April 15–18, 2019 episode of Knowledge Fight dissects Alex Jones’ Notre Dame fire claims—from baseless arson accusations ("Islamic toilet") to cherry-picked PI News stats—while exposing his selective framing of Sri Lanka bombings as "Islamic suicide bombers" despite no evidence. Jones pivots to the Mueller report, ignoring Russian interference in favor of Soros-funded Democratic conspiracies, and suddenly praises Barr’s CIA ties while dismissing critics. Sandy Hook theories resurface with debunked VIPS memo claims and misrepresented helicopter footage, tying to QAnon-aligned guest Mark Taylor’s absurd prophecies. The hosts condemn Jones’ exploitation of tragedies for divisive narratives, highlighting his pattern of unverified assertions and real-world harm. [Automatically generated summary]
If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I'd like to support the show like these guys do, you can also find a link to that on knowledgefight.com.
He sent Millie Weaver and Caitlin Bennett, the Kent State gun girl, who now works for Infowars, out to a rally, and Caitlin Bennett got kicked out, and she's making a real big deal out of it.
So, part of the conversation that he's talking about here, the context of it, is that he needs Trump to really act on internet free speech.
Because if he doesn't, Alex is going to diminish all of his returns.
I mean, he's not as overt about that, the idea that, like, I can't suck more people into my operation if I don't have access to those people, and I will go out of business.
I need Trump to act now.
So he's trying to present it as, like, this is a Soviet takeover or whatever, and we're the only ones who have been right about it all along.
And then once you're forced online to live, we can now take it away from you if you don't behave the way we want.
And at first, it's just saying you're a liberal and there aren't two genders and families are bad.
Next, it's being sterilized.
Signing up to have your mind uploaded to the web so that your carbon body doesn't hurt the earth.
But really, you won't be uploaded.
It'll be AI that knows you, that's been watching you for 20 years, that knows how to mimic you, your voice print, everything you say.
So your friends and family think, yeah, Carl or David or Carol or John or Sanchez, you know, they had pain and they were overweight and they were whatever.
And, you know, there wasn't jobs for them anymore, but it didn't matter.
Now they're in a virtual silicon system that isn't bad for the environment.
And, you know, He went in, they uploaded his brain, but you can't have two of those if the agreement is he has to die.
I do, you know, I mean, there is something that whether or not it is part of like an intentional advertising model or just sort of a side effect that we didn't know was coming of social media, I do think that there is something dangerous about the idea of like, you know, living on these social media platforms in a way that, you know, your life is so different without them.
But I mean, to be fair, in the campaign, like early on, before Alex was fully on board with Trump, as we saw in the 2015 stuff, there was, like Alex did say, either Trump is the most evil person in the world, or he's the greatest.
I'm surprised he hasn't already said there are eight Muslim terrorists outside of his place starting a fire on Notre Dame while they're staring at him.
Sometimes you just expect something's going to go a certain way.
Like, you go to a show, you have a set to do, and someone in the audience is, like, heckling or something, and you're just like, fuck it, I came to do what I'm going to do, I'm not even going to engage with you.
In Cuba, the Christians, and in Russia, I honeymooned there where you could actually get in a jail cell and kick a Christian's eyes out and stomp their face in.
I did it.
I liked it.
I'll do it again.
I am superior.
I am a communist.
Getting serious.
Notre Dame is an incredibly famous place.
I wasn't going to go to Paris.
It is an Islamic, you know, what hole now?
An Islamic toilet, literally.
I would have gone to Notre Dame.
The hunchback, the whole nine yards, built in 1100 and something.
Like, they're taking away our monuments to force us towards the future in order to make us remove any kind of connection to our past, and then we'll jump into the AI and teleport ourselves all over the universe.
Like, isn't that what he should be doing right now?
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us on this Tuesday, April 16th, 2019 global broadcast.
I'm your host, Alex Jones.
Obviously, the tragic fire of a very important historic Christian site in Europe, in what's left of Islamic-occupied France, burned not to the ground but into an empty husk to a great extent.
And we are seeing the incredible response by European news, U.S. news, even Fox News, of trying to take anyone offline that says it should be investigated for arson.
Well, under French law, under EU law, under US law, under UK law, under common law, any big fire is investigated.
And that's why you don't really have to argue publicly for it to be investigated, because it's an automatic process.
The only people who are saying we should investigate this for arson and that sort of thing are people who have a vested interest behind what they're arguing.
They're arguing that it was Muslims, not that it should be investigated.
Well, no, it's a bad faith argument that they're making in favor of investigation because they know good and goddamn well that investigation is happening even as they're saying those words.
For this argument to be coming from people who are, I mean, let's be honest, noted Islamophobes who are saying there should be an investigation into this as if there is any voice publicly saying, stop investigating.
So that statement isn't true, that Alex is making, that idea.
That was something that Catholic Archbishop Bernadito Azusa said in a speech before the UN that was repeated as a talking point, as if it was something that the UN actually said.
That isn't to say that there isn't a problem of persecutions of Christians in the world.
Interestingly, in June of 2018, the Pew Research Center released a report where they analyzed reported instances of religious harassment from around the world, and they found that Christians were the most harassed, but by a very small margin.
The report didn't look at the gross number of incidents, only the number of countries in which an incident happened.
They found that Christians reported incidents in 144 countries in the world, coming in at number one on the list.
Islam came in at number two with 142 countries.
So it's pretty close between the two.
A write-up about the report in The Express mentions another research paper from 2016 that analyzed the sources of Christian persecution in the world, which found that most of it is found in the Asia-Pacific region, and that, quote, nationalist parties and politicians in India, Nepal, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka targeted Christians the most.
The picture of Christian persecution is a little bit different than people Yeah, yeah, yeah.
In a twist that Alex doesn't want to report, the EU parliament that he hates so much actually put this out in a report released on December 14, 2017.
They warn that, quote, Christians are currently the religious group most harassed and intimidated in countries throughout the world.
He can't say that it came from the EU, though, because he would have to explain then why a godless, globalist, demon organization would put something like that in one of their reports.
So that's the sort of thing that he's talking about there with that Christians are the most persecuted group.
I wasn't all that curious about that, because we talked about that at some point in the past, and, you know, whatever.
But I was really curious about that number that Alex is citing, about the 1,063 churches being attacked in Europe in the past year.
The feeling I had was that it definitely could be a real number.
Obviously, even in the best of times, some houses of worship are defaced and vandalized.
It's a gross reality of modern life, and I hate it, regardless of what faith is held by the people who worship them.
But something felt off about it, the way Alex is reporting it.
Europe is a huge place with a large population, but it just didn't sit right.
I know he's misleading people about the UN report saying Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world, as we just discussed.
And I know that he's exaggerating the number of car burnings that happen in France, and he's intentionally not telling his audience that most of them are burned as part of an insurance fraud scheme.
So there's good reason to suspect that this thing...
Yeah.
Wasn't sure.
So Alex is claiming that this number he's reporting is coming from the UN, which I can tell you right off the bat is not true.
One thing that presented an immediate challenge here when I was looking into this is that if you try and find out where he's getting this information from, there's a ton of possibilities.
There's a write-up in the Gatestone Institute that cites that number.
There's a blog entry on the Christian Broadcasting Network's website.
But the quote goes on to say, which is 185 more violations than in 2017.
By comparison, around 100 synagogues and mosques were damaged.
On a purely factual level, this isn't true.
But there's a reality here that's worth discussing because it's a reality that right-wing media outlets I mentioned earlier, they're using a reality to misinterpret the story and stoke outrage and foment hatred among their audiences.
In this PI News blog entry, there's no link to information about this 1,063 attacks number.
There isn't even an indication of where the number comes from, or even specific information of what sort of attacks were included in this statistic.
It just says this number of attacks, quote, were registered, but doesn't even say who was doing the register.
As it turns out, the number comes from a report put out by...
the French Ministry of the Interior, which does say that there were 1,063 anti-Christian acts in France in 2018.
This is used to argue that by all these media operations there's a huge wave of anti-Christian attacks and victimization on Christians that is on the rise.
The problem with that Is that this same release from the French Interior Ministry points out that in 2017, 1,038 anti-Christian acts were recorded, which means that this last year was only a 2% increase.
That's an increase of 25 incidents, not the 185 increase that PI News was alleging.
Also, perhaps more importantly, this same report points out that 2018 saw a 74% increase in anti-Semitic incidents, which probably seems like more important as a headline, but strangely is entirely unmentioned in PI News.
You'd think that they would want to provide some context to their readers so they would know, you know, exactly what kind of situation is going on, as opposed to just printing some small fact that would support some sort of attack of their own on other people.
Now would probably be a good time to point out that PI News isn't a news outlet, like its name might suggest.
It's a very overtly anti-Islam propaganda depot, which goes so far as to sell shirts, mugs, and buttons that say, quote, Islamophobic and proud of it.
The guy who started the blog, Stefan Haar, was quoted as saying that Islam isn't a religion, it's actually a quote, ideology of violence.
He's very clear in interviews that he doesn't believe that there's any difference between a terrorist who is a Muslim and literally any or all Muslims.
His website routinely calls Muslims migration garbage, scum, parasites, and pests.
In 2005, after the Danish newspaper Highlands Posten sparked controversy and protests with their series of editorial cartoons of Mohammed, Haar jumped on the bandwagon and doubled down, posting those cartoons and much more, which caught the attention of a large crowd of monsters and put his blog on the map.
To quote media critic Stefan Nygmeister, quote, it's an openly racist mob that gathers daily in the P.I. commentary area.
He goes on to say, quote, P.I. is a forum for defamatory, slanderous, abusive, threatening, inciting, and racist content.
So when confronted about all that, PI founder Stefan Haar claims that he can't be a Nazi because he's pro-Israel.
And he can't be a racist because Islam isn't a race.
Regarding this plausible deniability, Negmeister wrote, quote, perhaps this explains the greatest attraction of politically incorrect and a multitude of smaller but similar sites, that the danger of Islam provides people with a fresh, seemingly decent legitimacy for old hatred.
PI News is a bigotry depot, pure and simple.
They've been constantly criticized for posting absurd and not true stories to demonize Muslims, like the time they claimed that English banks were no longer allowed to distribute piggy banks because it might offend Islam.
It's very much like Infowars in this respect, the pattern of just posting whatever they find to reinforce their predetermined position regardless of whether it's true or not.
The thing is, none of this is to say that the 1063 Anti-Christian Act statistic is incorrect.
You know, what's important is how a publication like this uses a stat like that.
The fact that this outlet is a long-standing anti-Islam agitation outlet is kind of important to mention, because in no way does the official reporting suggest that these anti-Christian acts were carried out by Muslims, or even by immigrants.
That's an interpretation that's being added to a real number by a bigot publication, which is then being mirrored in tons of other outlets who cite PI News as a source.
Without proving their primary assertions, PI News claims that, quote, two churches were violated every day the past year because they were symbols of the hated infidels from an Islamic point of view.
This is editorializing.
In the past week, PI has been pushing insinuation that the Notre Dame fire was Islamic arson, attacking the story from every conceivable angle, with headlines like, quote, where are the Muslim donations for Notre Dame?
Missing from that article is the fact that Kamal Kaptani, the president of the Council of Mosques of the Rhone, had already come out and said, quote, We call on Muslims in France to show their solidarity by actively participating in the national solidarity campaign that will be launched to find ways to rebuild this place of history of our country and this place of prayer so dear to our Christian brothers.
I don't believe that any sort of attack, be it a property crime or assault or even just making threats, is acceptable at all, no matter who the victim or the perpetrator is.
This isn't an attempt to minimize the real anti-Christian acts that have happened, but I would be remiss to point out that there's a reason that there's a larger number of acts against Christians than there are against Jews or Muslims, and it's really simple.
ISIS has pledged on Palm Sunday and on the days leading up to Easter, as I said, What, a few months ago, I said Islam is attacking churches all over the world, and I said Islam has said on Palm Sunday through Easter they're going to burn up and bomb churches.
And guess what?
They said just last week we're going to blow up more churches in France.
ISIS had a public plot to blow up Notre Dame.
But the talking point has gone out that you don't let them talk about it.
In fact, just, what, three weeks ago?
When we saw the Christchurch mosque attacked, I said the media won't cover it when we see churches being firebombed and blown up and shot up or Islamists running over people with cars or trucks screaming Allah Akbar.
And I was just during the break, back in the coffee room, in the kitchen, and there was Fox News saying, well, as soon as all the fires are out, they're going to have arson experts get in and the fire department to find out what happened.
But we know it's not arson.
And we know it's not terrorism.
So he says, there's no investigations been done.
The government and the fire department say they don't know what did it.
But it's not Muslims and it's not arsonists.
Even though the reporter goes on to say, though there was no one in there at the time that the fire started, no renovation going on.
That is, the renovators weren't in there at the time.
Now you're going to hear and see this for yourself.
And these last two clips kind of go together in terms of building up what the narrative that he's trying to push is.
He's playing his role in a stage production that has been run many times in the right-wing media sphere.
And I think people are only now starting to see how it works.
The first thing that's important to point out is that the statements being made by French authorities, they weren't saying...
That the fire wasn't arson and that Islamic terrorism doesn't exist.
That's Alex creating a straw man to fight with instead of doing any real work.
Prosecutor Remy Heats was quoted as saying, "Nothing shows that it was an intentional act and that it was, quote, likely accidental." But that was just based on initial information available.
That wasn't making any kind of definitive statement.
And Heitz acknowledged that there was an investigation that needed to be done.
Like when my apartment burned down like six years ago, it was determined to be an accident.
But that didn't mean that the fire department didn't still do a week-long investigation just in case.
That's what investigators It's kind of their job.
By Wednesday, the prosecutor's office had interviewed many of the workers at the site and said, quote, While the prosecutor's office does not rule out any hypothesis, we remind that at this stage, nothing in the investigation highlights a criminal origin.
Accidental causes remain our privileged lead.
Investigators were allowed into the building.
They weren't initially, but they were allowed in once it was deemed safe.
So they were able to begin their work by late evening on Monday, France time, which is daytime for us.
As they began their preliminary investigation, they made a statement that the early indications seemed to be pointing towards an accidental start to the fire.
They didn't say anything like what Alex is claiming they did.
Probably some pundits on Talking Heads shows did, because they felt that they needed to aggressively remind people that officials had said that there was no indication that this was arson, nor was there any reason to put blame on Muslims or immigrants.
Because people were going to immediately blame it on Muslims and immigrants, and they were probably going to start some sort of fucking mob immediately if they weren't constantly and aggressively told, please wait, please don't do this.
On April 15th, the day of the fire, Paul Joseph Watson posted an article on Infowars at the headline, quote, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire, Oh, God.
Oh, God.
The article was entirely based on one tweet from a guy named Christopher Hale, who tweeted, quote, A Jesuit friend in Paris who works at Notre Dame told me the cathedral staff said the fire was intentionally set.
If you break down what's going on here, it's Paul Joseph Watson reporting on a tweet posted by someone he doesn't know who is saying that he has an unnamed friend who told him that some other unnamed people told him that the fire wasn't an accident.
This is not a good basis for reporting this as a possibility.
This is straight-up gossip at best.
It also doesn't help that Hale followed up his tweet with another saying, quote, I should note he has zero evidence beyond what...
You can't start with the regular tweet being like, everybody panic, we're all gonna die, it's Islam, and then follow it up with, no, I don't know that.
So even he says, qualify this as an unsubstantiated rumor.
Unfortunately, if something demonizes Muslims, Infowars is happy to report unsubstantiated rumors.
It's what they do.
Because, make no mistake about this, I'm not just saying this loosely, Paul Joseph Watson was trying to imply that Muslims set Notre Dame on fire.
He ended his article by saying, quote, also take note of the names of those who were celebrating the fire by reacting with smiley faces on Facebook.
Which then linked to a video of Muslim names on Facebook accounts apparently posting smiley faces on a stream of the fire, which I guess is a smoking gun, according to Paul Joseph Watson.
To me, I don't care.
This article is a fucking disgrace.
Hale deleted his tweet because he realized how it could be misused.
He didn't believe the fire was arson, and his Jesuit friend didn't believe that either.
It was just a third-hand piece of gossip he'd heard, but in the wrong hands, that could be very dangerous.
Unfortunately, the wrong hands found his tweet before he could delete it, and Paul Joseph Watson used it as cover to point the finger at Muslims.
Multiple fake Twitter accounts created to look like Fox News or CNN posted complete bullshit to try and trick people, like saying that Ilhan Omar's response to the fire was to say, quote, they reap what they sow, or posting videos of Notre Dame on fire with audio edited in of people saying Allah Akbar.
On the same tip, if they do nothing initially and the investigation comes back later with proof that, let's say, ISIS set Notre Dame on fire...
The visceral emotional response will have worn off on their audience, and it'll be hard to whip them up into the same level of hysteria that they were able to in the moments after an emotionally resonant event.
Right, and then when people respond on Twitter or respond on these talking head shows to this rank speculation that is clearly intentionally designed specifically to point the finger at Muslims, when they respond by saying, hey, look, we don't want to get into that sort of thing because that's fucked up.
Then Alex would be like, why are you covering this up?
Why are you afraid of an investigation?
Why are you so sure it was an accident when in reality it's just a fucking stupid dance that's being played?
That aside, I would be remiss, Jordan, if I didn't point out that we're recording this on Sunday, and late last night, our time, multiple bombs went off in churches and hotels in Sri Lanka.
But as of the time of this recording, many of the details are still developing, so I don't feel comfortable necessarily reporting any of the specifics about it.
Note, one of Anders Breivik's most cited resources in his manifesto are posting things like, quote, reports suggest that suicide bombers might have been identified as dot, dot, dot.
And then he says people's names who I'm not going to repeat because I have no idea where he's getting this information from.
And it could possibly be pointing the finger at people who have nothing to do with anything.
I'm not saying to minimize this or not care about the bombing in Sri Lanka, but I'm saying that you all knew that ISIS was capable of that a month ago.
Right, and when more information comes out, whatever the case may be, if it does turn out that it is an attack that was perpetrated by ISIS, I will feel...
You know, the same, but a little worse about ISIS.
Now, at this point, as we're recording this on Sunday, InfoWars has posted an article with the sub-headline, quote, Islamic suicide bombers launched attacks on three separate churches.
God damn it.
Those Sri Lankan Christians, as a sizable minority of about 8%, have reported an uptick in persecution and threats coming from Muslims and majority Buddhist population in the country.
So that is the closest that the Zero Hedge article comes to.
Alex Jones' copy and paste of it adds the sub-headline, quote, Islamic suicide bombers launched attacks on three separate churches.
That is not in the source material.
That is Alex adding that 100%.
Other than that, the only coverage of that Sri Lankan attack so far on InfoWars is another copy-and-pasted article, this one from Breitbart, about how the Pope denounced the, quote, cruel violence of the attack.
Sure, that's fair enough.
I agree with that.
I find it kind of silly that Alex would run a story like this when he also spends a ton of his time yelling about how the Pope is involved in a global child sex trafficking and cannibalizing ring, but he's free to run his business how he sees fit.
The problem here is that the InfoWars article has this sub-headline.
Quote, over 200 dead by Islamic suicide bombers, hundreds more injured.
I think you can already guess this, but nothing in the Breitbart story indicated that the attack was carried out by Islamic suicide bombers.
It's not even a Breitbart story that's published on Breitbart.
It's just a copy and paste of a report from the Associated Press.
It's mostly just about how the Pope is praying for the children in Yemen and for peace around the world to replace violence.
On a very basic level, this is super bad.
Sure, it could turn out that the people who committed this attack were members of ISIS, and they could even be Muslims.
But at this point, Alex has no reason to report that, other than to push the narrative.
He could editorialize something like, quote, I bet this was suicide bombers.
But he's not doing that.
He's copy and pasting other people's articles and attaching his conclusions to them.
Even if his hunch ends up being accurate, his journalistic practices are unacceptable, and he should be ashamed of himself for doing that.
A situation like this is far too serious to treat with that kind of disrespect and flippancy.
But it's really, really fucked up that Alex is taking these stories and adding his own sub-headlines to them that have nothing to do with the content of the story that is his source material for it.
Yeah, and without too much time spent focusing on Drudge or researching his practices, I know that he does write his own headlines for these stories, and sometimes they're a bit sensationalized and such, but I don't know if he goes this far.
It could be that Alex has taken his game and gone much further with it.
But you see what's going on here.
You see the initial thrust being a need to control the story.
Control the story and box it into our narrative.
A story from the Associated Press.
That Breitbart has copied, and then Alex has copied from Breitbart, from the copy from the Associated Press, about the Pope praying for the world and for peace, is now turned into a sub-headline of Islamic suicide bombers committed this with no evidence.
At this point, when you're told don't look at something before the fires are even out, and you've got Islamic groups saying we're going to target this, and they have before, you've got to then default there's a cover-up.
But they don't want you to be able to ask questions.
And meanwhile, the whole leftist group is funded by George Soros, an actual Nazi collaborator.
Well, what they're trying to do is to get enough dumb people to go out and attack white folks so white folks start shooting back so they can cause a civil war.
So, understand, the pawns in this are the minorities they're trying to manipulate.
And the good news is, you go to any Lepis event, it's 90% white.
Bunch of professors trying to get blacks and others to riot.
Remember the documents we got in January of last year?
Now, 16 months ago.
Secret internal George Soros documents from Alexander Soros.
How to have professors dressed up in black in Maryland and other cities attack pre...
Place places.
They had agreements with Starbucks, everybody.
I always wonder why they knock over a trash can, attack Starbucks and McDonald's.
This is all just bullshit that he's making up, editorializing on those fake contracts that he found on 4chan.
This is all just that.
He's using that completely ludicrous fake document that he found as evidence of this global plan in order to cause minorities to attack white people to cause a civil war.
Maybe they're like, you know, locally grown boutique coffee shops.
I don't know.
It's stupid.
It's all just those stupid fake Soros Antifa documents that Harrison Smith found on 4chan and Alex has disgracefully pretended is real.
Because again, when we talked about it the first time, the very fucking idea that you would make someone sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to be part of a criminal conspiracy in order to overthrow the country and start a civil war is laughable.
The fucking idea is nonsensical.
Anybody involved in that kind of a criminal conspiracy would know that it's in no way protected by an NDA.
And making someone sign an NDA would only leave a paper trail.
It was weird when Steven Soderbergh left that scene in on Ocean's Eleven where George Clooney had everybody sign an NDA and they had to do the whole thing.
So, a lot of the reporting on this story, outside of even Alex's stupid show, has been pretty off the mark.
A lot of it seems to circle around that idea that the flag is seen as an intimidating symbol to immigrants or some shit like that, but that's misreporting.
From the original story in the LA Times, quote, A decision to repaint Laguna Beach police cars with an image of the American flag running through lettering on the doors will return to the city council Tuesday after some residents deemed it unfit for the artist's community.
Though most of the comments made by residents in recent months were about the squad car's new aesthetics, online reaction in recent days characterized the debate as pitting flag supporters against flag opponents.
Mayor Pro Tem Steve Dictorow said Monday the council is simply facing, quote, a very narrow decision about the brightness of the colors.
After idiots started attacking her and leaving more than 150 messages via phone calls, texts, voicemails, and emails, she explained what she was talking about.
Quote, I don't really care too much about the design other than what I said.
It's bad art.
I'm being attacked for that because the narrative feeds the fire of division, which is what our culture has become.
So, Jordan, if you're following along here, what's happened is this.
Laguna Beach commissioned a new design for their cop cars, and it ended up a little bit tacky.
Mayor Pro Tem, Dick DeRoe, literally said, quote, Clearly the way it looks on the car is not what anyone expected it to look like.
Expressing that the design looked better on paper than it did on the cars.
So they put together a council meeting to sort out the artistic issues.
The fact that they were having a council meeting to reevaluate the car's design was intentionally misrepresented by people like Franklin Graham, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Fox News, and Infowars in order to turn the story into one where the flag is under attack.
Because the flag was never under attack, when the flag isn't ultimately removed from the cars, all of these outlets get to march around and pretend that they won some super important cult.
The only complaint that I saw from primary reporting about the flag itself was from somebody who was making a point that the way that the red, white, and blue of the flag is presented in the letters, ICE in police, the last three letters, are mostly red.
And so there was a feeling of...
This aesthetically doesn't feel good.
The idea that there seems to be a difference between the pole and the ice in the color scheme, which I think I certainly can see what they were saying.
If you look at the cars, it is pretty glaring that...
Ice is predominantly...
It sticks out more in the eye than the police part of it.
I think it goes without saying what Alex is saying about Representative Omar is incredibly disgusting.
Him telling his audience that she's here to conquer the country and that Soros is paying her to do so is pretty dangerous talk, particularly given the wildly and aggressively anti-Islam character of his entire show these days.
He's somehow managing to play this clip of Tucker Carlson being a dick and then...
in its shittiness.
But I want to address the propaganda sleight of hand that Tucker is trying to perform in this clip.
She never said that America is so racist and hateful that she feels threatened, demonized and vilified every day.
The article says, quote, it's challenging, she says, of living in President Trump's America, where her status and heritage is constantly criticized.
Quote, it's an everyday assault.
Every day, a part of your identity is threatened, demonized and vilified.
Trump is tapping into an ugly part of our society and freeing its ugliness.
It's been a challenge to try and figure out how to continue the inclusion, how to show up every day and make sure that people who identify with all the marginalized identities I carry feel represented.
It's transitioning from the idea of constantly resisting to insisting in upholding the values we share, that this is a society that was built on the idea that you could start anew.
And what that celebrates is immigrant heritage.
So you can already see the twisting that he's done Ugh, that's so...
It's such a deliberately evil act of, like, no matter what you do, no matter what you say, if you say anything, I will find six words, rip it out, and say that you hate America.
Even if you wrote an entire novel, an entire book about how you love America 100%, if you even mention a fault, it's gonna be like, oh, see how she hates America?
If you don't love every single part of America, especially the part where every day on Twitter, you're attacked by people for being Muslim.
These pieces of yourself that you were proud of and are proud of and are a part of you.
It's a different thing.
It's very slightly different, but it's importantly different.
And then the other thing, too, I mean, Tucker says that she sometimes can't go to work or it's hard to go to work.
In that passage there is what he was misrepresenting.
She's saying that it's a challenge to try and figure out how to show up every day and make sure that people who identify with all the marginalized identities I carry feel represented.
It's not a challenge to go to work.
It's a challenge to figure out how to carry this representation.
She never says that things were easier for her growing up in a refugee camp in Kenya.
She says that all her life prior to coming to America, her identity as a black Muslim woman didn't register to her.
It just was who she was.
But then when she came to the United States, she found that there was a tension and some conflict between her identities and society, which she found hard to deal with as a fucking 12-year-old child who had just survived a fucking civil war.
What she's saying is introspective.
It's not judgmental and not bitter, and it's completely reasonable.
Tucker Carlson is absolutely 100% twisting her words and taking everything she said in this article out of context to present the image that Ilhan Omar hates America, thinks that it's a racist place and longs for the days of the refugee camp where everyone around her were black and Muslim.
The passage in the Vogue article about the discomfort she felt about her identity as a 12-year-old is part of a paragraph that also contains Omar quoting the extreme optimism that her father and grandfather imparted to her after her mother died when she was two years old.
Quote, today does not determine your tomorrow.
Her discussion of her experience was a hopeful one, and it was an expression of seeing a future where society and identity aren't at odds with each other.
And to see Tucker so maliciously twist this into an overtly xenophobic propaganda piece is an absolute disgrace, only surpassed by Alex's commentary on it.
And I wanted to listen to the 17th and see what happened, but I didn't have the time or the interest because on the 18th, Thursday, the Mueller report came out.
And I knew that in terms of doing this episode for Monday, if we're covering the present day while you were on a fucking beach in Mexico...
We have the full report right over here on my desk.
We've already been scanning through it, but it's really just confirming everything we already knew from the congressional testimony, from the text messages and all the rest of it, that this was a giant Frame up an attempt to take down the duly elected president and overthrow the election of the people.
But actually, the one thing that I take away from this, really, and I think this is probably a little bit surprising, is...
This is one time where I'm not mad at Alex for having not read it.
It just came out.
There's no way he could have read it.
If I were him, I probably would have had someone fill in and taken an hour or two or whatever to read it and then come on air when I could be conversant in it and know more about it.
Instead, what he does is just make wild assumptions about it.
So it's not all that interesting, but there are a couple things that do come up in his coverage that I think are interesting in and of themselves, less about his feelings on the report.
And here's one of them.
And it's that he needs to find a bunch of different ways to say balls.
So what Alex is going to do, in lieu of actually knowing anything about the report, what he's going to do is he's going to play William Barr's press conference in its entirety.
So Alex doesn't get to playing the press conference because he gets distracted by other things like the fact that the New York Times has written an article about him.
This New York Times article that Alex is talking about is a piece about his deposition video.
The headline is, quote, Alex Jones under oath is an anecdote to the post-truth age.
I think you already know my feelings about this article already, namely that the premise is a failure, so wherever it goes from there, it doesn't really matter.
The part about Alex being a consolation prize is this sentence.
Quote, the hundreds of thousands of views on these videos that have accumulated attest to their appeal as a hashtag resistance consolation prize.
Maybe it's not a habitually lying president, but at least someone is getting called to account under oath for his role in the post-truthification of American life.
This isn't talking about destroying Alex.
It's not even talking about destroying Trump.
If anything, it's expressing a very understandable desire to see known pathological liars be forced to exist in a space where they cannot lie.
Of course, the fact that Alex being under oath is ultimately meaningless in a civil deposition, and the fact that he knew that and continued to lie pretty consistently in the deposition should be evidence that if anyone took the Alex deposition as a consolation prize for Trump not being under oath, they're not dealing with reality.
And that article was actually pretty soft on Alex, so I don't care.
He's going to get back to complaining about it later.
So one of his big complaints about this article, though, at the Times, is that they talk about how Alex got grilled about things that he was making up about Sandy Hook, and that that was delightful.
But he also is one of Alex's big resources in anti-Catholic narratives about the idea of them having sex trafficking rings of children and stuff like that.
Why are you now using him as some sort of defending Catholic church narratives?
So the fact that he, or the idea that he is on the left or whatever, that might end up being true in the end.
I'm not sure.
But nothing I can find gives me any indication of that.
Whatever his politics are, Lamprello was arrested after walking into St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York carrying two gas jugs, two bottles of lighter fluid, and some barbecue lighters.
I would call this a good catch by the police, who were able to avert what appears to be clearly someone who had bad intentions.
Lamperllo had been thrown out of the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, New Jersey, just two days prior.
He caused a scene at the church and refused to leave after repeated requests, ultimately throwing himself on the floor, saying he'd only leave in handcuffs.
Yeah.
He arrived at St. Patrick's Cathedral on Wednesday night, and he had suspiciously purchased a one-way ticket to Rome that was leaving from Newark on Thursday.
What his motivation was is anyone's guess at this point, which makes Alex's coverage just worse, just way worse.
In his article about Mark Lamprello on Infowars.com, they just quote large chunks from a heavy article about him, then say, quote, incidentally, this video went viral Wednesday on Twitter.
And underneath, they have a completely out of context video of Muslims outside a burning church, which is claimed to have bitten either from 2013 or from August 14th, 2018, depending on which part of the body of the ark.
The video is posted as a tweet from an account whose name is Stormtrooper with three American flags after it.
This is an account that's pretty much all just anti-Muslim agitating with frequent...
Uh-uh.
The InfoWars article concludes with a Paul Joseph Watson video about how Muslims were celebrating the Notre Dame fire based pretty much entirely on his crack investigation of Facebook's smiley faces that we talked about a little bit earlier.
My point here is that InfoWars isn't interested in this story about Mark Lamprello.
They're only interested in using it as a waypoint to transition back to what they want to talk about, namely that Muslims are evil, even though that has literally nothing to do with the story that this article is supposedly about.
Also, you know how I told you that the InfoWars story about this guy is really just copying and pasting chunks from an article in Heavy?
Well, if you do go to that heavy article, it includes this passage that, in force, conveniently forgot to mention in their article.
On Reddit, he, quote, responded to a news story in 2018 about French people disliking President Donald Trump more than Putin, Xi, and Merkel.
He wrote, quote, all I know is if the French dislike us for something, we must be doing something right.
They think they're so much more sophisticated and culturally alluring than us, but secretly they're jealous of us and want to be us.
Absent from any of this coverage where, I mean, this guy went to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York with lighter fluid and lighters, they pivot and try and talk about these unrelated Muslims.
They don't talk about at all, either on Alex's show that I've heard or on their website at all, the fact that in the past week, Holden Matthews, a 21-year-old son of a sheriff's deputy, was arrested for setting fire to three historically African...
in Louisiana.
Matthews is pled not guilty, but the fire marshal has provided evidence, including cell phone tower records showing that Matthews was at the 30th Okay, that's a bad...
These photos I took of my girlfriend being murdered before the cops got there, I just walked in and I was like, I better have something to show them to know that I didn't do it.
I mean, I would argue that a missing cat is slightly less relevant to the topic that all these other articles you're writing about fire and churches and the intersection thereof.
So, I don't care for us to listen to too much of Alex licking Trump's boot by proxy as he lavishes praise on William Barr and this press conference about the release of the Mueller report.
We knew all along, Alex, how he would respond, no matter what was in the report, no matter what action was taken in response to the release of the report.
If the report found no wrongdoing, we were right all along.
If the report finds serious wrongdoing, this is a cover-up by the deep-state Clinton globalists.
There's no real-world outcome that doesn't fit into his narrative, so it's almost pointless to even think about it.
It's the definition of trying to hold sand slipping through your fingers.
That was a pretty fucked up stretch of time to be in the CIA.
For one thing, Watergate was unfolding all around President Nixon during this stretch, culminating in his resignation.
On top of that, Seymour Hersh had just released the Family Jewels reports that outlined how the CIA totally assassinated foreign leaders and illegally spied on citizens they thought might be subversives, like members of the Black Panthers, women's rights groups, the Israeli Embassy.
In response to these revelations being made public, the CIA was in a bit of a strange position and they were facing congressional investigations.
It's a messed up time to be in the CIA.
Also, in 1976, while William Barr was at the CIA, George H.W. Bush was named Director of Central Intelligence.
Interesting how in May 1990, George H.W. Bush appointed William Barr Deputy Attorney General, and then about a year later, full-on Attorney General.
During his tenure as attorney general, William Barr authored a report titled The Case for More Incarceration, which many have credited as being the inspiration and justification for the mass incarceration state we've seen explode in the decades since.
The 1992 report is laughable in its arguments, ranging from things like, we shouldn't release people from prison early because some people commit crimes after they're released early, to no one goes to prison for their first crime.
They're hardened criminals by the time they go in.
The basic point that Barr is relying on to make his argument is that when rates of incarceration go up, they cause crime to go down.
The years since 1992 and numerous academic studies have not been kind to this line of thinking.
In 1992, the U.S. held approximately 600,000 people in state and federal prisons.
Ten years later, that number was almost one million people higher.
In all fairness, the upward trend did begin before Barr's report.
In even more fairness, he still has blood on his hands for how the report was used to expand the prison industrial complex, as one of the sections in his report is about how we need to build more prisons.
His report also discusses how to pay for these prisons.
What do you know?
His solution is literally counter to one of Alex's ostensible, firmly held beliefs.
Quote, states should make sure that they have adequate statutory authority for asset forfeiture.
The Department of Justice has used hundreds of millions of dollars from its Asset Forfeiture Fund and the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Special Forfeiture Fund to support construction of new federal prisons.
There is true poetic justice in forcing criminals to pay for prisons.
One of Alex's websites is Prison Planet, and one of the things that he's very concerned about is the prison state.
Yet one of the main architects of said prison state, who advocated using civil asset forfeiture to pay for the construction of more prisons, is now lauded as a hero to Alex.
All it takes for the worst of monsters to him to be rehabilitated is for them to bend the knee to Trump.
Alex Jones is a stupid, cowardly, empty suit over a dress shirt.
Oh, also, interestingly, in his time as H.W.'s Attorney General, William Barr was the one who advised Bush on who to pardon, effectively being instrumental in helping Bush cover up his own involvement in both Iran-Contra and Iraq-Gate.
This led New York Times writer William Sapphire to give him the honorific title, Cover-Up General Barr.
Yeah, so after that, after he left the Attorney General's office, he started working for a lot of lobbying interests and stuff like that, which is another thing that Alex made about half of his Obama deception documentary about the idea of hiring people who'd worked in lobbying.
William Barr is now Trump's Attorney General after spending a lot of time in lobbying interests.
So William Barr's a piece of shit.
We can gather that from looking over his record, but I thought it might be fun to see what Alex's own website has said about him in the past.
Steve Watson wrote an article on December 10th, 2018, about how Rand Paul was very troubled by Barr being nominated as Attorney General.
The article quotes Rand Paul as saying, quote, I haven't made a decision about him, but I can tell you, the first things I've learned about him being for more surveillance of Americans is very, very troubling.
I'm disturbed that he's a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture, without a conviction.
You know what's funny?
As far as I can tell, William Barr's name has never appeared in an article on InfoWars, NewsWars, or Prison Planet before that 2018 article by Steve Watson.
And since that point, the articles that have mentioned him completely ignore or dismiss his pre-Trump career.
The idea that he has all this intense baggage.
It only appears in this one December 10, 2018 article by Steve Watson.
And then...
And you know, those archives go back a long ways.
Those archives of articles on News Wars, or maybe not News Wars, that's kind of newer, but InfoWars and Prison Planet, you can find stuff from way back.
And the idea that William Barr's name doesn't come up, the idea that he was so preoccupied and obsessed with things that are very similar to what William Barr advocated for.
But he's also pretending to have some sort of an awareness of it, like he's listened to it already or watched it, which is kind of undermined by his response.
Listen carefully.
This is very soon after he starts playing the press conference.
This is the proof of election meddling by the Democrats, and of course they used Russians that they paid off that are part of the Soros group that'll tell any lies they're told to, like Trump's in a hotel room, knowing all those hotel rooms are bugged, being pissed on by hookers.
If he was that type of maniac, he'd never gotten where he is.
I'll tell you, this is the only thing that I really took away from the Mueller report, because the stuff that I'm most interested in is all the stuff that's redacted.
But for now, a lot of this is stuff that, you know...
We'll see what comes of it.
But as for page 239, nah, nah, nah.
In that report, there's an indication, not reliant on the Steele dossier, that there are or were compromising tapes in the possession of the Russian government.
From the report, quote, on October 30th, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Georgi Ryskaldase that said, quote, stopped flow of tapes from Russia, but not sure there's anything else, just so you know, dot, dot, dot.
Giorgi said tapes referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by personas associated with Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group.
I'm not saying the pee tape is real.
I'm just saying that Alex's defense about it just got a whole lot weaker.
Because that's not the Steele dossier.
That's text messages that they recovered from Michael Cohen.
So in this next clip, Alex pauses Barr's press conference to make a wild assertion that I think is indicating that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations.
Like, it's not like you start from a position of, this group I politically disagree with aren't members of our society, and then you're like, and you know what, two weeks later, I think they're great.
Alex's narrative is that Hillary Clinton is actually the one who was in bed with Russia, and so she sold off all our uranium and all that bullshit.
So in order for that narrative to stand up at all, he needs to find a way to reject the idea that the GRU or Russian operatives hacked and disseminated her campaign manager and the DNC's email in an effort to aid the Trump campaign.
Do you understand how stupid that sounds if he's trying to make both of those arguments?
Right, because it would be hard if they're secretly in cahoots, but also...
They did this against her.
It doesn't make sense.
The way he's done this in the past and made this make sense that it wasn't Russia behind them and she's actually secretly in bed with Russia, being able to maintain those, the way he's done that in the past is to say that Seth Rich leaked the information to WikiLeaks and Hillary killed him because of it.
In the present day, he's being sued by murder victims' families, so I think he's feeling a little bit cautious about creating more of those situations in his life.
The Rich family has been pretty clear that they're sick of the bullshit and they don't appreciate people exploiting their son's death, so he's wise to keep his name out of his mouth.
But that doesn't take away Alex's need for that narrative.
If that explanation for the provenance of emails goes away, he's left with having to accept that Russia hacked the email of the person that they were working with in order to help the person who was running against her, which is a tough needle to thread for anyone.
Alex needs the Seth Rich narrative, but he knows that he has to be coy about it, so he just uses the part of it that he just did.
The idea that download speeds were too fast in order for it to have been a hack.
So he had a decent run as a legitimate critic of the NSA, but he began appearing only on right-wing conspiracy shows and eventually became that which he surrounded himself with.
His credibility is shit.
My favorite example from our show, in case you've forgotten, was when he came on Alex's show pretending that he had a copy of the classified Devin Nunez memo from the hashtag release the memo craze of 2018, but in reality he had a completely unrelated and very old memo.
So this memo argues that there's no way that the DNC files were copied by a hack.
They had to have been taken by a flash drive because the size of the files and the time it took to copy them were impossible to square with physically possible download speeds.
Alex started promoting this narrative, as did all of the right-wing con men who were eager to let everyone know that William Benny had their back and it was impossible that Russia hacked those emails.
Unfortunately, people started to do some examination of the claims of the Vipsma.
Nathaniel Fritas, an associate fellow at the Berkman Klein Center of Technology at Harvard, did an analysis and found that the memo made some really faulty assumptions.
He found that while the claim that the download speeds required to copy all this information in the time allotted would be impossible, using commercially available at-home internet connections available from, like, Xfinity...
Those speeds, quote, could be achieved by a variety of other digital communications configurations, a high-speed business-grade internet service provider, an intra-office local area network, communications between servers within a commercial cloud provider, and they even said, yes, those speeds would be what you'd get with a flash drive also, but there were other possibilities.
All of these possibilities were just discounted by the VIPs memo because they were working towards the flash drive conclusion as opposed to considering all possibilities, which is a good reason to be suspicious.
After the memo was used as the basis for an article in The Nation, other members of VIPS felt that they had an obligation to speak up and point out that they didn't agree with the conclusions being put forth.
These other memos chastised the writer of the original memo for not including any qualifiers, disclaimers, or dissenting views, nor offering any alternative theories, and for presenting their argument as a slam dunk.
They sum up their feelings thusly.
Quote, the bottom line, this VIPs memo was hastily written based on a flawed analysis of third-party analyses, the forensicator, and then thrown against the wall waiting to see what would stick.
There's only one reason to hold onto this impossible download speed argument at this point, after the analysis has been done on it, and the only reason is to continue to spread Seth Rich conspiracies long past their expiration date, and it's bad.
So, one of the other things that Alex has to wrestle with is the idea that in the Mueller report there are ten instances of Trump pretty clearly obstructing justice.
Based on every kind of prosecutorial review of that section I could find was, if they had two out of those 11, they would get a conviction in two weeks.
Right, right.
Like, that's basically the situation.
Mueller wrote them a conviction, and he didn't want to actually convict him because it's against the Justice Department's memo.
It's not like they couldn't do it.
Right, right.
The whole investigation started from the point of, we are not going to...
We are only going to prove he committed all of these crimes.
And then Congress, if you were a functioning democracy, would take care of this.
There are so many New York Times articles routinely on the front page of the paper or on the front page of the website that I don't even read most of them.
If I was going to lay odds on this one, if I was a Vegas betting guy, that's where I would go.
Over-under is two and a half.
Actually, I would still take the under on that.
Somehow, I want to have this over-under be negative one and a half, just in case they put them on the New York Times front page one time and then ripped all of them off.
I'm like this symbolic simulation of victory for the horrible, miscreant left with one of their people just caught trying to firebomb St. Patrick Cathedral in New York yesterday.
So, the reason that Alex is talking about this article, what's really stuck in his craw, is the idea that the article is pointing out that under oath, in the deposition, he can't...
Provide any evidence of the claims that he was making about Sandy Hook, particularly the incident of him talking about there being someone arrested in SWAT gear in the woods.
We'll get into some of the dynamics of what's going on here.
It's incredibly fucked up.
But the thing that he's talking about, there's something up here, is that he has now found out that Chris Murphy and Blumenthal, they have, like, one of them ran...
So Alex is saying that these two are attacking him because of Sandy Hook because there's some grander conspiracy but also Alex needs you to know that there's a second shooter that he believes is still on the lam.
I think he could, but then I think, you know, he's in for a penny, in for a pound, and he's already in the middle of this lawsuit, so why not make the persecution even greater?
So this is an article on Skeptoid, which is a blog post that Alex is trying to use to justify his arguments that there was a drill that overlapped with the shooting at Sandy Hook.
The article does point out that there was a shooter drill in Bridgeport, Connecticut that day, but that's a completely different city.
Also, Alex might not want to draw people's attention to this article, as it very clearly says the idea that attacks and drills are related.
It says this of that, quote, This entire theory seems to have caught fire thanks to a post from Alex Jones acolyte Mike Adams trying to turn a tragedy into a conspiracy.
It goes on to say, It goes on to say, While the headline that Alex reads seems to look good for Alex's point, the body of the article is actually a condemnation of his worldview and the way he and his team try and exploit tragedies.
This isn't suspicious at all, this article that Alex is pointing to.
This was, you know, the attack, the shooting.
It was an attack where 28 people were murdered at a school.
This article came out on February 5th, 2013, only 54 days after the shooting.
So it's very reasonable to believe that the investigation was still very much ongoing at that point.
As to the idea that the DA thought there were multiple suspects, that's not totally accurate based on the article.
The article goes on to, quote, Public Affairs Officer Lieutenant Paul Vance as saying, quote, As I said, we're going to look at every single thing, every piece of material, and we'll take it from there.
The article explains that the DA was concerned about unsealing warrants related to the case because it would, quote, identify persons cooperating with the investigation, which could be dangerous for them.
What if their names got out and some crazy conspiracy website would just go and, like, give their names out and maybe publish their addresses and make sure people thought that they were...
He didn't specifically say that it was dangerous because the secret other shooter would get them.
He was saying just generally it could be a threat to their safety.
And as you're pointing out, by February 5th, 2013, the conspiracies about Sandy Hook were already running full steam ahead.
This isn't the basis for a conspiracy theory, and honestly, the conspiracy theories flying around are pretty strong arguments for not releasing those people's names, as you very easily were able to suss out.
Now, the idea they do talk about in the article, the idea that there could be other possible suspects, but it's not necessarily even clear if they're talking about other suspects in the shooting or possibly an investigation into where these guns came from.
Or something like that.
The idea of online contacts he could have had.
Suspect doesn't mean suspect in the shooting, necessarily.
More suspect of a larger investigation is another entirely sensible interpretation of that article.
So, at this point, Alex plays that video of the helicopter footage of the three cops running together that appears to be a chase because one of them is dressed differently than the other two.
On the one hand, I think this is kind of funny, but on the other hand, it's pretty scary about what the consequences that could come of this could be.
Based on Alex's behavior over the past weeks, I'm pretty convinced that Alex Jones in 2019 is confused about what happened in late 2012 and early 2013.
I get the sense that he doesn't remember the arguments he made back then about Sandy Hook, most likely because he just can't get himself to give a shit.
Because he was confronted about making up stuff about SWAT members in the woods in his deposition, he feels compelled to go back and confirm to himself that he wasn't just making that up, which on its own is a pretty good impulse, I think.
Go check on yourself.
So he goes back, and he finds the video of the three cops running in the woods that looks like a chase.
He finds this video of a man saying he saw the police walking a guy in camo pants to a squad car.
He finds these quote-unquote anomalies that led him down that road to begin with.
All of these things are examples of pieces of content that were taken out of context and spun into conspiracy.
The helicopter footage of the three cops doesn't show an arrest.
That was very clearly a misunderstanding.
The man in camo pants was not the same person and also has been explained.
A responsible way for Alex to cover this would be to show these things and explain to his audience how he and so many others had got it wrong.
It wouldn't jeopardize his legal case right now at all, and it would still achieve his desired result of making the argument that he wasn't making things up.
The deposition was wrong about him.
He had something that he was basing these things on.
He was just responding to people who they got it wrong.
That would be totally fine.
It wouldn't be humiliating at all.
It would be a sensible way to present this like, these people in this New York Times article are lying about me.
Now, I was wrong about the conclusions that we were led to, but it was based on this, this, and this.
You can hear him saying that he still thinks that there's a second shooter and that something is up there.
I just worry that what's happening is that Alex watched this helicopter video and his response wasn't, we got that wrong, but our intentions were good.
Oh my god, I was wrong to stop talking about this.
I think because he doesn't care, he's forgotten that these things are all explained already because there's an energy behind him talking about this helicopter footage.
There's an energy behind him talking about this DA and the multiple shooters argument.
There's an energy behind the drills and attacks confluence argument that he's making.
That I'm worried, I don't know if he's going to, but I'm worried this is going to transition into a new, much like the pee tape is reborn, Alex's Sandy Hook denial is going to.
But it's really weird because when I heard him first say much earlier in the episode that I found all the stuff that proves that I wasn't lying and so I was like, you're never going to play that shit.
And then he plays it and I'm like...
Wow, you're not explaining why you were wrong about this.
He was talking about, like, you know, I know that, you know...
You know, Trump is maligned here and what have you, but you're being delusional if you're looking at this report and you're not imagining Obama's name in there instead of Trump and how fucking furious everyone on your side would be.
And Alex just can't handle that, so he's like, well, you know, it's not obstruction.
He just did these things because he was mad because of people calling them names.
He's probably most notable for releasing a movie called The Trump Prophecy in 2018.
The movie was based on a book he wrote about how God told him back in 2011 that Trump was going to become president and that his election was ordained by God.
Interestingly, this book came out on August 23, 2017, and I can find no evidence he ever shared this prophecy with the world until after it had come true, which is not suspicious at all.
Taylor claims his prophecy that Trump would become president was confirmed to him when he heard a train horn during Antonin Scalia's funeral.
Quote, if you go back to Antonin Scalia's funeral, when they were carrying his body up the steps, there were two signs that were given by God that the confirmation of Merrick Garland was not going to happen.
The two signs that were given, there was a reverence there.
It was very quiet, and there was a siren in the background at the bottom of the steps.
Well, when they got to the top of the steps, the siren fades away, and all of a sudden you hear this enormous train horn.
And what the Lord was saying was, don't fear, Amer.
His YouTube channel, Mark Taylor's YouTube channel that this lady apparently watches is only five months old and appears to be mostly about QAnon, which is great.
He's legitimately a completely insane QAnon guy.
Just last month he released this prophecy.
The Lord's been telling me that there's another one coming, another Trump coming.
I had a dream this morning, and in the dream I saw Donald Trump Jr.
It was just a really quick snippet of it, but I knew there was an emphasis on Jr.
And then I thought, hmm, JFK Jr.
I knew it had something to do with JFK Jr.
And he goes on to say that Donald Trump Jr. and JFK Jr. are going to run together.
Another big problem for the DJT situation going on here is that even in Mueller's report, Donald Trump Jr. is not investigated and indicted simply because he's probably too dumb to have committed the crime.
An article on Christian Broadcasting Network's website about the Trump prophecy includes a quote from Rick Eldridge, the producer of the movie.
Quote, we have such a divided nation right now, so I hope this film can be a way to maybe point towards healing.
Personally, I would suggest that making a movie about how an unpopular leader is actually in office because of the will of God and that people who are against him are enemies of God would be the last thing you'd want to do if you were interested in healing.
That's something you might do if you were interested in installing a theocracy, which is totally what people like Mark Taylor and Jim Baker actively argue for.
Argue that Trump is the leader that will lead us out of the desert?
You know, all that sort of shit?
What are his political beliefs?
Well, this global world government that's demonic is going to put us in FEMA camps to install their power, but now that's actually really good because we can do it to them.
All you see in the aftermath of Notre Dame is Alex trying to make everything about Muslims, and all you have in the aftermath of Mueller is a very predictable, this is a cover-up for what Hillary Clinton was doing.
Like I said, if it were a sketch, it would be fucking hilarious.
If there weren't consequences for people's lives, it would be very, very funny that this stupid asshole forgot the conspiracies that he was telling and then went back and was like...