( -0947 ) Steve Bannon vs The CDC - Also John Solomon Points to an Alleged Smoking Gun Re Obama Russiagate Complicity

( -0947 ) Steve Bannon vs The CDC - Also John Solomon Thinks He Has a Smoking Gun Re Obama Russiagate Complicity

mRNA, sudden deaths, spike, RFK Jr, Bannon, War Room, Jay, Bhattacharya, Posse, Dr., Steven Hatfill, Steven Jay Hatfill, Naomi Wolf, John Solomon, Obama, Hillary, Russiagate

DR. HATFILL - Studies Showed No Net Benefit. Rather, They Showed Cellular Havoc From mRNA Overload

(audience cheering)
Yesterday, R.F.K. Jr. tried to defend the indefensible.
Most of these shots are for flu or COVID,
but as the pandemic showed us,
mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses
that infect the upper respiratory tract.
Counterpoint.
(beep)
You, you roadkill, mushing, red-eyed, human, slim Jim.
(audience cheering)
You're gonna kill people.
(audience cheering)
Why, why would you say that mRNA vaccines
don't perform well against upper respiratory infections?
The National Institutes of Health said they prevented
an estimated 14.4 million deaths.
(audience cheering)
Why, why on earth is RFK. Jr. so anxious
to fill our streets with dead bodies?
(upbeat music)
(upbeat music)
- Vaccine!
- Got it.
(whooshing)
Okay, welcome back.
It's Saturday, 9 August, year of our Lord 2025.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya joins us,
the Director of the National Institute of Health.
Got a little heated this past week, doctor,
particularly with people like Colbert,
totally obviously crude and unacceptable,
but it is what it is.
Can you explain to us really,
'cause you were here with the Barrington Resolves
and have been here at the beginning of this
and had suffered professionally,
exactly what happened this week?
What brought it about?
What was the analysis?
Why was the announcement?
And what's the impact of this, sir?
- Sure, so what Secretary Kennedy did
is he ordered that BARDA, which is an agency in HHS,
Health and Human Services,
cancel a whole bunch of contracts for the mRNA platform
for mass production essentially of mRNA vaccines.
The reason that he did that,
and I think it's very important for people to understand,
is that as far as public health goes,
the mRNA platform, as far as public health goes for vaccines,
the mRNA platform is no longer viable.
If you look at the uptake of the recent COVID vaccines,
in kids, for instance, it's less than 5% of kids,
kids under five, I think, have taken it,
less than 15% of kids between five and 12.
Overall, less than a quarter of people have taken it,
despite the fact that there's been relentless propaganda
and pressure to take the COVID vaccines,
the mRNA COVID vaccines forever,
for a very long time, dating to the Biden administration.
And so you can't have a platform
where such a large fraction of the population distrusts
the platform if you're gonna use it for vaccines
and expect it to work.
And what you're seeing with Colbert
and those insane clips that you just played for me
is frustration, and that because they're no longer
getting their way, they no longer control
sort of the cultural high ground,
where they can essentially bully people
to take a product that people don't want.
When people have lost trust in a product
or technology like that,
the only way forward is to be honest with people
about what you know, what you don't know,
and then give excellent evidence, reason with people.
This kind of sort of mocking and bullying
has no place in public health.
And Colbert has done tremendous damage to public health,
I think for several years now
with this kind of like relentless propaganda
and then now bullying, it's very unfortunate.
- Dr. Stephen Hetfield joins us, honored to have him on.
When we first shifted the show to warm pandemic,
he was our first guest,
but we only had him for like a week or 10 days
and he went over to the White House
to work with Dr. Pierre Navarre and others
during the darkest days of the pandemic.
So sir, walk us through,
because you're taking incoming from all over
about getting rid of this amazing new technology.
What was it?
And I know there's a thousand reports out there,
everything like that,
but you're a data guy and a science guy.
Walk us through what led to the decision
of finally getting, you know,
stopping the underwriting of American taxpayer
for this experimental gene therapy, sir.
- Hi, Stephen, good to see you once again.
What happened is that the data had accumulated
to the point where meta analysis studies could be done.
These are very comprehensive analysis
and it virtually came back consistently
that there was no benefit to risk ratio
for taking a messenger RNA vaccine.
In fact, it was more dangerous to take a vaccine
than it was to contract COVID-19
and be hospitalized with it.
This is, we're now in 2022
that the status started to come out.
The side effects for this essentially gene therapy
was so enormous and progressive.
It was difficult to fathom.
And then finally, a few months ago,
some of the detailed biochemistry studies
started to appear in the literature
and the sudden flood of messenger RNA,
it appears irrespective of what the messenger RNA insert
is coding for, just the sheer amount
of number of millions of molecules of messenger RNA
entering the cell is creating biochemical havoc.
It's disrupting protein metabolism.
It's interfering with tumor suppressor genes.
It's just completely, it's damaging the mitochondria,
the powerhouses of the cell.
It had to be stopped.
And the, should operation of warp speed been done?
Yes, of course, it had to be done.
But it was always understood at the end of 2020
that this would be followed very, very, very carefully.
And it would be halted at the first sign
of any strange adverse events.
And we had those strange adverse events very shortly,
major veins in the brain clotting.
And a brief pause was given.
It was one of the adenovirus messenger RNA vaccines,
but it was restarted again.
Eventually, I think we gave ours to Canada.
It was unsafe.
And then we started seeing the same things
with the Moderna and the Pfizer preparations.
It turns out that the manufacturers did not do due diligence
to ensure these were safe products
before they were released onto the American market.
And throughout 2021 to 2024,
the drug companies essentially ran the pandemic response.
Nobody stood up to them.
Nobody questioned them.
Judicial Watch, America's first legal,
were able to obtain some documents.
They didn't want to release it.
Pfizer, they wanted a 70-year moratorium
on the clinical data from the trials,
which from the start showed
these never prevented infection,
never prevented disease transmission.
And there's no good clinical data to ever show.
It reduced the severity of disease.
The CDC in response,
I don't know what's wrong with that once fine agency,
but they become a supplicant of big pharma.
They put out a paper saying,
"Yes, we've saved like 14 million lives,
the vaccination program."
No, the paper's been torn to shreds
by epidemiologists.
It was based against a computer model
and against an idea where you have the peak
and it comes down and then it goes back up again.
The vaccines have injured hundreds of thousands
and we're not really sure how many have been killed by it,
but a significant amount.
They had to come off the market.
There was no choice.
You want to make America healthy again,
it had to be stopped.
And the lack of regulatory supervision
over the previous four years,
from 2021 to the end of 2024,
the drug companies, everybody was jumping in to make a dollar
and the spike protein itself
that they were using for COVID-19 is a toxin.
It's a poisonous molecule.
It was killing people.
And they'd gone too far now to go back and admit a mistake.
Nobody would stand up until Secretary Kennedy.
- Dr. Hatfield, this announcement came out the other day
and I was like, this is earth shattering.
It was just kind of put out.
And now with you and others,
we're starting to get some backup to it, how important.
This is monumental.
But now that's what we played from years ago
when he had the dancing needles up there
just to show exactly what.
And he will be held accountable over time.
I want to go back though.
Science is not a democracy, right?
People have lost trust, obviously,
with the relentless propaganda.
But what is, let's go back to the reason they've lost trust
is although the propaganda is there,
they've kind of see what they see.
You're the director of National Institute of Health.
What does actually the science tell us?
What does the data tell us of mRNA
and where we stand right now,
regardless of this massive propaganda effort
to convince people that this experimental gene therapy
worked, where are we actually with the evidence
in the science itself today?
- Okay, so as far as like the platform itself
is the technology, my bottom line is that the technology
is promising but not yet ready for prime time for vaccines.
Promising, but in the sense of like
given the public health moment.
Now let me tell you the scientific evidence
behind for vaccines.
For cancer, that's another story.
We can maybe get into that at some other point.
For vaccines, what you want is a technology
where you understand the dose of the antigen being given.
You want to understand,
we want to make sure that the antigen,
so for instance, in the case of the COVID infection,
the strategy for the vaccine was to present an antigen
of the spike protein and then have your body respond
to the spike protein rather than the virus itself.
And when you respond to, we see the virus,
you have antibodies that deactivate the virus.
That's the theory.
The reality is that first, the vaccine did not work
to stop people from getting and spreading COVID.
That's just a fact.
Almost everyone who had the vaccine has had COVID.
I mean, I actually got the COVID vaccine in April, 2021,
and two months later I got COVID.
My experience was not unusual to say the least.
And so as far as like the COVID vaccine itself,
its ability to address the pandemic
and stop the spread of the disease was severely lacking.
Okay, so that's one.
Second, when you have a platform like the mRNA platform,
what you're doing is essentially you're turning your body
into an antigen factory.
I mean, you're taking your cells,
which are capable of taking the mRNA sort of programming
and turn out an antigen that you want to be produced there.
So in this case, it was some version of the spike protein.
The problem is that the mRNA, when it's taking over the cells
and having it produce antigens,
you want to make sure that first you understand
the dose of the antigens that are being produced.
You want to control the dose of the vaccine.
The vaccine really is the antigen, not the mRNA.
Second, you want to make sure that the bio-distribution,
you want to make sure that it goes to the places
you want it to go, not to other places you don't want
to go to.
And then third, you want to make sure
that you're not creating off-target proteins.
Now, the mRNA technology fails on all three counts.
I don't believe that it caused,
I mean, I've seen people claim that it caused
large numbers of deaths.
I'm not sure I agree with that
in terms of the scientific evidence.
I also don't agree with estimates that it saved,
I think you played a clip that said 14 million lives.
Those estimates, especially the claims of lives saved
are based on modeling estimates.
They're not actually NIH estimates.
NIH publishes vast numbers of scientific papers,
links to vast numbers of scientific papers,
most of which were not actually supported by the NIH.
It's just kind of a library.
So I think those estimates, I think,
I actually don't know the answer.
My general sort of, what I think happened is that
very likely the COVID vaccine protected people
that were older for a short period of time
against dying from COVID.
And for younger people, because the death rate from COVID,
the risk from COVID of dying from COVID was so low,
especially for children, that the mRNA vaccine
in that setting didn't do very much good at all.
And we know for a fact that it had some side effects,
severe ones, including myocarditis
in an unexpectedly, acceptably high rate
in especially young men.
- What you're saying is that, hey, it could be promising,
but it's gonna take kind of years to figure this out.
That is essentially what people do
when they try to develop vaccines.
They take, I don't know, an average of what,
10 years in these efforts.
Why did Fauci and the medical community,
'cause I think in your great Barrington Declaration
very early on, you and your colleagues,
I think, highlighted to people
about what the problems are gonna be here.
Why did the public health,
and particularly the most prominent schools,
Harvard, all these other places,
why did the public health officials
in prominent medical centers,
and people with MSNBC every day
would doctor this and doctor that, totally credentialized.
Why did they jump so hard on top of this
that it was a panacea and that you had to take it,
and if you didn't take it,
no one at the war room is vaccinated, right?
We just totally, completely rejected it out of hand.
But why were the professionals,
and particularly people at the most credentialed places,
why did they jump on this thing so hard to push it?
- I mean, there's multiple reasons, Steve,
and I think you can talk about, of course,
the financial incentives.
I mean, there were tremendous financial incentives.
As you could see, when Secretary Kennedy canceled
the contracts, it was, you know,
in the order of, you know,
just a vast amount of money was at stake.
So there's financial incentives involved.
That's part of it.
I don't believe that's all of it, though.
If you go back and put yourself in, say, summer of 2020,
the fear and panic over the threat of COVID
was so palpable that it led people to do really great,
I mean, just, in retrospect, really crazy things,
including closing our schools,
including, you know, ostracizing people
who were, you know, sort of taking risks.
When I was a Stanford professor back then,
I would got, it was fairly sort of,
I was out front saying that we shouldn't be closing schools,
we shouldn't be doing all this.
I got, I mean, I just, as a,
I was reflecting what I saw as the evidence in front of me,
and I got, you know, crazy death threats
just because I would say that closing schools
doesn't make sense.
After we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration
October 2020 with a colleague of mine at Harvard
and a colleague of mine at Oxford,
where we called for opening schools
and for not harming the lives of young people,
protecting older people better,
but not harming the lives of young people,
the former head of the NIH, a man named Francis Collins,
who he wrote to Tony Fauci calling for a devastating
takedown of the premise of the declaration,
which then led to, you know,
getting more death threats against me.
It was quite something.
So in that sort of feverish environment,
I think people looked at this,
the vaccine as a sort of panacea,
and they invested a lot into try to get
the vaccine technology out.
I mean, Operation Warp Speed in a sense
made a lot of sense in that environment
because Operation Warp Speed said,
let's try to accelerate the development of this technology
that might address this threat.
Now I thought there were better ways
to address the threat back then,
but let's just, as a matter of...
- You still have...
- But now, hold it, but hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
Hold it, slow down, slow down, slow down.
I mean, I got you.
- You have Bobby Kennedy as Secretary of HHS.
This is so monumental.
If you wanna see a profile in courage of Donald John Trump,
I don't think you have,
besides the fact that he knew he was gonna be put in prison,
assassinated, all that,
when he made a decision to come back in '21
in those first few months and run for president again,
which is the greatest moral political decision
in the history of this nation, bar none,
and that's why I say it's Washington, Lincoln, and Trump.
But if you look at sub-decisions of that,
picking Bobby Kennedy to be HHS,
so look, we have the apparatus now.
There's no whining in the war room,
and we're not gonna whine here.
We have the apparatus, we have the science.
It's a counter-cruel, and I wanna be brutally frank.
If something this monumental,
you just don't put some press release out
and put a bunch of assertions in it.
I need guys like you and others,
and we got to flood the zone with the data.
It's not just the book, it's what's in the book,
and you gotta have people pounding it.
Of course, there's gonna be resistance.
One is gonna be resistance
'cause they understand their guilt,
and they're just not prepared to sit there and go,
oh yeah, you're correct, we're guilty.
They're not gonna do that.
We have to drive this argument,
but we're not driving it,
and a press release ain't good enough.
This has to be driven, and it has to be driven hard,
and we have to rub their frickin' noses in the data,
and we have to rub their noses in the death,
and we have to rub their noses in the vaccine injuries.
We have to do it so that it can be irrefutable,
and to do that, you gotta man up and do it.
This is not happening.
Now, we're prepared to assist and make it happen,
but it's just not gonna be,
this cuts to the heart of what's wrong
with modern corporate thinking.
They never think about the common good.
They never think about the nation.
They never think about American citizens, right?
And I'm not some socialist, right,
or part of the shareholder, you know,
the shareholder capitalism,
but you have people that are blinded, blinded,
and all they're driven for is profitability,
and all they're driven for is their own stock portfolios.
Dr. Hatfield, I gotta bounce, but give me your,
we'll get you back on here.
By the way, this reminds me of the early days
of the warm pandemic behind the scenes
when Hatfield and I would go at it
before the show started, brother.
- Yeah, I miss those days.
(laughing)
We went at it, boy.
- 'Cause you're one of the smartest guys I met,
and you get this.
- Yeah, oh yeah.
Americans, most Americans have figured this out,
but you can't get a platform.
It's common sense.
- Well, we're gonna force you.
You gotta kick down the doors.
You gotta kick down the doors.
- We've got brave leaders that'll stand up now.
- So Dr. Hatfield, where's your social media?
We're gonna do this again, and you're gonna be on CNN,
you're gonna be on MSNBC.
They're gonna have to do it, you're gonna force their hands.
Where do people go and get you,
in particular the book you wrote?
No, we'll see.
- Well, they can't, because I signed all this, like,
no, they can't.
Conflicts of interest statements.
- Conflicts of interest.
Dr. Hatfield, are you on social media?
- I signed it.
No, I don't do that.
I've got a website, but--
- Doctors.
Hang on, hang on for a second,
I'll bring you back after the break.
Dr. Hatfield, we'll get the books back up and get it all.
We're gonna have you back on.
This is the first of many, many, many things we're gonna do.
We're gonna go back to pandemic days,
because now we got the solution.
We fought this one for years.
We were banned on every platform because of this fight.
'Cause what I tell you at the time, it ain't right.
That's why no one at the war room is vaxxed.
Didn't nobody vax.
Didn't take it, not gonna take it.
Hatfield, what's the website you got, Dr. Hatfield?
- It's drsteven, with a B,
Hatfield, H-A-T-F-I-L-L,
drstevenhatfield.com, I think.
- Perfect.
Can you imagine staff meetings over at the EOB
with Peter Navarro and Dr. Hatfield?
Two of the hardest headed guys I ever met.
This is Dr. Hatfield.
Always great to have you on.
Look forward to getting you back.
This is the first step in a long journey
to set things right, sir.
And we're gonna do it, and we're gonna do it together
with the great team over at HHS.
So I thank you so much for coming on.
- Thank you. - See you, brother.
- About HHS, I don't have anyone to call to get a quote.
There's no one to reach, right?
You can go to the HHS website, there's press person,
it goes into a black hole.
I don't get emails from HHS.
I'm a reporter with two million people listening a month.
I'm sympathetic.
I don't get press releases from HHS.
When you look at the press release for the mRNA,
and I'm talking now so people will understand
that a press release from a communications shop, right?
Which every agency is supposed to have,
is the DNA of messaging
from any successful administration, right?
There isn't a database of journalists
that's getting press releases.
And when you get the press release,
say for the mRNA rollout, it's so convoluted,
so bureaucratically written,
and kind of sneakily phrased,
which I wish you would stop doing,
that you end up noticing,
okay, well, they're defunding 22 programs,
but they're reinvesting in something over there.
And meanwhile, they're acknowledging
there are still programs that they're not gonna pull
putting this mRNA injection in people's bodies
because it's already taxpayer funded.
So anyone with common sense
who can make it through the language
is gonna be going, what, I can't even write about this.
And also with a rollout that important,
which is gonna get news coverage
from certainly all the financial press,
all the legacy media,
why isn't there an op-ed penned by someone
with R.F. King Jr.'s name on it,
Dr. Bhattacharya's name on it?
Well, it would be R.F. King Jr.'s name on it.
In the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal,
the New York Times, I mean,
maybe the case for this was made and I just overlooked it,
but really a functional comps team should have op-eds,
USA Today, regional newspapers,
and they should have a battery of surrogates
who are equipped and trained,
again, with these three message points and an action step
so that they're all on the same page,
which I will tell you, Democrats do it.
We're awful people.
I'm a former Democrat,
but the opposition are awful,
but they know how to get in line
and send everyone talking points, right?
And literally, I don't see surrogates
and there are many who would be willing
going out and carrying R.F. King Jr.'s message.
He took half a billion dollars away from mRNA.
Lastly, I just wanna say there's no one,
it seems, thinking through the emotional impact
of what they're doing, right?
So, 70 to 80% of the American public,
Steve has taken this mRNA injection into their bodies,
once, twice, three times, a booster,
and they were told for four years,
safe and effective, safe and effective,
the dancing syringes, et cetera, on Stephen Colbert.
Now, Secretary Kennedy,
who already has been branded a lunatic by legacy media,
stands up and tells them something
very, very emotionally charged, right?
Very difficult to hear.
There's more risk than benefit.
That is scientifically and medically correct,
and everyone who got that message
should have been directed to all the studies that show that,
so he's not standing out there by himself unsupported,
but it's emotionally traumatic to hear that.
So, they need someone in the comms shop
needs to think through,
this is gonna be very difficult for people to hear.
We need to be patient.
We need to be informative.
We need to have op-ed after op-ed after op-ed,
explaining, this is how we're gonna help.
Now we're gonna work on vaccine injury compensation issues,
so that's not a morass.
We're going to give you somewhere to go.
We're on your side.
Otherwise, people just traumatize and wanna shut down.
- Hey, I'ma have you on,
I'll work out with your schedule, the company,
'cause I wanna have back on and go through deeper.
- We got, because here's why.
It's not just the $500 million.
That's kind of the part of it.
It's so much deeper than that.
The 500 million is like, okay, that shut down,
but it's like, yo, this was an experimental gene therapy.
Everybody had the highest hopes for it.
They wanted it to work.
A lot of the scientists lost their scientific,
not just credibility, but their moorings,
and of course, people like Fauci and others
in the pharmaceutical invested interests went over the top,
but this thing is so deep.
This gets to the whole situation with the pandemic.
This gets to the situation of public health going forward,
and the Colbert stuff can't be unanswered.
It has to be answered,
and people eventually have to be held accountable.
So this is what, and I do agree with you,
I'm so blown away that it was just like,
I read the press release, and like I said,
you know me, I'm not a doctor.
When I read that, I go, holy mackerel.
Does this say what I think it says?
So this is why, it has to be a massive effort.
In fact, I believe it's the most important thing
that Secretary Kennedy has done.
It will have the most profound implications
if properly managed, not just in the messaging side,
but the action side.
Naomi, we gotta bounce,
but I want everybody to go to your thing,
but we'll have you back on.
This thing is so massive that we're at the very top,
and I want people to understand,
just 'cause Bobby Kennedy and the director of NIH
and all these came together with the science with Hadfield
and put this out and made a decision,
this fight's far from over.
Don't think the farmer thinks that they're gonna lose this.
They look at us as just a,
they still look at this as a collection
of just kind of marginalia.
This fight is in, and if we wanna win this
and do what's right for science
and do what's right for public health,
hey, this is the opening salvo.
This is so far from over,
and people think you just put out a press release.
Oh, it's done.
That's holy writ.
That's not the way the imperial capital works,
and that's not the way modern capitalism works,
particularly when you're talking about
the concentration of power that Big Pharma has.
Naomi Wolf, an amazing job you did over the years.
We'll get more into that about the Pfizer papers
and what led to this.
Where do people go over the weekend to get you, ma'am?
Well, they should come on August 21st at 6 p.m.
to the Republican Club,
the Donald J. Trump Republican Club.
That's me at the Republican Club, everyone.
This day has come, and they can meet the candidates,
this groundswell of amazing young candidates,
former Democrats who have walked away,
who are now running as Republicans
to save Brooklyn and save New York.
So everyone come say hi then.
Wow.
Wow, wow. It's really happening.
I wanna talk about that next week also.
It's good on you because that is another fight.
That is horrific right there.
The working people's party, the DSA,
they've got ground game.
I'm telling you, this is gonna be a battle royale.
Naomi Wolf, social media, where do people get you, ma'am?
At @neomiowolf on X and on dailycloud.io
and over on Substack, I am outspoken.
It's my Substack, and thank you, Steve.
Thank you, ma'am.
You are outspoken.
On that, I can guarantee you, Naomi Wolf.
Wow.
This thing is huge.
The director of the IRS was nominated
for to be the ambassador for Iceland.
So he's stepping down after two months.
That would be 60 days.
Scott Besant's currently got it.
I've strongly recommended on Getter
and pushed out on social media.
Grace has helped me.
Jason Smith, the congressman,
I think it's Missouri 8, it's a plus 27 district,
MAGA district.
He's the head of Ways and Means.
I think they need immediately
to get someone like Jason Smith.
They gotta take the burden off Scott Besant.
It has to happen, and it has to happen immediately.
Short break, back in a moment.
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bann.
Tax Network USA, 800-958-1000.
One of the issues, the IRS,
they're looking for, they need to find
every piece of revenue they can.
Hey, I realize we wanna take apart the IRS.
But right now, they're quite active.
If you have a letter from them, if you failed a file,
if you're late filing, stop the anxiety.
Call 800-958-1000 right now.
The folks over there solved over a billion dollars
of tax issues, and I believe they can solve yours.
But you don't know until you actually call.
You get a free consultation.
800-958-1000.
Just don't let the letter sit there in the desk.
It ain't gonna go away.
It's just gonna metastasize.
Do it today, 800-958-1000.
They've solved a billion dollars worth of these tax issues
that are just like yours.
There's nothing new under the sun when it comes to IRS.
Go call 'em and check it out today, Tax Network USA.
Dave Bratt, tie it all together for me, brother.
- Yeah, Dr. Bhattacharyya,
just outstanding objectivity, honesty.
The moral foundations come through.
Naomi, the same thing, more political.
Let's get it out there.
Transparency matters.
Where's the comms director?
All this ties into President Trump's position
on the universities, and he should stay at it.
I have people from the universities.
Everybody sees the news clips
of the University of Chicago professor.
She says, "I hate this place.
"It's run by white men.
"I hate white men, and I'm staying here
"to use this as a platform."
And that's what Bhattacharyya said.
Science is not a platform.
It should be, you should be able to reproduce your results.
If it's publicly funded,
we should demand all science is put out publicly
after they publish the paper, right?
So it's competitive academically.
But you should have to put your data
and your methodology out in public
so people can replicate it.
And just a quick enclosing, the university, right?
It's not just science,
which is way better than the rest of them.
The university is roughly a third hard science,
a third social science, and a third humanities.
All three are supposed to explain the same reality,
the real world.
And I'll just leave you with a closing thought.
The most important thing or person for all of humanity,
six billion people, is God.
And why can't a university study God?
The most important thing,
ethics and religion and God are off limits to science,
social science, the humanities.
That's gotta be turned around,
and Trump should explain that to our leaders in education.
- Social media, where do people get you over the weekend
for you back here next week?
- Yeah, I'll put a little of that up
from that last little blurb there.
Brad economics on Getter and X, thanks Steve.
- Thank you, bro, thank you for co-hosting.
Tej Gill, now more than ever, as we wrap the show,
I need a coffee, a bunch of coffee,
'cause I'm about to give a speech in a couple hours.
Sir, where do I go?
- Good morning, Steve.
Warpath.coffee, and then for the war room posse,
use promo code warroom.
So warpath.coffee, promo code warroom,
it is the best coffee out there.
If you haven't tried it, try it,
just go on the website and look at the reviews,
over 12,000 five-star reviews, which is crazy.
Most websites don't have that many reviews on them,
so you don't have to take my word for it,
you don't have to take Steve's word for it,
just go on the website and read the reviews.
People absolutely love it.
We can't roast it fast enough.
We roast it on a perforated drum,
and that's how we don't burn it.
And you don't need milk, you don't need sugar,
you should drink it straight black.
It is the best coffee you will drink, it's incredible.
Warpath.coffee, promo code warroom, 20% off this weekend.
Sunday night, we're going back down to 15%
for the rest of the month, so.
Warpath.coffee, promo code warroom, it is the best coffee.
- Tej, I know you guys are roasting like crazy,
I'll let you go back to work.
The founder, CEO, and chairman of Warpath.coffee,
a coffee that is on fire.
I get so many great compliments.
When you go to the site, look at the 12,000 people.
Don't take it from Tej and don't take it from me.
Go check it out with your compadres.
Trevor Comstock, you're also on a roll.
Sacred Human Health, what do you got for us today, sir?
- Yeah, appreciate it, Steve.
So I know I've come on a few times to share the news
about the launch of our new Talo moisturizer,
and we technically have been selling out,
and our team's been doing an amazing job
just to keep it in stock and keeping the ball rolling.
So again, we don't have to list it out of stock,
but I also just wanted to quickly touch on one point.
We've had a good amount of people just reaching out,
asking how this compares to their everyday skin moisturizer.
So again, I just wanted to quickly touch on that,
but compared to most commercial skin creams,
the issue with those is that they're usually
full of synthetic ingredients,
and like alcohols, fragrances, and cheap fillers
that can actually damage your skin barrier over time.
So although they may be effective to some degree,
they usually, again, contain a ton of chemicals
that really aren't natural,
and they're typically just mass produced,
so the quality in general is pretty questionable.
So in turn, our formula is very clean.
We only use the two ingredients,
which is the 100% grass-fed and finished beef tallow,
and then the raw manuka honey.
And again, there's no synthetic ingredients,
no fillers, no alcohols, or anything like that.
And in terms of a use case, it's great for dry skin.
You can use it on anywhere where you have some red spots,
eczema, or just irritated skin in general,
and you can also put it on your face, your hands, your neck,
or anywhere where your body needs it.
And I mentioned too, but my mom's been using it
for the past week on her neck, and she's been loving it.
- This product is on fire, along with the other,
the Immunity Grass-Fed Beef Flavor.
Where do people go right now to look at it over the weekend?
- Yeah, you can go to sacredhumanhealth.com,
and then also you can use code warroom
for 10% off any one-time purchase.
And yeah, let us know if you have any questions.
We're happy to help.
- Trevor is available.
We make all the leaders of the companies
we're in business with, make sure that they make,
whether it's Philip Patrick at Birch Gold,
or Trevor Comstock over at Sacred Humor, Tej Gill,
build a relationship with them.
This is what they want.
This is why these guys are entrepreneurs
and starting these companies.
They are people persons.
Go check it out today.
Speaking of a people person, the one, the only,
Mike Lindell.
No mic?
Oh my gosh.
I went through an entire Saturday in no mic Lindell.
We have to put up mypilla.com, but thanks for the heads up.
Okay, incredibly big next week.
The redistricting are gonna start,
not just Texas, across the nation.
We've got the summit with Putin.
We're gonna have a special analysis every day.
And guess what?
I think a couple of three of our own people
may actually be up there in the press poll to cover it.
A historic week.
President Trump understands history.
15 August, when the Japanese surrendered,
finally surrendered in World War II,
and that's what he's gonna do it.
He's gonna do it right in Alaska.
Strategically important for hemispheric defense.
Also, I'm sure we're gonna get a couple of three updates
on the entire situation in Gaza.
And everything else that President Trump's doing here
domestically.
I'll be up on Getter all weekend.
We're gonna leave you with the right stuff.
An absolute American classic.
A historic book.
It's actually nonfiction.
Movie that was classic from Philip Kaufman
and a magnificent score from Bill Conti.
We'll see you Monday morning at 10 a.m.
Eastern Daily Time.
(upbeat music)
John Solomon joins me today
'cause he's got a really incredible piece up
about a potential smoking gun.
John, of everything we're working on,
and there's so much of this that are so important,
the one thing that we must win
and we have to deliver on is this, is this,
is this deep state conspiracy.
Because if we don't solve this now,
we don't really have a country.
We can win redistricting, we can get tariffs,
all the stuff Trump's doing.
Seal the border, mass deportations.
We're doing the world's economic system.
Supply side, productivity tax cuts.
All of these great, Putin coming to the White House
with Russia, the head of Intel being told
he's gonna be, the board's gotta let him go
'cause he's too close to the Chinese Commerce Party.
I can list a hundred things we're doing
and if we don't do this one big thing,
it could all be unwound very easily.
So John Solomon, talk to me about the framing of that.
In addition, your amazing article now about, guess what?
Obama may have given us a smoking gun, sir.
- He did, yeah.
He's either the first clairvoyant president
in American history because he seemed to know
on December 19th before the CIA had redone
the Intelligence Committee assessment,
what its outcome was or more likely,
he knew the fix was in.
This is an interview he gives NPR
and I guess he forgot that they hadn't done the work yet.
So he tells NPR, expects the CIA to conclude,
reverse itself and conclude that Vladimir Putin
tried to help Donald Trump.
The problem is the CIA hasn't really even started the work.
It just got going and he's so embarrassed
he comes back later and tries to walk it back a little bit.
Oh, things are still going on, we'll have to see where it goes.
It is the sort of proof that John Durham should have found
in his investigation, but didn't.
But for this point going forward,
when you try to prove, let's just say,
long 10 year conspiracy,
this is a really, really significant piece of evidence.
And I'll walk people back to Watergate
'cause you mentioned it for a second.
The moment Republicans bolted on Richard Nixon,
the epic event that caused them to do it
is when they got the tapes and they realized
that Nixon had asked the CIA to try to stop the FBI
from investigating the burglary.
By the way, the CIA didn't do it,
but the mere fact that a president would consider
asking the CIA to do something political
was enough for an entire party to bolt on their president.
Here, Obama asked the CIA to come up with a concocted thing
and he seems to know the outcome before the work's even done.
You've got the FBI pressuring the CIA
to put a bogus Christopher Steele document
in the intelligence assessment.
And of course, you got the FBI helping Hillary Clinton
carry out the whole dirty trick.
It is epically, just on the standards of Watergate,
it is epically worse than anything we saw in Watergate.
And the Democratic party just yawns at it
in our face every day.
That's why consequences matter.
If we don't punish this behavior,
we're gonna go from the greatest constitutional republic
the world has known to a perennial banana republic.
- So John, I wanna go back, 'cause this whole thing
that Obama's immunity because of the court decision,
and look, that's all something for them to figure out,
but it doesn't mean he can't be in this initial roundup
to start looking at it.
I wanna go back to the date.
Why is, I think it's 19 December.
Why is 19 December, what had happened before then,
why is 19 December, 'cause you've got the original meeting
and then you got the meeting with Trump in early January,
right, and what else they do in the Oval.
Why is that 19 December, his kind of either Freudian slip
or bragging about it to NPR.
Why is that date so important?
- Well, the documents that Tulsi Gabbard declassified
recently along with the House Intelligence Community Annex
that we got recently, thanks to Rick Crawford
and Devin Nunes who wrote the original report,
show that the Intelligence Community Assessment
was just starting.
There was no work.
What it means is that Barack Obama had decided
that the career people are gonna come to my conclusion.
Doesn't matter what the intelligence shows,
I've decided that I want to say that Vladimir Putin
interfered in the election to help Donald Trump
and that is contrary to all the evidence
that the career CIA people had.
They had already briefed Congress on November 29th
and they had briefed the President back in September of 2016
that Russia wasn't trying to pick a candidate,
was just trying to cause mischief
like it does in every election.
In fact, the best evidence, the smoking gun evidence
that the CIA career people were right
was that Vladimir Putin stopped his operations,
his influence operations in October 2016.
If you were trying to help Donald Trump win,
the month that you would lay down on Hillary Clinton
and blow your submarines up with her would be in October.
Instead, Putin pulls out and lets the American people
without much more influence go on.
The CIA had it right and Barack Obama decides
to corrupt that process because he and Hillary Clinton
want to be victims.
We didn't lose fair and square.
We didn't lose 'cause my policies weren't appreciated.
We didn't lose because Hillary Clinton
didn't do enough work in Wisconsin and Michigan.
We lost 'cause big bad Vladimir Putin
and Donald Trump beat us by cheating.
That's the victimology that liberals love
every time they lose.
But in this case, rather than just create
a political narrative, they're using the apparatus
of the CIA and the intelligence community
to create an official government product that is bogus.
That is Watergate level stuff.
- John, you've been pretty good.
You've had a couple of three pretty good called shots
on this show about things that happened.
Make us smart.
What are you looking for as this,
as we don't really know where this grand jury is,
we keep hearing about it, we don't really know
who the prosecutor is, we keep hearing about a strike force.
Make us smart right now.
What should the war on policy be looking for
in developments in this case?
- I'd be staking out the Justice Department next week
to see which U.S. attorney comes to meet with Pam Bondi
because that most likely would be the U.S. attorney
that inherits the grand conspiracy case.
If I had to guess, I think it's gonna be Miami
and then the grand jury will be put in Fort Pierce, Florida,
which is the same district where Jack Smith
did his business and the raid on Mar-a-Lago
and all of the things that we now know about that.
That makes a lot of sense 'cause that's the back end
of the conspiracy.
Most grand juries are impaneled where the most current crimes
or alleged crimes are believed to have occurred
and then you work your way back to earlier.
So I'd be watching for a visit by the Miami U.S. attorney
or some team from Miami or Fort Pierce coming up
and then look for some announcements.
If that happens, then the grand conspiracy investigation
that has already been written as a predicate
by the FBI is underway.
If they start doing business in Washington,
it means they're fragmenting this
and maybe not looking at it as a conspiracy.
So I'd be watching for that.
My gut tells me based on what I'm hearing behind the scenes
from reporting that the grand conspiracy
is the approach that they're taking.
- You mentioned Crawford and you mentioned the House
and the Senate.
Is there gonna be something happening in the House
and the Senate along these lines,
concurrent, their own investigation?
You're pretty well sourced there.
What's gonna happen on Capitol Hill?
- I think, and this is just based on some early reporting
I'm doing, we gotta see if this bears out,
but I think we're moving to a moment much like
the Church Commission was back in the '70s
when we learned what the CIA and J. Edgar Hoover
had done to us.
So maybe there is a creation of a truth commission
in Congress that works simultaneous alongside
of the Justice Department.
They don't have to defer to each other.
And if I'm the Justice Department,
I know what I'm gonna do.
I'm gonna put a prosecutor in the truth commission.
And the second somebody walks in and lies in that commission,
I'm gonna have the agents with me
and arrest that person on the scene saying,
"You clearly lied, we're arresting you today."
And then we'll get a grand jury indictment.
That would be the most powerful one, two punch
that we could do to push back against this.
Some people are talking about this, not my idea.
If that gets there, that is a powerful one, two,
'cause we need to educate the American people
from the Pravda baloney they've gotten from CNN,
the New York Times and the Washington Post
the last 18 months.
You do that simultaneously to the criminal investigation.
I think you have the most effective potential deterrents
so that people aren't tempted to do
what they just did the last nine years.
- You're always ahead of the curve
when people talk about whistleblowers
and people coming forward that have information
that felt that they couldn't do it before,
both on Capitol Hill and at the DOJ, FBI level.
What are you hearing about whistleblowers
or people that really know and have for years
just felt like nobody would have their back,
they can come forward?
How big a deal is that right now?
- They're coming out of the woodwork,
particularly in the intelligence community.
People are going directly to Tulsi Gabbard.
They feel comfortable
'cause she treated the information seriously
and she did a fully transparent release.
So that first intelligence officer
who's a whistleblower came forward.
He was the deputy national intelligence officer
for cybersecurity.
He's like, "Hey, there should have never
"been the use of the Steele dossier."
When I found out the Steele dossier
was used for the intelligence community,
that violated all the rules.
His coming forward has prompted many others to come forward.
I think we'll see another release
of whistleblower information sometime in August
and it will probably make our heads spin again
that there's so many people in the career establishment
that knew what was going on was wrong,
but they were suppressed, they were intimidated,
they were threatened.
And when we hear their stories,
you're gonna see that this does look like Watergate
in so many ways, just worse.
- Unbelievable.
John, where can people go to get all your content?
The writing and the podcast and the show.
- Thank you, my friend.
Yep, justinews.com is the site.
Jay Solomon reports on all the social media platforms
and I'm lucky enough to follow you every night at six o'clock
here on Real America's Voice.
Justinews, no noise.
Good to be with you, buddy.
- Thank you, sir.

Dr. Steven Hatfill and Dr. Bruce Edwards Ivins were involved differently in the 2001 anthrax investigation, at different times and under different circumstances.

Steven Hatfill was an early focus of the investigation starting around 2002. He was a bioweapons expert who had previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and had access to the Ames strain of anthrax similar to that used in the attacks. Hatfill was publicly named a "person of interest" in August 2002 after FBI searches of his residence and heightened suspicion due to his expertise and some circumstantial factors like possession of antibiotics. However, the FBI concluded by 2008 that he was not involved; genetic and lab access evidence excluded him because he never had access to the specific anthrax spore batch (RMR-1029) used in the mailings. Hatfill was later exonerated and received a government settlement for the wrongful investigation and publicity.

Bruce Edwards Ivins, also a biodefense researcher at USAMRIID, became the main suspect in the investigation starting around 2005. Breakthrough scientific analysis traced the anthrax used in the attacks specifically to a spore batch maintained by Ivins. The FBI escalated surveillance on Ivins in 2007, identifying him as the "extremely sensitive suspect". Ivins had access to the containment suites where the anthrax spores were stored and was considered the sole perpetrator by the FBI after extensive investigation. Before formal charges could be filed, he died by suicide in July 2008.

To summarize the timeline and roles:

Person Investigation Timeline Connection to Anthrax Attacks Outcome
Steven Hatfill Named person of interest in 2002 Previously had access to Ames strain anthrax at USAMRIID, but no access to specific attack spore batch (RMR-1029). Investigated due to expertise and some suspicious factors. Exonerated and cleared by 2008; received settlement for wrongful suspicion.
Bruce Edwards Ivins Became prime suspect from ~2005 Had access to the exact anthrax spore batch linked to attacks; became focus as evidence mounted Died by suicide in 2008 before charges; FBI concluded he was the likely sole perpetrator.
Thus, Hatfill was initially suspected due to his background and partial anthrax access early in the investigation, but was cleared due to lack of access to the specific spores. Ivins was identified later through scientific forensic tracing and surveillance as the key suspect, implicated with direct access to the anthrax used in the attacks.