	I was thinking, well, this is treason if I step away, because I'm convinced and my friends and associates are convinced that I won.
	But at the same time, the court is saying, oh, no, no, no, no.
	Mr. President, may I say, the Supreme Court refusal to hear the Texas case was one of the greatest abdications of responsibility in its history and will forever stain the legacy of the court.
	And I regret today I'm unable to remain longer because these are such important conversations between us.
	I look forward to our next.
	I appreciate that.
	I just wanted to close with that thought because I was horrified to see what was done to America over the last few years due to the incompetence, the outright criminality, the treasonous acts of my opposition.
	And every day, I can't tell you how much I suffered the thought that perhaps I should have taken the risk, I could have called in the military, done a recount, done whatever it takes, rather than do what I did to step away.
	Because even though now I may still save America, there are all those lives that were lost.
	I think we're all glad to have you back, Mr. President.
	Warts and all, we're glad to have you back, and I look forward to our next conversation.
	Okay.
	I appreciate this much, Professor Fetzer.
	Next, you'll be signing off with Secret Service.
	Have a good day.

▲