All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 21, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:01:02
Real Deal Special (19 August 2025): Bill Binney & Katherine Horton UNDER FIRE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host, and my weekly conversation with Bill Bennett and Catherine Horton under fire as a real deal special.
And today, Bill is recuperating, and I have Catherine all to myself.
And I was beginning telling her began the show before the show began how I'm filing lawsuits against BitShoot and Rompal for allowing a massive number now over 750 videos to be posted by Victor Hugo Vaca Sakhan.
And when I suggested to Catherine, she might take a look by going to BitShoot and Ender, Victor Hugo, Karma, Jim Vetzer.
Catherine, what did you find?
So I would like to share my screen and show people what it looks like when you do that, because there's telltale forensics to be done when you have somebody like that going after you, right?
So I should say, before I show the forensics, before we get into the nitty-gritty, I have been very familiar with the cyber trolling by real-life agents.
So when you try to go up against the intelligence agencies and their false flag operations, they will unleash their cyber harassment teams, their real life harassment teams, and everybody.
Now, in the cyber realm, or whatever they do, they have telltale signs.
They recruit people of a certain type.
They have a certain way of doing things in real life.
In the cyber realm, they also use platforms and IT tools, right, which you can spot after a while.
So a lot of agents would be doing the same thing.
They learn how to go about doing things.
They have a script.
So once you spot a pattern, you can see it, you know, applied over and over.
And here I can see a very clear pattern.
So let me share my screen.
So if you today, you go to bitshoot.com, right?
Can people see this, Bill?
Jim, can you see this?
Okay, so in the search, if people type in Victor Hugo, Jim Fetzer, these are the search results that you get.
So first of all, it's overwhelming.
Okay.
I should say I'm scrolling very fast, but you can see the same type of thumbnail here.
You can see that every single one is to the account Victor Hugo Maverick, right?
It's the same account.
And the other thing that immediately jumps out at me is that just today, he has already published here.
The top row is all from today.
14 hours ago, 13 hours ago.
I'm not sure if people can see this, right?
Yeah, 14 hours ago, right?
13 hours ago, 12 hours ago, 12 hours ago, 11 hours ago, 10 hours ago.
So 14 hours ago, what was that?
At some point in the morning, right?
So you can almost figure out when their shift starts, when they start pumping these things, you can set it algorithmically, but nobody who's a genuine investigator is trying to expose something would be churning out these supposed exposes every hour and then make them only 56 seconds long.
So this one is 56 seconds, 28 seconds, 53, two minutes, one minute and a half, three minutes.
So they're little snippets.
And what you can do though is if you put these out, you can swamp the search engines.
And the hope is that people will just click on it because it's nice and short and it will poison their mind.
It would prime them to think that Professor Fetzer is lying or is of a certain kind of individual has very strong opinions or is very angry.
Like the pictures here are kind of weird or showing you angry or, you know, kind of funny, funny thumbnails that nobody would really pick.
So all of this put together, I can see immediately an algorithm putting them out.
Also, the guy, Victor Hugo, that's this guy here, right?
That's Victor Hugo.
That's Brian Davidson.
Oh, sorry.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
That's the investigator.
Victor Hugo looks more like Santa Claus or a novel.
Exactly.
Yeah, I remember.
I was on a panel and I'm forgetting the two.
So forget what I've just said.
Right.
They're right there.
There is in the second bottom here.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
This one, right?
Yes.
That guy.
Now, if I look at Santa Claus here, he doesn't strike me like the Gen Z nimble fingers putting out little TikTok videos, YouTube shorts, you know, kind of guy.
So, and also from the way he was talking, he was very kind of slow.
And, you know, I mean, he was basically, I don't want to say dragging like a boomer, but he wasn't like, you know, the Gen Z snappy kind.
So he's not the kind of person who strikes me like somebody who would be pumping out videos and making his own thumbnails every hour.
And one of the things you said to me, and you haven't, you know, repeated on live on air, is that the attacks by him started in January.
Now, this is August the 20th.
So for eight months to keep up this sort of volume of stupid videos being pumped out, and today is a random sampling.
Nothing changed recently.
So we just happened to do the show.
I just happened to look at BitChute.
And today there are already four or five videos.
So at this rate of intensity, we're looking at, I would say, Victor Hugo being just the FBI front of a cyber harassment team, which has a back office staffed by those nimble-fingered little Gen Z morons who are pumping out these bullshit videos.
Okay.
So just off the bat, the forensics doesn't add up with the genuine expose.
It doesn't add up with a genuine investigator of his age and his, you know, what should be experience, life experience, and approach to things, right?
Nothing here adds up.
So off the bat, the whole thing looks like, for me, an FBI op.
You have the platform, you know, pumping out these videos, loading them up to BitChute.
Oh, by the way, footnote, footnote, Bit Shoot, I believe, is British.
Okay.
Now, one guy called Sean Ross, who's a South African investigator, found out where BitChute headquarters are located.
And they are about seven miles south of GCHQ, the British intelligence digital surveillance headquarters, the British NSA, and the headquarters of BitChute or where they first were founded.
They might have moved since then.
Their first corporate offices were seven miles from British digital intelligence.
And this guy, Sean Ross, was pointing out, it's really, depending on how you read it, it's Bit Shoot, like you're, you know, a shoot for bits, or it's bitch shoot.
We're shooting the bitches.
As in, this is our platform.
We've got all our IT back end set up to pump out these little, happy little defamatory videos.
And we're all set up to shoot the bitches.
All right.
This play on words is also very intel.
So everything taken together.
And I look, I remember, I don't want to say I told you so, but yeah, I told you so.
I remember we were on a panel where Victor Hugo was there.
And I said, that guy, he strikes me like a plant.
Right.
That was the first time I saw Victor Hugo.
And I said, footnotes, they're also like bitch, bitch shoot.
They have this thing about names and/or who they pick for certain ops.
And Victor Hugo is like, you know, a French novelist.
This is fantasy.
Is fiction.
This guy's producing prolific fiction.
I think actually Victor Hugo had a writing office where people were producing fiction for him, if I remember correctly.
So, man, there's the cover name, there's the I.T. platform, you know, loading it up every hour.
There's the back office with Gen Z people, and everything fits perfectly together.
So, in summary, I think you're dealing with the FBI and GCHQ cooperating to take you the F down.
Why?
Because you are exposing these false flag operations that were staged to bring in gun control.
So, that's my quick off-the-bat analysis.
I love it, Catherine.
Absolutely fabulous, fabulous, fabulous.
I think it must have been you saw him doing a false flag and conspiracy conference, right?
And I'm going to be doing the fifth right in December.
And I think that's where, because he said you had been on a panel with him and he was denying it, but I'm sure that was the occasion.
Because you were actually asking me questions after my talk.
I think that's when I first met him.
And after that, I think we were on some sort of panel together.
Um, I'm not sure if it was about that alien stuff, you know.
Um, there were several people, and one of them was Victor Hugo.
But man, he was on my shit list from the start.
He just, but then I've been around the block so much, I just smell them from just the way what bullshit they serve up.
I can tell if it's British or U.S. Intel.
For example, as soon as they roll out the aliens, all right, um, it's it is US Intel 100.
There's no self-respecting British Intel cyber harassment agent that has ever seriously floated the alien bullshit anywhere in my presence.
Because in Europe, we just don't believe in this shit.
It's just the American Hollywood bullcrap for us, right?
But here, where the Hollywood bullcrap is the staple fare, they keep floating these aliens, all right?
But it's it's 100% purebred US Intel, right?
You will not find this in Europe, not French intel, they will not come up with this shit, not US Intel, heaven forbid Swiss Intel.
They're far too serious for that, and they know that their populations would laugh themselves to death over this crap, right?
So, there we go, Catherine.
It is so low life what he does with this.
Yes, I mean, it's really despicable stuff.
Yeah, I think you should also dive into it and actually expose the precise mechanics, how they're trying to poison people's minds.
Because every time, you know, never let an opportunity, never let a crisis go to waste.
Okay, so when you have somebody identified who's 100% definitely an agent, right, you need to study their MO because they only have so many MOs, all right?
They do the same thing over and over and over again.
And once you've learned it or spotted it once, you will pick it up from a mile, you know.
And I think what you should do is go video by video and actually expose how exactly he's trying to poison people against you, poison their minds against you.
It's going to be a gold mine.
Once you do it, I call it depleting their bullshit arsenal.
You're done.
You know, they can't just rewrite the textbook because it's centuries old.
Okay, there is no, you know, new edition.
It's going to be the same crap again.
And then anybody who's in your situation just has to look up your expose and go, oh, yeah, they're doing the same thing to me as well.
Wow.
Wow.
Fascinating.
I'm so glad I mentioned this to you.
Ah, I'm blown away, Catherine.
This is wonderful.
And the idea that it's a team, that it's actually organized, that the FBI is involved, that they're producing these things virtually.
Just for you, Jim.
Just be proud.
You have an entire department that Kash Patel doesn't even know about.
They're still, you know, beavering away in some office somewhere in the U.S. just for you.
Crazy, Catherine, it's just crazy.
Yeah.
And, you know, this should be, this should be, you should do a video entitled Somehow Also Our Taxpayer Dollars.
Yeah.
Because we pay for all this.
Okay.
I'm having trouble convincing my local police department to do anything about it.
Now I'm in this little community.
It's a village, not even incorporated.
I don't know, four or five thousand.
But I've tried to induce them to issue a criminal complaint and I've given them a huge amount of evidence.
I've given them seven or eight Wisconsin statutes that are being violated here.
And they don't want to do it, Catherine.
They don't want to do it.
What am I going to be forced to sue the Oregon Police Department to enforce a law on behalf of an Oregon resident?
I mean, it's absurd.
So this Victor Hugo guy is also in, he's in Oregon.
No, no, no.
That's where I reside.
The town is called Oregon.
Oh, sorry.
Forgive me.
Yes.
It's a little village just south of Madison, 10 miles south.
No, he claims to be in the Republic of Georgia.
He claims to be in the Republic of Georgia, Catherine.
He's in Georgia making these videos.
And I'm just fascinated by your pointing out that this is almost certainly an FBI operation.
Wow.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And as always, right, let's take a break and acknowledge the British overlords.
And that's why it's on bit shoot.
I mean, but I'm telling you, they at some point, they're not doing just, sorry, they're not only doing that to you.
They're doing it to a whole bunch of people.
And to them, it's an advantage when they can set up their also ancient government IT platforms to start pushing these videos so that you don't have to have one little kid always uploading a video, uploading a thumbnail.
You just connect it to AI.
AI does the thumbnail pictures and then you just, you know, mash something together.
So they want to automatize it.
But if they want to automatize it, they have to go to certain platforms.
And to me, it's already a telltale sign that they picked British intelligence's own bitch shoot, right?
It all just fits perfectly.
Yeah, I love that shoot the bitches.
I love it.
I did not spot that.
I wasn't on bit shoot when that pointed out.
Yeah.
So I want to acknowledge the source that Sean Ross, sorry, South African investigator and historian who has done awesome work exposing the cabal and their symbolism.
He talks about the secret society of Octagon, which is the like the Masons and the Illuminati, but it's the Swiss brand.
It's the Knights Templars kind of, you know, core secret society.
So he knows what he's talking about.
I look up to the guy.
He's really good at it.
And the FBI unit is, what is it?
Do we know its name?
Or just?
Gosh.
Look, I'm not even sure how they are funded.
It's most certainly FBI because it's using these kind of GCHQ and slash NSA platforms, right?
But it's also using people on the ground.
They're bullshit artists like Victor Hugo.
It's using their typical cover names whereby the cover name has a, you know, has contains a clue of what their job title is because it's just, you know, in their world, all these bullshit names, they confuse them too.
So they always put in a clue about what the purpose is to just navigate their own little bullshit world.
Okay.
So it's like Bernie Madoff, like Madoff with billions, and nobody spotted it mysteriously, you know.
So it's always encoded in, you know, I don't know how it comes about.
Do they pick the people or do they give them cover names?
I think they do both.
Doesn't matter.
That's just how it is.
That's what I've observed.
But yeah, you are dealing with a proper intelligence operation that's well funded, that's interfacing with classical, you know, IT tools that are government-made.
And it's the usual players.
Congratulations.
I think the AI production of the cover art is fascinating because he would have to take time to think about each one.
But with AI, it'll just be done instantly.
Boom, boom, boom.
There it is.
Yep, exactly.
And that's why it looks so samey because you can just, you know, somebody at some point would have a creative idea, but me just scrolling down through several months' worth of this tosh, right?
It's always, it looks the same.
They use the same AI and they say, hey, make another one like this.
It's not when you break it down and you just have to think about the actual daily grind and the mechanics of how they're doing things.
You can see the whole administrative process, you know?
Catherine, this is fascinating.
What a delight.
What a bonus for me.
Put it in your court case.
Put it in your court case because once you spot it, it's undeniable.
You know, and also once you know the pattern, you can look at your other friends and whistleblowers and colleagues in your field.
They will have the same thing done to them.
And as soon as you spot the same pattern, you can quote it in court like, hey, they did the exact same thing to him as well.
Right.
So fascinating.
I love it.
I just love it.
That's wonderful.
Absolutely wonderful.
We were, of course, going to be talking about Donald Trump and all the pedophile allegation.
I know you've had that as your homework assignment.
So let's shift gears.
You're in the driver's seat.
You're the host.
If you want to show anything, you're welcome.
Go for it.
I want to thank you.
Your assessment.
So I think it fits perfectly into what we just said because I started with the big interview, the half-hour interview with the woman called Katie Johnson, who came forward and claimed that she was as a 13-year-old, 13, 14-year-old, she was raped or sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.
Okay.
So we floated that video.
And the backstory is that you played the video to Bill and me.
And I immediately said, Mah, you know, it's just a quick first view, but it sounds like all lies.
But when you want to expose lying, you have to go back and it's very laborious.
You have to look at microexpressions.
You have to look at self-comforting gestures of people just like adjusting themselves, you know, obsessively, eye movements and all that stuff.
And I had not had the time for weeks to do it.
Now I sat down and I have to tell you, it's a lot of work.
This is what the real FBI should be doing, but the real FBI doesn't exist.
So we're doing it.
And I would like to take this exercise to give people the tools I found the most useful.
Okay.
And just like a wrench or a hammer, you can use it for everything.
Once you know what the tool is, how it works, and how you can use it, it is really useful to unmask other types of lying in other environments.
So the very first thing before we get into this video that I want people to know is eye movements.
Okay.
I have two classes of tells that I use that are the most resilient.
Can most of the time, if you know how to use them, you can use them.
Number one, it's eye movements, and number two, it's microexpressions.
Eye movements are basically the brain moving your eyes depending on which part of your brain is being accessed.
It's kind of the you know, um, motorics being tied intimately tied to brain activity.
And when your brain is active in a certain way, you also move a certain way, okay.
And because the eyes and the brain are just so close together, that's the best way it can leak.
Now, people have mapped this.
This is not my own research, this is fairly well established, but you have to be kind of very careful when you use eye movements, okay?
But these are the eye movements I'm talking about.
So, what people have found is that when you are imagining a visual image, your eyes go to your top right.
When you are remembering an image, your eyes go to your top left, okay?
But they're, of course, exactly the opposite, mirror imaged when you're looking at somebody.
So, just remember: if the eyes go into this direction on somebody else, their top right, it's a visual construction.
So, your brain is constructing an image you have never seen before.
For the brain, that takes processing power.
Okay, when you are remembering something, it also takes processing power, but of a different kind.
You're going into your synapses and you're reassembling the image that was previously recorded.
It's a completely different process in the brain, it actually condenses in different eye movements.
So, in general, imagining something is on the person's top right, and remembering is their top left.
Now, when it's a sound, an imagined sound would be more on the lower level, the mid-tier.
But again, an imagined sound is on the right-hand side, and remembered is on the left-hand side.
Okay, these are the absolutely top most useful things.
However, when you want to use it to detect line, you have to be super careful because people's brain is always half a sentence ahead.
They always kind of flash images, they imagine stuff even when they tell the truth.
Because if I tell a story and it's really true, I went shopping this morning and I found my parking spot, you know, just perfectly, just in time.
I might, as I'm telling the story, imagine what would have done if I hadn't found a parking spot.
And I immediately would kind of like imagine what would the alternative have been like, and then my eyes would go to the top right.
If you slam down on that at the first instance and go, haha, you're lying because I saw you imagine the scene.
Yes, I imagined the scene, but it was the alternative.
You see what I mean?
So, you have to be very careful.
Eye movements are a very, you know, good thing, a very staple tool.
But because the brain moves so fast, people's eyes can be flitting in all directions because they are, you know, imagining something as they are telling you a real story that they genuinely are remembering.
So, with this caveat and this warning, you know, what I usually do is that if I see their eyes repeatedly go to the top right throughout the whole story, then yes, the whole thing is probably imagined, right?
When it's just occasionally flitting up to the top right, then you know, it's it might be just thoughts.
Now, the bottom tier is the most confusing because they are saying here: if you look, if your eyes go to the bottom right, inner feelings, when it oops, my camera just my camera just was let's try again.
Yeah, I got kicked off by the FBI.
Apparently, I'm not over the target.
I can't reactivate it.
Hang on.
Is it coming back?
Yeah.
Can you see me?
Now.
Yeah.
Okay.
And you can see that they have moved the my hands are slowed down.
Somebody's sitting on the line and they changed my microphone.
Can you still hear me at the same volume?
Go right in.
Go right in.
Okay.
So the bottom tier is the most confusing one because bottom right is checking out your feelings, bottom left is internal dialogue.
That's kind of like murky and confusing.
I don't really use the bottom tier that much unless I have a very specific purpose.
So for now, let's just remember that anything at the person's top right is imagined and the top left of the person is remembered.
Okay.
Now, this is the kind of the quick and dirty way to tell it.
This, I will use that in the Katie Johnson thing quite a lot.
The other thing that is the much more powerful and scientifically much better proven one is the micro expressions.
And the micro expressions go back to the work of Professor Ekman.
He found out that little it kind of is a fraction of a second, little microsecond long twitches of your facial muscles will reveal the genuine feeling that you have.
So if you, if I say, oh, you know, I'm such a fan of Carmela Harris, I am her greatest fan, and I really actually hate the bitch, then I might have a quick flash of contempt that flits over my face, right?
But for that, you have to have a high-definition camera watching somebody's face, and you can actually slow it down and you can, yes, you can see it.
Now, one famous example of that is Anthony Weiner and Huma Aberdeen's press conference, because Huma Aberdeen is talking about her husband and how very much devoted he is to him, despite the fact that he was sexting for the umpteenth time, right?
And as she's talking, she doesn't just have not just a micro, but a macro expression of contempt.
Her face also splits in half so that the side that's facing him shows completely neutral, but the other side away from him is leaking massive contempt.
Like she can't stand the fucker.
They are just married pro forma.
Okay.
It's just like a sham marriage.
So, anyway, so when you can read these facial micro expressions, they are hugely powerful.
Okay.
Now, it's because of that reason of those micro expressions being so powerful, and because people in law enforcement and the intelligence agencies being trained specifically to read them, that I think these people blurred this woman's face because her eye movements alone to me gave it away.
But if you could read her facial expressions, we could read the seven basic emotions of, I think they are, hang on, let me remember them, right?
Happiness, anger, what is it?
Like anger, contempt, hatred, and contempt and hatred are different.
The other thing was, gosh, can I recall them all?
Sorrow ought to be in there.
Grief.
Yes, grief.
Thank you.
Grief was there.
Anyway, somebody do a Google.
Doesn't matter.
We're not going to use them at all today.
But they are, I kind of have them inscribed differently.
I sort them differently in my mind than the actual words and the key emotions.
But the bottom line is that Professor Ekman found out that across all age groups, across all cultures, you know, tribes in the jungles of Borneo, African tribes, Asian people, they all have the same seven basic emotions and will show the same muscle, you know, twitches super fast.
So the brain leaks your genuine emotion before your conscious brain can mask it with a fake emotion.
Okay.
Anyway, by the way, is my image slowed down and is it coming delayed at the moment?
It looks normal.
Okay, all right.
Okay, so let's just get into this testimony here using just the eye movements alone.
Let me share my screen and bring up her testimony.
I think it's this one here.
Okay, right.
Let me go back to the beginning.
All right.
So, okay, Katie Johnson.
This is Katie Johnson's full testimony, and it was published in 2016.
So, February 2016.
If I think this was, Trump was inaugurated in January 2016, right?
So, it's just a few weeks into his first presidency that this came out, right?
So, they were trying to, in my view, hammer him down on him hard.
But the story behind this girl is that she claims that she was working for Epstein and that Donald Trump came to attend some of Epstein's orgies and that she had to sexually service him.
She's also claiming that she had to wear a yellow wig because Donald Trump kind of liked that.
She's talking about that later.
But the yellow wig is something she put on for these occasions where she was supposedly sexually abused.
Now, my first question right off the bat is: if you are made to dress up with a yellow wig, why would you possibly, and by the way, this was when she was 13 or 14, why the hell would you wear a yellow blonde wig when you are exposing all this?
Shouldn't you feel some sort of revulsion against being dressed up like that?
So, off the bat, to me, that seems weird.
You know, it's kind of like she was 13, and Trump, according to her story, liked her in the wig because it reminded him of his daughter, Ivank, who is also 13 at the time.
Yeah, well, that's what's being alleged here.
Okay, right.
Now, what I don't already don't believe at all, because when you have real child abuse victims, it's a trigger for them.
A blonde wig would become a trigger if that's what you wore the first couple of times you were sexually raped.
She talks about penetration, so it's not just oh, touching and you know, with Trump, it was really giving him a hand job and then later oral sex, where another girl had to help to show her how to do it.
Yeah, but with Epstein himself, there's such peculiarities in this situation, Catherine, where the person instructing, and I suppose it's supposed to be Ghelaine Maxwell, says no one can.
She reached starts to reach out.
She told to give him a hand job, starts to reach out, and then her hand is knocked away by Trump.
And Maxwell intervenes and says, No one touches Mr. Trump's penis without wearing a glove.
So she's got to put on a latex glove.
Yeah, but again, these are her allegations.
Right.
That's the thing.
And to me, a lot of the things that, and again, it goes back to the Victor Hugo thing and having seen so many of those, many times it sounds like maybe they have a couple of facts from interviews about Trump that he likes, you know, cleanliness and just generally a clean environment.
He's declared himself to be a germophobe.
He mentioned that in relation to the Steele dossier, where he allegedly had hired a couple of prostitutes to pee on a bed that Obama and Michelle had slept in.
And he said it was ridiculous.
I'm a germophone.
Now that's consistent with his other story that Katie's telling.
So yes, but it's also consistent with somebody spinning a yarn on a couple of things that they know about him, you know?
So we really have, we can't decide it based on that.
So I dived in and I looked at just her testimony, right?
So, but off the bat, the yellow with the sorry, the blonde wig thing, that to me is just weird.
And when as she's moving the hair strands, you can see it's actually like a cheap wig.
It's not really one that a woman would wear.
It's kind of the fact that it falls into her face all the time.
She has to continually adjust it.
She's not comfortable in it.
So, you know, you would not make yourself more uncomfortable for the expose where you're talking about having been, you know, sexually assaulted as a kid.
It just doesn't, it doesn't make any sense what the hellsoever off the bat.
But now let's dive into what she actually says.
Okay.
Sure.
We can't hear the sound.
Oh, oh, oh, sorry.
I didn't share.
I didn't.
Okay.
Hang on.
Let me let me share it again with Sam.
Okay, forgive me.
Let's do it again.
Share, where's the button?
Oh, here we go.
Share sound.
All right, let's go back.
Now, first of all, what I said is her face is blurred out.
Yes, you know her name.
You can hear her voice.
She has a very kind of telltale way of talking.
So anybody who knows her would recognize her.
This was supposedly going to go through all the media, right?
So blurring her face when you reveal her voice and, you know, her name, it's that's weird too.
Why would you do it?
However, if she's a really appalling liar, you have to, you have to cover up her face because people will be able to tell she's lying, you know.
So that's another number two that's suspicious.
But now listen to her.
I came to this interview on my free will.
No, there was nothing promised to me for doing this interview.
Excellent.
Yes, everything that I say at this interview will be the truth.
I met Donald Trump at some parties I attend that I was working.
Boom.
Already starting right there.
Now, people have to focus in on her eyes.
She seems to be wearing fake eyelashes.
So, you know, there's quite a lot of black is moving as she's blinking.
So it seems to be heavy makeup, heavy fake eyelashes.
But what you have to look for in this blur is when you can see the white of her eyes, because that will show when her eyes start moving off to the right.
So I'll play this again.
At some.
There you go.
Just about there's a pixel.
So I met Donald Trump and then she keeps looking off to the right.
You know, and she starts slowing down.
And that's already strange because, hey, you should know the story.
So the alternative hypotheses here are: you were really there.
This thing really happened.
It was traumatic.
You were left with the trauma.
You overcame the trauma.
To be publicly, you know, able to talk about it, you should have rerun it in your head countless times.
Or the alternative is she's a very bad hired actor who is appalling at learning her script.
She keeps imagining the scene that she never really witnessed and she keeps fucking up her script, right?
So these are the two alternatives.
So let's play it again.
I came to this interview on my free will.
No, there was nothing promised to me for doing this interview.
So here she looks so far, she keeps looking straight at the guy.
I cannot see the white in her eyes.
And then she goes into the subject matter.
Yes, everything that I say at this interview will be the truth.
I met Donald Trump at some parties I attend that I was working for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein.
So this one sentence already has a cluster.
So she keeps looking up to the right.
She muddled up if she was attending the party or if she was working.
She first said she attended the party and then she remembered the script, like, oh no, she was there working, right?
And then she says it was for Mr. Epstein.
But she doesn't say, yeah, that was Epstein with the voice cascading down.
There's a cascade up, like it's a question.
Now, for those of us who have been teaching science, that's a clue, right?
I heard it so many times when somebody would do some particle physics homework.
I would get some trash that they clearly copied out of a textbook that they've never really read or understood.
And I would ask the question, for example, okay, but what exactly is that symbol H-bar in your homework?
And they'll be like, the Planck constant.
And I'm like, hey, you tell me, you wrote that stuff.
You tell me what your variables stand for, right?
But H-bar is what we use for the Planck constant, but it was a question.
Like, it's like, you didn't do the homework yourself.
You vaguely remember me saying it.
You didn't really create that equation yourself.
It's just all made up.
You're trying to, you know, echo back something you heard from other people and you are unsure about it.
So it's like, oh, the Planck constant, maybe?
Could that be?
And it's the same thing.
Epstein, like, you know, it's not Epstein.
It's, oh, maybe Epstein.
Yeah, listen to it again.
Excellent.
Yes, everything that I say at this interview will be the truth.
I met Donald Trump at some parties I attend that I was working for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein.
Do you hear it?
Mr. Jeffrey Epstein?
I'm like, hang on, you work for the dude.
You work for the dude.
You know Epstein.
But no, she doesn't know Epstein, Jim.
It's a Jewish, funky Jewish name that she heard a couple of times from these people who hired her, but it doesn't actually mean anything to her.
There was about three or four times that I had encounters with Donald Trump.
Now, this is very telling because when she says Donald Trump, it's kind of like there's kind of a cascade down to a safe space.
So after not really knowing Epstein very well, she's very sure about Trump.
How can that be?
Because she worked for Epstein supposedly in the story for an extended period and only saw Trump a couple of times.
It doesn't make any sense, right?
It wouldn't be Epstein and then Trump in her version of the story.
It would be Epstein and Trump or something like that.
The balance between how comfortable she is saying the name is completely out of whack.
Now, she's happy saying Donald Trump because she knows the assignment is to defame Donald Trump.
But it's just, it doesn't fit her story at all, right?
Once you've worked for a guy, you said the name Epstein a million times to your mom supposedly, oh, yes, I'm going to go to the mansion of Epstein.
You would just be comfortable saying it, but she is not because it's just the script she's been given.
So that's what doesn't make sense to me.
The first time that I met Donald Trump was at a party at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion.
We were, he was, there was an orgy going on and he was kind of watching off in the distance.
Okay.
Now here again, it's all up back to front, right?
She has all these the stalling, and when she's assembling the story, she's kind of like moving back and she's trying desperately to remember how the whole scene was meant to go.
Her eyes go up to the right, she's imagining it.
And then when she finally gets to this, the bitch she's comfortable about, it's actually the orgy.
It's like, holy crap, you were a child and you attended an orgy at 13 years of age.
And then when you're talking about it, that's kind of like the safe part.
But when you're describing the whole scene of, okay, it was like a party and we were like all standing around, you're really stalling.
It's the wrong kind of stalling, girl.
You should be traumatized about the goddamn orgy.
And yet she says it like, oh, yeah, like it's nothing.
You know, we were just at Walmart together.
It doesn't make any sense.
So I'm going to play it again here.
We were self-comforting.
We were like, where were you?
What building?
Okay.
Yeah.
Watch the self-comforting, touching, scratching off the head, moving back, you know, all this gasping and stalling.
Trump was at a party at Jeffrey Epstein's mansion.
We were, he was, there was an orgy going on, and he was kind of watching off in the distance.
Okay, now there's another kind of odd thing.
There's an orgy going on in his mansion, and Trump is supposedly watching off in the distance.
Like, where did the orgy take place?
Was it in like a banquet hall?
Was it like a ballroom that you have the orgy in the center of the room and people can be standing off to the distance?
I mean, how big are these homes, these city mansions that Epstein owns, right?
I mean, you can stand off in a distance, I don't know, in a ballroom in Mar-a-Lago, but when there's an orgy going on in a city mansion, I mean, there's a bed where the orgy is happening and people are standing around it, but standing off to the distance, it doesn't make any sense.
So, the actual geometry of the room and the description of the geometry of the room doesn't make any sense already.
And he basically asked if I could come over and give him.
Can you see the imagining?
So, her eyes, you can see the white of the eyes down here.
That is very clearly, she's imagining what he was asking her.
It never happened.
It never happened.
Hence, all the stalling because she's kind of uncomfortable making all this shit up.
I mean, credit to her, but it's just not consistent.
She's stalling when she has to describe this stuff, but I can't see any self-comforting, like she's an actual abuse victim because those would be leaning forward and towards the fetal position, sometimes hugging them like themselves like that when they're talking about the original abuse, getting tense.
But she's opening up, leaning back, and going like, you know, she's kind of like the burden of having to lie is on her chest, but she's opening herself up.
She's imagining this and she just wants to get through this.
It's the wrong direction of her movement, the wrong type of self-comforting in all this.
So, I'm going to play it again.
Off in the distance.
And self-comforting here, right?
And he basically asked if I could come over.
Yeah, you can see.
You can see the white in the eye even better here.
She's looking off into the distance.
Give him a hand job.
Right.
So she just imagined giving him a hand job and then she says giving him a hand job.
It's the wrong way.
It's the wrong way.
It should be all to the left.
It should be all, I remember him saying this.
You know, it should be, I remember what he said.
So bottom left, right?
I remember this scene of being in that room, but instead, she's all off to the right consistently.
And this will be the off to the right will be the repeating, recurring theme throughout the whole half an hour interview, right?
So because of that, I just at first I wasn't very comfortable with it.
This was like my first or second, you know, first party, and I didn't, you know, I didn't think that that was my responsibility.
But my recruiter told me that I needed to do it.
So I agreed to.
And again, imagined, imagined.
The white of her eye shows in the bottom corner closest to her nose.
So again, she's imagining what just happened next.
Then he, you know, I said, I began to.
Sorry.
Can you hear all this stalling?
And the hard bits about, you know, the orgy going on, about being asked, those she kind of goes through and then she starts stalling when she has to reassemble the whole story severely.
So she hasn't even learned the script or practiced it.
This is a little difficult, but yeah, what's difficult is to remember the script girl.
Before I gave him a hand job, he kind of slapped my hand away and said, you need to use a glove.
Can you see again the white of the eye is visible here?
Her head is moving up top right.
And she was really struggling in the beginning to remember the next bit she has to talk about.
And once she gets going, and she's so happy and casual to talk about having to give him a hand job, you know, the actual memory of the unpleasant thing, she's just jogging through it because she's like, okay, that's the next part I have to talk about.
And he just slapped my hand away.
And then, you know, and then this happened.
And it's like a jogging pace to it.
And before she is dead, stalling.
So again.
Then he, you know, I said, I began to.
Sorry, this is a little difficult, but before I gave him a hand job, he kind of slapped my hand away and said, you need to use a glove.
And the recruiter ran over and handed me a glove and said, no one touches Mr. Trump's penis without a glove.
So I needed to use a glove.
I gave him a hand job.
And then immediately after, you know, he had an orgasm, he left.
And I so here, again, consistently, the white of the eye, even though it's blurred, shows that the whole throughout the whole scene, she only ever looks up to the top right.
The whole thing, the rhythm of how she's talking.
Okay, he slapped my hand away.
And then I gave him a hand job.
And then he got a, it's like, wow, this is the bit where living through it again, if it was an actual really lived trauma, that would be the difficult bit.
Not remembering what you're going to say next, you know.
So she is a really bad actor.
That's that's my view, actually, how are we doing for time?
Okay.
So anyway, later on, I can run it, let it run for a couple of minutes and just point out the repeat here.
There's like three minutes in, there's something else.
I didn't see him again at that party.
Jeffrey Epstein is a billionaire friend of Donald Trump's that was responsible for throwing the sex parties.
There was, I originally came to New York trying to be a model.
And in my travels, I met a girl named Tiffany there who was very interested in me and said that, you know, she, that's what she did, is that she helped girls, you know, get what they wanted.
And she could help me get it and get into modeling.
Okay, again, she slipped up without noticing.
She said, let's play it again about how she became a model.
She came to New York and in her travels there, well, if you're in a city and you're modeled, you're not talking about travels.
That was a coloration that again doesn't fit somebody who's actually wanted to become a model, goes to New York and is going to all these gigs because you just take the subway, you go to your whatever audition, you're back.
You're not traveling, you're going to jobs.
You stay put in New York.
Nobody takes, oh, going to a gig within the same city as traveling, you know.
So again, it's a bullshit story.
In my travels, I met a girl named Tiffany there.
Where the flip did you travel to?
Your auditions, you mean, you know, as a model.
Who was very interested in me and said that, you know, she that's what she did is that she helped girls, you know, get what they wanted.
And she could help me get into modeling.
That she knew a lot of people that were higher ups and that it would be no problem.
And so that's why, you know, she, but I would just basically have to come model at a couple of events and meet some people.
There'd be no sweat.
So of course I went.
You know, that sounded like no big deal.
And she was recruiting the girls to come to these parties.
And they all looked, I mean, most of them were, you know, my age.
There was, you know, maybe a couple girls that were maybe 14 or 15, but it seemed to me like we were all very young.
So Jeffrey Epstein knew that I was 13 years old when he interviewed me.
Boom!
There it was again, quite even clearly.
So they changed the camera setting in the last couple of seconds.
And what you can see is much clearer from here onward.
Here, you can definitely see the lighter color on the inner corner of her eye.
She's definitely looking up to the top right, definitely visually constructing these images.
And meanwhile, her interviewer is sitting off here on the image on the very far right from the desk.
And this is a round desk.
He should be sitting somewhere, somewhere over here.
So she should be looking over to him and over past his shoulder, past the lampshade to the other side if she were actually remembering anything.
But if she's extremely visually constructing, her body is basically turning more and more off to the right as she's delving deeper and deeper into this imagined scenery.
He asked me to get down to my bronze, my just my panties, and I thought that was weird, but I mean, modeling, maybe it was something about my figure.
And he asked that I give him a massage.
So he, and then he asked me my age.
He asked me, and I told him, you know, told him that I was 13.
I told him why I was there.
And he's again, her head is drifting off to the right.
And it just keeps happening.
It's, you know, in the whole geometry of the room, it is 100% lying.
Do you see what I mean?
So I can keep going through the whole half an hour thing, but I think we're running out of time.
But I asked people to just analyze it like this: how many times can you see her eyes definitely move off to the right?
Her head is moving off to the right as she's, you know, recalling all this testimony.
And when you add everything together, it's 100% consistent with somebody having been hired, never having been having lived through these scenes, never really being very current with Epstein and the name, which is why she says, you know, it was Mr. Epstein, you know, in the very beginning.
And the stalling, the self-comforting at the wrong times, when it's about just recalling the next part of the script, she's really stalling.
When it's about the actual hand job, she's like, yeah, and he hit my hand away and I gave him a hand job and then he was done and blah, blah, blah.
It's like, whoa, hang on, girl.
It's the wrong way around.
Do you see what I mean?
So that's kind of what I felt the first time I saw it.
And when I started breaking it down, it's really 100% consistent with the bullshit story.
Now, if we zoom out a bit, if there had been a grain of truth, wouldn't these, wouldn't this affidavit be all over the mainstream media?
Wouldn't we see endless loops of this testimony?
And I think the mainstream media people were smart enough to know, oh, we just can't fly with this.
We will get the biggest defamation lawsuit ever.
They will dig out who this Katie Johnson actress truly is, will find out everything about her.
They will hire real professionals in body language and rip this the hell to shreds.
So my whole summary in all this is basically, yeah, I definitely can see why they blurred the face.
And all I can say is in that team that put this together, which I think was again the FBI, the only guy who's got his head screwed on is the senior guy who said we need to blur the face because this is just crap.
Yeah, he's a corrupt motherfucker, but yeah, that was the good call.
Yeah, blur the face because otherwise this is not gonna not gonna fly at all.
So there we go.
I think the whole thing is utter and complete hokeum.
And I'm not trying to be mean.
Yeah, yeah.
You mean not just Katie?
You believe all the other allegations of Trump.
Well, that's the thing.
I still haven't got the court documents for these other cases that were supposedly settled.
I want to hear those and I want to dig out the evidence.
You know, I want to dig out the evidence because, yeah, it's all about the evidence.
But this is like the best one where they have a long, detailed interview that they just publish after Donald Trump was like three weeks, three or four weeks after he was inaugurated.
This should be a humdinger and it's a complete nothing burger.
You know, I'm almost disappointed that they couldn't get a better actress.
You know, I mean, I understand that the cyber harassment department, you know, Julia Roberts doesn't work there, but still, you know, you could get somebody who's a bit better than this.
And I think as far as the Katie Johnson testimony is concerned, rest assured, none of this ever happened.
Like no kids came to harm in the fabrication of these fanciful stories.
Other kids came to harm for real at the Epstein sites and the mansions, but this story with Trump, that's all made-up crap.
It really is.
For me, because the first time I listened to it, I mean, it was relatively recently.
And I already had the impression Trump had been deeply involved in pedophilia.
And I'd run across the Intel drop about 10 cases being settled, including three little boys for between one and 10 mil, as I recall.
And you're going to look at those, which is excellent.
But I bet.
I've got the court documents because the thing you sent me was one website quoting, like it was an image and then the text saying this was settled for that much.
That was settled for that much.
No links to actual court cases on news reports.
Well, there were links there at the bottom.
You might want to look at that again.
Yeah, because I have to say, doing what I've just presented for the first time around, it takes me hours because when you approach it with not a form conclusion, you go through every single thing and you reiterate again after seeing the whole thing.
But this is the summary conclusions, okay, as represented by the first couple of minutes.
And I can tell you the rest is just more of it, you know.
I mean, what impresses me is that initially listening to it, I thought it was persuasive.
I thought it was genuine.
And after listening to your critique, I no longer hold that belief.
I mean, you're very convincing in the signs you see there, the indications.
And I think you explained it extremely clearly.
Well, here's the thing.
I think what it comes down to is two things.
Number one, you are very, like, deep down, a very good guy.
You have a lot of empathy, but you're also a guy.
So a man can't read facial expressions unless he's specifically trained, as well as women.
Women just, I mean, we're born with this.
We're monitoring our environment for evolutionary reasons.
We need to be able to tell if a man suddenly his mood changes because we can't fight him.
We don't have the muscle mass.
So we have these spider sensors that are entirely like we're biologically primed to read microexpressions, even if we're not aware to that.
So I have this advantage already.
But the other thing is also, I think, as a professor, your students didn't try to bullshit you as much as they tried to bullshit me because I was a very young teacher.
Okay.
So I was very close in age to the people I was teaching, and I have seen it all.
They thought they could fool me.
And it was an uphill struggle.
So, gosh, I have an entire dictionary of people lying to my face, claiming that the sky is purple, and I have to debunk it laboriously.
So, this question mark thing, I have one single example that I'm aware of in my entire life where the question mark at the end of the sentence was a genuine thing and denoted an actual fact.
And that is Irish millennials.
So, millennials in Ireland have this habit of talking, just like modern kids say like in every you know, 50 million times per sentence.
The question mark thing that was something that was a cultural thing among Irish millennials.
But because she's an Irish, I don't think this is a thing.
I think she genuinely had never heard the name Epstein before she got instructions from her handlers for this particular video.
So, yeah, you know, the senior guy in the FBI who had to run the shit show and had to make the call to blur the face.
I feel his pain.
I could see what a bunch of idiots he has to work with every day, you know.
But beyond that, it's all bullshit.
Catherine, it's just fascinating.
And I'm so ecstatic about our opening review about the Victor Hugo case.
I'm just Really, really happy to have your input and analysis.
That's huge.
Absolutely huge.
Well, what we all need to realize is that we're not the only people this is being done to.
They run the same character assassination protocol when they're taking down people in everyday communities who are questioning the elections, right?
They will run character assassination programs in local communities, but they will always do the same stuff.
Always.
So, you know, all I can say to the legal team of President Trump who has to board off this bullshit and to you is when you have a clear-cut example of 100% bullcrap, study it, find out exactly how they created this thing because it will tell you a lot about them, you know.
So, just from this alone, I would wager that the team who put together this Katie Johnson interview was one senior guy who was probably Gen X, you know, older Gen X, and he was running a bunch of millennials in Gen Z who couldn't tell their head from their asses.
100%.
And they gobbled together this little crappy theater play.
And there was one adult in the room who made the call to blur the face.
And he was the only one who knew what he was doing.
And that fits with the FBI because the senior guys go into management where they manage things, but they don't do the day work.
And they keep hiring these low lives, you know, idiotic little stupid millennials in Gen Z who, you know, just do some stuff, but it's not very good.
It wouldn't even be good enough for the Christmas school play.
There you go.
That's my assessment.
I love it.
I love it.
Well, this has been simply splendid.
I can't thank you enough.
And do give my warmest regards to Bill.
You know, he deserves recovery.
And I take it you're not being constantly bombarded by energy devices.
Well, actually, it is constant, but sometimes it's more debilitating than at other times.
So, for example, there were impact sounds when I came into the office to sit down for this interview, but supposedly they apparently wanted to know what I say about this because they haven't been attacking me at all during this interview.
So they focused on digital harassment of hijacking my camera and somehow truncating that.
But, you know, otherwise they just left me talking.
Minimal, pretty minimal, pretty modest.
Catherine, I can't thank you enough.
Absolutely splendid.
I look forward to our next week conversation when I mention Bill will be able to join us.
And utterly fascinating.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host for a real deal special report that I personally found extraordinary.
I hope you enjoyed it as much as did I. Thanks for being here.
▲
Export Selection