Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 2, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:30:04

Part 4 - Great POTUS Debates: "Donald Trump" Interviews Prof. Jim Fetzer for DNI (1 June 2025)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	One.
	This is The Matricist, Warrior Chronicles, where we search for the one.
	This is part four of a continuing series called The Great POTUS Debates, starring Professor Jim Fetzer as himself and yours truly, The Matricist, as the Honorable Donald John Trump.
	Continuing with the subject of Alex Jones, other than the persecution you received over the Ring, ring, ring.
	This is the Secret Service.
	Is this Mr. Fetzer on the line?
	It is.
	Yes, it is.
	Glad to be here.
	Hold for the president.
	Click, click, click.
	Jim, it's your favorite president.
	How are you today?
	Mr. President, it's always a pleasure.
	Okay, looking at my notes again.
	Other than the persecution you've received, apparently, over the Sandy Hook-related lawfare, and I don't want you to answer this question if, in doing so, it puts you in any jeopardy whatsoever.
	So think carefully before you answer.
	Have you ever been targeted in any way?
	Other than the lawfare, be either threats or actual attempts on your life, or i.e., do you need me to send bodyguards to help protect you and /or considering that issue, would you even trust my Secret Service agents to protect and not whack you?
	Again, think about the question and the potential for the risks by answering truthfully and fully.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, I have received occasional death threats, more related to Sandy Hook, I suppose, than any other, but I do worry about my revelation regarding the Israeli shooter of JFK.
	That could have adverse consequences, so that does trouble me rather profoundly.
	Qualms about myself personally being targeted.
	But I think there are those who would make extraordinary efforts to harm one's family, which I would find insufferable.
	So that's my answer, Mr. President.
	I ask because I've never quite understood why some activists that are highly visible seem to last so very long, decades and decades.
	And others who are not that visible seem to get far more targeting than the most visible.
	Hence the phenomenon that has come to be known as targeted individuals and also gang stalking.
	Yes, I have friends and acquaintances like Dr. Catherine Horton and William Benny, Bill Benny.
	NSA who have been targeted with directed energy weaponry.
	They're suffering even as we speak, sad to say.
	When I've had occasion, some suggest to me how I've been able to survive so long.
	A suggestion I've had from someone who has fairly good connections has been that They like me because I'm, as it were, the cutting edge, so that I give them an indication of where research is going.
	They can take measures such as they may be capable to counteract or defeat it.
	I can't do much better than that.
	I can only say, yeah, sometimes I've wondered how it is possible, given my exposés of JFK, 9 /11, Sandy Hook, even the moon landing.
	No, I think that's one where one's life is not truly at risk that I could have endured.
	We may see.
	Maybe this is going to be a test case.
	In any case, Mr. President, I appreciate the concern.
	The other aspect of this is visibility, because it seems that Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my opinion, it doesn't matter how deep, how full an expose is done if the traffic is very low.
	But differently, one would have to reach a certain number of views of a particular article or video before it would draw the attention of the opposition.
	In other words, they don't care how much you expose if you have almost no audience.
	Yes, I think that's completely right, Mr. President.
	You can do something that's original.
	People do things that are original all the time.
	You can do something that's original and important or significant, including discoveries, but if you lack the element of the appropriate form of publication or publicity, it does not become influential, and you're 100% correct.
	They don't care if a small percentage of the country may have sorted out.
	What actually happened to JFK as long as it does not become a matter of general or public knowledge.
	So your assessment is 100% correct, Mr. President.
	And I'd say in terms of my stuff, I haven't reached that breakthrough moment where the public would understand what really happened.
	Because of my research, though I get a lot of positive feedback from those who are familiar with my work.
	And of course, I'm successful to the extent I am because I do it collaboratively, because I bring together the best experts to combine our effort to sort out these complex and controversial cases like JFK.
	And it's thus, I think, Would you say Alex Jones or yourself have been more victimized by lawfare to the extent you're aware of what he's gone through?
	Oh, absolutely, yeah.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	To a lesser degree, Wolfgang Helbig as well.
	But yeah, Alex and I related to Sandy Hook without any doubt, the difference being he capitulated.
	He's been on both sides of the issue where I am, as it were, the last man standing regarding upholding that Sandy Hook was a scam.
	It was a FEMA drill.
	Presented as mass murder to promote gun control.
	I've been consistent throughout and published books, given innumerable lectures, blogs about it, and persevering in seeking to have my lawsuit, which was completely contrived.
	And who is this Wolfgang Fellow?
	Well, Mr. President Wolfgang Helbig was a nationally recognized school safety expert who traveled to Newtown in 2014 and invited me to join him.
	where we went to the location where the school had been.
	We went to the community where the donations were supposed to be publicly available and the police department in Newtown sent over eight cops to prevent movement.
	Well, it was after it had already been demolished, but we were there in Newtown together in 2014.
	And has he been a victim of lawfare?
	Oh, absolutely, he has.
	He's had phony suits brought against him.
	He had his home raided in like 3 a.m.
	in the morning and marched through, you know, a couple of weeks.
	Did he flip or has he been consistent that it was a...
	Well, I'd say Wolfgang, who made some significant contributions about...
	So he did not flip?
	No, but he has more or less withdrawn.
	I would say Wolfgang has now withdrawn the focus on his family.
	He's found it.
	What is your best guess as to why Alex Jones either...
	What do you think is going on there?
	What's your best guess?
	I think he's going with the flow, Mr. President, that he found it advantageous to him and his company to go along with a completely phony trial.
	I sought to intervene as an amicus.
	To defend him and explain how the whole thing had been a FEMA drill.
	First in Remington, but also in his trials in both Connecticut and Texas.
	They didn't pick up.
	They didn't want me to participate.
	He even sat in a video deposition.
	Remington was a trial location.
	Connecticut.
	In Connecticut.
	Let's go with the idea that he...
	Let's say he believes it was a hoax, but pretends not to because he thought, well, the feds will go easier on me.
	If I maintain that it was a hoax along with Jim Fetzer and any others in that league, that the lawfare will be even worse.
	maybe even they'll do more than lawfare, they'll actually Could that be it?
	Probably not.
	Honestly, I've documented as thoroughly as it could be documented.
	I got the FEMA manual for the exercise.
	I have the Connecticut FEMA schedule showing the exercise.
	Yes, you've done a very impressive job.
	I've seen much of what you've talked about, or at least I should say heard.
	It all makes sense.
	Without having been there or knowing anyone I trust who has been there, just based on your discussions, it sounds, yes, that it must have been a FEMA drill to promote gun control.
	It's just this mystery of Alex Jones.
	That just doesn't make sense to me.
	Let's go with the idea that he did believe.
	They'll send an assassin after me or a loved one, and so better to pretend it was a hoax because then it'll be limited to lawfare.
	Let's go with the theory that that's what he was thinking.
	But simultaneously, he repeatedly says, I'm not afraid of death.
	This is my life's work.
	I'm prepared to die.
	He's said this repeatedly in many of his epic super rants.
	We've tuned into his show from time to time.
	Would you agree at this point?
	If I'm right, my instincts, that he originally thought they'll go easier on me and subject the attacks to just lawfare, wouldn't it make at this point sense to flip and say, I've changed my mind, I'm going on the record it was a hoax, being that there's not really much more they can do as far as lawfare.
	He's been through years now.
	A back and forth, in and out of bankruptcy court, and he might even prevail.
	Given that Trump, myself, has a new sheriff in town, the Trump team, we can use the, we can direct Pam Bondi and or others within the DOJ through one manner or another to finally get the feds to stop going after Alex Jones.
	Would it make sense for him to flip or would, in your opinion, is there's no ad?
	It's not advantageous in any way for him to turn around and say, well, I was wrong.
	I agree with Jim Fetzer.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, he already did flip.
	You know, I mean, he went from being a skeptic and denouncing and having some good evidence, including one of his own reporters was there interviewing neighbors who said they were surprised there were any students there because the school had been closed years ago.
	He knew the facts.
	He flipped based on really contrived legal cases, none of which were decided on the merits.
	They never went to juries.
	They were decided on procedural grounds.
	Flipping again.
	Flipping.
	Is there no advantage?
	Because this is what we would advise him.
	As a personal friend, if he were to call, I would say, Alex, flip again.
	It's not going to cost you anything.
	It's not going to change.
	If there was an assassin coming, they would have already sent an assassin out.
	That's not going to happen.
	It's not going to change the law.
	It doesn't hurt.
	To hurt their feelings even more, to flip again and join Professor Fetzer's side.
	Well, part of the problem is that during the trial, they were trashing me.
	They used the trial to trash me.
	the very day it opened in Austin, they took my blog and my book.
	So when they described me as batshit crazy in court, And when he was reinstated on Twitter, he had a lengthy conversation with Elon Musk, where he explained at some length that he'd been misled by two professors, myself and James Tracy, and a school safety expert, Wolfgang Halberg.
	We had misled him.
	We were onto the truth.
	But he went on at length and disparaged me, I think, maybe schizophrenic, whatever.
	I mean, it's just ludicrous.
	But he went overboard, in my opinion, in trashing me, which makes it highly unlikely he would be in a position to reverse himself.
	Now, obviously, I'd be grateful, worried to do that.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	You're saying he was being schizophrenic or he was accusing you of being schizophrenic?
	He was accusing me.
	Okay, let's approach this from another direction.
	Let's pretend I am Alex Jones.
	We're talking directly to Alex Jones.
	Not the President of the United States, Alex Jones.
	And this is truly, let's say we're at a park bench and there's no recorder.
	We're sure none of us, neither of us have a phone on, so we're not being physically tracked.
	No one is recording.
	And I'm telling you to give me your best advice.
	What would you tell me to do?
	What would you tell me to take a walk?
	You don't want to have anything to do with me.
	Would you suggest a change in strategy?
	What would you tell me directly if I am Alex Jones right now, privately, off the record?
	Alex, Alex, we collaborated in exposing 9 /11 as having been an inside job back in June of 2006.
	During your American Scholars Conference, where you invited me to give the keynote lecture and during the panel discussion Sunday, all four members We're from scholars.
	We have an opportunity now.
	I have so much more evidence.
	I've got two of the participants in the event on my side.
	They don't like the way I'm abused in the courts.
	They've given me additional evidence.
	I have two sensational affidavits from Brian Davidson, a private investigator in Houston, Texas.
	One from the Connecticut State Police files.
	Where he went in and discovered photographs where there's supposed to be bodies and blood, no bodies, no blood.
	Photographs inside classrooms where there's supposed to be stacks of little kids' bodies and not only no bodies and no blood, but no school desk.
	No teacher's desk.
	All furniture shoved up against the wall.
	So he and I discovered proof in the Connecticut State Police files that it was not a mass murder, but that it wasn't even an operating school.
	And get this, Alex, they removed the metadata showing where the photographs were taken in the effort to conceal, make it impossible for them to be submissible as evidence in court, but they're evidence of cover-up, even with the missing documents.
	So, given I have a couple of participants on my side, given I can nail this thing rock-solid, it would be sensational if you were to revert to your original position, which was accurate and well-founded.
	This was one of the great scams perpetrated on the American people, indeed, even though it was faux-terrorism.
	Because nobody actually died at Sandy Hook.
	It was terrorism, nonetheless, because it instilled fear in the minds and hearts of every parent in America.
	We want to relieve them of that anxiety, Alex, because these are staged events.
	Not only Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Orlando, Dallas, Charlottesville, Parkland, Las Vegas, and more.
	I can prove it, Alex, with your help.
	We can get it out to the American people just...
	Your audience will grow, the American people will be enthralled, and you will be hailed as a national hero, which you will at that point deserve.
	These participants, these are adults or children that are now of age, now they're young adults.
	To what level were they participants?
	And would these participants, in your opinion, again, I'm still Alex Jones, would they come on my show, Infowars, to admit I participated, here's the proof I participated, and yes, it was all a hoax.
	I suspect on your show, there's a good chance, a high probability they would do it.
	They were willing to go on shows earlier, but we don't.
	But I think on your show, because of the significance and the size of your audience, I believe they'd be open to it.
	One played Emily Parker was little six-year-old girl, blonde hair, blue eye, just adorable.
	The other, Victoria Soto, a teacher who was supposed to have heroically given her life defending her students.
	They're on my side, Alex.
	They'd like to see the case exposed, and I think if you were to offer the platform to them, there's a very good chance they would be willing to do it.
	Okay, the issue of my image before my audience, past, present, future, what am I to say?
	How do I explain why I flipped from initially saying Sandy Hook is a hoax and then I turned around and said, no, I've changed my mind.
	How do I explain that I'm back now in my original position?
	What do I do?
	Do you tell the truth?
	How can I explain changing my mind?
	You just tell the truth, whatever.
	In fact, if you change your mind, just share it with the audience.
	Americans are pretty good at sensing the difference between true and false accounts.
	I think if you were truthful here, that the public would understand.
	That's my advice.
	Bottom line is you're convinced that when I went from it's a hoax to I don't believe it's a hoax anymore, you believe that I was lying, that I know it's a hoax and I pretended not to know it's a hoax.
	I believe you were acting in what you then took to be your self-interest, which is a common motive and easily understood.
	So a lie but an excusable lie.
	I'm not going to interpret how the public's going to receive it.
	Will you forgive me?
	Do you forgive me?
	Oh, sure.
	I don't have a problem.
	Okay, before we move on to other mass shootings in general, the Hooties and a few other subjects I'd like to address in this world's toughest job interview.
	Of all the data points, this is similar to other issues we've done.
	Approximately how many reasons total?
	Approximately 10, 20, more than 1,000 together.
	Show that Sandy Hook was a phantasm, a FEMA drill.
	Ten, twenty, hundred?
	A hundred lines of proof.
	A hundred lines of proof.
	And have you taken the trouble to list them numerically and sort them in terms of powerful or most powerful to least convincing?
	No, but I could do that.
	I mean, it wouldn't be a major What would you say is number one?
	It was a FEMA journal.
	And the absolute proof it was?
	I mean, we know you say you have the manual, but where's the proof that that manual is being used by someone speaking to the players?
	Because the events on the ground corresponded to what occurs during an exercise FEMA.
	They had porta potties already in place.
	They had a sign everyone must check in.
	They had pizza.
	You have the manual.
	You have the manual.
	Sure.
	Does the manual say we're going to do Sandy Hook on April the 2nd at 2 p.m.?
	That's on the Connecticut FEMA schedule, which we also have.
	It's listed as exercise 366.
	What would you say is the other...
	Forgive me for interrupting you a lot, but I'm trying to stay on point, and you tend to get off point to repeat things that you've said many times in the past.
	You're very well rehearsed.
	Go ahead, your thoughts.
	It does mention Sandy Hook.
	As a professor of 35 years' experience, if you don't emphasize key points, they may not be retained by your students, so I'm in a position of teaching.
	We understand that.
	We understand it.
	It's the force of habit.
	But again, we're trying to create a viral video here, hypothetically, if this is not a private conversation off the record between yourself and the President of the United States.
	And this was, because this is what I'm thinking about, to not make this private, but to actually have you speak directly to me on C-SPAN.
	Wouldn't that be great, Jim?
	You and the Donald, the President of the United States?
	That would be my great pleasure, Mr. President.
	Take, for example, the death certificate for the alleged decedent, Noah Posner.
	I've been able to prove Noah Posner was a fiction made up out of photographs of Michael Vabner, who was the youngest son of Reuben Vabner, who was the real person behind the fiction Lenny Posner, who actually ran the event at Sandy Hook.
	I mean, I've been able to prove it.
	The proof was in the court.
	Would not treat it as evidence in order to guarantee there were no disputed facts so there'd be no reason to have a jury trial to resolve them when virtually every aspect of this case was disputed.
	Because I was explaining it was a FEMA drill for which I had massive evidence, even including the FBI Consolidated Crime Report for 2012, which shows for the intersection of murders in Newtown for 2012-0.
	That, for me, is the most important point.
	Now, if, in fact, you have a screenshot from the FBI website, or either a screenshot, a digital copy of a digital record, and ideally a physical printout, maybe showing proof that you're printing it out after you got the image off the Internet from the FBI site, that, to me, of the many things I've heard you say, is the most clear and convincing, quote-unquote, mathematical evidence that it was fake.
	If the FBI or some other law enforcement is charged to record these specific types of violent deaths, and there's no record of any violent deaths that day, whether a week or a month or a year go by, and there's still no change to the record, that's very convincing.
	And Mr. President, it's still up on the FBI website to this day.
	So we're talking about all the intervening years.
	If they had it wrong, it would have been changed, but they haven't changed it because it wasn't wrong.
	But that can be changed at any time, the website.
	Have you gotten a screenshot from the bill?
	And you have a printout of the screenshot.
	Mr. President, if I may say so, what could be more obvious?
	Of course, I submitted it to the court, but the court just set it aside.
	The court actually knew none of my evidence that it was a FEMA drill was relevant to the truth or accuracy of the death certificate for somebody who purportedly died there.
	It was an absurd ruling.
	That was a pivotal, pivotal point of my lawsuit because he wouldn't allow me to, he wouldn't accept evidence I had that proved that it was a FEMA drill.
	It was ridiculous.
	It's just I know something about lawyers.
	I've been around a lot of them or them hanging around with me.
	The games and the tricks that they'll play, the word games, it's limitless.
	So to me, the ultimate would be if it's still on the FBI or some other law enforcement.
	Actually film yourself or have someone film you visiting the website today of the FBI, downloading it off the website, printing it right after you've downloaded.
	So there's a time-date stamp.
	That, to me, is the most powerful.
	To film yourself gathering the evidence and have someone film you doing it.
	Which is, I think, as I recall, we loved the Columbo TV series of the 1970s because it's essentially like a documentary.
	Filming him as he digs deeper, deeper, deeper to prove whodunit, speaking directly to the suspect that's at the highest of his purplest.
	In any case, was this treason, despite the Smith Modernization Act, to have a hoax of this FEMA drill?
	It was terrorism, Mr. President.
	Full terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless.
	The Obama admin committed an act of terrorism on the American people to manipulate the public to promote its political agenda.
	That's a prosecutable crime.
	I would encourage you to do it, to pursue it.
	You could bring down Obama, censure Eric Holder, who was a pivot person who came down to Newtown and offered the community $114 million if they would do this way back in 2006, when the school, which wasn't even an elementary school, but a specialty school, actually closed in 2006 and set it all up as a way of showing what could happen if we don't take guns away from the American people.
	They had auditions for roles.
	They signed non-disclosure.
	Have you consulted with a lawyer, a lawyer who told you directly, or an opinion that they reduced the writing and they signed it with their signature, that the Smith-Munn Act does not escape liability?
	Period.
	This is a prosecutable crime.
	They have done what they did at Sandy Hook.
	Even with the Smith-Munn Act, that doesn't protect them.
	We can still bring them down.
	Have the lawyer told you that directly, yes or no?
	Probably not directly, no.
	I mean, this is, I'm explaining the circumstances and I do believe And this is interesting.
	The Modernization Act was dated 2012, but it may not, I have many times said, just in time for Sandy Hook...
	That would mean Sandy Hook actually How many would be in prison facing the death penalty and /or at minimum, if not life, several decades for making this thing happen and /or letting it happen and /or covering it up after the fact?
	Hundreds.
	It would take down the government of Connecticut at the time.
	Governor Malloy, the lieutenant governor, the Connecticut State Police who were running the scam behind the scene, the school board.
	I mean, look, the consequences would be enormous, which I believe is part of the reason why.
	It has been allowed to retain.
	The consequences are so vast of its exposure.
	But you make the excellent point or draw me to recognize that the Smith Modernization Act had not yet become effective.
	That would occur in early 2000.
	This is fascinating.
	Really fascinating.
	Significant.
	Why don't we do this?
	I'll make my pledge to you.
	If you'll do two things for me, or three.
	Number one, take the pledges.
	If you do these things, I'll get you in the Oval Office.
	I'll bring you up on the same level as Elon Musk so we can have the press.
	The fake news media and all the alternative media ask questions after we give them, what do you think, 20-minute summary of this would be sufficient?
	Here are my conditions.
	Number one, I want you to take the 100-ish reasons that show it was a hoax, organize them in the approximate number of importance, from the most compelling reason to the least compelling.
	Number two, consult with an actual lawyer with a valid, you know, in-good-standing law license, as they call it.
	That whether Smith Munt was legally enforceable or not, when Sandy Hook occurred, that it would still rise to the level of, if not treason, definitely getting people fired, at minimum severely discrediting the powers that be, anyone that was involved in any way, because I do, you know, provided I survive my...
	I would like to see that.
	Whether they go to the death penalty or they're in for life, that they're at least, they have their own, the same way I got a mugshot.
	We got mug shots for them, and we have them in an orange jumpsuit, maybe minimum security prison, but not a prison that they can escape from.
	I would like to see that.
	So I need to know whether Smith-Munt was legally in effect, and even if it wasn't, what is this faux terrorism, as you call it, rise to the level of a felony, which it has to give them at least a minimum of one year in prison.
	That's what a felony is, unless the law is changed.
	And the third thing I would like you to do is, okay, so organize the list, look into Smithmont, and the final one escapes me, but it may come back to me.
	Your thoughts, Sarah?
	Sure.
	Glad to do that, Mr. President.
	Yes, definitely.
	Okay.
	Final question regarding Sandy Hook, unless there's something else you want to...
	This Adam Lanza, we think perhaps the first time we heard of Sandy Hook was the somewhat famous or extremely famous photo.
	There's a white boy.
	He looks like he's a teenager.
	His eyes are bugged out like he's a deer in lights.
	It's been said that he was on some type of drugs.
	And the drugs contributed to his murdering his mom and using the guns to murder the people in the school.
	Of course, you say, oh, that's a hoax.
	So our question is, is this being that you've said repeatedly in the last few weeks, months, that CGI, computer generated images, a.k.a.
	now referred to as artificial intelligence, A.I., the photorealism of images these days is so perfect or perfect.
	And the idea of DARPA and military technology, the reputation they have is they've already able to do things years or decades ahead of time, and you only eventually find out that they can do things that they were able to do long ago.
	All that is a long way of saying, is it possible that the Adam Lanza photo That there is no Adam Lanza.
	It's a composite image of someone else's face.
	Just a complete fiction.
	Adam Lanza doesn't exist and /or his mom doesn't exist.
	How deep does that rabbit hole go?
	Your thoughts?
	You nailed it.
	Adam Lanza was a fiction and the whole story was an elaborate charade.
	My best guess about the image of Adam is they took a skull and then they sort of painted To make it look more like.
	Now, he does somewhat resemble his erstwhile brother.
	He also resembles the new vice chair of the DNC, David Hogg.
	But Adam Lanza was just as much a fiction as Noah Bosner.
	Sad to say.
	All fake.
	That's pretty astonishing.
	Because you would agree, if this thing was fake, the best evidence is the FEMA manual and the lack of change of crime statistics.
	You seem to agree with me.
	And if this thing was real, at the heart of it, the crime scene would be Adam Lanza.
	So if there's no Adam Lanza, there's no Sandy Hook.
	What about his mother?
	Did his mother exist?
	Well, there was a woman who played the role.
	Steven Sedensky, who is a state attorney in Connecticut, did the final report on Adam Lanza, but he failed to create a causal nexus connecting the alleged weapon with the alleged victims with the alleged shooter.
	I mean, it was a failure from a forensic point of view.
	They couldn't match any of the slugs they collected to the weapon they alleged he had used.
	That meant they didn't have a connection to it.
	The bodies didn't even actually exist.
	It was all an elaborate fraud.
	And he would, of course, be among many who would be indicted if this were to be treated in a proper fashion in courts of law within the United States.
	Who would be indicted?
	Name that name again.
	Sadinsky, the state's attorney who composed the final report on Sandy Hook.
	Actually, I think maybe, I don't recall the third thing I said, but this is the other thing I'd like you to do.
	I said take the 100 reasons and organize them in terms of priority.
	Get into the legalities of the Smith-Munt Act and whether this thing rises to the level of a felony, even if Smith-Munt was enforceable at the moment.
	The final thing I'd like you to do is create a perp list.
	A perp list of everyone who needs to go down, whether the top 10 or the top 100 or whatever.
	I want that list so I can have Pam Bondi and those people.
	Prepare sealed indictments and so forth and so on.
	Yes, I can do all of the above, Mr. President.
	Okay, let's move on to, unless there's something else you want to say about Sandy Hook before I move on with the other subjects.
	Is there anything else you want to say about Sandy Hook before I move on?
	It's enough.
	Okay, mass shootings in general and bombings in general.
	We've heard you rattle off Various names like Parkland and Boston and on and on.
	Somewhere between half a dozen or two dozen that you say were entirely fake or partly fake.
	Can you name at least one that you looked into that you decided, oh no, this was real?
	Yes, yes.
	There's one right here in Madison, Wisconsin.
	We had a shooting at a small religious school near a What is the most famous, in all your years of conspiracy history research that you've done, what is the most famous bombing and /or mass shooting within the United States territory that was absolutely real?
	The most famous bombing or mass shooting.
	Yeah.
	We think of Columbine, which we always thought was real, but we've heard you say Parks or all of that was fake.
	Columbine was fake.
	They used mannequins for bodies.
	I mean, it was only of late that I took a look at some of the footage, and it's very obvious when you get serious.
	The two young men who allegedly, reportedly perpetrated it with their long, dark coats.
	Those guys didn't exist?
	Well, I gotta say, I haven't done enough about mine to tell you a whole lot more, but it's very obvious from the mannequins on the grass it was a fake.
	And then there's the hybrid issue.
	There are some cases where part of it is real and another part is fake.
	Well, the closest you can come to that, I think, is 9-11, where, you know, the destruction of the World Trade Center was real, but obviously all the stories about who was responsible were fake.
	Now, in general, you're going to have a hard time recruiting crisis actives for these roles if they wind up dead.
	So you can't really have hybrid, in my opinion.
	You're not going to be able to continue to conduct these phony events, Some people wind up dead.
	Nobody's going to want to do it unless they become the party who turns out to be deceased.
	So I think it's greatly exaggerated, the idea of hybrids, Mr. President.
	I tend not to believe in them.
	Okay, then before we move on to the hooties and sleepy, creepy, traitor Joe Biden, name the top three.
	And then 10 that were not fake.
	And then categorize it in either the bombing or the mass shooting category.
	Again, name the top three, then 10 that were not fake, no aspect of it, other than this local Wisconsin one.
	And tell us, is it a bombing or a mass shooting?
	Well, of course, the Muir building bombing, that was a real bombing, and a lot of people died right up there.
	Waco was a slaughter perpetrated by the American government on David Koresh and his followers.
	That was unnecessary.
	That was a real, deadly incident.
	When you say the federal, you mean the Oklahoma City federal building, the Murray building?
	Yes.
	Okay, continue.
	Yes, I mean, those are two spectacular incidents.
	There are much smaller events, like Ruby Ridge, for example.
	Give me a day, I'll come up with a list you want, but those strike me right off the top of my head as being bona fide examples that fit your criteria, Mr. President.
	How about mass shootings?
	What is the absolute most real mass shooting?
	Whether it's allegedly, reportedly, supposedly perpetrated by students, disgruntled teenagers, or the crazy-crazed white man, or the crazy-crazed black man, or crazy-crazed transgender.
	What is his most famous mass shooting within the United States that was real?
	A Valentine's Day mass murder by the mob.
	That goes way back, doesn't it?
	Yes, it does.
	It was spectacular, and it was very real.
	What about the Texas one?
	We will recall in the 70s, there was a made-for-television movie about an alleged ex-military guy who went up to the Texas Tower and did some snipering people.
	Yeah, that was legit, Mr. President.
	I agree.
	That was legit.
	Yes, I agree.
	No aspect of it was fake.
	Not to my knowledge.
	I mean, you know.
	In fact, something just occurred to me.
	It could be that the anti-intelligence guys, as I call them, the spooks, these ever-present spies that seem to be everywhere monitoring us, listening to us, persecuting us, it could be that in their younger years, before they actually joined any of these agencies, they too saw on television.
	Made for TV movies about mass shootings and or bombings.
	And that's how they got the idea.
	Why don't we fake some of these?
	Your thoughts?
	Entirely possible.
	I don't discount that.
	Okay, let's move on to the Houthis.
	I'll just read something off here and then your thoughts.
	Have you not, regarding the Houthis, which is the whole Yemen people, or maybe it's pronounced Yemenese, however it's said, have you not, again not, I've recently heard that I've already negotiated a ceasefire whereby they, the Houthis, stopped shooting at our, meaning U.S. ships, and /or that of our allies, and we, in exchange, stopped bombing them.
	Question mark.
	Next question.
	Who are really the good and /or bad guys in the grand scheme of things focusing on the Houthis?
	As key players.
	And I've already asked you prior, are you familiar with the alleged, the reported military strategy known as pawn sacrifice?
	You said yes, aka, if you want, as was said in the movie, a fight club.
	Hey, if you want to make an omelet, you got to break some eggs.
	Your thoughts.
	Well, the Houthis are the most courageous and honorable of all the They've been acting in accordance with the laws of war.
	Even the United Nations has confirmed that they were only interdicting ships that were headed for Israel with supplies related to the war.
	They're acting in a totally professional manner.
	Our intervention, in my opinion, was completely unwarranted, Mr. President.
	Big mistakes you made in launching a war against the Houthis.
	Not deserved.
	After a thousand attacks, you called it up because they weren't stopping to conduct their affairs.
	It was an ineffectual waste of over a billion dollars, I suspect.
	And the fact is they weren't attacking American ships until you began attacking them.
	Since you cease attacking them, they cease attacking American ships, but they're continuing to lend their support to the Palestinians, which I regard as the noblest cause today that any nation could undertake.
	Save Palestine.
	Stop the genocide.
	And may I add, Mr. President, the United States is on the wrong side here.
	You could have ended it immediately by just cutting off the weapons that are being used to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza the first day you were in office.
	Just as you could have ended the war in Ukraine by cutting off supplies being sent to Ukraine the first day in office.
	It has not happened, Mr. President.
	And a lot of us have supported you so strongly.
	Because you said you were going to end these two, but wars are in a quandary now because you are continuing to allow them to continue.
	Mr. President, I would entreat you to go back to your platform, your campaign as a candidate, and adhere to those promises you made among the most important of all over and beyond securing the border, where it appears to me you've done a very good job, Mr. President, I ask you.
	Act now.
	Save the Palestinians.
	End those stupid wars.
	You really believe that myself and Pete Hedsek, however pronounced his name, we announced a ceasefire and we lied to the American people that, in fact, the thousand shots taken at the Houthis It was ineffectual,
	and so it's pretending ceasefire, and we only really stopped because they continued, and we're wasting too much money, and we cannot sustain this barrage.
	You really believe that?
	And on what evidence?
	I know that you are a newshound.
	You check maybe a dozen or a hundred news sources a day.
	Go ahead.
	I'm reporting on these events every single day, Mr. President.
	I know what the hell is going on there, all right?
	Saving face, okay, I think that's just great.
	No problem.
	Declarative victory, it was basically a stalemate, but I don't gainsay you're wanting to put the best face on it.
	That's what politicians do.
	And Mr. President, while many of us regard you as a highly unconventional politician, nevertheless, a politician you are.
	And it goes with the territory.
	So, you know, I don't...
	What's your best...
	You're about to say I don't fault you for lying, essentially.
	What is your best information at this moment, in real time, what's going on with the Houthis?
	Are they firing anything to maritime ships?
	If they are, are they only firing at ships they believe are tied to Israelis, the State of Israel, and /or are they firing at U.S. ships, and what is my administration doing in response?
	News report, please.
	News flash.
	They're not firing at American ships because America is no longer attacking them, and they only fired at American ships because America was attacking them.
	That's gotten dry.
	They're continuing to interdict shipping going to Israel.
	They're continuing to support the Palestinians.
	They're even launching direct attacks on Israel, which I support.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	In fact, I'll be honest with you.
	I don't always know that I can trust the so-called daily matrix report that they give me as to what's going on, and it changes so much.
	it is so fluid, I sometimes wonder, even if I'm being given the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, by my anti-intelligence sources in my inner circle, whether they're wrong because the So what they thought was true an hour ago will not be true tomorrow.
	Your thoughts before we move on to Creepy Joe?
	I believe you've been massively misinformed about even fundamental aspects of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, for example.
	It's the Ukrainians who have lost between a million and a million and a half troops.
	Okay, let's say you're my chief of staff.
	What do I do immediately to have the best information?
	I need to have you in the Opal office with your little computer doing what you do every day, though instead of doing your internet radio shows that you personally report to me.
	You gather the news and you report to me.
	Is that the solution to get the best intel?
	Your thoughts?
	I believe you've actually made a step in the right direction by having your Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, whom I admire, give your daily briefings.
	That's appropriate.
	But you need to conduct regular, real daily briefings.
	My understanding is during your second term in office, you've had maybe 15. There need to be as many daily briefings as there are days.
	What do you mean?
	Briefings with the fake news or Tulsi and her team with me?
	Director of National Intelligence, now being done by Tulsi Gabbard.
	That is your...
	I believe it in Tulsi.
	I believe she's principled.
	I believe she has your best and the nation's best interests at heart.
	And yet this is the world's toughest job interview with you to replace her as DNI.
	What can you bring to the job that she cannot?
	What would you tell her if she would listen to you?
	I would defer to Tulsi.
	She is younger.
	She's more experienced.
	Far better looking, Mr. President.
	You got a winner in all regards with Tulsi over me.
	Were you being disingenuous when I said I wanted to interview you for either National Security Advisor or DNI?
	No, it's that I want to contribute in any way I can.
	If you need me, Mr. President, I am here to serve you and the American people.
	Would you literally do that?
	If I either paid you whatever you need to be paid, Or whatever.
	If I gave you whatever you need, you'd be willing to, we set up a little office for you beside the Oval Office, you would come tomorrow?
	Starting immediately?
	Given family commitments, it's a complicated question.
	I'm 84 years old and not in the best of health.
	But I would be glad to serve.
	Ideally, if I could do so from the location where I am now in Wisconsin, that would be far better than having to move directly to Washington, Mr. President.
	So then it sounds like, at minimum, you would want a direct line to me.
	You would either want a phone that I have that connects to you directly, and you want to know my personal cell number and or my personal email.
	And you want me responding.
	You want me responding within 24 hours or 24 minutes to each communicate.
	Hey, you're doing this wrong.
	Change.
	This is what you need to do.
	What do you need?
	You stay in Wisconsin.
	What do I need to do with you?
	Excellent.
	I'm all for it, Mr. President.
	That sounds good to me.
	Now, are you familiar with the bat phone?
	Commissioner Gordon, the TV series, there's the red phone in his office.
	He picks it up and he can call directly to the bat phone.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	That's the telecom equivalent of the bat signal.
	They don't have to go to the roof of the police department and send the light into the sky so Batman will see the bat image in the sky.
	They can just pick up the red phone.
	Love it.
	Okay, so essentially you want a, shall we call it the FETS phone?
	Sure.
	We'll make it a red FETS phone on my table.
	A FETS phone, yes.
	Mr. President, I buy that.
	Okay, now we have to keep this a secret.
	I don't think the bad guys want to know.
	There'll be a phone, there'll be a drawer I can pull out at the Oval Office, a drawer I pull out, and the phone is hidden in there, and that's the one I call you directly.
	That would be my honor to serve in that capacity, Mr. President.
	Because seriously, I'm so busy, I can't be tuning into your shows.
	Even if I could, I don't really want to.
	I don't want to be...
	I need to be able to call you directly and get your advice.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Now, what is the closest you've ever gotten to that?
	Because, you know, this is quite, this is a dream come true to speak directly to POTUS.
	What is the absolute closest you've ever gotten to direct communication?
	I know you did with the alleged reported ex-CIA guy, Robert David Steele, if that was his name.
	I believe you were part of one of 50 or so individuals who put together a little 9 /11 summary, and reportedly that was sent to me.
	What is the closest you've ever gotten direct communications to the powers that be?
	Your thoughts?
	You actually nailed it, the two memoranda, the 9 /11 memoranda, the memorandum on Sandy Hook.
	Collaborated with Robert David Steele on both of those projects, which were submitted to you, Mr. President, yes.
	To your knowledge, go ahead.
	More recently, when Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. were here in Wisconsin, I managed to make contact with Tulsi on two occasions and RFK Jr. on the second of those.
	Do you know for a fact that they got your communication?
	And if so, what was their feedback?
	Well, I haven't had feedback, but I gave RFK Jr. the fourth of my books on JFK, who, how, and why, which the Secret Service grabbed to review to make sure it didn't have a hidden bomb or whatever.
	How do you know he got it?
	Is that the story where you handed it to him directly?
	Yes, I gave it to him directly.
	Yes.
	Oh, yes, yes, yes.
	And the Secret Service grabbed it, they looked it over, and then they handed it to him.
	Well, they looked it over, and the line moves fast, Mr. President.
	You're aware of this.
	So we didn't have a lot of time for chit-chat.
	I think the exchange was like 15 seconds, probably.
	You don't know if he's even cracked one page of it and read one line.
	You just know that he physically had it in his hand.
	But if he wants to know what happened to his own call, there it is.
	Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
	I would say the odds are high he read at least part of it.
	And he's thought about reaching out to you, but...
	So, yeah, what about Tulsi?
	What is the closest you've ever got to knowing for sure she, being that she hasn't responded, you've got no responses, right?
	Yes, from her.
	But what makes you sure that she got the email or text or phone call or was it face-to-face details, please?
	I gave her an envelope, the contents of which I shall not disclose, but which she took personally and handed to an aide.
	That was on the initial encounter.
	And then the second.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Wow.
	So she knows about you?
	Yes.
	Did you just show up as a fanboy, or you said, hey, I'm Professor Fetzer, I have a show on the internet?
	I gave her a little thumbnail, but it was more about me and the envelope.
	Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
	Well, I'm surprised, given my status, that you're not revealing what was in that envelope, but I guess perhaps it's paranoia that despite my saying this is not being recorded, perhaps it is, or there are powers that we don't know about that's recording.
	We think this is off the record, and in any case, let's say we could meet face-to-face at the proverbial park bench, and neither of us have a phone.
	And we're sure neither of us is recording and there are no microphones buried in a local tree trunk.
	Would you be willing to divulge to me what was in this envelope to Tulsi?
	Or am I going to have to speak to her directly?
	Because I have a feeling if I speak to her, she's going to say, I think I know, oh yeah, Professor Fetzer, that sounds kind of familiar.
	But, you know, I never quite got to get to the envelope.
	Or I did, but the aide said that the dog ate it.
	So I never saw it.
	Sure, I'd be glad to, Mr. President.
	Under those circumstances on a park bench, yes, 100%.
	Okay, then.
	Now, I think of the park bench because there's that somewhat famous scene of the actor with Kevin Cosner, the actor playing Mr. X in the JFK movie, where they meet out on the lawn somewhere near the National Monument.
	That seems to be how spies do it.
	Whenever they want to meet off the record with no recording of any kind, it'll be out in the park somewhere.
	I think that is supposed to be Al Fletcher Proudy, who, you know, was in the Pentagon, was sent off on assignment because he would never have stood for the assassination of the president, and he would have spotted that it was a setup immediately, so they had to get him out of the way.
	Yes, yes.
	Okay, let's move on to, I don't know how much more, how much time do you have left?
	Because I want to talk about sleepy, creepy Joe Biden and the return of JFK Jr., if any, someone called Juan O. Salvin, the Q phenomenon, the so-called Jewish hollow hoax, as you call it, which some call the Hitlerian genocide.
	And finally, how the How much time do we have left?
	Let's take 30 minutes, Mr. President.
	Okay, then dealing with what I call China's sleepy, creepy Trader Joe's, as in the store that sells health food, Trader Joe's Biden.
	Are you aware that within the last 24 hours or so there's a photo of me crossing my hand like the peace signal and underneath is a reproduction reportedly of someone tweeting a somewhat viral video that I've made very viral posting on my personal site along the lines that Joe was executed years ago,
	and what we've seen since then are doubles, whether robots or clones or some other thing.
	Are you aware of that recent tweet?
	But I am aware and have logged the proof that a man in the Oval Office for the last four years was not the senator from Delaware who appears to have died in 2017.
	Before you get into that, so you're aware of that little image, that little meme of me essentially telling the world, well, this is the thing.
	I can't confirm whether I posted that because sometimes I'll ask someone to post something and they don't do it or they're slow in doing it.
	But I did see her name is Liz Churchill.
	She's somewhat well-known influencer.
	She focuses mostly on the COVID.
	Vax and since then the reported depopulation, genocide of people who were either murdered or maimed by the terrible, stupid fake vaccine that I allowed with my Operation Warp Speed.
	She posted something that looks like something I posted regarding the fake Joe.
	Let me rattle some thoughts off before you rattle your thing.
	Before you say your often repeated Rant on Joe.
	How do you define the word pedophile?
	Oh.
	Now, let me say the other things.
	Let me say the other things.
	If Joe was replaced by one or two or three others, whether we call them imposters, actors, fakers, robots, or clones, who is the real pedophile?
	The original Joe, who's gone now, whether he was assassinated or died of a heart attack, or the current Joe, who apparently is still alive?
	The age of minority versus majority varies from place to place in the world.
	I've touched on this earlier regarding my own alleged pedophilia.
	The age of minority versus majority varies.
	And when a woman begins to ovulate, when she can have children, when she's biologically an adult, whether she's technically an adult, or if she's self-supporting, the line is, if something acts, talks, walks like a duck, it's a duck.
	What about if someone, a young woman or a young boy, acts, walks, talks, lives like an adult?
	Are they not an adult?
	In essence, how can you say, when is it truly fair to say that the original Joe or the new Joe, replacement Joes, are the pedophile?
	Having said all that, when did the real Joe die or get kidnapped, according to you?
	Your thoughts, sir?
	By my best guesstimate, he died in 2017.
	He was replaced by a body double who has a different shape and size of skull, who has a different handwriting, who had different social interaction with Jill.
	We've had four years of government by AutoPan, where I believe that She's totally unqualified, but then again, we've had an imposter for the last four years.
	And while the original Joe, who even was taking showers with his own daughter, Which was obviously an appropriate, I think, and was well known as a hair sniffer and had an acute interest in little girls, sad to say, was, it appears, a pedophile.
	I do not know the true identity of the imposter or imposters who replace who may or may not themselves have been pedophiles, but it's deplorable.
	And I have a colleague who's an expert in the relationship between pedophilia and politics, Joaquin Gopin, who would be in a better position to address some of these questions you may have, Mr. President.
	Voice print analysis.
	How accurate is such a technology?
	Wouldn't it be easy to take the many recordings of the original Joe, compare them with the recent...
	It's been said, Joe, the original Joe had a twin, a biological twin.
	Wouldn't it be possible to take recordings of these one or more replacement Joes of their voice and compare it with the original voice?
	Has anyone pursued that?
	Is that one of them?
	My new great ideas that you haven't considered and would like to explore.
	The catch with me, Mr. President, they've developed what you might call a voice box that can give you the genuine, authentic voice of anyone you want to imitate.
	It was evident when Hillary Clinton debated both Bernie Sanders and yourself in national debates.
	In 2016, that wasn't the real Hillary.
	That was one of her multiple body doubles.
	I've identified eight she's used on different occasions.
	Younger, thinner, trimmer, far more healthy and attractive.
	What is a voice box?
	Because that's another thing that we've wondered about, which is even if you can find a literal biological twin of a politician or other famous celebrity that you want to replace to trick the public.
	What guarantee is that their vocal cords will be similar enough that they can essentially match the voice.
	Or if the way they find the body double is using computers to study photographs of driver's license or pass supports, and they go through hundreds to thousands of these, and using that, they find a face similar to the celebrity or politician, same thing they want to replace, then they approach them and say, if you'll disappear, We'll pay you well.
	You want to be this new replacement, but this new replacement they found through examination of photos of government IDs.
	How can they get the voice to match the voice of the person they're trying to replace?
	Explain voice box, sir, please.
	Well, I don't know the details of the technology, but I'm telling you it was on display during Hillary's debates with Bernie.
	And her debates with you in 2016, that was not Hillary.
	I would have thought you would have noticed how much more attractive she appeared, how she'd lost weight.
	She was slimmer, trimmer, far more attractive.
	I mean, a good reason they wanted her out there.
	But voice box implies that her voice has somehow changed.
	How has it changed?
	Well, they had a voice box that gave her the voice of Hillary Clinton.
	I don't know the voice of the...
	I have blogged about this.
	Where is the voice emanating from?
	Is it emanating from the mouth and throat of the imposter, or is it emanating from a box in their pocket or their purse, or is it emanating from the podium?
	Where is the voice coming from?
	I believe it's located in their mouth, actually, literally.
	Do you think, perhaps, that they do surgery?
	They will actually go in there and alter the vocal cords.
	To, as closely as possible, match the person they're trying to fake.
	I would doubt that, but I'm not an expert in the area, Mr. President.
	I'm not going to give you information I'm not confident is accurate.
	Well, this is something we felt had to be addressed, because of all the things that make it obvious someone is a body double, such as the earlobes, or dangly versus attached, or some other thing.
	The main ways to expose it, for us, we felt would be showing the voice print analysis is different.
	And another great way would be to actually take the photograph of the face and match it up with a photograph of the original to see whether they align perfectly.
	Yes.
	And they did use a body double, for example, at Bethesda for some of the autopsy photographs.
	He looked a lot like JFK, but it was not JFK.
	You know, those are all good points.
	If you get a match on the voice, if you do not get a match on the voice, that would conclusively show it's not the same person.
	But if you got a match on the voice, that would not show conclusively that it is the same person.
	Because if I'm right about the technology, they can create a voice match even though it's not the same person.
	So to you, the most telling thing is not voice print analysis.
	The most telling thing is things like look at the ears, look at the eyes, look at the mannerisms, look at the signature, and that sort of thing.
	Well, look, look at properties that are not variable.
	It's not like standing up, sitting down, changing your shirt.
	It's the shape and size of your skull.
	As an adult, that's a permanent property.
	It doesn't change.
	Surgery, an accident, you know, being clobbered in the head with a bat, what have you.
	Then again, if one looks at photos of yourself, Jim Fetzer, going back decades, it's clear.
	I mean, Alex Jones recently, he's gone through a dramatic transformation.
	So much so that some are saying, it's not really Alex.
	They're calling him Alex James.
	Just because his head is a different shape and size compared to the past.
	If the head is a different shape and size, it's not the same guy, Mr. President.
	They may be on to something.
	Well, I don't know.
	We believe he just lost 65 pounds or whatever it is because he started working out.
	In any event, whether it's a real Alex Jones exchange, bottom line is you're convinced there have been at least, what is it, eight replacements of Hillary.
	Do you think the original Hillary has passed away?
	Is she gone?
	Oh, I think she's still around.
	She's not in great shape, but, you know.
	I think they keep some like Henry Kissinger alive by replacing body parts, you know, new kidneys, new heart, whatever, and they can survive quite a while.
	Adrenochrome, adrenochrome, younger people, blood and all that sort of thing.
	I believe Hillary has been addicted to adrenochrome for quite a while.
	Well, we're not saying the Hillary, as they call me, the Donald.
	The Hillary may or may not have used the substance.
	We're not aware of any conclusive proof.
	We're just aware that there is this information out there that not only that the body doubles are changed.
	So there have been eight-ish Hillary's.
	How many approximately minimum number of different Joe Bidens?
	Two or three, minimum.
	Two or three.
	Does that include the tall one that showed up one day?
	That was absurd.
	Four inches taller.
	I think they're going to get away with that.
	One of the two or three, the tall one?
	Three or four.
	Three or four?
	Yeah.
	Now, would you agree with us?
	What would you say?
	Would you agree with us that it would be wonderful for every last thing, being that we're convinced that the 2020 election was rigged, stolen, and everything since then?
	was therefore illegitimate, it would be great for all of it to be nullified.
	Add, what does the lawyers call it, ab initio, void from the start, as if it never occurred.
	I have you in the Oval Office.
	We're going to do a conference of, what, three minutes to 30 minutes, whatever you think is necessary.
	What are we going to say to the fake news and the court of a public opinion to convince them?
	That everything should be nullified.
	All the appointment of judges that were done should be nullified.
	How do we convince them that Obama was not legitimate because his birth certificate shows he was born in Kenya?
	How do we do it?
	You need three minutes or 30 minutes or three hours?
	What do you need in the Oval Office to illegitimize everything Obama did, illegitimize everything Hillary did as the Secretary of State?
	Illegitimize everything Joe did.
	Your thoughts?
	Because that's what I want to do.
	I want it all to go down the proverbial congressional toilet.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, the evidence of the theft of the election is simply overwhelming.
	You had Mike Lindell bringing his expert.
	You had Ron Johnson bringing his.
	You had Dinesh D'Souza with his 2,000 mules.
	I think the proof of the theft of the election was Staggering.
	It's unbelievable to me that the media weren't all over it except they're controlled, and they were on the other side.
	So they were suppressing it all, ridiculing it all.
	But we agree with you, but the damn courts won't acknowledge the evidence in the courts.
	So how do we prove it using non-body doubling?
	Things like the voice, the face, the eyes, the ears, the birth certificate.
	How do we prove that what Obama did, Hillary did, Joe did?
	Should not be acknowledged because it's not the real Joe.
	It's not the real Obama.
	Or they're not even a citizen.
	How do we do it?
	I think the real Joe is very easy to disprove.
	You can prove it off of my blog where I have comparisons between the shape and size of the skull and the handwriting.
	And the auto pen corresponds to the fake Joe, not the real, of course.
	I think that once you crack the ice, Mr. Resident, then you can turn to others.
	Hillary using body doubles is equally something I have documented again and again.
	So I think those two would be good moves in the right direction.
	Probably exposing that Michelle is actually a man, born Michael LeVon Robinson, would go a long way to debunking the idea that Barack Obama is a legitimate guy who speaks the truth.
	Married to a man, which he's concealed.
	He had a history of gay adventures, including with Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, where their tour and affair in the bathhouses was well known before he went to the White House.
	And then he brought Rahm along as chief of staff until Michelle got jealous and had him booted out and sent back to Chicago.
	I mean, there's quite a case there.
	And then, of course, the death of their chef.
	On Martha's Vineyard, where the following day, Barack appears with bandages on his hand and a black eye, suggesting he'd been in a physical alteration.
	That is a death, a wrongful death, that should be thoroughly explored.
	And I think it would blow up very fast and discredit them and accomplish the goals you have in mind.
	So if you were my...
	I want the first points to be yours at the top of her points.
	you would be all on board using the vast powers that we have now, controlling the administration to immediately put forth before the American people information that stands for the proposition that all that Joe did was not real because it was not the real Joe.
	Start with him and then after him deal with Hillary or deal with, Joe to Hillary to Obama.
	Powerful.
	Would you agree with me?
	Those are the top three.
	If we think of this as a game of chess, let's see now.
	Joe would be the king, Hillary would be the queen, and Obama would be the bishop piece on the chessboard.
	Or the court jester, sure.
	There is no court jester on the chessboard.
	I'm just thinking about the most three powerful pieces on a chessboard.
	As I recall, it's the bishop, the queen, and the king.
	Actually, the king is one of the least powerful because they can only move one square at a time.
	That's correct.
	The queen and the rook and the bishop would be good candidates, the rook.
	So Hillary is the queen.
	Who is the rook and who is the bishop?
	Is Obama the rook or is Obama the bishop?
	I might say Obama was actually the queen, Hillary was the bishop, and Biden the rook.
	Okay, okay.
	I like that.
	I like that.
	And that might be powerful to actually have a chessboard on the table of the Oval Office.
	Now, I hesitate for different reasons I won't go into as to actually moving forward with this.
	What do you suspect is the reason why this has not already been done?
	It would seem with so much in the speed, the acceleration of the information explosion due to people's connectivity in their hand, in their very hand, they're holding a smart phone, which is really a computer, a handheld computer.
	These memes that go viral within...
	The information is out there regarding what looks like a fake birth certificate for Obama and all these body double issues.
	Why would you suspect, if you and I never speak again and I don't have Tulsi turn to you directly to make your points at the top of her daily briefings for me, why do you suspect we haven't already done these things?
	Exposed the fakery of the Hillary, the fakery of the Joe, the fakery of the Obama.
	What's going on here?
	Fake news, Mr. President.
	You called it out, and in your first term, if you've done nothing else, you deserve to be applauded as an American hero for that act of disillusioning the American people, of the belief that they can accept.
	Everything they read as though it were true were the New York Times, which, sad to say, is our newspaper of record, meaning what's published in the New York Times is supposed to constitute the official history of the United States.
	It's a sham, disinformation abounds, propaganda.
	You did us a great service, Mr. President, for which I applaud you by calling out fake news.
	But that's not enough.
	Because this is the problem.
	I want these things that you and I are talking about out there, but for reasons I'm not privy to explain at this moment, we haven't done it.
	I want to know, what's your gut instinct telling you what is holding the avalanche?
	The final apocalypse, the final revelation.
	At what point are the things you talk about on a daily basis, the fearsome foursome and the great Scott Bennett before he was taken from us, at what point are those cutting-edge things in the Oval Office being rammed down the throats and forced up the arse of the fake news?
	When does it happen, and what's stopping it, in your view?
	It's the Rothschild's ownership of Reuters and the Associated Press, which are the primary news sources for all non-local news, controlled.
	you i'm sure have seen many cases where you have anchor after anchor begin with two three four dozen dozen dozen all saying the same words in the same order mr president because they're controlled media this is the greatest problem we confront in terms of
	We have a press that is wholly controlled and owned by a foreign entity and operating to manipulate the American people by controlling their thoughts based on stories that they pre-select to have a predetermined outcome.
	Sad to say, that's a situation we're in.
	We need to have free News, not only papers, television, radio.
	We need to enforce antitrust acts in relation to not allowing one all super powerful entity to control the news flow.
	You need to break up ownership, you know, right now, a clear channel.
	It's allowed 600 stations and stuff like that.
	All that needs to be done.
	It can be done.
	The FCC could have a key role here, Mr. President, but we need to adopt antitrust legislation for the media and break up all these conglomerates.
	Right now, I think analysis shows it's five or six companies that control all the media in America.
	That's all wrong, Mr. President.
	The idea that the Rothschilds control the AP and the Reuters, that's all wrong, Mr. President.
	That's where something needs to be done.
	You're telling me if I had your show televised, the fake news wouldn't cover it?
	Obviously they wouldn't, but again, I mean, I have the reputation of being the most transparent.
	President in decades, or perhaps ever, they can't stop me from doing the unsolicited questions from anyone on Air Force One or in the Oval Office.
	I'm doing this almost daily, if not me, one of my aides.
	What is stopping the full disclosure of the full truth, in your opinion?
	Surely it's not the fake news.
	They're not running the show anymore.
	I am.
	My team is.
	And if not, who is controlling me?
	What is the proof that they're controlling me?
	Because I don't see the control that you're alleging.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, I wasn't alleging control of you.
	I was alleging control of the flow of information.
	And I think that's a fact of the matter.
	I think it's the greatest cancer we have across the America that news reportage is centrally controlled by.
	The Rothschild banking interest through the AP and Reuters.
	We don't dispute that.
	We don't dispute that.
	Bottom line, as far as the full avalanche of total disclosure, whether it's the UFO file, the JFK file, the 9-11 file, the Sandy Hook file, and on and on, the dozens to a hundred other conspiracies that can be shown to actually be conspiracy facts.
	History and not hysteria.
	Spectacular tragedies and not Is it a lack of knowledge?
	Is it Tulsi doesn't know?
	I don't know?
	My aides don't know?
	Or is it a failure on your part, the alternative media, to get the message to us as to what's really going on?
	Your thoughts?
	Well, the government, as I learned from James Files, who was alleged to be the second gunman on the grassy knoll but was not, During a dinner we had where I took him to my favorite steakhouse in Madison, once the government takes out a position, he told me not once but twice, it's stuck with it.
	It's locked in and will never change.
	Thus, even though we know there were multiple gunmen in Dallas, even though we know Lee was in the doorway, the government has not changed.
	Even though we know 9-11 was an inside job, even though we know that the The government will not change, even though we know Sandy Hook was a FEMA drill and nobody died.
	The government's standing pat.
	We've got to crack that.
	by releasing more and more files in their totality, uncensored, unredacted, you can make an enormous difference.
	What's happened has been partial and incomplete and largely redacted.
	Stand by your words and America will sing your praises to eternity.
	Well, I have to dispute that.
	I am not the government.
	I am Donald John Trump.
	Who is ultimately at fault here?
	Myself?
	Tulsi?
	We the people?
	You individually?
	You haven't done enough?
	You have the power and authority to make this happen, and I simply encourage you to ensure that it does happen.
	If you need to appoint a board to ensure all the documentation is released, I could recommend names of individuals who be suitable to serve on such a board as your advisors to ensure the job is done and done right.
	The bottom line is you don't know.
	You don't know if it's that we don't have this knowledge or we have the knowledge and we're withholding it for reasons unknown.
	Well, of course you're withholding it.
	This isn't a mystery, Mr. President.
	You know the answer to that question.
	Do you want to stop there, Jim, or to continue with what I have?
	I still enjoy this, Mr. President.
	I would like to believe after four interviews.
	That you're in a position to make your judgment as to whether or not I would be qualified to serve as an advisor to you in one position or another, which would be my great honor.
	So I am very grateful to have had this opportunity, and I will await hearing such decisions as you may make in the course of time, Mr. President.
	I cannot thank you for devoting I can tell you right now what my decision will be.
	And it's conditional upon, first, the things I told you earlier regarding Sandy Hook.
	Second, I want you to put me in contact with all the people.
	Send my office or me or whatever.
	Whatever way we need to do it, I want to speak to other people like yourself that would consider particular positions.
	I want to subject them also to the world's toughest job interview.
	And then we'll take it from there.
	And maybe I'll also send you a private message with the other issues that I would have discussed, and you can consider whether we speak a fifth and final time.
	My great pleasure, Mr. President.
	Thank you on all counts.
	Okay, then hold for the Secret Service.
	It's been a pleasure.
	Thank you so much for your work.
	Continue to march and never give up hope.
	Thank you, Mr. President.

▲