PBD - Patrick Bet-David - "Leave Epstein Alone?" - Anna Paulina Luna: Epstein Files, JFK Russia Intel, Trump's Butler Cover-Up

Oct. 23, 2025 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

02:50:48

"Leave Epstein Alone?" - Anna Paulina Luna: Epstein Files, JFK Russia Intel, Trump's Butler Cover-Up

Patrick Bet-David sits down with Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna for an explosive conversation on the Epstein files, new JFK intelligence from Russia, and claims of a cover-up involving Trump’s former White House staff. ------ 👞 GET THE NEW FLB 1'S: https://bit.ly/4mXV9gd Ⓜ️ PBD PODCAST CIRCLES: https://bit.ly/4mAWQAP 🥃 BOARDROOM CIGAR LOUNGE: https://bit.ly/4pzLEXj 🍋 ZEST IT FORWARD: https://bit.ly/4kJ71lc 📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": https://bit.ly/41rtEV4 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g57zR2 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A Ⓜ️ CONNECT ON MINNECT: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4kSVkso 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: https://bit.ly/4lzQph2 📰 VTNEWS.AI: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3OExClZ 🎓 VALUETAINMENT UNIVERSITY: https://bit.ly/3TEWlZQ 📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or 💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! TIME STAMPS: 00:00 - Intro 01:50 - JFK Files & Russia 13:23 - Military Industrial Complex & NATO 30:39 - Oversight Committee & Epstein 01:06:35 - Insider Trading 01:14:30 - AOC, Katie Porter & Gavin Newsom 01:25:12 - What Happened To Charlie Kirk? 01:46:36 - 2020 Elections 01:59:09 - UFO and UAP Disclosure 02:32:38 - Ilhan Omar defends Trump SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @ValuetainmentComedy @theunusualsuspectspodcast @HerTakePod @bizdocpodcast ABOUT US: Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	When you came in, you said, look, here's what we're going to be doing.
	MLK, RFK, JFK, Epstein, UAP, 9-11, everything.
	And I hear you got some stuff here to show.
	It was actually the president of Russia that decided to declassify this.
	Who doesn't want this to be out?
	It's bullshit that it's not illegal to do this.
	No, I've seen this.
	We invited him to the podcast.
	Oh, well, if you get him to town, let me know because we're going to come arrest them.
	That's big.
	That was just announced right now.
	You can pull it up right now and you should show it to your viewers.
	Can you actually ask for them to allow you to go to Area 51 or no?
	We've asked Burleson actually got permission for us to go, not speculating based on the evidence that I've seen.
	There's something out there.
	And based on what I'm saying is it's not, it does confirm what the Bible talks about of there being other creations.
	So did anybody call you, tell you, leave Epstein alone?
	I have to be careful because I could get in trouble if I divulge what I've been shown in a skiff.
	Really?
	Why?
	Like, I'm not the person that usually starts fights.
	finish them.
	The future looks bright.
	That table.
	Handshake is better than anything I ever saw.
	It's right here.
	I don't think I've ever said this before.
	WWE for politics or something like that.
	I'm hiring Katie Porter.
	I am a big fan for Katie Porter.
	Anyways, it's great to finally have you on.
	Nice to see you too.
	Thank you for having me.
	Yes.
	So this is thanks to the shutdown, if I'm not mistaken, right?
	The government shutdown that we have here.
	And I hear you got some stuff here to show.
	Is that true?
	I do.
	Yeah.
	So I actually just received these last week.
	So I went to Charlie Kirk's Memorial in DC at the White House.
	And these files have been months in the making.
	So a lot of people were like, is this just happening right now because of the Trump, Putin, Budapest talks?
	But what people don't realize is right as soon as I got the task force, I connected with an individual by the name of Jefferson Morley.
	So he would be a subject matter expert on the Kennedy assassination.
	And he made me aware of these documents as well as a witness that we had in our testimony.
	So I basically was like, I'm going to try to get these documents.
	In the 90s, Congress had tried to obtain them and ultimately failed.
	The Russian government denied access to them.
	And so I picked up the phone and called my staff, told them to get a meeting set up with the ambassador to Russia.
	And it's crazy when you pick up the phone, you ask for things.
	We ended up getting those files.
	And they had been promised around the fall, winter timeframe, and they did deliver on that.
	This is the whole story about the old USSR and JFK.
	So what have you learned from it so far?
	Well, so there's about 380 pages.
	And so we did our rough translation through Chat GBT.
	But the thing is, is that there's a lot that, as you know, if you, I mean, I assume you're bilingual.
	There's a lot that can be lost in translation.
	And so we have experts that are going through it right now to get even just the smallest inclinations that we might have missed.
	But ultimately, it's actually confirming a lot of what we already knew and kind of filling in the mosaic that's been created by these declassified files.
	A lot of people are like, why do you care so much about going back and rehashing or opening up the Kennedy files?
	And the thing is, is that up until really President Trump took office and then did the final executive order and up until the CIA followed through with it, which we know for 60 years, the CIA hadn't until Director Radcliffe, ultimately the people didn't actually know what happened.
	So the American people had this feeling that the government was lying to them.
	And I would say that if you're looking at historically kind of the way and really where the distrust starts in this country, it's when Kennedy's assassinated.
	Shortly thereafter, you have the assassination of Dr. King and then of RFK.
	And the thing is, is that what we know now for a fact is that the CIA did intentionally lie to Congress, did intentionally try to stop the investigations or prevent evidence from coming out.
	The Warren Commission.
	This was previous to this.
	This is previous to this, and then I'll tell you, yeah, but you have to know the backstory to kind of know these files.
	So what we also know is that the Warren Commission, which was set up by Congress to actually investigate and provide the American people transparency, actually, in my opinion, was a sham committee.
	And they're pushing a narrative to kind of wrap this up nicely, put it away, and not talk about it anymore.
	And that's because, in my opinion, the U.S. government was implicated in the assassination of Kennedy.
	We have witness testimony that proves Kennedy was shot from both the front and behind, meaning that there were multiple shooters.
	Also, the fact that you actually have documentation from an individual by the name of George Johnides that the CIA declassified that proved that he had lied to Congress.
	He was actually embedded as a liaison to the CIA.
	So there's a lot there that implicates potentially a small faction within the CIA operating rogue and responsible for the assassination.
	So what this does is it fills in the questions that we had in this mosaic of, well, what was the Soviets' perspective?
	And what we found out is that people knew that Kennedy did not want war, right?
	He was doing everything that he could to prevent a nuclear arms exchange.
	But what a lot of people don't know is how close he was to the then Soviet president.
	And so after the assassination took place, the president ultimately decided to do his own investigation to really see what happened and presented these findings to the U.S. government at the funeral for Kennedy.
	And we never got those declassified files because I believe that whoever got those documents destroyed them.
	And so ultimately when they transferred over these files, a lot of them contained wires directly from the embassy to Moscow talking about what was happening.
	They were scared to pieces that the United States was going to use this as a means of essentially starting a kinetic fight with Russia, which thank goodness they didn't.
	However, it's interesting because this is being declassified now, of which we didn't have any idea that the Putin-Trump talks would be happening or Budapest or any of that.
	But it's interesting because Trump, in a way, is continuing and almost finalizing Kennedy's legacy for peace.
	And you see that because everything that he's saying right now with not wanting to escalate the war between Russia and Ukraine, continuously calling for those talks for the first time since the 90s, really being a president that's picking up the phone and trying to engage in open dialogue and potentially even talking about a trade deal with Russia.
	And that's really ultimately what Kennedy was also doing.
	So it's very interesting that this is coming out at this point in time.
	But there's going to be article dropping soon on this.
	There's going to be an article dropping soon on this.
	So is this, do we have a clue or an idea of who it was that got this, that got rid of it?
	Is there any speculation on who could have been?
	So what I was told by the ambassador, by the way, you should just take a look at these.
	So these are not the translated.
	That's directly as I got them from the embassy.
	And there's only two other copies that exist.
	One was given to Representative Burleson and one was given to Representative Ogles as a thank you for being one of the first three members of Congress to meet with the Russians since the 90s.
	So I put together the meeting.
	But just to put it in perspective, and I'll answer your question in a second, Congress is so broken that our first and foremost job should be continuing open dialogue with people to avoid war, right?
	And since the 90s, they have not really had much interaction with members of Congress.
	And then we can get into like the 2016 Russia collusion and how that really fractured foreign policy.
	But the point is, is that all of that to say that, you know, regarding who potentially would have pulled the trigger, whatever it might have been, what this shows is, I believe, you know, a potential of a relationship that could have existed.
	Like check out that photo for a second that you just scrolled past.
	So that was supposed to be a bridge going into Russia.
	And of course, Kirill Dmitriev, who's a special envoy to President Putin, I'm going to be meeting with him.
	And he had actually posted about this.
	But the reason I'm doing that is because, again, our job should be first and foremost to advocate for peace.
	That's unbelievable.
	Yeah.
	So this is this is the picture right there, right?
	Between Alaska and Russia.
	Which, by the way, I think I've heard Trump bring this up recently.
	It was a question that was brought up, I think, in the Oval.
	They asked him about it.
	And I think the question was, would Elon Musk use boring company to do a tunnel?
	Which I think that if there's the potential for trade, you're talking about a multi-trillion dollar trade deal.
	I think one of the few companies actually currently sells in Russia is the Mars company.
	But we're talking about the ability to really decouple Russia from China when there's no reason that we need to be enemies with these people.
	The Cold War has been over.
	But I think really since Kennedy was assassinated, this boogeyman was created about Russia.
	And then ultimately, after really Bill Clinton got out and Bush, you see Obama didn't really have a great relationship.
	And then we saw the 2016 Russia collusion hoax that ultimately permanently, I believe, fractured foreign policy with Russia because you still have half of Americans believing that Russia interfered in the election.
	Not to say that we shouldn't, you know, always be cautious, but at the end of the day, why would you be trying to alienate a superpower when in actuality we can be opening up trade to them?
	Didn't Kissinger said like two, we have to, it's got to be two against one.
	Like we have to have one of them be the enemy of the other one.
	So Russia or China pick and choose one of them.
	It can't be them two against us or all three on the same page.
	I think that's something that Kissinger said many years ago.
	I haven't heard that, but if he did, I mean, I would personally say that right now we have a lot of issues at home.
	I would prefer not to be any enemies with anyone, but I do also see the flip side where, you know, you have countries like China, who in my opinion, China is a bigger threat to the United States than Russia is.
	China engages in bought farms.
	They're brainwashing our youth.
	You saw what happened with TikTok, the private data mining.
	I mean, I would not be surprised if they had different programs to track people's potential to potentially eliminate those people in the future if they think that they're going to be a threat to the rise of China.
	I mean, I think it's definitely a problem.
	And then we're seeing the foreign funding tie where China's actively engaging in the civil unrest in this country.
	And we actually tracked that down to, I called them the Timu riots, but those ICE riots that you saw happening where these people were walking out with these brand new, you know, unfolded Mexican flags.
	Well, why was it not a Honduran flag?
	Or, you know, why is it specifically Mexican?
	It's because the largest voting minority in this country right now, starting in 2016 onward, is Hispanic Americans of Mexican descent.
	So they tried to take that one issue instead of the George Floyd riots of the previous presidential President Trump term, it's now the ICE riots.
	Well, they don't really give a crap about these immigrants.
	If they did, they wouldn't want the human trafficking and the open borders and the exploitation of corporation and all that.
	But it gets into a very big issue when you have these billionaires that are foreign agents, not registered, funding these riots that are getting violent.
	And then obviously it goes into even what happened with the armed queers of Salt Lake City.
	They were also funded by Neville Singham, who is funding these ICE riots.
	And we know that potentially they're being investigated for having connection to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
	There's a lot to be unpacked there.
	It's a lot of different things.
	We can go into it.
	And I want to.
	I really want to.
	But by the way, for the audience, I just want to share with them.
	Everything here is in Russian.
	Okay.
	So this is all Russian written with dates, November 23rd, 1963, November 25th.
	And then it takes stuff to 1990, 1995, 1973.
	So have you guys already gone through this?
	Like, have you gotten a summary of this in it?
	I've done a summary loosely on ChatGPT.
	And a lot of these are cables.
	So when you actually run it through the program, it compresses down a lot more.
	And then there's also some handwritten notes that we knew existed from Jacqueline Kennedy to the president of Russia.
	And then also two from Lee Harvey Oswald, which is interesting.
	And a story will be coming out about that note specifically because Lee Harvey Oswald had written the Russian government that his wife had been, and I want to be correct in phrasing this, but from my understanding, he had written the Russian government that his wife had been recruited and approached or attempted to be recruited by the FBI.
	And we know historically that the FBI and the CIA had always denied having connection to Lee Harvey Oswald, but we see that that wasn't necessarily the case.
	And so if you want to really ask me about Lee Harvey Oswald, I mean, even in what I've looked through in the translations, they thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was not mentally stable or capable of carrying out the assassination in the way that they had painted him out to be.
	I think it's very possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was Apache and that he was framed.
	And I think that he was murdered because of that framing.
	So to get that, to get your by the way, you continue here.
	There's letters to other people.
	There's a Kohler.
	I'm trying to see who this Kohler person is.
	Yeah, I mean, it's a fascinating.
	We actually uploaded these directly, and then I got chirped at.
	They're like, how do you know that this isn't Russian disinformation?
	And I was like, well, that's where we have our experts who are both, you know, Democrats and Republicans looking through this.
	And we actually reached out to a few outlets because there is an NSC advisor to Clinton that actually went through and he's like, no, these are legitimate documents.
	These are not propaganda.
	And really what it's showing us is that there was open dialogue for peace.
	They did not want war.
	And ultimately, Russia was afraid of being blamed for the assassination.
	And then even in Russia's own findings, they actually say that it was likely intelligence, American intelligence, that led to the assassination of Kennedy, in addition to right-wing.
	And if you think about right-wing back then, it was that bloc that was pushing the anti-communism, which granted communism is not good.
	But if you think about the situation, yeah, the McCarthyism, if you think about the position that Kennedy was in, Kennedy was really considered a progressive in the sense that everyone surrounding him wanted war.
	Right after he was assassinated, LBJ went right into Vietnam.
	He didn't want that.
	He didn't want to go to war with Russia, but he was also greatly outnumbered within his own cabinet.
	And in the sense that he had no allies, I think that he was easy to pick off.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't trust Lyndon Johnson for nothing.
	Oh, no, he was like the one that benefited the most from the Russian.
	Benefited the most.
	And the more and more you read about the guy, the guy was a full-on scumbag.
	He was a dirty guy.
	He was a dirty guy.
	And, you know, the benefiting, all that others, how quickly he's like, yes, Jackie's looking like, what are we doing?
	Yeah, we got to move.
	We got to move.
	I'm the president now.
	And it was, they couldn't stand the whole Catholic, all the stuff that was going on at that time.
	They were worried that the Kennedy family was going to be running it for many years.
	And by the way, as a case study, the Kennedy last name and the Trump, that's a very close case study.
	Yeah, they're like both anti-Semitism.
	They're all dynasties.
	Both political dynasties.
	Trump's kids are young.
	Eric, Ivanka, you got Don, and you got Barron.
	This could be age.
	And Baron's too.
	That guy is like.
	He's one of a kind.
	Yeah, he's already doing pretty good for himself.
	He's already doing very good.
	He's funny.
	He's witty.
	He's intense.
	It's funny because I had Eric Trump on, and there's a clip where Barron at the inauguration walks up to Biden and he says, whispers something in his ears.
	And everybody thinks he says it's on or something like that, right?
	And Eric says, man, let me check with Baron to see what it says.
	And apparently he says it's an honor.
	He didn't say it's on.
	And Eric says.
	He's a very well-raised case.
	He's a very well-raised kid.
	I agree.
	So let's go back to this.
	So you hear the stories.
	John F. Kennedy wants to denuclearize us and Russia.
	He wants to avoid a full-fledged arms exchange, yes.
	Full-fledged arm exchange, right?
	Who doesn't want that?
	Is that the military-industrial complex?
	Is that also what it was that Eisenhower kept referring to?
	Are you saying back then or now?
	Back then.
	Okay, so back then, I would have to say it was the military-industrial complex.
	So factions of the intelligence community that genuinely believed that Kennedy was likely a communist sympathizer because he was openly engaging in these dialogues.
	What's interesting is when you're looking about, I think, like the main differences now, and the reason I keep contrasting is because there's striking similarities now to back then, but it's almost like history is correcting itself for the wrongdoings of the past.
	You actually have this aspect of social media that's been able to almost inoculate against the massive smear campaigns from the military industrial complex versus back then, you know, when people did stand up against us, the first thing that they had to fear was the printing press.
	Well, we all know now that, you know, even the Washington Post back then was a mouthpiece for the CIA, probably still is.
	But because they didn't have social media, you really were at the almost, you know, mercy of these intelligence agencies if you did not go along with what they wanted.
	Back then.
	Back then.
	Okay, so this, you got, who doesn't want this to be out?
	I think a lot of people were hesitant of it.
	And rightfully, rightfully, I think, you know, questioning about the timing, but a lot of people are like, well, how did you manage?
	You know, we've been trying to get this for years.
	Like, how all of a sudden did you go in and grab this?
	Well, it's called I Picked Up the Phone and I Asked For Them and I met in person.
	And I think there's a lot, you know, I can now understand how world wars start because I've worked with some of these old walruses in Washington.
	And sometimes they don't want to talk to each other or it's a pride thing.
	And I am a lot younger than the Cold War is.
	And so I was able to pick up the phone and talk to the ambassador and he met with me.
	And it was actually the president of Russia that decided to declassify this in an attempt also to provide transparency with what President Trump did with his executive order.
	Let's play devil's advocate.
	So if we play devil's advocate on how they would manipulate this, and maybe they make it up and they mix it up in their own way and not release 100% information to you.
	Let's just say they're trying to do something like that.
	Who would they want to make the enemy to create a division in America?
	Because I don't know if I wake up in the morning, especially right now with everything's going on.
	I mean, just last night, you got the drone attacks 18 hours ago, 19 hours ago.
	I don't know if you saw the clips or not.
	No, in Kiev.
	In Kiev, right?
	So, you know, Russia, Ukraine, the videos just released.
	Rob, I texted you one of the clips if you want to pull it up.
	CNN just posted it.
	It's all over the place.
	And then you hear President Trump putting the sanctions, increasing sanctions, then giving long-range missiles, not the Tomahawks, but the long-range, not giving, but allowing Ukraine to use the, this is just yesterday, Rob.
	I think he actually put out a truth social tweet and I actually put it on my social.
	So he, to my understanding, said that that was fake news, the Washington Post about the long-range missile stuff.
	So I would just confirm that.
	He said that it's not.
	Okay, can you pull that up, Rob?
	That's good, because two days ago they said that he did.
	But it was around the same time because he, in the same press conference, had talked about why Budapest was off.
	And he also said, I don't think that we're at where we need to be at in regards to either a ceasefire or a peace deal.
	But then he also, too, at the same time had stated that they're going to increase sanctions.
	Well, it's your journal story on USA approval of Ukraine and being allowed to use the long-range missiles deep into Russia's fake news.
	The U.S. has nothing to do with these missiles, wherever they may come from, or what Ukraine does with them.
	So he so then where would they get it from?
	Probably from NATO.
	So NATO is funding the Ukrainian government right now in regards to the munitions that they're getting.
	And this gets really complicated.
	So I actually went to the EU and I met with the European Union, which, by the way, interesting story there.
	I was on a delegation.
	And, you know, there's a lot of countries that they have really crappy economies and they're pushing for this war, ironically enough.
	You know why they're doing that.
	Of course.
	But then there's also representatives that are more conservative leaning in the EU that want nothing to do with war with Ukraine.
	And it's interesting because I even went to Romania.
	I met with the president there.
	I met with their parliament.
	I went to Moldova.
	I met with their president, their parliament.
	No one wants war that's having to deal with this on their doorstep.
	It's only the countries that are like hundreds or thousands of miles away that are like, heck, yeah, let's continue this.
	Zelensky, I think, is, you know, he's not doing right by his own people.
	He hasn't held elections since the war started.
	We had elections during our Civil War.
	You're telling me that you can't hold elections.
	I think that he doesn't want to take a loss.
	And so he's looking at peace as a loss.
	But I think that that's terrible leadership because you should look at peace as a win, especially when you've had that many people that have died.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't trust them at all, but President Trump seems to be in the middle right now, trying to figure this thing out, the peace deal.
	And this one seems to be complicated.
	I think after, Rob, can you pull up the call that they had after the two-hour call I think the President Trump had, President Trump got upset yesterday.
	Something happened with the sanctions.
	Can you pull up the sanction story that I think literally just happened?
	So it seems like he's in the middle and neither one of the sides.
	Yeah, he's not wanting this to escalate because I think he shares the same sentiment that many of the American people do and that we need to index war and that this can't continue.
	And also, too, I think that there's this aspect of, you know, he realized, you know, President Trump, yes, he's a president, but also remember he's a dad.
	He has a lot of kids.
	He has a lot of grandkids.
	And he's seeing how many people are dying.
	And I think that when you're in a position of power, especially at his level, you have to weigh the decisions that you're making.
	And he understands that ultimately when you die, you have to answer for those decisions.
	And so he wants to be, I think, rightfully so, known as the peace president.
	I think that that's why he's been able to accomplish eight of those peace deals.
	And I think that they'll be number nine soon.
	Oh, I believe, I believe as well.
	But I think in this point, he's in the middle.
	And, you know, Russia's probably, Putin's probably like, wait a minute, why are you allowing them?
	Are you giving long-range missions?
	No, I did in NATO.
	Are you doing this?
	And then Zelensky's like, well, I thought they're not going to do this.
	Why are they attacking us?
	And I'm assuming there's calls taking place.
	Why thought you're not going to do this?
	What are you doing?
	If you do this, I'm going to give you sanctions.
	I had to do it.
	You don't understand.
	Why are you taking their side?
	I'm assuming he's in the middle of this, trying to get the two to get along.
	That, and also, too, he does have a commanding presence in NATO.
	But NATO, again, has been pushing for this.
	And they have this same Cold War era perspective when in actuality they shouldn't.
	Kudos to the president of Hungary.
	He's been the one saying like, hey, you know, the EU, NATO needs to chill out.
	And that's why he agreed to host the peace summit, which is, I think, they'll wait till they for sure have a deal to then go meet.
	And so a lot of people are like, oh, he's backing out because, you know, he's going to back you.
	That's not what he's doing.
	President Trump is probably the best negotiator.
	And it's funny seeing a lot of people speculate.
	But you can actually hear everything that he's saying.
	He does not want to escalate it.
	He wants Putin to stop striking Kyiv and wants to index the war in Ukraine.
	But he also understands that, you know, Zelensky is asking for tomahawk missiles.
	I'll tell you, I actually did meet because I usually like to listen to both sides of the argument.
	So I actually went to Poland and I met with the Ukrainian parliament when I first got elected.
	And I was absolutely disgusted by how some of the members expected Americans to be funding that war, but then also to what I was told, what they were going to do with the weapons that we were giving them after the war.
	And it was funny because I was one of the very vocal supporters against the Ukraine war and funding for early on before it was considered politically cool.
	And I had reporters that would reach out to me all the time trying to trash me on my position saying that I was, you know, going to be responsible for Russia rolling into Poland and taking over Europe.
	And I would tell them this story.
	So I was actually told, and it wasn't just me, it was other members of our delegation that were with us, and it was a bipartisan delegation, that they were going to take the munitions that we were giving them, and they're essentially going to start a private mercenary army similar to the Wagner group.
	I don't think that's what we should be funding.
	Sorry, I just don't.
	And so I would tell these reporters and they wouldn't print it.
	And so they eventually stopped asking me about it.
	And then as this war is continuing, you're seeing actually war fatigue happen.
	A majority of Americans are like, okay, like this needs to index.
	But you still hear people, even people in Washington, that have this mentality and perspective that we need to continue that war.
	And I kept noticing not one member of Congress was reaching out to help support the president's positions for peace talks to the Russian government.
	They're all going to take selfies with Zelensky.
	They're all going to Ukraine.
	Not one member until I picked up the phone, coincidentally enough, talking about this.
	And then I was like, you know what?
	There has to be a counterweight to all this argument, like to actually open up and show that there is actually a demographic of Americans that want peace and don't necessarily buy into this whole mindset.
	I'm also not on house armed services.
	I'm also not funded by the defense industry.
	So there's that too.
	Yeah.
	So just a clip, by the way, if you want to play that, this is the drone that happened 17 hours ago.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	That's in Kiev.
	So Russia launches large security airstrike.
	Yeah.
	But by the way, Ukraine is the true drone expert.
	They've launched, I think, half a million.
	The way they build them as quickly as they do, I think some 60% of drones are produced in Ukraine at the pace that they're going.
	And then just 15 minutes ago, if you want to go to the one of 15 minutes ago, Rob, of what happened with China pausing state oil major suspense, Russian oil buys due to sanctions sources say this is 15 minutes ago with the sanctions that the president put on.
	So let me ask you, when you ask for this, how much after you asked, how much longer after you asked for it, did you get it from the president?
	So I asked for it when I first got the task force after our first hearing.
	So that must have been at least over six months ago.
	But even then, I actually had talked about it on Chris Cuomo.
	And I'm glad that I did because a lot of people were like, oh, this is, you know, Russian propaganda.
	And I was like, what, for peace?
	Like, I don't know about that.
	And they told me that I would be receiving it around fall, Christmas timeframe, and they delivered.
	That's when I got it.
	So six months.
	About a little bit more.
	To get it.
	Okay.
	So have you already seen anything in it that would be disruptive if released?
	No.
	And actually, I already posted it publicly, so people can go through it.
	We're all adults.
	You can decide.
	All of it.
	All of it is public already.
	Yeah.
	And it's interesting.
	People are like, well, what if this is Russian propaganda?
	I said, well, first of all, either which way, people are exposed to foreign propaganda all the time online.
	Like if you don't think that there's something called your mind and make up your mind.
	Yeah, make up your mind.
	I know critical thinking is lacking these days, but use critical thinking.
	But also to the experts that have gone through it who are subject matter experts on the Kennedy, if it's false, there will be holes.
	But there could be nothing more damaging than what our own government has released in declassifying the files saying that our CIA lied to Congress, covered up evidence, that the Warren Commission was threatening witnesses, that there were multiple shooters.
	I mean, how much more damaging can that be?
	I just, I think people that make that argument are afraid of maybe, and it's cognitive dissidents, I think, sometimes.
	But you should look at both sides and decide for yourself.
	I'm not telling what you think, but what I am telling you is I would much rather have a world where we're not killing each other and all economically benefiting than the latter.
	Yeah, when you said 90, right after the assassination, previous to that, the mainstream media had the highest level of trust from the American people.
	74% the number was, 73, 74%.
	It's at the lowest ever.
	I think it's like 24, 26% today, Rob, if you want to zoom in.
	Well, it's gotten worse as what happened in 2016.
	We know now with the declassified Russia gate documents.
	But it's sad because a lot of people have cognitive dissonance to where they're so programmed that even when you show them the truth with the facts, they just don't believe it.
	And that's really the fault 100%.
	The media's to blame, yes, but it's really the fault of those politicians that chose to do that.
	When I first got elected, I actually went after Adam Schiff and tried to censure him.
	I was told by our own House leadership at the time that what I was doing was unconstitutional.
	It couldn't be done.
	Yet I had read through the rule manual twice.
	And so I knew they were lying to me.
	And so I did it anyways.
	And initially, I also knew that I could find Adam Schiff or the House of Representatives could find him a fraction of what he cost the American taxpayer dollars, which was $32 million with the Russia hoax stuff.
	That was the estimated sum that it cost.
	And so that could have been paid by his campaign.
	That didn't have to be paid personally.
	It wouldn't talk his wages.
	But you even had people that were trying to say it was unconstitutional.
	And in actuality, it wasn't, but they didn't even want to go to fight that.
	The fact is, is that they wanted to let him off.
	So when the American people found out that there were Republican members of Congress actually going to protect Schiff for what he did, they were pissed.
	And so they started phoning their phone lines.
	And those representatives ultimately ended up voting to, you know, to censure him.
	But he was one of the worst.
	He was one of the worst.
	He says, I know for a fact.
	I mean, he says this when he came out, I don't know who he was on, whether it was Maddow or Cuomo or whoever it was on.
	It's like, nope, we have, what's the word he used?
	Evidence.
	They had evidence.
	And he was doing that as the chair of intelligence community.
	Unbelievable.
	Yeah.
	So he, so a censure is a lot more than just a worry.
	I mean, it's literally you're bringing dishonor on the House of Representatives.
	And there can be punitive action.
	But what's interesting about that too is the backstory was I wasn't successful the first time.
	Mind you, I was about eight months pregnant.
	I was about to pop.
	I had a busted foot, so I was rolling around.
	So I really looked, you know, kind of helpless when I was in DC.
	So I'm rolling around the Capitol and I'm coming off the floor after this first foot had failed.
	And he's out there with, you know, like Forbes magazine, the Wall Street Journal.
	They're like, Mr. Schiff, you know, how do you feel?
	You've been exonerated.
	You're not going to be censured.
	He's like, well, you know, these MAGA extremists, this sat and the other.
	And I told him point blank, I rolled up to him with my busted foot and big old belly.
	And I was like, I'm going to, you know, I might have not gotten you this time, but I'm going to get you next week.
	And I'm refiling on Monday.
	And then I rolled away.
	And then I censured him the following week.
	And it was funny because to this day, the only other action I had with Adam Schiff was he was coming to the presidential address when Trump got elected.
	And he walked through the House chamber and I was sitting right on the edge waiting for the president.
	He was right there.
	And I was like, how are you doing, Adam?
	And he goes, fine, how are you?
	And I said, you know, like I basically got you.
	And I was like, you're going to go down in history as a documented liar.
	And I told him this.
	And Tim Burchett was sitting right next to me.
	And he goes, well, I'll go down to history, but so will you.
	And I said, but for different things.
	And so that was kind of our exchange.
	This was on the evening of the president's first address to Congress.
	And so like, those are the conversations that you don't hear about and the behind the scenes.
	But the fact is, is that if you can lie like that, you know, he's not, he's not going to be a good person.
	Good for you for addressing this guy.
	I mean, there's a lot of words you can use for him.
	By the way, who else is as dark as he is?
	Is he one of the darkest guys?
	He's pretty bad.
	There's a couple on our own side too that are pretty bad.
	But he's probably one of the worst.
	And I'd say he's one of the worst because if you look at what he did, you know, how many people don't talk to family members because of what he pushed, right?
	Him, Obama, Hillary Clinton.
	How many people like have cut off friends?
	All of that.
	I mean, like, if you think about the fracture, but then also there's this aspect of foreign policy, literally responsible for potentially starting a war with Russia over that.
	Like, that's just insane.
	That's your sociopath.
	But now, some people, so here's the reason why you have a big fan base in this building.
	You know, people, people lost it when he came in here.
	Oh, my God.
	I just met her.
	You're going to be lining up afterwards to take pictures, but you're going around on the scooter of my, they're telling me you're the scooter, my daughter's scooter and all this.
	She's also so cool and she's chill.
	She's awesome.
	But I think the reason why people were excited about you when you first came in is you said something.
	You said something recently.
	You said the benefit of being young, you know, you want to be a statesman and you said you don't want to be in it for long.
	You said in about 10 years, I'm going to be out.
	I think you may have said it on Joe.
	Yeah.
	I don't know where it was when you said it, but you said this recently.
	It's not a long-term thing for me.
	So it's not a long-term thing you want to do.
	But when you came in, you said, look, here's what we're going to be doing.
	Over, you know, you were the oversight.
	I think you were on the oversight committee.
	So you got MLK, RFK, JFK, Epstein, UAP.
	You know, what else did you add to that list?
	9-11, everything that you.
	All the things we all have questions about.
	All the things we have questions about, right?
	When you made that.
	Is this it, Rob?
	Or go ahead, play this clip.
	It is with profound honor that I have been entrusted by Speaker Mike Johnson and Chairman James Comer to lead the House Force or at the House Oversight Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets.
	Together with the help of the White House, our intelligence allies, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, we'll be conducting investigations into the following.
	The assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Dr. Martin Luther King, unidentified aerial phenomena, also known as UAPs, and unidentified submerged objects, also known as USOs, the Epstein client list, the origins of COVID-19, and the 9-11 files.
	If you were to rank top three on which ones you've made the most progress on, which ones would they be?
	Definitely JFK, definitely UAP.
	And I'd have to say the other ones are still flushing out.
	The Jeffrey Epstein stuff, obviously, is still coming.
	What's interesting about that is I actually attended a witness testimony to the oversight committee.
	So it was Democrats, Republicans, the Speaker of the House was there.
	And we have to be careful about how we engage specifically with the witnesses right now because they have open, they have like an open lawsuit right now with one of the banks that they're suing.
	And so as members, there's certain congressional ethics where you can't be seen to tip the scales on investigations.
	And we were actually told, because at that point in time, I had asked a specific question about if they knew if intelligence agencies were involved and or what foreign countries were involved.
	And I actually did a posting about that on my Twitter, if you want to pull it up and read it.
	And then also to, if you just type in my Twitter on my Rep Luna account and then Epstein and then foreign intelligence, it might pop up on the search.
	And then also to, there was another question about if they could name names for people that were potentially being hidden from the American people so that we could subpoena them.
	And at that point in time, their lead attorney did answer for them and they said that they'd be compiling a list and that they would get it to us.
	But I actually inquired recently and we haven't gotten the list yet.
	So I think that there's a lot to unpack there.
	But what's also interesting specifically pertaining to this is that back in, I think it was like November of last year, I was dragging the senator of Illinois that blocked Marsha's Blackburn's request for the Epstein flight log release.
	And then when I got elected, I was really, really hammering the DOJ.
	And then we caught wins.
	Pambondi, where you're coming out and say, hey.
	Yeah, I was the only member of Congress.
	I remember that.
	I remember.
	I was the only member.
	And what was interesting is.
	That's a tough position to take for you to do that because everybody was.
	So that's where you gain because some of the audience, like, who's actually working on getting to the bottom of this?
	Well, I was the only member of Congress doing it.
	And so I'm, and I'm going to get into how this has become politicized, which I don't agree with, right?
	And we'll get into that in a second.
	But I was the only member of Congress that was like going out there and doing this.
	And then in around end of February, March timeframe, I actually became aware of a whistleblower who came forward that had alleged that there was destruction of evidence under the former deputy director of the FBI as Trump was coming into office of information pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein and other classified materials.
	We got the name of the person that was doing it and where it was potentially happening.
	And I went public with it.
	I actually filed legislation for the Shredd Act that would actually increase the mandatory minimums for federal officials that were destroying evidence.
	And you can actually pull this up and pull up the Fox News article and it actually goes into all of that.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	And look at the time date on that.
	That's March 14th.
	March 14th, yeah.
	So it's all of the stuff that I've done, I've been able to time stamp it and actually provide receipts to people because as soon as I announced this task force, people are like, oh, you're going to, you're a part of the cover-up.
	You know, you have declassification authority.
	I actually don't.
	The declassification authority, specifically on this, relies with the Department of Justice.
	But then it's so much deeper than that.
	So I actually had reported this directly to the FBI at the time and they also led up on it.
	And then you saw recently that they actually, I think, had gone after some people for destroying some evidence and they found Russia documents, Russia Gate documents in bags, burned bags.
	Do you remember hearing that story?
	So that was, I think, in connection to this as well, because they were talking about destroying other evidence.
	But then all of a sudden, it was like a switch happened.
	And I don't think that the DOJ handled the rollout of the Epstein stuff as well as they should have, period, right?
	Like I would have done it differently.
	Nonetheless, though, what I don't like is how then it was used to try to smear the president and imply that he was somehow a molester and a part of this Jeffrey Epstein crime syndicate, which is not true.
	The victims themselves have denied that.
	But you see these press conferences with people holding signs that say Trump is a pedophile and all this other stuff.
	And that in itself is what I don't like about how the politicization of you taking victims who do deserve justice, and then they're using it for their own political game.
	This could have been declassified under Biden.
	They didn't even touch it.
	You're right.
	And by the way, my argument to that, when people say stuff like this, like, look, you think if they had anything on Trump, they would have let him run in 2024 as aggressively as possible.
	Oh, they would have been a good person.
	They would have destroyed him for him to be done and never be able to get re-elected.
	2016 wouldn't have happened.
	And not only that, he wouldn't be as aggressive and offensive if that was going on.
	You know, he wouldn't be coming out.
	So I don't think that's at all the case.
	For me, it's a completely different angle.
	I'm going with this because I remember when you said this, July 24th, the deep state is stonewalling us on Epstein files, but we're breaking through.
	New logs come in.
	Follow the money.
	This is you on Twitter, I believe.
	And then it continues.
	September 5th, new Epstein files confirmed an intelligence connection, Saudi, Russia, Israel.
	The end goal is justice for survivors.
	And that was directly related to us from the victims.
	Right.
	That's from a month ago.
	And then this week, you know, we see the letters of Leon Black, the email exchange.
	I'm sure you saw that one.
	I haven't.
	Oh, you got to see this.
	So Leon Black.
	Interesting.
	I'm sure you know who Leon Black is.
	Leon Black is.
	Well, maybe go to the story first, Rob.
	So we know Leon Black is a guy that paid Epstein in consulting fees, $170 million.
	That's a lot of money.
	In consulting.
	I've never heard of that before, in consulting fees.
	What was he consulting for?
	That's exactly it.
	So when you break it down, Rob, if you just kind of type in $170 million, is that the one?
	So Mr. Epstein, Hector, Mr. Black, multiple times for $10 million, beyond $150 million, he had already paid.
	So for a total of $170 million that Leon Black paid to Epstein in consulting fees, well, he was helping me out with estate planning and he was helping him with taxes.
	A lot of estate planning and taxes.
	And then the email exchange comes out right there.
	Leon Black paid Jeffrey Epstein $170 million for consulting services primarily related to tax and estate planning between 2012 and 2017.
	This was discovered during an investigation into the financial relationship, which began after Epstein's 2019 arrest.
	The extraordinary size of these fees, which vastly exceed what Black paid other advisors, has drawn significant criticism.
	So then we see these emails, Rob, if you want to show the emails.
	So the first one, if you is this one.
	And this is from Epstein to Black.
	I never want to have any more uncomfortable money moments with you.
	I find it very distasteful.
	So to be clear, my terms are as follows.
	I will only work for the usual $40 million a year.
	It needs to be paid $25 million upon signing an agreement, $5 million every two months thereafter for six months, March, May, June.
	This can begin if I'm able in January.
	I will immediately stop work if the payment is not received.
	And if you want to go to the next one, at least for a few weeks, I am unable to commit much time and make any future plans to guide you in the redoing of your procrastination-produced mess.
	That being said, the tasks at hand are the following: you have a bomb of color strings that your retarded children have formed.
	It has to be very carefully on.
	What does that even mean?
	Well, I don't know if you've seen the letter between the two that he wrote to this Leon Black character relationship with Epstein is extremely weird and concerning, to say the least.
	There's a letter he wrote to him.
	Oh, yeah, Les Wexner has been an interesting, Les Wexner, Lex Wexner, he's the one that gifted him the largest private residence in New York.
	I want to say it's 50-something thousand square feet, $77 million property that they just gifted to Epstein.
	Here's a gift.
	I'm sure you've got a lot of nice gifts in your life.
	Not since I've been elected.
	No gold bars for Lena.
	Yeah, so when you see this kind of stuff, the part that becomes problematic, and by the way, I love, Rob, do you have the letter of Black?
	And I think it's probably, that's the one right there.
	You just had it, Rob.
	You just had it right there.
	Zoom in a little bit.
	So this is a letter that apparently he wrote to Leon Black wrote to Epstein.
	Go a little bit more.
	A VFPC.
	VFPC is a Vanity Fair poster child.
	It's something to be.
	A VFPC is something to see.
	A liver, a lover, a Jeff, a Jeffrey.
	Let's all give a cheer.
	For today, he's 50.
	Five decades, I or half century, I can't read the whole, by birds and only by books.
	C's and M's are his key.
	Blonde, red, or brunette, spread out geographically with his net of fish.
	Jeff's now the old man and the sea, teaching math, trading options, foreign currency, green eyeshades, schemes and plans, a unique tax strategy, wet dream, and I can't see the other word, Rob, if you want to say it.
	I can't read it.
	Coconut.
	I believe that was another term for nightmare.
	Okay, nightmare.
	An architect to wild spree.
	Moscow, Paris, Santa Fe, Alahambra, East Jamboree, Max William Delight, a mother's treasure, great joy, most surely, Harvardian patron, brain researcher for extending wannabe outrageous, iconoclastic, unconventional.
	I'm having a hard time reading the spirit-free.
	Who talks like this?
	It's a weird talks like this.
	Yes.
	Best of all, a dear friend.
	Happy birthday, Jeffrey.
	Loves and kisses.
	And didn't he?
	What was the outlet that Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed?
	Was it Vanity Fair?
	I think it was Vanity Fair.
	I saw a documentary.
	It was.
	Where he threatened the editor of Vanity Fair, who was writing an article about him before any of the sex trafficking stuff came up.
	And I believe the editor found a deceased animal on his property.
	It was like a cat head or something.
	People claim that that was a warning sign that may have been sent by Jeffrey Epstein to the editor of Vanity Fair.
	So it's interesting you referenced Vanity Fair.
	All that to say, you know, I think that it's very possible, like you said, if there was any wrongdoing, I know this for a fact, they would have released that about the president.
	He wouldn't be president right now.
	So he's probably, and I always tell people this: no other politician has been, you know, basically had lawfare waged against him the way that President Trump had.
	He's like clean as a whistle, this guy.
	But when you look at what they did prior to Trump getting into office, I mean, I have the timestamp back then that we were notified of destruction of evidence.
	So evidence tampering, all of that to say that it's very possible that they did do that.
	But what is without question is that there were many people hurt.
	And when we were in talking with those victims, I mean, every victim, there was one woman that said that she is going through therapy right now because she doesn't remember what was done to her.
	There's like massive parts of her memory that are completely blocked out.
	And so she's going through certain, I guess, psychotherapy to kind of help flush that out.
	But also, I don't know, recover it or recover it, like to kind of like figure out what happened.
	But also, too, that they were concerned that there would be, you know, because he had a lot of hard drives and the guy was a weirdo.
	He's recording everything.
	That they were concerned that that specifically, like they wanted to maintain it and they were denied previous by previous administrations access to that information.
	So they're basically asking for it so that they could help process and recover.
	But at the same time, too, we are also in that same hearing.
	The attorney said that there were people, the victim's attorney said that there were people calling him to like, I don't know if it was to settle or what.
	So all that to say that this is an active legal case in many ways.
	This is now the purview of House Oversight.
	Chairman Comer is actually using the U.S. Treasury to actually go through some of these bank records and transactions to figure out where the money was coming from.
	Chairman Comer has been really great about that.
	You saw the findings that we had with the Ukrainian business dealings, ironically enough, with Hunter Biden and Barisma and all that other stuff.
	So I think that there'll be something to come of it.
	But the fact is that these people should not be getting off the way that they are.
	And I think, based on what we're being told, is I think that the guy was likely foreign intelligence of some form, definitely gathering information.
	Total pervert, total terrible person.
	But, you know, the way I don't know about you, but I don't have many friends that have given me like $50 million mansions.
	$77 million property gift or $170 million consulting fee.
	It's weird.
	I've paid a lot of consulting fee over the years.
	Nobody pays $170 million.
	The only reason is, so to me, and by the way, this is what I love that happened as well.
	President Trump sues Wall Street Journal for releasing whatever that letter is that he's saying is not accurate for $10 billion.
	Wall Street Journal's lawyers come to the president just yesterday and ask him to please dismiss it.
	Trump goes to his lawyers and says, no, no, we're not settling.
	Yeah, he shouldn't.
	It's slander.
	Right.
	Go back and let's get to the bottom of this.
	So this is probably not a good look for Wall Street Journal.
	This just shows that Trump is sitting there saying, hey, if you think this is real, so the market can look at this and say, President Trump's not worried about discovery.
	Holy shit.
	So maybe that's not real.
	This is not a good look for Wall Street Journal that they're coming wanting to dismiss this to be done with.
	So, but to me, at the same time, while this is happening, Michael Wolf, is it Michael Wolf that's suing Melania for a billion dollars?
	Yes.
	Saying the fact that she was threatening to sue.
	So Michael Wolfe is getting into it.
	I think he just.
	threatened with a billion dollar suit over Epstein's related claims.
	It's yeah, because he was trying to say that she was like a honeypot or something like that.
	The guy's a total, the guy, these people, these journalists that do this and authors, they are the lowest of the low scum of the earth.
	I've had to deal with some of these people in Washington, terrible people.
	I had the Daily Beast, I think, do an article that had implied that Trump, the headline was, I think you pull up, Trump offers like GOP upcoming something his bed.
	That was like literally the headline.
	I kid you not.
	Here, you can find it on here and then type in my name, Daily Beast.
	Like these people, and like, mind you, it wasn't even in context.
	I was pregnant on the plane.
	Yeah, look, see, look, look at that headline.
	Don't tell me, this is the headline.
	And they, and I'm reading this, I'm like, wow, this is crazy.
	Like, who, who writes this?
	Come to find out the reporter had never reached out to our office.
	And so I addressed it directly.
	The story was, is that I was about to pop.
	I shouldn't even have been traveling on a plane, but I wanted to go help President Trump in Iowa.
	And I've been with Trump since 2016.
	So like, I was like, I'm in office now.
	He helped me get elected.
	I'm going to go help him win.
	And I was probably like within the window of where you can go into labor when you're traveling.
	So like you have kids.
	You know, that's a very scary window.
	So Trump had actually told me when we got on the plane, my husband was right there.
	He goes, you know, we have like the medical team here.
	If anything happens, like, and he was joking too.
	He's like, if you, if you go into labor on the plane, like you can name your son after me.
	And I was joking.
	I was like, you know, I was like, I'll make the deal.
	If that happens, like 100, if I give birth on Trump Force One, like it's happening.
	That would be crazy.
	It's happening 100%.
	But like he was literally like, and you can read because they finally updated because I just nuked them in the press ball.
	I'm like, you people, you know, what they did to Melania with this type of headline, this is what they live for because that's the only way to maintain relevancy.
	But they're just scum of the earth.
	They're total scum of the earth.
	But yeah, read down my response.
	I basically called him out and was like, that's not what happened.
	And actually after that, if you click show more, I'm showing you the letter that Trump had sent me asking about Henry, my son.
	It's shortly thereafter.
	And I actually had posted a handwritten note where he was checking to make sure that the baby was okay after delivery of my son.
	So was he disappointed that it wasn't Donald?
	was Henry was he like yeah well he knew he knew he knew I named him after my dad I seldom respond on that headlines.
	I didn't give trash credibility, however, being that there's allegedly book coming out named attack in president, his marriage, or first lady, frankly, implying something distasteful about me.
	I'm responding, I'm very pregnant.
	I was very pregnant at the time, experiencing pre-sklemsia, my symptoms, but was not diagnosed as soon as president boarded the plane, being the gentleman, the good person he is.
	He said, if I did not feel I could use a back room, he did that in a respectful way in front of my husband, of which we thanked him.
	He also assured me that they had a medical team.
	This was the most compassionate thing that we could have.
	See, this is when they're, they lose so much credibility when things like this happen because your husband's there.
	If your husband's there, something like this is being said.
	You look like a clown when they write stories like this.
	Well, he didn't even reach out.
	So it was an effort to smear the president or to potentially force a wedge between the first lady and the president.
	They did this so many times.
	And like to Melania's credit, she's a class actor.
	I don't think they have the same level of credibility they had.
	I don't think the market reacts to it as they did before.
	Back to what you were saying.
	People don't trust the press because they realize that a lot of these people are not legitimate journalists.
	They don't care about the truth.
	And I can tell now that I'm in office, when I see an article in the press, I know instantly when it's a hit piece.
	I know when the story's been planted.
	I'm like putting the connections together.
	And it's sad that I have to do that because I know, because I've been victim of it.
	I also had this happen to me when I first got elected.
	I had barely been sworn into office.
	And I had this reporter calling around from the Washington Post.
	Actually, this will be interesting because as a result of this, Time Magazine did their own investigation, realized, surprise, surprise, I was telling the truth, and named me the next 100 most influential in the world.
	So that was a silver lining.
	But the Washington Post had.
	This is when.
	This is what do you think?
	This was in 2022 when I first got elected.
	So the Washington Post tries to write this hit piece about me, taking everything about my life, like literally my entire life story and trying to paint me as what they were basically calling me was a female George Santos.
	And by the way, George Santos, not a perfect man, but he is by far not the worst we have in Congress.
	So like that's a separate conversation.
	But basically trying to live, yeah, like look at this.
	They just like take my entire background.
	They say, you know, her embrace of her Hispanic heritage, which we're going to get into that because I'm over 50%, you know, Mexican, which is, oh, I'm not Mexican enough.
	Was Barack Obama not black enough for you either?
	I mean, like, what are we going to do percentages now?
	But like, just completely invest interviews people.
	But don't forget, Elizabeth Warren is American.
	She's Native American.
	Yeah.
	She's like 100%, you know.
	Don't call it out.
	Don't call it out.
	That's true.
	But like literally, investigates relatives that I haven't talked to in 15 years that I have no connection to.
	Like literally, just to try to like paint me out.
	So my mom is getting calls by this journalist.
	And my mom is an absolute hero.
	I mean, my mom, single mom, raised me like, yes, we are on welfare, but like puts herself through law school.
	Like she's just like an amazing person.
	But they asked her for proof if my grandmother died HIV positive, of which my own mom had to provide a death certificate proving that, but they didn't report that in the article.
	They also didn't report in the article.
	And I actually had been given screenshots by my old roommates of them saying, hey, I had this reporter reach out, but they're not like reporting what I told them because it conflicted with the narrative that they're trying to paint about me, that I was making up my background, that I wasn't Hispanic enough, that I was lying about my background, all this shit that, you know, they go into, by the way, my dad had raised me as a messianic Jew and then my mom had raised me Catholic.
	But for those people that can actually do their own research, a messianic Jew is basically someone that believes in Jesus Christ.
	So like to say that all of a sudden I'm like somewhat making that up is just completely contrary to what the evidence is, that I had lied about my dad's incarceration record.
	And so when this dropped, I knew that they were going to, so I actually spent time to collect the receipts.
	And so I actually had a DOJ report of my dad's arrest record.
	I had all this stuff that directly contradicted this article.
	They even printed that I was a registered Democrat in the state of Washington, which was like arguably, provably false.
	So they issued the retractions.
	And then after that, they're like, well, we can't say that your dad didn't go to prison because jail and prison are different.
	And I'm like, I literally, like, here's the incarceration record.
	Like, I'm not lying about this.
	So after all of that, I give all this information to Time Magazine.
	And so they got roasted over this.
	And then when Time Magazine did their deep dive, they did, I think it was like 20-something hours.
	And you can type it in next 100.
	And yeah, that's what happens when you tell the truth.
	So it worked out in my favor.
	To me, who cares?
	Like, who cares?
	But the point, the reason.
	Grandmother, whether you're father, like, what are they trying to imply?
	They were trying to imply and paint me out as a liar to limit or potentially hinder my credibility in being able to, I think, reach young people.
	Because I think that there's this special, I think, thing that happens when you have younger people engaged in politics.
	They're more charismatic.
	There's more energy.
	And I think that they saw me specifically because I had worked with Turning Point, because I had come up through as an activist, as an effective leader.
	So they initially, like, of all the members of Congress, and we have a lot of dirtbags in Congress, and you're seeing that flushing out right now.
	But of all the members of Congress, they specifically took the time to try to go after that.
	And what was interesting is, is the reason I was even tipped off on this article is I had a supervisor.
	And as a vet, you're going to get pissed off about this.
	Okay.
	My first rating supervisor really contacts me and says, hey, I was contacted by a journalist at the New York Times asking about if I had any dirt on you when you were enlisted.
	And I said, how the hell did the New York Times get my rating supervisor from when I was in the military?
	Someone at the Department of Veteran Affairs had leaked them my EPR, so your enlisted performance, my records to the New York Times.
	And this was happened when I first ran.
	So they had that.
	And so they had contacted my supervisor, who he, by the way, was deployed at this time.
	He was overseas as a contractor.
	So I knew that this was coming, but the New York Times saw that it also wasn't credible.
	And so they sent it to the Washington Post instead.
	And then this dumbass of the Washington Post put their credibility, which I'm glad they did because they look like a moral now.
	But wait, so New York Times.
	Oh, yeah.
	They were the customers.
	They didn't see that as credible.
	They give it to WAPO.
	They saw it as a defamation liability.
	And why would they give it to WAPO?
	Because WAPO at the time, up until really recently, was just another mouthpiece for these left-handed people.
	And what was interesting is I actually went when this happened to House Leadership and I said, hey, I think that we have a leak problem out of the D, the DOD or the VA, but this is still under Biden.
	And I think at first they're like, eh, whatever.
	Like, it sounds like you had a hit piece written about you, right?
	Like, how do they know my supervisor is not making it up?
	Well, it came out that the Democrats actually had an opposition firm that was posing as or somehow working with the Department of Veteran Affairs and had obtained the service records of GOP members of Congress that had served in the military.
	And they actually got sued over it.
	And it wasn't just me.
	It was other, there was a woman who was running somewhere on the East Coast.
	She had been raped and they leaked that about her and smeared her with it.
	She ended up losing her election over it, but she was running as a Republican.
	I'm not even kidding.
	So this is the type of shit when people don't want to run for office.
	They don't want to deal with this.
	But it's like, if you don't run for office, then we get a lot of the associopaths in there that are literally doing nothing or running on one thing.
	And then, you know, they're making 600% on their stock trades.
	We'll get to that too.
	So yeah, it's a massive problem.
	So you have to kind of just understand that when you do it, don't do it long term because if you stay there for too long, you become everything that you hate.
	But you do it to where you can then raise up other people and then you pass a torch.
	Yeah, it's interesting you're saying this.
	Like today, I have a meeting with a guy that asked me for my DD214.
	So my EA messages me and says, don't forget, Pat, you got to bring your DD214.
	So I went back.
	I had to go this morning.
	I'm like, where is I literally pulling up my files?
	But for them to go to someone on the inside to get that information.
	So by the way, if they give it to New York Times, if New York Times gives it to WAPO, did WAPO get a defamation lawsuit from you or no?
	You didn't?
	No, because what I was advised is that basically they will drain me.
	So it's not like I can use the House of Representatives to sue the Washington Post.
	The Washington Post has way more money than I do as a member of Congress.
	So I'm not going to be able to sue them and use my campaign funds to do it.
	And so at that point in time, you have to just fight it out.
	And so thank goodness at that time, Elon had actually purchased X because when I first ran for office, I was one of the few people, I think it was like me, Laura Loomer, and a few others that had sued X.
	I was running, or at the time, Twitter.
	I was running for office at that point in time and they were suppressing my reach, my engagement.
	I was being suppressed on Facebook.
	I was being suppressed on pretty much every media outlet, social media outlet.
	And I was using my social media to fundraise my campaign.
	So I was funded by those 20 and $20, $30 donations as opposed to a lot of the special interest money in Washington.
	So they were tipping the scales.
	And we know that they did this in the 2020 election with Mark Zuckerberg, who he's still, I'm glad that he sees a writing on the wall, but he's still him, Jack Dorsey, all those guys.
	400 million.
	Yeah, they did.
	I mean, it's insane.
	And then, of course, in my investigations, we actually found out when I was on oversight.
	You can actually play this clip.
	It's the Rep Luna interviews Yoel Roth.
	And I actually found out that Twitter at the time was engaged with Meta, YouTube for using a private cloud server to communicate, operating with the Department of Homeland Security and CISA, which is supposed to be set up to monitor domestic terrorists.
	And they're actually using it to suppress information pertaining to the January 6th when President Trump called for peace.
	They actually had suppressed that information and were actually flagging people essentially as domestic terrorists.
	So the whole thing was crazy.
	Type in Yoel Roth, Y-O-E-L.
	Type in CISA or DHS.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	Is this my personal?
	Oh, is this try Rep Luna?
	Yeah, try Rep Luna.
	Sell my No Kings troll.
	Yeah, he did, with her crown on her.
	Where's it at?
	Is it a video?
	Yeah, it's a video.
	We nuked Yoel Roth.
	I mean, this is, are you spelling his name correct?
	Y-O-E-L-R-O-T-H.
	Yeah, I think I don't, I think.
	Oh, that's a, you should pull up that one real quick if you want to talk about an Epstein portrait.
	That's my hand portrait.
	I said, you know, don't show this to the Washington Post.
	They might think that you're a sex trafficker.
	Please don't show this to the Wall Street Journal.
	It's a hand sketch.
	They may think you're so funny.
	That was my hand sketch.
	I ripped it off.
	That's you?
	Well, great job.
	So this is what this is an inner.
	Well, you'll find it.
	While you're looking for that, to pull it up.
	You know, my biggest thing with the Epstein thing before we close it and go to the next story is, to me, I'm finally at this point of what happened there.
	I'm convinced that there is so much there that would get others in trouble, some of them that are on support for Trump, some of them that he may use to keep the enemies under control.
	Gates, you know, some of the folks in Israel, if Ewud Brock visited Epstein's house 31, 32 times, and even Michael Wolf, who had him on the podcast two months ago, he has 100 hours of recorded conversation with Epstein at his house at the Lex Wexner house that was gifted to him.
	And I said, so who did you see coming to the house?
	He said, well, Bill Clinton came there.
	Bill Gates.
	I said, Bill Gates, you were there when Bill Gates came there.
	Who else?
	Ewood Brock.
	Yeah, I saw Ewood Brock there.
	So what's he doing there?
	Well, I don't know they would have these meetings and all this.
	So he's saying this on the podcast.
	So to me, if the president is a deal maker, and this is the part, because if we know $170 million consulting fee is weird, I will tell you, if no one gets in trouble, that's going to be problematic for some people because they're going to be like, wait a minute, we know something happened there.
	We've seen plenty of the documentaries.
	We've seen plenty of the stories.
	We've seen the lawsuit.
	We've been tracking this guy for a while.
	We know what happened when even the story of 2007, I don't know what year it is when President Trump kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago.
	We've seen the ladies who got arrested that would bring 13, 14, 15-year-old girls back to Epstein's house.
	And recently, Virginia Jufres' memoir that just came out, which, by the way, when did she, she passed away a few months ago, right?
	She committed suicide.
	She committed suicide, allegedly committed suicide.
	Yeah, six months ago.
	So her book just comes out.
	And in the book, when you read it, telling her, you know, she's telling how Epstein's wanted to have, wanted her to have his child.
	And in return, they were willing to pay XYZ amount of money.
	And some of the stuff that's in it is so graphic.
	And she tells a story of what some of the people did to her.
	There's multiple names of folks of beating her, hitting her.
	And one of them she calls Prime Minister, who is the prime minister.
	And she allegedly, the one that helped with the memoir, has given the list of names to the FBI.
	She says she may be releasing those names.
	That's what she's talking about.
	I just think if there's got to be accountability, people get excited about a person like you that comes in who you don't want to be a lifer.
	You don't want to be like Mitch McConnell falling down at 85 years old.
	You don't want to.
	Definitely not.
	Definitely not Mitch.
	Definitely not Mitch, right?
	You don't want to be that.
	You want to come and do your job and leave and go mind your own business.
	But I do think there is a group of people on the base that are going to sit there and say, Anna, we want to see some names, Anna.
	We want to see some names, Anna.
	I wish I had names to present, but we haven't gotten names.
	I know.
	And you said something.
	You said you don't control that, right?
	Yeah, I don't control the...
	It's the DOJ.
	It's Pam Bondi.
	It's the DOJ, but also oversight.
	I think a way that there's going to be names that come out is through those bank records and transactions.
	And so that's why this has been given to the chairman of oversight.
	So the entire oversight committee, Democrats and Republicans.
	Have you seen some stuff name-wise that for you, you're like, dude, this is pretty shitty.
	This is dark.
	I haven't.
	No, I haven't seen anything that hasn't already been out there.
	I mean, they housed the 33 think,000 files and there was some new information.
	But as far as the names that we were told by the witnesses that we were going to get, we haven't gotten those yet.
	Do you think we will?
	Do you think there's like out of all of these, because you go through, right?
	JFK, MLK, RFK, COVID, Epstein, 9-11.
	Do you think anything will happen with Epstein?
	I think that if the witnesses can provide names, then yes.
	I do think that based on what I was told by a whistleblower and you saw the article from March of this past year that there was some form of destruction of evidence.
	And I also think that they tried to destroy other evidence that implicated them to include the Russia documents as well, the Russia collusion hoax documents that were found in the birdbags.
	That's a problem because if there's also destruction of evidence, there can also be planted evidence.
	But I'm not at the DOJ, right?
	So like I'm limited within my certain authorities that I can do.
	Now, what's going to be interesting is if there's an active pending lawsuit, I'm not an attorney, but if there's an active pending lawsuit with the victims and the bank and then people offer the victims money to settle to basically have a gag on them or just not say their names, then I also think that that complicates things.
	And there is an active pending lawsuit.
	But I do hope for these people's livelihood and then also too for their healing process.
	I do hope that there's justice because when you look at the documentaries and you hear the statements about what was done, I mean, the fact is, is that, you know, this guy was a total, just like an evil person for doing this, especially to young women.
	And, you know, their entire lives are destroyed over this.
	They're never going to recover from that.
	Which brings me to my next thing.
	Why are the mandatory minimums in this country not higher for sex predators?
	I have a bill that would— What is it right now?
	What is it?
	It depends on the state, but the federal mandatory minimum, I mean, you can get charged with rape and you're getting a couple years and that's it.
	Stop it.
	Yeah, no, it's – I actually introduced something to increase, especially for child molesters, to the death penalty and – or I think it's minimum 25 years in prison.
	What is the – Yeah.
	Yep.
	Huh.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, so there's no federal mandatory minimum, but there should.
	And some, you hear a lot of cases, you know, where people will get charged with child rape, whatever, and they're doing, you know, a couple of years and then they're out.
	You rape a kid, that kid's life's over for that.
	Let me ask you a question.
	Let me ask you a different question.
	So if can you ask to interview Jelaine Maxwell?
	Could they make that happen?
	So oversight already did.
	Can you?
	Personally, I can try to make the request, but I think that it would be up to her attorneys and then her essentially.
	So let's just say if you did.
	Let's just say if you did and you're sitting in front of her.
	What three questions do you ask her?
	What do you ask her?
	I'm curious.
	Probably names, funding records, and where can we find footage?
	Names, funding record, footage.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, because when you see like banking, I don't know if you guys are working with Chase or not, because Chase had to pay like $290 million of fines to victims.
	They're suing Deutsche Bank currently.
	Who's suing?
	The victims.
	Yeah, that's $290 million sediment that.
	Was that to Deutsche Bank?
	That's Chase.
	Oh, the sediment is with Deutsche Bank?
	No, no, they're currently in suit.
	So remember, I was talking about the suit that exists.
	So the transaction records will tell us everything that we need to know there.
	But what's been interesting is the Democrats have taken this and they're trying to make it political.
	And so this is kind of like, you know, they're using this as a political thing to smear the president instead of, you know.
	Yeah, yet they're blocking.
	You know, when you're like, hey, can we get some information?
	No, let's block.
	Let's block.
	Let's block.
	It's definitely a political, I think, hot potato.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm curious to know what happens with this.
	So are many others.
	Let's talk about something else.
	Back to the Russian docs.
	Yeah.
	How much does it bother you that, and maybe I'm wrong, does your investment portfolio outperform Nancy Pelosi's?
	I don't own stock.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So I don't know.
	Are you not able to or you choose not to?
	No, I could.
	I choose not to.
	I think it's a bad look, which is what I'm saying.
	At all?
	Nothing.
	Yeah, I don't have any stocks.
	Like, I don't invest in.
	So did you have it?
	You sold?
	I did.
	I initially had a couple in like a company that was supposed to be helping with medical blindness, but I was like, I don't even want it.
	And it wasn't a lot.
	It was like $1,000.
	So it was like nothing.
	And I was like, I'm not dealing with this.
	But what's interesting is I was having a conversation with Representative Burchett.
	Because, you know, when you see people on all sides getting 600% returns, they're buying stocks prior to us giving weapons to another country.
	They're buying stocks prior to different things happening with the market that we know are going to happen.
	We're meeting with the CEOs.
	They're in committee.
	We're working on the legislation.
	It's bullshit that it's not illegal to do this, right?
	Or their wives who are great, lovely ladies, but not savvy in the stock market, are making these great purchases.
	And you're like, wow, how is that happening?
	You know, how's Karen doing this?
	You know, that gives Congress such a bad reputation.
	If you wanted to know why the American people hate Congress so much, it's like, look no further than insider trading.
	Banning insider trading for members of Congress is one of the most bipartisan popular issues in this country.
	And yet when I informed the leadership that I was going to be doing, and I actually did a press conference, I said, hey, I will like give you the end of September, which ironically enough, we're not in, there's a shutdown right now, so I couldn't bring it.
	But when we get back, we will be pushing for it.
	But I told them, I'm going to do it at the end of this month.
	They basically, in a group chat with me and Representative Burchett, someone said, you know, you're forcing your colleagues to take a bad vote.
	And some people use this to pay for their kids' college education.
	And, you know, you're going to cost us the midterm elections.
	And, you know, this could hurt the Republic.
	This is a conservative saying this.
	We're going to call them that.
	But like all that to say that, you know, for me specifically, when you're hearing that and I'm like, what are you talking about?
	Like the founding fathers did not have stock portfolios.
	And by the way, they weren't schlepping it to Washington, D.C. and they weren't going to be there the entire time.
	This is not a long-term goal for them.
	But what it's become is it's evolved into this like nasty machine where people do this full-time and they have no issues insider trading and all that.
	I was like, I'm saving the Republic.
	I'm not breaking it.
	What are you talking about?
	If you have, you know, these invested portfolios that are going into the defense industry or the pharmaceutical industry, how do you ever be expected to advocate for those people, right?
	So this gets into, you know, do we need campaign finance reform?
	I would hope so.
	I think so.
	I think that it's ridiculous how much money goes into congressional seats.
	Can tell you that when I first ran, I was, you know, using the grassroots fundraising.
	The second time I ran, I was grossly outspent, you know, three to one and then 12 to one the first time I ran.
	And I won my last election cycle.
	I mean, I was pretty severely outspent there too.
	But the point is, is it should not cost tens of millions of dollars to run for Congress.
	And unless you do have somewhat of a social media platform to where you can compete with the special interest money coming in from Washington, you're not going to get elected to Congress.
	I've met great people that want to run for office and they'll never be able to do it because they'll be outspent.
	They'll message on your branding or what they want to hit you on.
	Everyone has a positive and negative rating in politics, messaging all of it.
	And if you're outspent, you can't share your message back, then that's too bad.
	People will see it on TV.
	They believe it.
	They don't question it.
	And then that's it.
	So in this area, you and AOC do get along.
	So it's something that on this issue, yeah.
	Okay.
	But it's like me and it's a cross-section of the of conference does connect on this issue.
	Yeah.
	Who, who on both sides is aggressively against this?
	So look at like the top 50 stock traders in Congress and you'll see everyone again.
	Can you pull that up, Rob?
	Can you pull up?
	Because it's public.
	We've reported on this before.
	It's not hard to find.
	And to be clear, I mean, look, I have become wildly popular in Congress for this legislation.
	Wildly popular.
	That's a joke.
	Yeah.
	That's a joke on how Amazon.
	Yeah, I believe you.
	So this is it.
	So if we go through it, Nancy Pelosi, she's the coach.
	She's like the Warren Buffett.
	Oh, wow.
	Mitt Romney's in there.
	Most profitable Congress traders.
	He's not Mitt Romney's not.
	No, this isn't it, Rob.
	There's another one that they have.
	Who's the next one?
	Mark Warner?
	Let me just read those names right now.
	And to be clear, there are people that do have portfolios that were like, well, we'd support this if, you know, during the divestment or we're not taxed on it if we're forced to pull out because they do have people that are running their portfolios.
	But I mean, you want to pull up returns, not dollar, because Mitt Romney's a half a billion dollar guy.
	You were saying, and I'm sorry.
	Yeah, but it's just like you have these people.
	Now, I'm not talking about the ones that are independently wealthy going and nothing's changed because there's a lot of that.
	But I'm talking like you, you know, you go and make in 175 and you come out in like two, three terms, you're a multi-millionaire.
	Or a couple hundred.
	Yeah, it's like how does that couple hundred, which tends to be the ongoing trend here?
	Yeah.
	You know, there's a, there's companies that got started purely on tracking politicians' trades.
	And you're able to invest exactly the way Nancy Pelosi trades.
	And Tom, who on the podcast last week, he said he invested into this one company and he put $50,000 and matched 100%, and it's legal, 100% of what Nancy Pelosi did with her investments since he put the $50,000 in July.
	He's already made 18% return in three months.
	Yeah, it's literally insane that they say that they're not doing it.
	They're totally doing it.
	And then, you know, people like me try to do this and push the vote, which I've done.
	I've pushed many votes before, right?
	And then, you know, I'm going to destroy the Republic and I'm forcing my colleagues to take a bad vote.
	So, but the president supports it.
	The Treasury Secretary supports it.
	So guess what?
	You all better support it because you're going to have egg on your face if you don't.
	But yeah, this is one of those issues that, you know, if you want to go to Congress to trade stocks, try a job on Wall Street instead.
	What's this, Rob?
	What did you pull up?
	This was the app that you had mentioned, PelosiTrapper.
	But there's a return of like 600%.
	600% couple the guys are making.
	And it's like, it's not uncommon, right?
	But like, I just, it's interesting because I know the polling on this too.
	Like a majority of Americans support this.
	It's not even a question.
	Like, this is probably one of the top bipartisan issues.
	This is in UAPs, but they support this.
	What's the likelihood of this?
	It depends because it's going to require people to go down and sign it.
	So I think, you know, the option is here is that they do it through committee and that there can be some adjustments to it, but ultimately it would prevent members of Congress from doing the individual stock trades, which is what needs to happen.
	Or we have to do the discharge petition.
	And I have talked to a few people that currently trade stocks and are like, okay, we understand the optics.
	It doesn't look good.
	And people are doing it.
	So, and we know that they're doing it.
	So we want to kind of have a bite at the apple on the legislation.
	But the bill that we have as is that, you know, AOC, Chip Roy, myself, Tim Burchett, all these people have signed on to and worked on is pretty good.
	It has a lot of co-sponsors.
	I think that it passes if it comes to the floor.
	So I think that it's just going to be the process of getting it to the floor, which there's a lot of parliamentary hurdles that you have to kind of conquer.
	A lot of people are like, you know, what does Congress do?
	What do you do?
	I'm like, guys, there's literally probably about 10% of us that are doing 90% of the work.
	So a little bit of grace, please.
	Thank you.
	That's generally the rule, though.
	Credit or theory is 80-20, but it's probably more under 90-10 of what happens.
	What is AOC like to work with?
	I haven't really had much conversation with her.
	She was on my oversight, or she was on oversight with me, the committee last Congress.
	She's now on a different one.
	I've worked with her on this bill specifically in regards to us both backing it and then also to backing a capping credit card interest.
	And I think she'll probably get behind one that we're going to do on capping student loan interest.
	So, you know, we are clearly disagreeing on a lot of issues, but I think these issues specifically where you have more of the populist perspective, we probably connect on.
	I just, the way in my dialogue is if people are going to, like, I'm not the person that usually starts fights, I finish them.
	So I don't really engage in the.
	Does she has she ever picked on you?
	Have you has she ever come after you or no?
	Not really, no.
	So you guys are very similar personality types, but on opposite sides when it comes down to that.
	But I would say both of you.
	And what I mean by that is both of you guys are fighters.
	Like if somebody comes after you, you're not afraid to fight.
	Policies may be different, but she seems to be the fighting type.
	Not like the one I like the most.
	My favorite one out of all of you.
	No one's even close to her.
	This is a person.
	I told my wife, if I ever had another person you have to worry about, it would be Katie Porter.
	I'm in love with her.
	Katie Porter.
	Katie Porter's the goach.
	Better watch out, Katie.
	She is one of a kind.
	Katie Porter, I think if she, I don't think if you gave her money, she would leave and go to the VO or do a different show.
	I really think she cannot stand the opposite side and she truly wants to do something to them with policies.
	She's a true, true believer.
	But if Katie Porter, if this stuff doesn't work out, man, I would bring her to the show her take and have her there.
	Katie was interesting.
	She would, I would see her a lot sitting quietly with some of the Republicans.
	So the chambers are broken down to the Republicans sit on the right side, the Democrats sit on the left side.
	I usually sit in the front center aisle so I could see the speaker as well.
	But you'd see her a couple of times.
	It's interesting, though, because members of Congress are different with each other than they are with their staff sometimes.
	And you hear some horror stories with how they treat some of their staff sometimes.
	No, just in general, most of the members.
	What is she like?
	I did not have any terribly negative experiences with her.
	But I think for the most part, people leave me alone.
	And so I don't know if that's like a fear thing or, you know, I just don't, I'm very focused on facts and I use that and I tend to, you know, Eric Swal bothered me for a little bit, but I trolled him with his videos and stuff.
	So he left me alone after that.
	So he's easy, though.
	He's not, he's not particularly threatening now.
	No, I don't see him as somebody that would be.
	Eric is probably his own worst enemy.
	He gets in his own way.
	Some of the stuff that he says, you know, you know, you're either a great troll or you're trying to be one.
	Yeah, he's like trying.
	He's trying.
	Like Newsom is dying to be Trump, but he's not.
	Newsome is trying to be Trump.
	Newsom's not Trump, right?
	Nowhere near him.
	But everything he does, he's trying to be the Trump of the left.
	No, 100%.
	I was on a show recently.
	I think it was on Comedy Central.
	It was like an evening talk show.
	And, you know, they're talking about the No Kings protest.
	And I had made a joke and I was like, well, if we were talking about Gavin Newsom, we had the No Queens protest.
	And he was like, well, is that homophobic?
	I was like, no, he just has feminine tendencies.
	And it's totally true.
	I don't know like he bitches on the internet all the time.
	It's like, what are you doing, Gavin?
	You know, you have fires in the palisades.
	What's going on?
	He is kind of metro, right?
	If you think about it.
	He is super metro.
	He's dying to get on Rogan.
	He wants Rogan to get on his show.
	Oh, Rogan would eat his breakfast, though, if he had him on.
	Like, Joe, don't play.
	Not only does Joe don't play, but I think the approach he took is just the wrong approach.
	Joe is, Joe will have anybody on to have a conversation with.
	I think people are intimidated, though, because you can't, you know, bring notes.
	You have to kind of be secure in what your ideas are.
	And so I was always actually when I first did, or when I was on with Joe and then I left, I actually remember thinking, I can't believe Kamala Harris wouldn't sit down with him because if you're running for president, that's the show you want to go on.
	And I just, I couldn't, and then I realized, you know, it's because she wasn't that good.
	No, she was scared.
	She was scared.
	And, you know, we had the Teamster here president, Sean O'Brien.
	And they, anybody that becomes president, they give everybody 16 questions to answer.
	He said everybody answered the 16 questions, including Joe Biden for 2024.
	He said he wasn't happy about it.
	He came.
	He answered the 16 questions.
	The only person that only answered three was Kamala Harris.
	And he says, you have to realize, I'm a lifelong Democrat.
	My entire family were Democrats.
	We're going to vote for Democrats.
	But he says, she came to us and she said, with her, you know, I don't need your vote, but you guys better support me.
	I was like, what?
	We're Democrats.
	What are you doing talking to us like this?
	So.
	Yeah, she's not a good person.
	She is, I mean, there's a lot of words.
	Have you ever met her?
	Have you ever had anything?
	Yeah, actually, you can find, when I was with Turning Point, I was coming back from the NRA conference, and this was back, I think, in 2018.
	And I ran into her at the airport in Dallas.
	And the reason I got into politics is because I started as a counter-trafficking activist.
	That's how Charlie Kirk found me during my gap year.
	And I ran into her at the airport.
	Yep, there it is.
	And I confronted her over not doing anything about the trafficking of women and children because she's literally, like, if you're in office and like use your position to help fight that, right?
	And that was my interaction.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	I told her she would be president.
	Hi, I'm the director of Hispanic engagement with Turning Point USA.
	I want to know about the children that you entertain that are at the border right now.
	Wait, would you answer an electro question?
	No, you're taking away Trump.
	You're getting behind me.
	You're saying that you're fighting more women.
	No, I'm not going to back up.
	Don't touch me.
	Don't touch me.
	I'm not here.
	She's saying that she's not going to be able to do that.
	I understand those ladies ask her to take a look at the children.
	I don't care.
	You're in my way.
	Don't participate in the fortune walk.
	She is damaging what is happening to the Hispanic women and children at the border because she's promoting family reunification.
	You're not commenting on this issue.
	What year is this?
	You were directly unhappy to Hispanic Democrats in a negative way.
	I think on the Democrat ticket to run in 2020, and then she didn't make the nomination.
	Then Joe Biden was the nominee and then she became the VP.
	And then it was funny because I saw her also walk in because I came in in 2022.
	So she was still a vice president.
	And I know her team saw that because then I started campaigning with Trump and JD.
	And then Kamala HQ would keep like reposting my stuff to try to add me and stuff.
	So Kamala will never forget that day.
	I bet.
	But by the way, so Charlie sees that and he DMs you.
	No, no, I was already with Turning Point at this point.
	Because you said Mexican, Hispanic.
	So I was their director of National Hispanic Engagement.
	So he had recruited me in 2018, and I was with them for about a year.
	And I would do the campus tours with him, Brandon Tatum, and ultimately realized I was like, I want to help kind of shift the national narrative.
	So I realized as an activist, you can do it one way, but also two, I had to do it by running for office.
	And so that's when I kind of gave it a shot to try to figure out how to do it.
	What was he like?
	I spent time with Charlie, but what was he like for you?
	Yeah.
	So when I first met him in 2018, Turning Point was a small organization.
	I remember the first young Latino leadership summit that we did.
	There was, I walked into the room and there was maybe 25 people in the room.
	And Charlie would walk around.
	I remember traveling with him and he was kind of like, you know, this young kid and he didn't have the nice suits yet, but he had the passion for it.
	So he was out there kind of just doing his thing.
	But I mean, the first conferences were maybe a couple hundred people and then it exploded.
	But I would travel with him.
	I remember the first tabling session that we did was actually at a university in Portland, Oregon.
	And he just pulled out the tail.
	He had his four GoPros and then a sign that said there are only two genders.
	And you can actually see that on my personal profile.
	Yeah, there it is.
	If you go to my actual X account, you can see the photo there.
	But, you know, working with him, it's interesting because when I found out about what had happened with Charlie, I was actually, ironically enough, sitting in my office doing an interview on the assassination of John F. Kennedy for a documentary that Fox was doing.
	And I heard it and then I saw it.
	And then I called over to Tyler and realized that he probably wasn't going to make it.
	If you pull up the actual photo though on my personal account on X, just go to the real Ana Paulina and it'll be pinned right there or it'll be up on there.
	If you go through the photos, just click photos and you'll see it.
	Just go down.
	You'll find it's there are only two genders.
	But the whole thing, you know, with him is that he had always, and he had this ability to read things.
	And I swear he had a visual memory to where he could just regurgitate it.
	But he was like brilliant, right?
	So I think he was going to run for president.
	I think Erica had mentioned that, you know, if he were to run for office one day, I think that he was definitely projected to.
	But he had an eye for talent.
	He would help elevate people.
	He was really smart.
	He always had tips.
	Like I remember even when I was campaigning with him and JD Vance, he was actually backstage and he's like, you should really try, you know, using this word instead.
	I took his advice because he was usually right.
	And it worked, of course.
	But he was an awesome guy.
	He's a really good guy.
	He was one of a kind.
	By the way, it's interesting.
	He said 2018.
	And I don't know Rob if you can find this or not.
	I sent you the link.
	In 2017, I interviewed him on the show.
	Oh, in 2017?
	2017?
	Yes, it was like right when he was starting.
	That's right.
	So I'm at his event.
	And I tell Marimar, he's like, why are you talking to this 23-year-old guy?
	So why am I talking to him?
	I said, this guy's going to be the president.
	He says, you think this guy is going to be the president one day?
	And I'm at his event.
	I think it could be in Fort Worth or Arlington or something like that, Texas.
	And I said, hey, just out of curiosity, what you're doing here, tell me about the ratios, percentages.
	I said, how many people here?
	I noticed I walked around.
	There's about a thousand people here.
	I didn't see any blacks.
	I didn't see any Hispanics.
	I didn't see anybody else.
	Everybody's white.
	He says, you know what?
	Maybe that's something we should work on.
	It's in the interview.
	It's in the interview when we're talking about this.
	I said, Hispanics.
	And the part about him that was unique is he was so brilliant, but he would listen and then go make a decision for himself.
	And we say, all right, let me see what's going on.
	We had this guy was 101.
	Where are you at?
	What would happen to him?
	What's your, you know, being that where you at?
	This is another story right now that's a lot of people are still curious to know what happened with Charlie.
	Yeah, I think that in the trial, I think it's going to be publicly televised.
	I am, that's what I'm hearing.
	I think the evidence will come out then.
	I think that they should release after the trials over all the evidence because at least what I found in the assassination of Kennedy King and RFK, the evidence speaks for itself and then people can decide.
	But, you know, I'm skeptical to weigh in because I just don't know all the facts yet.
	But what I will also say is that the family has, to my knowledge, not been able to say anything yet either because they're worried that the defense might use it in their case to try to plead innocence.
	And so, you know, the one thing I have said publicly is like, I don't think that anyone should be at all implicating Erica Kirk or the family in this.
	And I think that people that do that are just, that's wrong.
	Who's doing that?
	I've seen a lot of postings that have implied that she was somehow involved or sought to benefit from it.
	And some of these accounts, Tyler Boyer had posted, one of them had over 400,000 followers.
	I think it was on Instagram.
	Tyler who?
	Tyler Boyer?
	Tyler Boyer.
	Rob, do you know Tyler Boyer?
	I don't.
	I'm looking him up.
	Yeah, he's ahead of turning point action.
	But I had responded to it and he said something along the lines of this account has over 400,000 people following it.
	But, you know, I see the videos on X and or the TikTok reposts, and I just think that that's wrong.
	Ultimately, though, I do think that there is this aspect of a foreign funding tie.
	And so if you go to my account and you actually tie in, type in the Reploon account, and then there should be a share in regards to Antifa and the funding networks that exist.
	So there's no question that there are certain groups that are being investigated with potential previous knowledge to the assassination.
	One of them was that armed queers of Salt Lake City.
	What's interesting about them is who they are connected to.
	So I do think that there's this aspect of foreign money coming in, radicalizing these groups, and then things happening.
	But, you know, whatever is there, I think that it needs to be publicly out there for the American people to decide.
	So I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence of the trial.
	Yeah, I'm very curious.
	In regards to whoever's saying Erica, I mean, typically in situations like this, I think it's like normally they go to wife first or spouse first.
	That's a protocol that they'll normally do.
	I sold insurance for many years.
	And when clients would have suicide or certain things that would happen, the investigators at the insurance companies would hire the list 50 out of 50 ones I was a part of.
	First one, they go through a spouse, then it's everybody else.
	So it's natural, organic thing that people do.
	But on the list here, who do you think benefit from it the most?
	Who do you think benefit from it the most?
	I think that Charlie specifically was seen as a threat because of what he was going to do in the future.
	And so I would say that the people, the ideas that benefited from it most were the ones that directly conflicted with Charlie's ideologies and beliefs.
	Going back to a big issue that we have in this country right now is we have a great thing, freedom of speech.
	But in the same sense, other countries, our adversaries, use that to try to pit us against each other.
	And they capitalize on people's own ignorance in regards to believing things without questioning it on the internet, whatever they might see.
	And I think that Charlie had the unique ability to be able to cut through that.
	And so, you know, when they're talking about potentially people that should be held accountable for this, obviously, from what I'm hearing, the shooters' fingerprints were all over the top of the building.
	They're all over the firearm, allegedly all over the bullet casings.
	That's what I'm being told.
	I haven't seen the direct evidence yet because I'm not, you know, an investigator.
	I'm not one of the criminal investigators Hamilton case.
	But I do think that there's this aspect of after Charlie's assassination, you did see a massive mobilization and shift from the administration to come down on these foreign funding ties to groups like Antifa and people that have been targeting the conservative belief system and ideologies.
	And as we know, Charlie was everything that stood against that.
	He was kind of in the fatal funnel, if you will.
	Yeah, I don't think there was anybody like him in the entire section.
	No, and no one, and it's interesting, you're seeing kind of this like push to like, who's going to be heir apparent to replace him?
	You can't replace him.
	No way.
	He's not replacing him.
	Listen, you couldn't replace Reagan.
	You tried to.
	Trump showed up.
	And guess what?
	Some will say Trump is much better than Reagan was because Trump is a better negotiator.
	You're not going to be able to replace Trump.
	You're not going to be able to replace Charlie.
	He's one of a kind.
	Is this the clip, Rob?
	Yeah, this is a clip.
	Read specifically that bottom line.
	I actually talked to the DOJ about Neville Roaring Singh.
	He's an interesting cat.
	He's probably one of the worst of the worst.
	He's like, there's George Soros, and then there's Neville Roard Singh.
	Really?
	Yeah, Singham, again, he was the one funding those LA ICE riots.
	He's tied to the Armed Queers of Salt Lake City, who's also tied to Cuban Terror Network.
	But he was also named in this as funding Riot Inc.
	And so what they're doing is the guy, Singham, by the way, refused to respond to congressional inquiry into funding of these riots.
	So we wrote a letter to the Secretary of Treasury to freeze his assets.
	And the DOJ.
	I've seen this guy.
	I've seen this.
	We invited him to the podcast.
	Oh, well, if you get him to town, let me know because we're going to come arrest him.
	Did you really invite him?
	Last week.
	Last week, we invited him on the podcast.
	Man, this is the guy we invited to.
	I sent you a list of questions, but let me know because he seriously has been refusing to respond to Congress for testimony.
	Well, where is he based out of?
	China.
	He's from LA, but he also spends a majority of his time in China.
	Oh, yeah.
	He's like the worst of the worst.
	So, no, okay.
	So at first, I didn't know the name, but now that you go to the picture, we've been reading about this guy.
	Oh, yeah.
	Singh was a socialist and admirer of Minnesota.
	Oh, you're using Wikipedia.
	We got to talk to you on the fact sourcing on that one.
	Don't use, don't help them out.
	Wikipedia is the worst.
	Brock AI.
	So what do we know about him?
	What do you know about him?
	I know that he made his money directly getting help and funding from the CCP.
	And I also know that the guy's a devout, like as bad as it gets, straight up shill for the Communist Chinese Party.
	The groups and organizations that he's funding and that his wife also funds are directly responsible for a lot of the divide in this country.
	But it's not benefiting anyone else but China.
	So I'll use another issue, an example.
	So there's an organization called Code Pink, and they're advocating for the people of Palestine.
	But what's ironic about them is that their funding is all coming from Singham's wife, which is coming from the CCP.
	He's also not a registered foreign agent.
	And so we actually wrote the DOJ because last Congress won, Senator Rubio was ahead of the House, where the Senate Senate Intelligence Committee, they actually wrote a letter to the DOJ at the time asking them to hit him with FAR charges.
	So this guy's been on the radar for a while, but I think it's going to happen now where they're actually going to act on it criminally.
	Interesting.
	Yeah.
	So like they take these groups, right?
	Like let's say he's funding different organizations that are splitting Americans specifically on ICE using the Hispanic demographic, right?
	Then they're also at the same time funding organizations that are pitting Americans on the Palestine versus Israel issue.
	So it's only benefiting and coming, though, from one country, and that's China.
	And so I tell this to people and I'm like, here's the funding ties.
	We know the data Republican on X has done a great job kind of linking all the groups and organizations that have come from Neville Rory Singh and going into, you know, where he's operating and funneling the money.
	And it's just, it's wild to me.
	Has he been seen with Soros at all or no?
	No, but he's Soros is a globalist.
	And Singham is a communist.
	Got it.
	What a great combination.
	So you have the globalists and the communists both trying to destroy America.
	And you have idiots regurgitating the talking points.
	And it's not even organic to this country, which is the ironic part on all that.
	Yeah, interesting.
	So he doesn't come to the stage because if he comes here, he's arrested.
	Well, he's in big trouble.
	Yeah, I don't even know that he's in the country right now because we could not serve him to respond to Congress.
	So we tried, and he refused his receipt.
	So who from the U.S. government has been able to communicate with him, if anybody?
	I don't think anyone has, which is why he's being, if you look at that clip, I mean, he's named as, actually, you should really play that clip.
	Yeah, if you can, you should play that.
	That's a great clip, and you should actually hear about it.
	You had it a minute.
	It was a three-minute video.
	Right, there.
	Go for it.
	This is not just a story about violence and chaos, as you alluded to, Mr. President.
	This is a money story.
	And at the Government Accountability Institute, my colleague and I, Peter Schweitzer and I, and our team, we follow the money and we followed it to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc.
	And we found a network of NGOs.
	It's not just the Soros network, the Open Society Network.
	It's other funding networks, the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash.
	And it's also big left-wing funders.
	Some of them are not citizens of this country.
	Mr. Hans-Jorg Wies of Switzerland, they're pouring money into this entire ecosystem.
	And so I want to share three money facts with you about what we call Riot Inc.
	Number one, like any corporation, Riot Inc. has many divisions.
	It doesn't just have the Antifa Boots on the Ground division.
	It has PR divisions.
	It has marketing divisions.
	It has a very well-funded legal division to get these boots on the ground back on the streets as quickly as possible.
	But it does have those investors that I mentioned.
	Number two, we have identified dozens of radical organizations, not just the decentralized Antifa organizations, but dozens of radical organizations that have received more than $100 million from the Riot Inc. investors.
	These would be the lawyer groups.
	These would be the groups that advocate for calling good, honest Americans fascists, et cetera.
	And then three, I think the most shocking thing is that we have found that more than $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4 million to these very groups themselves, not just Antifa types.
	But there was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City.
	Over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism.
	These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money.
	So one other thing, this money helps fund the decentralized crowdfunding platforms.
	These are ways that we see citizen journalists pull up to these guys that are being paid to protest.
	And there's a business model where you pay people to go protest for you.
	I think.
	Oh, yeah.
	Didn't we, wasn't there a clip about this guy?
	Oh, I posted one where this woman's a professional protester.
	She's like been at 100 protests.
	You can actually find it on that same page because I've been covering the Antifa organized rights.
	A lot of people think that Antifa is organic.
	I actually had just had this debate again on that late show, that late night show.
	But yeah, they are absolutely, they're organized.
	A lot of them communicate on the dark web on a similar platform to Facebook.
	They are a lot of times using crowdfunding, foreign funding, cash, all of it.
	They're paying, they're suing cities if they're being detained by activist attorneys who are retained by these billionaire leftists.
	And a lot of people think, oh, you know, yeah, tax the rich, we hate billionaires.
	You guys are all shills for the very billionaires that are pushing to, you know, basically force you guys to eat bugs and enjoy it.
	You know, it's like, it's just such a wild concept to me.
	And it's like, you have to break through that.
	And so social media has been keying that.
	But going back to, you know, about Charlie, Charlie was able to break through this in such a unique way.
	And I think that there were many people that benefited from his murder.
	And so you think Neville. could be possibly behind the murderer charges.
	I don't know.
	I don't think like he directly said, I want to murder this person, but I think that his money in radicalizing these groups, I think absolutely had a form of funding tie.
	But do you think there's a direct tie, like a direct tie where you can track and say, nope, this is the person that said, go to XYZ?
	I think that Tyler Robinson definitely probably had those conversations with someone.
	And what's interesting to me is not just with Tyler Robinson, but also with the shooter that tried to assassinate the president in Pennsylvania.
	And then also with some other things that have come out with some of these radicals, Discord seems to be this communication app.
	What's interesting is, you know, you look at the assassination attempt on President Trump and Butler.
	We don't know anything about that.
	Why don't we, though?
	But that's the thing.
	I think that that 100%, there was something there that does not sit right, feel right.
	I had actually questioned the Secret Service director at that point in time.
	She perjured herself to me.
	And that's when I was like perjury charges.
	She ended up, I mean, you had both Democrat and Republican saying you need to resign from office.
	You're like, you're unfit.
	But we never saw anything that came out about that.
	And from my own personal takeaway after seeing the evidence, that spot was left open to assassinate the president.
	The Secret Service did not send their shooters, their snipers to a meeting that was supposed to be had by local law enforcement to coordinate day of.
	He was drastically understaffed with Secret Service.
	And I think that the rhetoric that was maintained, I think it was like, you know, we're going to kind of leave this open and see what happens.
	But there was way too much about the last shooter with President Trump where you cannot tell me that I don't think that that was intentionally done.
	I think that that was absolutely just based on the previous investigations I've looked into with Kennedy, RFK, and MLK.
	It felt like an inside job.
	Yeah, I think you even said, if I'm not mistaken, you said the only person that probably has that can release it is the president.
	You said something about that, right?
	Yeah, President Trump, I think, can release the information on Butler PA.
	And I think that that's obviously something very personal to him.
	But also too, at the same time, remember, President Trump gets into office, but you still have a handover that takes place.
	So the evidence isn't exactly what was left.
	What's interesting, I'll use another example.
	The cocaine in the White House, that evidence was destroyed immediately.
	We'll never get to the bottom of that.
	Why would they destroy that evidence?
	So if it's something to this caliber.
	What does destroyed mean?
	Well, specifically with the cocaine.
	Well, with the cocaine, there was like the baggie that could have had prints, all that.
	That's gone.
	So if that's happening with cocaine, no, I'm not surprised.
	You had some crazy people in and out of that White House.
	I'm sure they had a great weekend.
	Don't use cocaine, guys.
	Neil Vaughn said it best to JD Vance.
	He said, we can't even do cocaine nowadays, right?
	I don't know if you saw that clip with people.
	Well, there's fentanyl.
	Don't do cocaine.
	No, don't, don't touch it.
	Go running and stuff, you know.
	But the fact that Discord seems to be a common thread, I do think that the shooter in Pennsylvania had a handler.
	It seems like there's similar profiles to these people.
	So I definitely am curious myself to see what the evidence is.
	But I do think that when the information isn't put out there directly, that's when you have a lot of these, well, you know, could have Erica have been involved in any of that.
	And that's what I'm saying.
	Like, don't, I don't think that she at all had any connection to that.
	When I see that, it's like you're already, you're victimizing the victim, if that makes sense.
	Because at the end of the day, she did lose her husband.
	She lost her kids.
	Like, I was just with her at the White House, and she's, you know, that's anyone.
	If that happened to your wife, my husband, like, it's devastating.
	But I do think that there will be a lot probably that will come out in the trial.
	And it'll answer a lot of questions, which I think people should see the evidence.
	Yeah, what's the one thing that came out, Rob, that anybody that was at Utah, the 3,000 people that were in attendance, they can't talk about a gag order, the biggest gag order of all time.
	I think it was said.
	Is that what it was, Rob?
	Yes.
	The judge in the case for the murder trial of Tyler Robinson has issued a gag order that prevents any of the witnesses who may have been in attendance that may testify in the case from speaking with the media.
	That's two to 3,000 people that were on the UVU campus at the time of the shooting on September 10th.
	That's the worst thing.
	Right now, those people are gagged.
	I'm not a fan of gag orders because of what I saw happen with President Trump in New York City when they were trying to put a gag order on him to control the narrative about that.
	What I will also say, though, is I'm curious to see what evidence they do have.
	So I'm curious to see what they can present in court.
	Because if you have evidence where you have like prints on everything and the guy's pleading guilty to it, I think it's a lot different.
	That'll answer a lot of questions.
	But either which way, I mean, Charlie was on the path to become and probably easily get elected based on the base that he had and the reach that he had and the ability to connect with people and the messaging and just the ability to break through cognitive dissidence.
	He was like a complete just machine in that sense.
	And I think that there were countries that can track that kind of stuff, like China.
	But also, too, a lot of people have said, well, was it because he was pivoting on his position on Israel?
	And I think that that's why the evidence specifically needs to come out so that people can answer those questions for themselves.
	But as far as I'm hearing, apparently they have great evidence on Tyler Robinson.
	So that's it.
	We will see.
	Is this it, Rob?
	Yes, this is a news report on the gag order.
	for it discovery in this case your honor it's voluminous to say the least his lawyers entered their formal appearance and declined to waive his right to a preliminary hearing Judge Tony Graff has issued a gag order preventing anyone associated with the case from talking about it.
	It's to avoid pretrial publicity, already a big problem.
	A case with massive media exposure involving a high-profile figure like Charlie Kirk.
	So is that the judge wants to ensure that there's a lot of Robinson?
	It's also brought up a big issue involving 3,000 people.
	All 3,000 people.
	So right now, from my understanding, it's all 3,000 that if anyone may be called to testify in the trial, that's why they're putting the gag order in place in order to give Tyler Robinson a fair trial and not have a tainted jury pool.
	Got it.
	Got it.
	Yeah, this is the biggest assassination of our lifetime.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	So this is on this.
	I've said this before.
	It's on the level of MLK.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	The only difference with this is you got 3,000 cameras that were there, phones, to see everything that's going on.
	And fingerprints are everywhere today versus what they used to be.
	Let's go to the last story before we run.
	And they am sure too.
	I mean, they can do the phone, like the digital pinging, all of that.
	So, I mean, I think the evidence is going to say a lot.
	And I'm actually hoping that the evidence can get out there sooner rather than later because I think it will answer questions.
	And I think everyone involved needs to be held accountable.
	But either which way, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of Gagorges.
	Yeah, me neither.
	No, I will, look, I just want to find out what happened.
	If there's anybody who's a bad person, let's find out and get to the bottom of it, whoever did it.
	Because one, we don't know what happened with Butler.
	The other day, right?
	Butler's, I'm telling you right now, Butler, that felt like an inside job.
	Sometimes what it seems like is it's intentional negligence.
	Okay.
	So is there anything we can do to find out who it was?
	Because some of the guys.
	Butler with Charles.
	Butler.
	Again, I think that that would be up to the purview of the president if he would be comfortable releasing those files.
	But just be cautious in that even if files were released, I don't know that we'd find the answers because we know for a fact that the evidence for the cocaine baggie was destroyed.
	They got rid of that.
	Why would you destroy that?
	What if that would have been anthrax?
	You know, like you're smuggling cocaine into the White House.
	What if that was anthrax?
	You know, it's like just they, in my opinion, they wouldn't have destroyed it unless someone directly associated with the president.
	Let me ask the other question.
	So President Trump came out.
	Biden, I mean, right.
	But President Trump just came out and said, you know, he beat me by, you know, 15 million.
	Do you really think if you were to ask Obama that Joe Biden would have 15 million votes than him?
	And the only states that the African-American vote was, you know, the only states that the dramatic victory was big was, you know, what do you call it?
	The seven states that mattered.
	All the other states, the numbers were usual to what Obama would have done.
	Do you think we're going to find out what happened with election in 2020?
	I think that the elections need to be cleaned up.
	Absolutely.
	I think that they've started to put that out, at least with ODNI and the Russia gate kind of presenting the platform for that.
	But I do think that there's other issues with election law reform.
	And then you also have the issue of illegals, et cetera.
	I mean, Dinesh J'Souza did a great movie on this where they were showing basically people dropping off baggies and pallets, all that.
	Historically, there has been issues with elections.
	We know Kennedy notoriously was marked with that.
	Chicago, the mayor.
	It was the mob.
	It was the mob.
	The mayor.
	It was the mob.
	But it's, you know, with what President Trump does, there's always, you know, he has a unique way of being able to be like, you know, do you really believe that?
	And I'm sorry, but I don't believe that Obama or that Biden got more votes than Obama.
	I just don't.
	I don't think Obama believes that.
	What is the most likely of we going to get to the bottom of any of these?
	If you were to say 9-11, 2020, Epstein, COVID, RFK, MLK, JFK, which one are we going to find out for a fact in the next three years what happened?
	Probably JFK.
	And I say that because we've had so much come out, especially with this.
	So JFK and the declassification.
	Which is least likely.
	Come on in.
	Probably, probably 9-11 and probably Epstein.
	And the reason I say that is because I'm already, and we've been trying to already reach out to people like some of the families of 9-11 and all that were involved in suing.
	And even just the stuff that we were told about what the families, they said like the FBI had former knowledge, that they intentionally weren't, you know, giving information over to the families and that the families actually received information from British intelligence in regards to 9-11.
	All of that to say that it's just me, our task force members, depending on what they can allocate time for.
	Because remember, we're doing this in addition to everything else we have going on in Washington, and there's a lot.
	Oh, I know.
	You guys are very busy.
	Yeah, so this is in addition to that.
	And then we only have two oversight staffers that are assigned to this.
	So we then have to rely on the good graces of the agency's declassifying authorities.
	I will say this.
	Right now with Director Radcliffe at the CIA, he has done what no other CIA director has done in U.S. history in regards to these files in handing over specifically pertaining to JFK, MLK, and RFK stuff that the previous directors and agencies hid from the American people.
	So Director Radcliffe, a lot of people don't know his background, but he was actually a member of Oversight and then he became the ODNI and then he became the CIA director.
	Kash Patel was a staffer on oversight, became a advocate for the president, et cetera, and then moved into the FBI director position.
	So these people do get their start kind of working these investigations.
	But also Radcliffe had also pushed for transparency on the origins of COVID-19.
	So it just is a matter of time to when we can get through it.
	But we've been making great progress on the JFK stuff.
	So a lot of people are like, well, what's the historical significance of this?
	Why?
	And it's like the American people deserve to know the truth.
	And if you don't have accountability for that, then ultimately you can't hold future agencies accountable.
	And the flush has already begun within the intelligence communities.
	You saw when President Trump got elected, there was actually an article, I think it came out from CNN, that had said the seventh floor of the CIA is concerned about former disgruntled employees selling state secrets, which is also known as espionage, because they don't like the Trump administration.
	And you're seeing different intelligence agents quietly being dismissed from the FBI, et cetera, because of the fact that they're either undermining stonewalling or in some instances, destroying evidence, as we've seen.
	So I think that there's a lot of that, but all that to say, instead of complaining about it on the internet and going on X and saying how shitty Congress is, do something about it.
	Run for office, get involved, but do not just complain about it because if you are, you're part of the problem.
	Yeah, I mean, that kudos to you because you're actually doing that.
	Have you gotten a call from anybody to say, hey, Anna, we love you.
	We like you.
	You're a future star.
	You're doing great things.
	Leave this story alone.
	Which one?
	I will let you answer that one.
	Has anyone called you and said, just the fact that you say which one, that means you've gotten a call.
	Well, let me ask you this way.
	Have you gotten a call about JFK saying leave this one alone?
	No, I get a lot of inquiries, though, as to how the hell I got the documents.
	That's like a big one.
	People were like, how did you get the documents from Russia?
	And it started with a phone call.
	And I met with them and I was a first member of Congress.
	It was me, Andy Ogles, and Eric Burleson.
	They're the only ones that would come with me.
	I'm the first member of Congress since the 90s that met with the Russian delegate or Russian Russian ambassador.
	And because I support what President Trump is doing in regards to peace, I'm also going to be meeting with the special envoy to the president of Russia to discuss peace.
	That's not, you know, like a lot of people try to just brand me as like some idiot and I'm not.
	And so that's fine.
	They can roll with that.
	But I know.
	Who says that, though?
	I think it's just the left likes to try to paint me as like some like MAGA idiot, but I'm not.
	And so it's okay.
	They can lean into that because I'm actually making moves.
	It's fine.
	But on the flip side, you actually have, you know, this real implication that if we are able to secure a peace deal, that's a multi-trillion dollar trade deal that's going to drastically help everyone in the world, but especially the people of this country.
	And I know you also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
	I did.
	I did.
	And even specifically on the Gaza-Israel issue, actually, I just got this sent to me.
	I'll read it.
	This actually was just posted in regards to Eric Cortalesa, who's a Time magazine reporter.
	He said, during my latest interview with President Trump, he made clear to Netanyahu the consequences if he capitulates to extremists in his coalition and moves to annex the West Bank.
	Israel will lose all of its support from the United States if that happens.
	So President Trump, you know, a lot of people have tried to say that he's controlled and he's not.
	And when people do that, that is such a cop-out response because, well, look at what he's doing.
	He is holding people accountable.
	No other president's been able to do that.
	So, you know, I trust him more in foreign policy than any other member of Congress and any other, you know, pundin or I do as well.
	And by the way, that's big.
	That was just announced right now.
	Yeah, I'll show you.
	You can pull it up right now and you should show it to your viewers.
	It's on E-R-I-C, C-O-R-T-E-L-L-E-S-S-A.
	Yep, right there.
	First one that just posted.
	Go down.
	There you go.
	That one?
	Yep.
	During my latest interview with President Trump, he made it clear to NetNow the consequence if he capitulates. to extremists in his coalition and moves to annex the West Bank.
	The West Bank, Israel would lose all of its support.
	I love that.
	I love that.
	But that's what I'm saying.
	So many people were advocating for this peace deal not to work out and trying to say that he's controlled.
	And it's like, you know, they are not the ones.
	It's like that famous poem, The Man in the Arena.
	They're not there.
	They're not seeing the backroom conversations and discussions.
	And this is the type of foreign policy we need, accountability.
	So did anybody call you, tell you, leave Epstein alone?
	I definitely got chirped at, but I also too know that at the end of the day, I have to be able to answer for my decisions in Congress to God.
	And so I will continue to push for transparency on that.
	And I, to be clear, have been the only member of Congress that did it even before.
	Can Bondi call you, tell you, leave this one alone.
	Can Bondi did not call me.
	But it is interesting that when this became politically convenient, how it quickly was aimed to smear the president when in actuality, he was probably the cleanest politician involved in all this.
	Yeah, and not involved in the sense that he was directly, but related to it.
	If you, okay, so let me ask the last question on this, and then I want to show you the clip because I think Rob found a clip of me talking, turning point USA needs some Hispanics.
	I think he found one.
	Oh, really?
	You found one.
	So if you got a call and the call is, Anna, we love you.
	You're amazing.
	You're talent.
	We got your back.
	But there are secrets, then there's secrets, then there's secrets.
	Can we trust you on the inner of the inner of the inner circle?
	You come in.
	Okay, great.
	I'm painting a picture.
	Stay with me here.
	Okay.
	And it says, look, here's what could happen if we release the files.
	If you've noticed, Clintons have left us alone.
	Obama's have left us alone.
	Everybody's left us alone.
	We could keep the White House Republican for the next 16 years.
	But in order to do so, all of those things are true about all these guys.
	But if we release and we lose leverage with them, we got to keep this to ourselves.
	And I know it's not because all these kids were taking advantage of all this other stuff, but we cannot release this.
	would you say my politically correct statement or you're anna paulina luna You're from Venice.
	You're a tough you.
	I would say go F yourself.
	Would you really?
	You would.
	Yeah, because I think because ultimately these people won't go to jail.
	But there's still this aspect, like, I'll give you an example, the Diddy, the Diddy stuff.
	Everyone knows what P. Diddy did.
	Do you think P. Diddy is going to be at cocktail parties now and everything?
	No, no one wants anything to do with P. Diddy, right?
	Did he deserve the sentencing that he got?
	I think that they should have given him a harsher sentence.
	You saw what he did to Cassie.
	He beat the heck out of her.
	I mean, like, the guy is a creep.
	And the fact that CNN kept that for all those years, since whatever year they had it, they didn't release that clip, if I'm not mistaken, that has access to it for a long time and then all of a sudden appears out of nowhere.
	But your question was very hypothetical, and that's probably why they won't give me subpoena authority.
	So I have to get creative because they do not give me subpoena authority.
	I think that's why.
	Because the benefit of being raw, innocent, and new, you're actually doing it for the right reasons.
	And not wanting to do it long term.
	And that's the biggest thing, that you don't do it for long-term.
	Statesmen, like you said earlier, guys would come in.
	I'm sure you've seen the Hillsdale courses that they have and you go through and you read the history of all the stuff that happened.
	You know, what was the best part about Charlie's Memorial?
	When Larry Arn was on stage and he says, if anybody wants to compete with Charlie, he went through the Hillsdale's courses 31 times.
	31 times when he was at that event.
	But this is, is this a clip, Rob?
	Yep.
	Oh, man, you're probably responsible for him recruiting me.
	Well, let's see this one.
	So you're the reason I didn't go to medical school.
	Mom is upset.
	I became a lawyer.
	I wanted her to go become a doctor.
	Let me see if this is it.
	Takes place.
	Sure.
	I'd love to hear your opinion.
	So my question for you would be the following.
	So this is where I struggle with this.
	And this is where I think America's having a hard time with this.
	You're white.
	Your parents are, I'm assuming they're American.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	At seventh grade, you ask your parents what you are.
	They say Republican.
	You're an October 14th baby.
	You're certain you're, I mean, 18, but you're a determined guy.
	You're going to figure this thing out.
	And you're going to go out there and, you know, once you get sold out to a concept, you're going to stick to it, right?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Now, let's take you out.
	I'm here.
	Everybody's white here.
	I was telling them earlier, everybody I look at here, they're all white.
	All white.
	90%.
	That's not true.
	He's so.
	Imagine being watched.
	Yeah, he is.
	He's like, that's like when I'm here.
	Why do we have commercials on this route?
	And what is base 44?
	I get that.
	45 Latinos and 20 African Americans.
	No problem.
	And how many total people do you have here?
	About a thousand.
	Okay, that's 10% is Latino and is African American.
	But that's fine.
	My point to you is, I can see an easier argument to go to the traditional Caucasian, Christian, church, family, all this stuff.
	Great.
	And they'll be turned on by it because they grew up in a family like that.
	And there's nothing wrong with that.
	Listen, I came to him, I'm a proud American.
	I served in a military, 1001st Airborne.
	I'm a capitalist.
	I'm an entrepreneur.
	There's nothing about it that I'm going to give you.
	That's like what I've heard.
	That's how I remember Charlie's stuff.
	Philosophies.
	How do you reach out to the kid that's 19 years old, Hispanic, grew up in a family that doesn't believe in capitalism, that doesn't believe in this stuff, that believes in socialism?
	I can't believe we have this clip for 19 years.
	I'm composite at this point.
	This is June 21st of 2017.
	You should hear his answer.
	June 17th, June 21st, 2017.
	By the way, look how many views the interview has.
	At that time, we were a small channel, 16,000 views.
	Yeah, so he literally recruited me less than a year later.
	So this is full circles.
	This is a quantum breadcrumb.
	That's what I like to call it.
	How wild is that?
	So last but not least, the story with UAPs, right?
	And unidentified phenomenon.
	That's right.
	They change it up on us all the time.
	So there's this new documentary that's coming out that I started to market.
	You're in it as well.
	Marco Rubio, a bunch of other guys.
	Alessandro, I think, is also in it.
	A few other people are in it.
	If you want to play the clip, Rob, go ahead and play the clip.
	The age of disclosure.
	The age of disclosure.
	The producer will be happy you're talking about this.
	We've had repeated instances of something operating in the airspace over.
	Marco's in the middle of the middle of leading up.
	It's not ours.
	These are otherworldly things that are performing maneuvers that haven't been seen.
	I have seen with my own eyes non-human craft and non-human beings.
	This is so secret.
	There have been very few people in our entire government that have been allowed or provided access to it.
	Even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis.
	But that begins to ramp out of control.
	It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees.
	People have been hurt protecting and hiding this information.
	Some people claim it would cost them their lives and they spoke out about these things.
	You had information being locked away that could change the trajectory for species.
	Again, pause the lap.
	November 21st, this is coming out.
	It'll be available on Amazon Prime, and you can see it in Tampa.
	Great.
	Fantastic.
	So while we're seeing this, okay, and everything that's being said about this, one of Rogan's biggest podcasts that he, I think it's his biggest podcast he ever did, bigger than President Trump.
	I think it's Lazar and Jeremy.
	I'm going to say his last name, Corbel, right?
	I'm sure you've seen this.
	I know Lazar.
	I know Corbel.
	I've heard of Lazar.
	Okay, so Lazar is like the one that only comes out with Corbel.
	Like if Corbel is not Lazar, typically doesn't want to come out and talk to anybody right there.
	If you look at this, Corbel's been very helpful, some of our stuff.
	65 million views is what that podcast did.
	Here's what he had to say: where some people watched is the guys I had on, when I had Alizando on, I cannot tell you how many text messages I got from people who are former CIA or some of the guys that are in.
	Let me tell you, I don't trust this guy on this.
	I'm like, look, I'm just having a conversation with the guy.
	I'm not sitting here saying anything.
	You're like, I'm not endorsing him.
	Here's what Corbel had to say.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	So UFOs are real, and they've been here a long time.
	And that's the truth.
	But the lie is coming.
	All indications, like all of them, is that that lie is going to be that there is a craft slowly making its way to us here on Earth.
	And that is the lie they're going to want you to believe.
	It's nuanced how they explain that, the nature of that threat.
	But that 100% is the lie you are going to be told.
	You even got a date.
	People have been whispering a date for a long time now.
	I know where that lie comes from.
	I know specifically what document from the 70s initiated the idea of that lie.
	A classified document.
	That is the lie you will be told.
	You're going to be told that there is a craft on its way to Earth.
	That's the lie.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	I hope I'm wrong.
	I sent you two texts today with a year.
	Not from me.
	Nope.
	I'm not going to propagate that lie.
	So, who do we believe, Anna?
	Look, I have seen some interesting stuff on this task force, and I'm not the only one.
	So, Tim Burchett's been in this game a lot longer than I have.
	Eric Burleson is helping with setting up the UAP stuff because, again, we do this in between our other investigations and our other work.
	But this is, again, one of the biggest bipartisan and bicameral topics in Congress currently.
	And if you look up the video that was just played at our last hearing that we did, it was on the Hellfire missile being deflected by one of these UAPs.
	That specifically, I think, should, for national security reasons, have everyone questioning what we were really being told about these things.
	We are also denied access by the Department of War to certain footage and oversight.
	I'd actually put this out, or we put it out in a statement in regards to this guy.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Deflect.
	We actually entered the United States government arsenal that can split a hellfire.
	Yeah.
	So that was taken from an MQ-9 off the coast of Africa.
	And this footage was dead dropped to Eric Burleson, and then he played it in the hearing.
	But the point is, is that this information was not shown with members of Congress.
	Been, and I always tell the historical story now, infamous on the Eglin Air Force Base incident where me, Burchett, and Matt Gates had gone to follow up on inquiry from pilots that had come to Representative Gates' office saying that the Air Force was covering up UAP activity off the coast of Eglin Air Force Base in the panhandle.
	And as a result of that, I mean, they had a lot of egg on their face.
	I mean, this got into basically a pitching match, a pissing match between the legislative branch and the Department of Defense at the time under Lloyd Austin in regards to whether they could cancel our meetings.
	The commander of the base left in the middle of our hearing, like of our field hearing, basically there, took off and left to go on leave.
	I've never, like, have you ever heard of a base commander just leaving in the middle of a congressional delegation?
	Never, ever.
	He gets up in the middle of our conversation.
	This is at Eglin Air Force.
	This is the commanding, the base commander.
	Can you give the name or no?
	I don't remember the name off the toe of my.
	So it's not like it's not public.
	It's public.
	Well, we publicly went public with what happened because the Air Force tried to stonewall us in regards to following up all these investigations into UAPs.
	And this was under the Biden administration.
	So this is starting in 2022.
	But long story short, in the middle of our hearing, he basically gets up and leaves.
	And then he sent his kind of second in command to handle us, if you will.
	So me, Gates, and Burchett.
	I remember Burchett told the commanding officer, he goes, you can do this the easy way or the hard way, buddy.
	You have a member of House Armed Services here, two members of oversight.
	And if you don't do it here, we're going to call you up to Washington to testify in front of Congress.
	You can explain yourself to the American people then.
	But they wouldn't let us talk to any of the pots except for one.
	And then saw some interesting stuff.
	And so what I will tell you is that footage, the fact that it was dead dropped to Burleson, I'm certain that there's more of where that comes from.
	And we are going to push for the declassification of stuff that we've seen because I think the American people deserve to see it.
	But I think, you know, you're never going to have the U.S. government admit or try to explain something if it's also somewhat not specifically pertaining to national defense.
	So if like it's not tech that we've made not involving a foreign government, I think that you're going to see a direct statement from that.
	What's interesting, and I kind of went into this with Joe Rogan, is when we were talking to some of the witnesses, they don't call them extraterrestrial.
	They call them interdimensional.
	There's also this aspect of these things defying physics as we know it.
	And then you look into texts that were removed from the Bible, like the Book of Enoch, that actually specifically address technologies, if you will, that were given to mankind or of entities not of human origin, non-human intelligence.
	So these are all things to consider when addressing the topic.
	But based on what I've seen, not speculating, based on the evidence that I've seen, there is something out there.
	And based on what I'm saying is it's not.
	I think that it's along the lines of that video that you just saw.
	Have they shown you.
	Okay, so.
	I have to be careful because I could get in trouble if I divulge what I've been shown in a SCIF.
	So what I can tell you is I'm just telling you as me, not specifically addressing SCIF stuff, that they're real.
	And I'm not the only one.
	You just saw the secretary of state in a documentary addressing the same thing.
	It's a it's a it's a mind loop, right?
	But like Pinellas County, where I specifically represent, there's actually a high number of these reported sightings.
	But it's not just there.
	A lot of the members on the task force or that gavel into this, first of all, it's bipartisan and bicameral.
	Like we've had pretty much everyone's like circulated at one point, right?
	Through to ask questions and whatnot.
	But members in Alaska, the member of Alaska specifically has a lot of reports of this.
	People that you know represent these areas, when you get calls to the office, I've seen a lot of kooky stuff too that I know that's like crazy, like provably false.
	That's AI, CGI, whatever.
	But then you have the stuff that you can't explain.
	And then you have the attacks on the witnesses that come forward to testify, which if it wasn't real, why would you try to be discrediting someone?
	Why is the department of the VA leaking people's records to the press if it's not real, right?
	It's like if you, you know, if you're being told not to look under that rock, you might look under the rock.
	And so that actually happened to David Grush when he came forward to testify.
	Is his medical records were leaked to the press?
	Yeah, I, I, and for me, I mean, I'm a math guy, so basics of math.
	What do we not know a lot about?
	We don't know 95% of what's in the ocean.
	And we don't know.
	The ocean's super scary.
	Right.
	That's that's the stuff we hear about USOs.
	Yeah.
	That's a separate topic.
	That's a separate topic.
	Yeah.
	But when you look up, they're like, what's out there?
	Anything.
	What's possible?
	What's capable?
	There's so many different things that we can be thinking about.
	So that's one.
	But then if we go back to COVID and think about how the virus came in and they scared the crap out of everybody.
	We're going to, well, I mean, sorry to interrupt you.
	I'm just going to jump in.
	100%, I believe, released by China as a biowarfare weapon.
	100%.
	They started, they locked up our chain of supplies to be able to actually fight it.
	They started hitting us months out prior.
	Remember, do you remember the social programming that was taking place on Snapchat with the masks?
	Do you remember that?
	Little kids were putting on these masks and it was a filter.
	That was like a year and a half out from COVID where people could put the filters on.
	You're completely desensitizing a population to wearing masks.
	You guys don't remember the Snapchat?
	I don't remember the mask thing.
	Yeah, type it.
	Look, look, you see the little bear mask filter?
	This was like on Snapchat for a while.
	People were doing the masks.
	Okay, so like, just listen.
	So you're setting up a population.
	Type in when they started it.
	Yeah, when they started that.
	It was like 2017, I remember like when Snapchat really started, it was like a thing.
	But it wasn't just that.
	Then you also too started having the infiltration of these videos, painting it out to be this deadly disease when we know now that the survivability rate of COVID was really high.
	So then you saw this like almost dystopian power play with different people, local.
	I mean, it was crazy.
	But then you look at what China did trying to pull the same crap here when Trump got elected again.
	He didn't do it under, they didn't do it under Biden.
	You see, in Michigan, you have reports, this happened twice.
	You had spies coming in with bio-agro-terrorism weapons to try to release them on our ag supply to kill and make our people sick.
	That happened multiple times out of Michigan from the Chinese government.
	No one's talking about that.
	It happened multiple times in the same way that they tried to release that crap with COVID.
	So I keep saying it.
	And like China is an absolute threat.
	If you don't think it's a threat, you're not paying attention.
	If you don't think China wants to be number one and get us out of the way, you have not been paying attention.
	So you trust Russia more than you trust China?
	I'm not saying that I trust anyone.
	I only trust the United States.
	But what I will say is that as far as the threat matrix is concerned, I think China's a way bigger threat.
	Yeah.
	So to me, these two stories had a Jada Pinkett moment, but they entangled.
	They just entangled.
	But she used that phrase entanglement.
	I don't know if you remember that or not.
	But so the two stories.
	So let's go to the alien side.
	The alien side, one side for me is: all right, they're going to use the whole fear porn of, let me tell you what's coming.
	We have to shut it down.
	Everybody needs to stay inside.
	What Jeremy Corbel is saying, it sounds realistic that a administration could do that to get what they want.
	And whatever that may be.
	This is why we need to do this.
	And this is why we need to do that.
	I like that he's putting it out there that other people can be like, all right, if it happens, we got to be ready for it.
	Especially nowadays with the AI and the videos that they're making, Anna, it's incredibly well.
	There's also drone technology.
	So, like, a lot of this stuff can be explained with drones.
	A lot of it can be explained with AI.
	But then there's the stuff that you can't explain.
	And that's the stuff that we're interested in trying to declassify and pushing for declassification.
	But also, we've been straight up denied access.
	So you're saying that members of Congress don't have access, but we're writing the checks.
	So do we live in a truly free and fair society if members of Congress can't provide oversight on that?
	Because ultimately, we're the advocates for the American people.
	This is a bipartisan issue.
	But I think that people don't like talking about it because there's been a stigma created on it by our own government under decades following Roswell under decades under Roswell that have ultimately resulted in people thinking specifically of the baby boomer generation era that it's a crazy topic to discuss where you have people that are more Gen X and onward that are like, okay, there might be something out there.
	But Dr. Avi Loeb actually puts it best.
	He's a Harvard astrophysicist.
	He says, why are we busy looking for little single-celled organisms on Mars when we can be looking for a house with people in it?
	And I think, you know, if I don't care what religion you are in the world, it talks about other creations other than human beings.
	I'm a Christian, so I have a biblical perspective on this, and you can fill in the gaps on that.
	But what I think is that it would be pretty naive to think that we are the only creation in this galaxy, let alone the universe.
	I'm with that.
	And I'm not, I'm not one that's not with that.
	It's how it's going to be used for us.
	Can you actually ask for them to allow you to go to Area 51 or no?
	We've asked Burleson actually got permission for us to go, but there's nothing at Area 51.
	I think Area 51, first of all, aside from radioactive, potentially water, Area 51 would not be where they would be like housing this information.
	I do think that there's a massive amount of information being housed at the Department of War, specifically siloed from Congress that involves certain footage, whatever it might be.
	Actually, Tucker Carlson, when he was on Fox News, he actually had pulled up declares, he actually showed declassified videos of those flying triangles.
	Do you remember that?
	Can you pull that up just to show?
	Because to be clear, this was declassified out of the Pentagon.
	So when people try to say that I'm pushing kooky theories, really?
	Because I'm just talking about what the evidence is already out there.
	I'm just asking the questions.
	The triangle.
	Yeah, the flying triangles.
	Not that's a TikTok.
	No, if you go lower, you'll find it.
	If you go lower, you'll probably find it fine if you go lower.
	Or you could type in like Pentagon pyramids and see if that pops up.
	I'm going to do the same thing on X.
	Yeah.
	Oh, there it is.
	Pentagon.
	Oh, you just had it.
	It's okay right there.
	That's Fox, not Tucker.
	Well, he had it on his show, but I knew it would probably populate on the search.
	But yeah, so like this has all been declassified out of our own government.
	Plenty of religions around the world talk about this stuff.
	So I simply think that we're just, you know, talking about stuff that humanity probably already knows.
	Yeah.
	I mean, do you think it's going to come a time where you know there could be a possible attack, like a warning?
	Hey, the world, be ready.
	What's been interesting on so I think that this gets into like you're always going to have the possibility of people taking things and using them for their own power gain.
	I think that politics and governments, big governments tend to be very narcissistic and egocentric and self-driven in that sense.
	So of course that's always a concern.
	But I think the real question you should be asking is: does this confirm what it talked about in the book of Enoch?
	And I would really advise people to read that.
	And I think that it's interesting that it was taken out of the Bible.
	Was around, I think, it was the fourth or fifth century that it was removed.
	But that even in our modern day, very watered-down version of the Bible, that it still references Enoch.
	And so, when you read the book of Enoch, and I've read it now three times, it's very interesting what it discusses regarding the technologies, et cetera, fallen angels, all of that.
	So, all that to say that, you know, we ask questions and we have the conversation where previous Congresses have not been able to do that.
	I'm talking about Enoch, because when I think of Enoch, I think about one of only two characters in a Bible that never died and they were taken.
	Enoch would have been one of them.
	Right.
	Enoch is one of them that was taken.
	You have to read.
	And it's a debate.
	Some say one, some say two, but Enoch is typically on that list.
	Well, you have to read the book of Enoch.
	And what's interesting is you have the Ethiopian Orthodox church that actually maintains the full canon books of the Bible.
	There's 88 in total.
	The Catholic Bible is even different than the modern day King James Bible.
	A lot of people are like, well, what's the difference?
	Well, you know the story, you want to get remarried, rewrote the Bible, then you have the Church of England.
	So I'm not saying that, you know, if you read one Bible, you're not going to be able to access Jesus.
	That's a very personal relationship, I think, that people have been able to find Jesus in very dark circumstances and they're saved.
	And that's ultimately what, you know, as Christians, if you are, you know, talking about it and being able to just say, like, hey, there's salvation available, that's kind of where you lead into, right?
	But it's just whenever you have historically people trying to hide information, it's usually for nefarious reasons.
	And so that's why I've been so inclined to tell people to read this book.
	Who do we have on that was debated Wes Huff and it was the end of it, Billy Billy Carson.
	What do you think about Billy Carson?
	I don't know Billy Carson.
	Okay.
	I've heard a little bit about Wes Huff.
	A lot of people will try to say that though the book of Enoch specifically is not legitimate.
	And I would actually argue that that's completely contrary to what the Bible sets up if you actually read through the entire thing and see what it talks about.
	Did you ever talk to Charlie about this or no?
	I never talked to Charlie about this.
	Interesting, though, Charlie did, I think, upload a video of a UAP sighting he had.
	And so I never was able to address it with him.
	But specifically on this, you know, when my dad, so prior to my dad really embracing Messianic Judaism, he kind of started looking into, you know, we were going to Calvary Chapel, looking into like how the Bible had been really changed and how the modern day church was forgetting a lot of the tradition of the past, that just because Jesus came didn't necessarily mean that you were totally to forget the previous teachings of the Old Testament.
	And so it's been interesting because this has provided, I think, a lot of context for why I have the views that I do specifically on these topics.
	But all that to say that I do think that it proves with this footage that if this is not foreign governments, if this is not created by us, then it does confirm what the Bible talks about of there being other creations.
	I'm not saying that these things are good or bad, right?
	But according to our witness statements, I mean, George Knapp allegedly smuggled out and we admitted or we admitted them to the congressional record documents out of the Soviet Union, which I joke that George Knapp probably deserves a star at Langley for this because how he got these documents as opposed to the CIA is interesting.
	But it allegedly talks about a program that the Soviet government had stood up to actually investigate UAPs because they had activated their nuclear weapon silo and had almost launched missiles and then shut them down right away.
	And it was known as Thread 3.
	So those records have been entered into the archive so that people can pull them up and look into them themselves.
	It's not a question of whether or not it's happening.
	It's happening.
	The question is: what is it?
	And I think that that's up to people whether or not they're going to look at it from a religious or a secular standpoint.
	Wild.
	It is wild.
	It's a lot.
	George Knapp, it says what?
	He's the one that brought into prominence Bob Lazar in 89.
	Yeah, so George Knapp was an investigative journalist in Las Vegas, still lives there today, works with Jeremy Corbell.
	He's literally one of the subject matter experts on this because of his work in journalism and what they've been able to sift through.
	And he testified at our last hearing.
	But he was not a first-hand witness to this.
	We did have witnesses that were first-hand witnesses to UAPs.
	You can actually pull up the Vandenberg Air Force Base witness testimony he testified to us at our last hearing.
	We also had an active duty member of the Navy testify and then also former member of security forces.
	Yep.
	Jeffrey Nussatelli.
	Yep.
	So we actually, the Vandenberg Red Square, that was a particularly interesting one because it appeared over Vandenberg Air Base and was about the size of a football field or more.
	And they actually have if you hear the testimony, you can hear it.
	All right.
	So this isn't fear porn.
	This isn't.
	No, I think you just have to look at it through a very, you know, it puts it in perspective as to our position in the world, in the universe, if there's life after death.
	You know, it makes you question, you know, is God real?
	I definitely think God is real.
	So if God is real, then it's possible that, you know, the Bible's also a truthful document, which in that case would explain all this.
	Is this it?
	This is.
	Yeah, you can hear it.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead, Rob.
	Jeffrey Nusitelli.
	I'm a former military police officer with 16 years of active duty service in the U.S. Air Force.
	I'm here today because the American people have both the right and the responsibility to know the truth about unidentified aerial phenomenon.
	That truth remains hidden, classified and silenced by fear, retaliation, stigma, and confusion.
	Today, we are here to help break that silence.
	Between 2003 and 2005, five UAP incidents occurred at Vandenberg Air Force Base, home to the National Missile Defense Project, a top national security priority.
	At the time, we were conducting launches deemed by the National Reconnaissance Office as the most important in 25 years.
	These were historic launches.
	These facilities were vital and they were repeatedly visited by UAP.
	Each incident was witnessed by multiple personnel, documented, investigated, and reported up the chain of command.
	We sent information up, but we got no guidance down on how to handle these events.
	I personally witnessed one of these events and investigated others as they occurred.
	Six other service members have provided me with the information that I will share with you today.
	The incursions began on October 14, 2003, when Boeing contractors reported a massive glowing red square silently hovering over two missile defense sites.
	After several minutes, it drifted further east onto the base and vanished over the hills.
	This event, now known as the Vandenberg Red Square, was referenced by Representative Luna at the first hearing on this topic.
	Official Air Force records of this event are in possession by Aero and the FBI.
	Later that night, while I was on duty, security guards at a critical launch site reported a bright, fast-moving object over the ocean.
	I responded to the incident.
	Chaos ensued over the radio as the object approached rapidly.
	I heard my friends screaming, it's coming right at us, it's coming right for us, and now it's right here.
	Moments later, I heard them say that it had shot off and was gone.
	When I arrived on scene, I talked to five shaken witnesses who described a massive triangular craft larger than a football field that hovered silently for about 45 seconds over their entry control point before shooting away at impossible speed.
	About a week later, another patrol reported a light over the ocean behaving erratically.
	Believing it might be an unannounced aircraft, they declared an emergency and an armed response force responded.
	Before the forces could arrive, the object descended and either landed or hovered on our flight line and then took off again at impossible speed.
	The witnesses to this event were threatened and intimidated afterward.
	They were told to keep quiet and think about what they were reporting.
	After that, things did get quiet.
	Yeah, so that's that looks like, I don't know if you remember the movie Independence Day that came out in the 90s.
	Oh my gosh, Will Smith, how could I forget?
	Welcome to Earth.
	You punched his alien.
	That's right.
	That's six, seven years later after that.
	He didn't seem like a bullshit artist, this new satellite guy.
	We do extensive background and vetting into the witnesses, and we obviously also asked for their military credentials, all of that.
	He also had other witnesses that could back up his story, but he's not the only one.
	We've heard this from many, many members of the military.
	Sometimes they can provide footage or they have privately shown us footage.
	What's interesting is, too, is that specifically with the Navy guys, this aspect of USOs, there's a lot that we don't know about the ocean.
	But when you're getting reports that these things are outpacing our nuclear subs by like sometimes 200 to 300 miles underwater, I don't know anything that can go that fast.
	So all that to say that, yes, it is of concern, right?
	First question is, is this a foreign adversary?
	Is this an advanced tech?
	But historically, there's been a lot of questions and secrecy surrounding this, so much so that you have to know it's real because of the obstacles that throw themselves in your way when you ask questions or being denied access to the information.
	But specifically on things that we've seen, yeah.
	Well, the question becomes, can we build something like that?
	Before even going and thinking, you know, a UAP or something like that, go back to that picture you had, Rob.
	You know, can we build a whatever you want to call that?
	Go back to the picture that you had between the two of them.
	Yeah.
	I think that it's like giving a caveman a cell phone.
	I think that our understanding of physics and what we know currently, I don't know that we have the materials or capability to develop it at that point in time.
	Not to say that we can't in the future, but it's just there's a lot that, you know, even if you look at a cell phone from 10 years ago, how primitive is that?
	And these things are operating, you know, against everything that we currently know.
	And so it's interesting.
	There's a lot of people from all walks of life, very successful, very wealthy, that are asking the same questions.
	And it's funny because, you know, the stigma in Congress when we first did our hearing was, you're going to ruin your political career.
	You shouldn't be asking these questions, blah, blah, blah, to it being the most widely attended congressional hearing in U.S. history.
	And then, you know, you're now having more people come forward.
	But what's been interesting is we have been directly told by multiple witnesses that they don't want to testify because they're in fear of losing their lives, of which we've had other people we wanted to bring in, and they have literally said that they don't want to risk it.
	And then we have had an instance that happened with David Grush where he was coming in to testify, or not to testify, but coming in to do a video skiff conference with Burleson and I.
	And on the way in, he had a very weird incident that happened that I've never, you know, it's like very coincidental timing where someone actually pulled a firearm on him as he was driving in.
	So, and he also too was worried about retribution.
	He'd been messed with extensively after he testified, even leading up to that testimony.
	So, yeah, we definitely know that our witnesses are putting a lot on the line by coming forward.
	And so, that would also too push for like, we need UAP disclosure.
	But every time we try to put it into the NDIA, it gets gutted for whatever reason.
	By who?
	But it's, I, it's usually the staff that's taking it out for whatever reason.
	These like little, I call them little trouble goblins.
	They pop up and they'll, they'll gut the legislation for disclosure.
	Who tells them to do that?
	I think it's a lot with the intelligence community, 100%, or DOD, whoever's, it's definitely internal, though, because there have been, uh, Representative Burchett tried to come up with an FAA reporting procedure for the UAP.
	They wouldn't put it on the, on the floor, and then the UAP Disclosure Act was watered down and gutted.
	Tumer tried to push for that in the Senate, and it was like completely just rolled.
	So there's definitely an effort, which is why I think that this Age of Disclosure movie coming out is so important because you have multiple people coming forward that have legitimate credentials.
	They can't just be like, oh, it's, you know, Luna talking about crazy UAPs again or Burchett or Burleson.
	It's, you know, when you have this Secretary of State up there, a little bit hard to argue with.
	Have you seen the documentary, The Lost Century, by Stephen Greer?
	What do you think?
	Are you familiar with the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951?
	Oh, my God.
	I would love for you to get into that.
	The Invention Secrecy Act is the same.
	Next, he's going to say, do MK Ultra next.
	No, this is actually very interesting.
	Because the X-Files of Congress.
	They actually did this.
	The Meshi Secrecy Act of 1951 is where the federal government came in and there were guys that were building certain technologies of cars being able to run on water or different things and going 200 miles, 400 miles, 500 miles.
	All the Teslas of the world.
	The real Teslas.
	The real Teslas of the world.
	And then all of a sudden getting killed or they die.
	First of all, I highly recommend you watch a documentary for yourself.
	But the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 is a real thing that the U.S. government, because let's just say you have a new invention, they'll come to you and they'll say, we think this is worth $100 million.
	We're going to give you $25 million and we're going to take the patent away from you.
	And you don't have a choice to say yes or no.
	We're going to take that away from you.
	I mean, I can't call the negotiator with the birthday card and say, hey, $20 million on this date.
	Maybe you get a better negotiator to decide the numbers.
	But they have apparently 6,000 inventions that has been kept here and no one knows what the inventions are in there.
	There's definitely, so the way, and like, look, there's obviously information that we're developing that we don't want our adversaries to get, right?
	So like, obviously that shift should remain classified.
	However, when you don't have any oversight onto that, so you can't ensure that people aren't legitimately getting killed in the process of releasing this information or saying like, hey, this is not, this is not what you think it is.
	That's the problem.
	There's literally no oversight and it's operating outside the purview of any branch of government.
	We know that the Pentagon up until recently hadn't passed an audit and audit in a while and that there's this issue with these defense contractors that really are operating.
	I mean, these people are the way that the different lobbies operate in Washington, it's literally like a cartel.
	People think Mexico is bad.
	Really, the only difference between Mexico and the United States is we wear suits.
	And that's really it.
	I mean, over there, you have like the Pfizers of the world.
	I mean, those are our cartels, right?
	But specifically with these defense contractors, they're then given government contracts.
	And so they're not required to answer to Congress.
	And then who has authority to supervise that?
	So I think that that's how they're hiding a lot of this information.
	But to date, just operating on either photo or video evidence or testimony, I can definitely tell you that I am not confused on the topic.
	I definitely think that UAPs are real.
	They're not Russia or China.
	They're definitely not ours.
	All right.
	Well, I'm going to do the last thing here before we wrap up.
	I'm going to give you a name.
	You give me a word.
	Okay.
	We're going to play a word game here together.
	You can say skip if you want to, but I don't think you're the skipping type.
	What's the one word that comes to mind when you think about Newsom?
	Asshole.
	Okay.
	Snipes.
	Pelosi.
	Mean.
	Wikipedia.
	Fail.
	A-O-C.
	Pass.
	Ilhan Omar.
	Interesting.
	Really?
	Why?
	I actually was on a delegation to the EU with the House Democracy Partnership Institute, and she was on that delegation.
	And there was a member from Belgium that was there who was a total asshole.
	Okay.
	He was saying, you know, your Congress isn't respected by your own president.
	He doesn't respect you guys.
	You guys are basically a joke.
	He was telling this to our delegation.
	And so I was kind of sparring with the guy.
	And then Ilhan spoke after me.
	She was sitting, I think like two seats to my left.
	And Andy Ogles were there, Vern Buchanan, a few others.
	And she goes, and this blew me away.
	She goes, and she looks at the guy.
	She goes, you might not like what our president is doing.
	And you might not agree with our foreign policy.
	But when we're here, you will respect our president.
	She was talking about Trump.
	Stop it.
	And I, and I, so that's why I say interesting because like when we fight together, right?
	On, and like there's always this push and pull in politics and politics is messy.
	But I didn't expect that being on a delegation with a foreign government, but she said that.
	And I think at that point in time, when you have that type of unified front, especially in dealing with the EU, it was pleasantly surprising.
	Wow.
	What was the follow-up afterward?
	Have you guys since then talked?
	She is the co-chair of the Syrian caucus that I have or that I'm heading up now.
	So, and we can talk about Syria probably separately.
	I don't know if we have time on the podcast.
	But so I think that, and then she actually joined, I think, on my bill to repeal the Patriot Act.
	But, you know, there's still a lot happening in Washington.
	So it's not like we're always talking.
	But I mean, I do have conversations with people and that's how everyone is in DC for the most part.
	Do we agree on a lot?
	No.
	And do I like what she said about Charlie?
	No.
	But I was surprised to hear that.
	So that's why I said interesting.
	Do you trust her?
	I don't agree with her.
	And it's politics is not about trust.
	It's about, and you don't ever want to make friends in politics, especially this game, because ultimately you realize that it's a very transactional field.
	But in that instance, I appreciated that she provided a united front to the jerk from Belgium.
	Good for you for giving credit because who was it, Sergio Gore or or something like that, at Charlie's Memorial said one thing about politics, it's the most transactional.
	The industry has a lot of transactional people, and it was talking about the fact that Charlie is a complete opposite.
	Yeah, it is super transactional.
	That's why it's like you don't want to get a friend in Washington, you get a dog.
	And it's true.
	Do you do you, I'm curious because Charlie and I talked about this before, do you sit there and see what's going on with UK, right?
	Or EU?
	Oh, I think the UK's lost.
	But then do you also sit there and say, Imam Dani, who's right now running in New York as a Muslim, who on multiple instances where he's been asked to say whether he supports Sharia law or not, he doesn't want to answer the question multiple times.
	He's like look, I'm just running for mayor.
	I'm not here to address that issue.
	Does it concern you of Western ideology, you know, America, things that we've built?
	Does it mesh with more Islamists that are getting into politics who have strong beliefs like an Ilhan Omar, like Imam Dani, like some of these folks?
	Does that concern your long term?
	What concerns me long term is immigrant assimilation.
	Remember that President Trump was endorsed by a group of Muslims prior to the election because the radical left embracing the LGBTQ pro-trans, very adamantly opposed, I think, to anything that the Christian Bible talks about, that the Koran talks about, or that the Torah talks about, they endorsed him.
	And a lot of people forget that.
	And President Trump has been able to, because of his position, negotiate with countries like Egypt to help push Hamas into negotiating to agree to the peace deal with Israel.
	But the question is, I think, more of assimilation than anything.
	Because if you have a Muslim American who's been here three terms and is Americanized versus someone that refuses to assimilate, and I think that's probably why we should actually respect and go through and encourage people to go through legally because they have to force to assimilate.
	If you don't embrace American culture, then you will still continue to hold on to the values of your country that you came from.
	Likely if you're in the United States, it didn't work out in that country.
	All right.
	Okay.
	I got five more names and then we're done.
	Okay.
	Mamdani, one word.
	Grifter.
	Grifter.
	Yeah, he will, his donors, he will advocate and become whoever his donors want.
	I will say this.
	He is a very good branded candidate.
	And you can see that from his past.
	He's young.
	He has the branding.
	But I don't think that he's genuinely an ideologue because of his background and who he's taking money from.
	Do you think he wins?
	I think he wins.
	Do you think he wins?
	Okay.
	Zelensky.
	Corrupt.
	Putin.
	Interesting.
	Another one.
	Another interesting.
	Because of what's happening on the back channel conversations, because of his willingness to declassify these with assisting in the Kennedy disclosure from the president.
	And then also Putin historically, if you look at interviews with him as to why there's been failures in foreign policy, he talks about his conversations with Clinton, his conversations with Bush, ultimately what he came into after the fall of the Soviet Union.
	He's an interesting character, but he's definitely not stupid and he definitely can't be underestimated.
	And so that's why I'm happy that we have Trump in the negotiating seat right now.
	Yeah, you and I both.
	He's definitely not stupid.
	Diddy.
	Evil.
	Crockett.
	Interesting.
	Another one?
	I serve with her on the task force as my co-chair.
	And I haven't had exchanges with her that have been directly attacking me.
	I do not like what she says about the president, but I've also seen her advocate behind the scenes for bipartisan things to get it done.
	So that's another interesting one.
	It's like when you're in DC, you realize a lot on camera.
	And there's certain personalities who will go at it, but I don't seem to be that caricature.
	You're a May 6th baby.
	That's very interesting the way you're answering these.
	Okay, Ron DeSantis.
	He definitely, I think, is going to be a plot twist.
	So we'll see what happens after the governor's race and what he does.
	But I think he's done incredible things for Florida.
	And I'm happy he's my governor.
	So we'll see what happens.
	You and I both.
	MTG.
	Interesting.
	Why?
	Well, I think that she has, you know, advocated for certain things.
	And then on the flip side, she's kind of breaking out and advocating for other things as well.
	So definitely not one that, and I think that this is probably more needed in politics.
	She's not one that will just toe the party line if she genuinely doesn't believe something.
	She'll tell you.
	And I think that that's whether people think it's good or bad, I think that that's needed in politics.
	We need more of that.
	Yeah.
	Thomas Massey.
	Interesting.
	Same category.
	Same category.
	I think these are all very similar personalities.
	All right.
	Peter Thiel.
	Interesting.
	Yeah.
	I do.
	You guys are going to, I can tell you why.
	Peter Thiel.
	Yeah.
	You hear his whole what he likes to talk about on his free time.
	I actually really want to meet him and ask him what he talked about in his private seminar on the Antichrist.
	I'm curious.
	Like, I actually have a lot of curiosity on that topic.
	I think he's brilliant.
	I don't know him, never met him, but I'm curious as to what he has to think on that from a perspective.
	I think like a lot of these people, it's, you know, yeah.
	Okay.
	WAPO.
	Liars.
	JD.
	I love him.
	Rubio.
	I love him too.
	One of the two is going to run.
	So you're going to have to pick.
	I don't know.
	If I had to split it, I'd say give him up as a ticket.
	Together?
	Yeah.
	That would be powerful.
	Right?
	Oh, my God.
	But who becomes a VP?
	I guess JD would need to be the one because he's already a VP, so he gets pumped up.
	I mean, that's not a bad, like, I mean, we're talking about like, that's an option to be the vice president.
	Who's going to be like, no.
	Yeah.
	That's not a bad gig.
	Let me tell you, Rubio is.
	Crushing it.
	Oh, my God.
	He's a star right now.
	It's president.
	Rubio.
	Because it was different 10 years ago to Rubio.
	Now, Rubio now is like, he's like.
	I think Rubio has always been severely underestimated.
	He's always like, you know, and there's a game that certain people like have to play in DC to get into position.
	And he has like done incredible, like in his ability to be able to be the Secretary of State and negotiate what he's negotiated.
	I think everyone, especially from Florida, I feel like Florida is leading the country in draft picks for Congress and like Senate and higher office because we just have a good bench.
	Kevin McCarthy.
	He's chicken here.
	No-go.
	He worked against me in both both my elections.
	Kevin McCarthy did.
	Yeah.
	Kevin McCarthy.
	Interesting.
	Okay.
	I will say this.
	You know, I wonder sometimes if he regrets that because he definitely backed two terrible candidates.
	But I also wonder if it was because I was endorsed at the time by my friend Matt Gates.
	And as you know, Matt Gates and McCarthy have a difference of personalities.
	But at the end of the day, I think that maybe he realized he was wrong on that.
	Have you talked to him?
	Nope.
	He seems like a nice guy.
	He's actually what you'll find is people like Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi, some of the best politicians are very charismatic.
	And it's hard not to like them.
	You would say Pelosi is charismatic?
	Oh, she's very charismatic in person.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	And a lot of, but that's the thing is like certain people just have that charisma.
	It's like what they're putting out or whatever.
	McCarthy was like that.
	There's a lot of people that have that kind of draw and you can sense it and they're the top two.
	Two last one, Pam Bondi.
	I actually have gotten to know Pam, so I'd say that she's loyal, would be a word.
	And last but not least, Trump.
	Amazing.
	Amazing.
	We'll wrap up with that one.
	Got seven interestings with an explanation.
	What was Newsom?
	What was Newsome?
	Was an asshole?
	What was an asshole?
	That's pretty good.
	I actually think he may take that as a compliment.
	Maybe he'll post the clip.
	Maybe he'll post the clip.
	Well, listen, we've been trying to do this for a while.
	I think you're a rock star.
	We love seeing you out there because you're tough, you're strong, you're very authentic, but you have the charisma, the charm.
	And the only concern is you're only going to do this 10 more years.
	Yeah, well, look, if you had to deal with the craft that we had to, I think most people tap out of it.
	They're like, I'm not dealing with this.
	This is crazy.
	But I think I love what you said.
	Look, either do something about it or stop bitching.
	If you want to do something about it, get on the ring.
	Don't be an asshole.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Don't be an asshole.
	What a great name.
	If you don't know the word, go Google it.
	Anyways, it's been a blast having you on.
	Thank you so much for coming on.
	Take care, everybody.
	Bye-bye.
	Bye-bye.
	After two years of working on this, we have finally pulled it off.
	And let me tell you what it is.
	Every time we do the Vault conference, if you've attended, you know this.
	I stand up and I speak for probably 45 hours is what I do at the Vault conference.
	And I love it.
	I love being around the guys.
	I love it.
	But I wear the Ferragamo shoes when I do this.
	Or I wear some kind of dress shoes.
	Eventually, for the last 25 years, I've always been on stage walking around.
	I'm like, you know what?
	I'm sick and tired of it.
	I want a shoe that I'm comfortable wearing.
	And here's what I love.
	I don't like shoes that are so heavy.
	That's a dumbbell.
	You can use it as a weapon.
	I don't want that.
	Like the Zennia, you carry it.
	I have so many of them, but they're so heavy.
	Like you can literally curl the Zennia, you know, the shoes, and you'll get a pump within 30 reps.
	And I wanted the combination of the Hoka, the Encloud, the Super Foam, because there's a big thing going on right now with the Super Foam where the bottom of the shoe, you wear it.
	You know which ones I'm talking about, the Encloud or the Hokas, right?
	They're so comfortable.
	And I said, what if we take luxury and then combine it with the super comfort?
	What would that look like?
	And let's build it in Italy.
	So what do we do?
	We went to Italy.
	We designed the shoe in Florida.
	We made the shoe in Italy in five of the factories.
	We went back and forth.
	God knows how many times.
	And by the way, the shoes we're about to launch and introduce to you right now where you're going to see the video for the first time.
	I've been wearing those shoes for the last 22 days straight.
	I'm wearing them right now.
	I literally wear it with suits.
	I wore it yesterday when we went to lunch.
	I wear it every single day.
	It's the most comfortable shoes I have.
	Yet it's authentic Italian leather wrap.
	If you don't mind playing the video, go for it.
	Here's a video of the latest shoe, the FLBs.
	When we set out to create a shoe that blends comfort, function, and luxury, we had the choice to make it fast.
	We had the choice to make it cheap.
	We chose neither.
	Instead, we chose Tuscanyro.
	We chose true Italian craftsmanship, each pair touched by 50 skilled hands.
	We chose patience, spending two years perfecting every detail, and we chose the finest quality at every step.
	Introducing the Future Look Sprite collection.
	Not rushed, not disposable, not ordinary.
	Rather intentional, luxurious, timeless.
	Boom.
	There you go.
	Design in Florida, 100% made in Italy.
	50 hands touch each shoe that was made.
	And here's what's unique about it.
	I want to kind of show this to everybody that knows this.
	And I've worn pretty much every one of these shoes.
	So if you compare this, the Italian leather, of course, it's made in Italy.
	It's not assembled, made in China, assembled in Italy, 100% made in Italy, assembled in Italy.
	It's FLBs, Berluttis, which are 1840.
	Ferragamos are $8.95.
	Zennias are $1,190.
	And Gucci's are $9.50.
	Leather premium lining, all of them except for Gucci.
	Laceless feature, it's the FLBs, the Berlutis, you have laces, Fergamos, laceless, and then you have also the Zennias.
	And then the Gucci's have the laces.
	I don't want to wake up in the morning, put laces on.
	I want to get out of the house.
	me three seconds to put my shoes on today.
	Craftsman, five different Italian factories all made this shoe.
	Berluttis are the same as us as well as FLB.
	But the only shoe, these trainers, the only one in the world today, according to the factories that told me this in Italy, that has the super foam, the only one that has the same super foam used in the on clouds and the hulkas, it's the FLBs and they're officially out and you can place the order.
	Here's a challenge.
	We only have a thousand of these pairs.
	And when you say 1,000 of these pairs, they start from size, I believe, is it eight?
	It goes eight, nine, 10, 10 and a half, 11, 11 and a half, 12, 13.
	Those are the sizes that we have.
	And the shoes that you can get today, the colors, you have access to, Rob, if you can go back to, you can have access to those browns, which is absolutely beautiful.
	And by the way, the brown on the bottom, the stitching on the side is a left stitching.
	If you can change the picture and on the bottom, it says the future looks bright.
	Look at the white lines on the sides.
	Beautiful.
	The only ones we have right now that you can get sent out today are the black and the browns.
	If you do want the white to pre-order, I would highly recommend you do so.
	They're going to come out the second week of December.
	So the white and the navy blue comes out the second week of December.
	The browns and the blacks are available.
	If you believe the future looks bright as much as we do, go place the order.
	There's nothing like sitting in the boardroom with your trainers and you put your feet over your knee and people look at the bottom of your shoe and it says future looks bright.
	That's how you get deals done.
	All right.
	So they're out.
	I'm excited to announce it and I'm very happy for people to go sport it.
	When you get them, take pictures, send it our way.
	We're going to show all these shoes, all the pictures that are being taken.
	I already got a bunch of them sent to me on Instagram.
	Go to vtmerch.com, place your order.
	It's all over the website.

▲