( -0957 ) Dr. David Martin on What Trump Is 'Acting Unaware of' Re Warp Speed & Covid mRNA Jabs - Plus Epstein Docs Release Press Questions to Luna & Comer, Is It Like Magic to an Ape - The Art of The Reveal

( -0957 ) Dr. David Martin on What Trump Is Acting Unaware of - Plus Epstein Docs Release Press Questions to Luna & Comer, Is It Like Magic to an Ape - The Art of The Reveal

vaccines, Jabs, mRNA, Covid, Covid-19, Pfizer, Moderna, David Martin, Epstein, files, Paulina, Luna, Trump, Dr., doctor, Chapel Hill, NC, Wuhan, gain of function, Anna, Comer, Press, Questions

TRANSCRIPTION:

the House Oversight Committee. It releases a massive amount of Epstein files.
On Tuesday,
the committee released nearly 34,000 video and audio files regarding the
investigations into Epstein.
This comes hours after the panel heard testimony from Epstein's victims.
Florida representative Annapolina Luna said that testimony shed new light on
the scale of Epstein's operations and who else was involved.
She says there are more questions that she hopes get answered as the
investigation moves forward.
And House Speaker Johnson said,
this is not the end of this investigation into Epstein.
It is only the beginning.
Um, the biggest thing that stands out to me is the victims themselves has,
have stated that this is a lot bigger than I think anyone anticipated. Um,
we are obviously being,
going to be requesting these SARS reports from treasury and also to following up
on that. Um,
there's some very rich and powerful people that need to go to jail.
I think everyone's been frustrated as to why that hasn't happened before. Um,
but it is very much so possibility that Jeffrey Epstein was a intelligence
asset working for our adversaries. Um, but also to,
I think the questions that we have is how much did our own government know
about it? And so there's more to follow.
And I'm sure you'll be hearing from the chairman momentarily,
but I do applaud the victims from coming forward because we heard from a woman
who was as young as 14 years old when she was victimized multiple times by
Jeffrey Epstein. So it's hard to, it's hard, hard to hear.
I think that the files will probably be released prior.
I don't know why Comer hasn't, I think that he should do it.
So it wouldn't even have to come to a vote. But I mean,
obviously I've been a huge advocate even when I was the only one in Congress
calling for the release of this file. So I think I'd be happy to guess.
Good afternoon, everyone.
We just spent more than two hours with six of the Epstein victims,
some of the bravest women I've ever met. They're very courageous.
They shared their stories.
Some of the ladies have shared these stories publicly before,
but at least two of the women had never told their stories before one for the
very first time in the room. And so there were tears in the room.
There was outrage. It was both,
I would describe it as heartbreaking and infuriating that justice has been
delayed so long.
Some of the women in the room began to be groomed by Epstein and his
accomplices, Elaine Maxwell and the others 30 years ago. Some of the,
there were there four attorneys in the room.
Some of them began civil litigation against Epstein and the Epstein evils and
everything associated with it 20 years ago.
This has gone on for a long, long time. And they, they shared their stories.
They shared how these brave young women's Epstein and his accomplices stole
their innocence, stole their very lives in some cases,
stole their hopes and dreams and aspirations and ruined them in so many ways,
but they came forward courageously to share their,
their thoughts and their hopes and the house oversight committee and that the
house itself,
that we would do this in a bipartisan fashion and seek those answers and we
will, they are owed that there may be as many as a thousand victims.
Think of it hundreds and hundreds of young women who some of us imagine seated
behind these six women. One of,
one of the members in the committee said that that they speak for all of them
and it's been long, long overdue.
So the objective here is not just to uncover,
investigate the Epstein evils,
but also to ensure that this never happens again.
And ultimately to find out why justice has been delayed for these ladies for so
very long. It is inexcusable and it will stop now because the Congress is dialed
in on this.
I'm very grateful for the leadership of chairman James Comer of the house
oversight committee who's with me here and he's done an extraordinary job.
August was a very busy district work period for so many members of Congress who
are out fanned out across the country and their districts doing town halls and
business round tables and constituent services. But,
but our house oversight committee was working all along on their subpoenas and
I'll let him recount for you some of the great work that has already been done,
but 34,000 Epstein documents have already been collected.
We will not stop there.
This is the beginning and not the end and they are going through very carefully
because we have two ultimate objectives here.
We want to bring justice to every single person who is involved in the Epstein
evils of the cover up thereof.
But we also want to be equally certain that we protect the innocent victims.
Many of these young women,
some of them are now middle aged women have never come forward.
We do not want their names or identities to be uncovered
carelessly or intentionally in any way.
And so the house oversight committee in a bipartisan fashion is combing through
these documents to ensure they will redact only the information related to the
innocent victims themselves themselves.
We cannot be involved in subjecting them to any more harm.
But I've spoken to the president myself about this many times and he isn't as
insistent as we are.
He is the most transparent president in memory,
probably in the history of the country. As you know, he stops.
If he were here now, he would stand here and take your questions endlessly.
That's his mindset.
And he wants the American people to have information so they can draw their own
conclusions. I've,
I've talked with him about this very subject myself so I can tell you that his
is his heart. Now he also,
just as we do is insistent that we protect the innocent victims.
And that's what this has been about.
There'll be votes in the house this week to,
to advance this and affirm what is doing that we want.
Everybody in the house wants to go on record and affirming what our oversight
committee is doing at a bipartisan fashion.
There's a discharge petition that is pending.
And the reason that I was not comfortable with that and still I'm not comfortable
with the discharge petition is because it was in artfully drafted.
It does not adequately protect the innocent victims.
And that is a critical component of this. So the work is being done.
The department of justice and the administration are in full compliance with
every congressional subpoena. In fact, they're moving it quickly. And so, uh,
the American people are owed this information and,
and the expectation is it will come out soon. So
discharge petition doesn't protect survivors. Yeah, look,
it was in artfully drafted. Okay. They cite, for example,
a code article that is supposedly to protect, um,
child sex acts. Okay. There's, these are legal term of arts,
but they cite the wrong us code provision.
So it doesn't actually have any force of law.
They don't actually have adequate protections for whistleblowers.
We want to encourage whistleblowers in an investigation like this.
And there are standards and practices and procedures that are used and federal
prosecutions and investigations.
And here in Congress that are not adequately stated in the discharge petition.
I think the petition itself is effectively a moot point now because all of
this is happening. What the, what the house oversight committee is doing,
what they're actually gathering is everything that was requested in the
discharge petition plus even more.
And it's actually has the force of subpoena, the effect in force of law,
which is why it's actually happening right now where the discharge petition does
not lead to that. So it's not a law making exercise.
It's superfluous at this point. And I think we're,
we're achieving the desired end here. Yes.
We have a subpoena which must be supplied. It must be, uh, um,
enforced and that is, that does have the effect of law.
So it's even more effective than a vote on the floor. I mean, this is,
we have subpoena authority and it is being used aggressively here.
And we promised to those victims that we would continue that they are heartened.
I think by the attention that has been given in this Congress that has not been
there for many years, obviously. And, and, and I would say this,
and I don't want to overstate it, uh, my friend, uh, Jamie Comer,
but I would say Republicans and Democrats in the room were dumbfounded at some
points about why some of this, uh, has not been disclosed, uh,
further and in greater detail. And, uh,
you have the right people on it now and we're on it. It's overdue.
We've subpoenaed the estate, the Epstein estate for everything too. So we're,
we're pushing forward.
When I say, when I say, when I say that the overs,
yes, the intention is to get them out for public release.
And when I say that the oversight committee's work goes further than the
discharge petition, that's a great example.
The discharge petition doesn't mention a subpoena or gathering information or
documents from the Epstein estate.
So there are other things that this committee with its expertise and all of its
lawyers and all the work, uh, will be able to gather that,
that wasn't even anticipated in this, this other pending measures.
With that, I want to yield to our very able and very busy chairman for all the
great work he's been doing. Uh, Jamie Comer.
The return, if you will,
of butterfly of the week for a special short episode.
It's the afternoon of the first. And as many of you know,
today president Trump had a tweet that was an extremely
interesting development in the ongoing saga of what's been going on over the
last five years. And for those of you not familiar with it,
the tweet was very simple. He said,
it's very important that drug companies justify the success of their various
COVID drugs. Many people think they are a miracle that saved millions of lives.
Others disagree. And he goes into the details,
ending with a request that the drug companies show the public the success that
they have reportedly showed him.
And I thought it would be very helpful to point out a couple things just so that
we all have the same data because president Trump in his tweet suggested that
there's a possibility that the miracle of operation warp speed potentially was
not what it was cracked up to be. And I wanted to just give a very,
very quick overview of a couple points that we should address.
First of all,
the data he requested is not going to come from Pfizer or from Moderna.
The data that he needs to see is the data that actually comes from public records
that have been repeatedly shown on this platform for the last five now five years
plus. First of all,
the first data they need to know was that SARS was a direct result of gain of
function research from UNC Chapel Hill's work on WIV-1.
That's the Wuhan Institute of Virology viral model number one,
which was a sample provided to the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill,
Ralph Berrick's lab under an authorized grant by Anthony Fauci's NIAID.
And that sample was transferred in 2014 during the gain of function moratorium.
There is no question that in 2015,
when the paper was published in the proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences,
that the world was put on notice that the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus
pathogen bio weapon model was poised for human existence because that's exactly
what they said.
It's important for President Trump to know that on October 2014,
Anthony Fauci's NIAID violated the law and authorized the gain of function
research on the Wuhan Institute of Virology virus to move forward at UNC Chapel
Hill.
While the head fake was to suggest that EcoHealth Alliance was doing it in Wuhan.
The fact of the matter is,
and is evidenced by the statements in the paper that the gain of function
research created the biological weapon that became what we now refer to as SARS
COV-2.
And that was published in 2016.
They knew that the ingredients that they were putting in the shots were either
deadly or debilitating. Let's start with the deadly.
They knew that pseudouridine as early as 2017 was shown to be the agent that
would unleash what we now refer to as turbo cancers.
And they knew it was going to be highly problematic.
So much so that in 2017 they published a study there that laid out the risks of
pseudouridine and what it could do both in cancer promotion and in the
progression of other horrific diseases.
They knew that the spike protein was in fact going to target the human heart.
This data was very evident since 2002 when Ralph Baric was publishing the
research showing that he could get the spike protein to trigger cardiomyopathy
and other forms of heart inflammation.
But the publications that I have here show that by 2009 they knew that the spike
protein, the thing that the shop was instructing your body to make,
they knew that was going to create heart problems and potentially long-term other
disease problems.
And then let's get to the last one, which is very fascinating.
The last piece of evidence we have here,
which actually came out of molecular therapy,
not only showed that the lipid nanoparticle created enormous numbers of adverse
events as much as 62% of adverse events in animal models.
And this is the lipid nanoparticle used to deliver the agent of the shot.
But this was not just a generic knowledge.
The individual highlighted in red on this slide happens to be the individual who
was the chief medical officer for none other than Moderna,
who knew that there was an unacceptable high level of adverse events associated
with the lipid nanoparticle.
And this information was known and published years before there was any,
any SARS-CoV-2 conversations in China.
They knew that the shot was deadly and debilitating and they made it anyhow.
Now, how did they know that it was deadly? Well, let's look at their own words.
Let's not try to infer from anything. On September 18th,
2019, one day before president Trump signed the executive order,
which was the forerunner to what became what we call operation warp speed.
When he signed the executive order on September 19th, 2019,
having been instructed to do so by Alex Azar,
then the director of the department of health and human services,
they stated at the global preparedness monitoring board of the world health
organization,
that there was going to be a quickly spreading lethal respiratory pathogen that
was going to be unleashed for the purpose of creating the reason that the public
would accept a universal vaccine by September 2020.
Let's review the dates again.
The world health organization said that in a publication,
the world at risk on September 18th,
2019 that there would be a lethal respiratory pathogen released.
They said that the progress indicators of the success of the world health
organization would be in September, 2020.
There would be a uniform vaccine program rolled out worldwide.
And the day after that publication on September 19th, 2019,
president Trump signed the executive order,
which authorized the rapid development of a universal or pan influenza vaccine
program, including the use of DNA and other genetically modified products.
So all of this was done well in advance of patient number one.
They also knew that the clinical trial as they configured it was deceptive and
would lead to an outcome that would be misleading.
And this is where president Trump needs to have very clear insight.
None of the data that was required by the FDA's own publication,
which I have here for reference. So anybody can look it up.
The FDA stipulated in 2018 that there must be data submitted prior to a clinical
trial that talked about things like the immune response,
all kinds of clinical outcomes,
and specifically laid out the requirements for what vaccine clinical trials must
include. None of which were included in what was done for the COVID shots.
They changed the definition of what vaccination was.
And then what they did was they cunningly used this two week period of time
between shot one and shot two so that all of the adverse events that took place
in the clinical trial were front loaded into the immediately after shot one
population,
which was officially classified as unvaccinated even though they received the
shot.
What that did was it shifted the adverse events so that the public was deceived
in but to believing that there weren't many adverse events.
But the reason why was because to be considered vaccinated in the clinic trial,
you had to have two, not one shot.
And a huge number of patients after receiving the first shot had immediate death
or immediate disability.
All of those were considered to be either COVID related illnesses and deaths or
and in every case they were all considered to be quote unvaccinated.
And this is where president Trump needs to understand that the clinical trials
sponsored by Moderna and by Pfizer to a lesser degree,
J and J were set up for deceptive medical practices.
This was meant to deceive the president.
It was meant to deceive the public and it was architected so that the adverse
events would absolutely be loaded onto what was called the unvaccinated
population. This was known, clear and compelling deception.
And remember they said why they were doing it.
They said they were doing it because they needed to quote,
sustain the funding base beyond the crisis.
They needed to increase the public understanding of the need for medical
countermeasures such as pan coronavirus vaccines.
And then they said a key driver is the media and the economics will follow the
hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues.
Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.
Mr. President,
this was always about the profiteering of the stated financial interests of all
of the parties involved. And it never was a public health emergency.
It was a horrific coup d'etat to disrupt this country and countries around the
world to destabilize democracies in the name of financial and social gain.
That's why they did it. This was about profit.
This was out mercenary activities to disrupt the orderly conduct of what became
the 2020 elections.
And this is the data that Pfizer and Moderna will never show you,
but I live right down the road and I'm happy to make all of this data available
to you, to secretary Kennedy,
and to the entirety of the administration who owes the public the opportunity
for the first time to finally get justice for the crimes that were committed
under the guise of COVID.
Thank you very much for listening and please share this video.
[inaudible]
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just give a quick update.
I think everyone knows who we've subpoenaed thus far in the initial batch.
We subpoenaed six former attorneys general as well as the Bill Clinton and
Hillary Clinton. We've expanded that to Alex Acosta.
Acosta is coming in I believe September the 19th, 16th or 19th.
We've got that date down.
I know that we'll have a lot of questions for him with respect to an earlier
Epstein prosecution that he was involved in when he was U.S. attorney.
We have the documents, the initial batch that had been sent by the White House.
As you know, we also subpoenaed Pam Bondi for those documents.
The White House is working with us.
I want to publicly thank the White House for turning over so many documents thus
far.
We're in the process of uploading those documents for full transparency so
everyone in America can see those documents.
It's going to as quick as we can get them uploaded and as the Speaker said,
there are 34,000 pages. We're doing everything we can to get those uploaded.
We want those to be public as soon as possible.
And then we're going to continue to bring in more people.
We learned of some additional names today.
We're going to do everything we can to give the American public the
transparency they seek as well as provide accountability in memory of the
victims who have already passed away as well as those that were in the room and
many others who haven't come forward.
So we're sincere about this.
This was a two and a half hour discussion. It was as bipartisan as anything I've
seen in the nine years I've been here.
Appreciate the Speaker for giving us the authority to seek out everything that I
think you all want and the people that I talk to as I travel America want.
We're going to do everything we can to get the answers and to do it as soon as
possible. I yield back.
Question or two?
Speaker, go ahead.
The President has repeatedly referred to this as the "Extreme Hoax." You just
sort of talked to these victims. Is it a hoax?
I'm not sure what that comment refers to, but I've spoken to the President myself
about this many times and he is as insistent as we are.
He is the most transparent President in memory, probably in the history of the
country. As you know, he stops.
If he were here now, he would stand here and take your questions endlessly.
That's his mindset.
And he wants the American people to have information so they can draw their own
conclusions. I've talked with him about this very subject myself, so I can tell
you that is his heart.
Now, he also, just as we do, is insistent that we protect the innocent victims.
And that's what this has been about.
There'll be votes in the House this week to advance this and affirm what he's
doing. Everybody in the House wants to go on record in affirming what our
Oversight Committee is doing in a bipartisan fashion.
There's a discharge petition that is pending.
And the reason that I was not comfortable with that and still am not comfortable
with the discharge petition is because it was inartfully drafted.
It does not adequately protect the innocent victims.
And that is a critical component of this.
So the work is being done.
The Department of Justice and the administration are in full compliance with
every congressional subpoena.
In fact, they're moving it quickly.
And so the American people are owed this information.
And the expectation is it will come out soon.
So what exactly in the NAFTA and Kana discharge petition doesn't protect
survivors?
Yeah, it was inartfully drafted.
OK, they cite, for example, a code article that is supposedly to protect
child sex acts.
OK, there's these are legal term of arts, but they cite the wrong U.S.
code provision.
So it doesn't actually have any force of law.
They don't actually have adequate protections for whistleblowers.
We want to encourage whistleblowers in an investigation like this.
And there are standards and practices and procedures that are used in federal
prosecutions and investigations and here in Congress that are not adequately
stated in the discharge petition.
I think the petition itself is effectively a moot point now because all of this is
happening. What the what the House Oversight Committee is doing, what they are
actually gathering is everything that was requested in the discharge petition,
plus even more.
And it's actually has the force of subpoena, the effect and force of law,
which is why it's actually happening right now, where the discharge petition
does not lead to that.
So it's not a law making exercise.
It's superfluous at this point.
And I think we're achieving the desired end here.
Yes, we have.
Chair.
Well, we.
We have we have a subpoena which must be supplied, must be enforced.
And that is that does have the effect of law.
So it's even more effective than a vote on the floor.
I mean, this is we have subpoena authority and it is being used aggressively here.
And we promise to those victims that we will continue that they are heartened, I
think, by the attention that has been given in this Congress that has not been
there for many years, obviously.
And I would say this and I don't want to overstate it, my friend, Jamie Comer, but
I would say Republicans and Democrats in the room were dumbfounded at some points
about why some of this has not been disclosed further and in greater detail.
And you have the right people on it now and we're on it.
It's overdue.
Go ahead.
And also what I have, we've subpoenaed the estate, the Epstein estate for everything,
too.
So we're pushing forward.
When I say when I say when I say that the overs.
Yes, the intention is to get them out for public release.
And when I say that the Oversight Committee's work goes further than the
discharge petition, that's a great example.
The discharge petition doesn't mention subpoena or gathering information or
documents from the Epstein estate.
So there are other things that this committee, with its expertise and all of
its lawyers and all the work, will be able to gather that wasn't even anticipated in
this other pending measure.
What's the plan?
What's the plan?
What's the plan?
What's the plan?
What's the plan?
Oh, you want to talk about that now?
OK.
We're working through the appropriations process.
We have been in good faith.
As you know, we passed a few of these bills off the floor already, and the
Senate has done some work.
They passed a few and a little mini bus.
We've got to get these two chambers together.
Of course, we have the end of the fiscal year comes up the end of this month and
no one desires a government shutdown.
So we'll be working in earnest over the next few days and next couple of weeks to
ensure that doesn't happen.
Stay tuned for the details.
As you know, everyone was out on the district work period and now they've all
just gathered.
And so there'll be a tsunami of activity here for the next.
We'll have some sleepless nights wrapping it all up and getting it done.
But but I'm very optimistic we can avoid a shutdown and it's going to require
leaders on both sides of the aisle to come together and do that.
And I'm certainly hopeful that we can and do it in a responsible manner.
There are some in your own party, Thomas Massey is one of them, who have said that
by delaying a vote, resisting a floor vote on the Epstein documents that you
are protecting.
What do you say?
Well, I think that's obvious nonsense.
We are demonstrating here that this is being done.
But I'm going to emphasize again, it has to be done in the right way.
I spoke with the six brave women who were here about our intention on that, and
they were so grateful.
I think they will tell you themselves, those who are willing to come forward to
speak publicly, that they will say they they they want to be very careful, not
all the victims.
In fact, the vast majority of ladies and women and young women who are who are
subjected to these unspeakable crimes, I mean, unspeakable crimes, some of the
things we heard today have chosen not to come forward for obvious reasons.
So we've got to we have to very carefully guard their identities.
We cannot be haphazard about this.
And that's the only thing that has had if there's any delay at all, that's that's
what the intention is.
And I think you'll see that's the effect.
The American people get the information they they desired.
Last question.
Yeah.
Congressman Garcia says that you guys have subpoenaed that birthday book where
President Trump allegedly wrote a note to Jeffrey Epstein.
Is that something you guys are going to share with the public and expect to see
soon?
I don't know about that particular item.
I haven't seen a long list of specific.
That's OK.
Thanks.
It's been we've subpoenaed for all documents pertaining to this state.
And once you get it, will you release that to the public?
Yeah.
You're going to see full disclosure.
Maximum transparency.
That's that's Chairman Comer.
That's what he does.
Yes.
I think we follow the truth where it leads.
I think that's the responsibility of Congress.
I think we owe that to the victims.
And if there are further prosecutions, they need to be need to be brought.
No stone unturned.
I mean, that's the commitment.
And it's and it's bipartisan.
And I'm heartened that members of Congress are willing to work together on that.
So and look, I will say this again, I'm emphasized this is full participation of
the administration and the White House.
The president has the same desire.
So long as we're protecting the innocent victims.
So there'll be a lot more on this in the in the coming day.
So thank you all for the time.
We appreciate it.
Thank you.
It is a very robust study.
Florida surgeon Joel Ledebo is the senior author.
There was over a million Florida adults included in this study.
And what they found was those who received Pfizer compared to Moderna
injections face a 36 percent higher risk of all cause mortality, not due to COVID-19.
So what that means is if you extrapolate all of America and you look at how many
people got the Pfizer shots and the number actually does come out to four hundred
and seventy thousand American deaths from Pfizer alone in the first year of
the mRNA campaign, so in twenty twenty one.
So that is a very minimal estimate.
This number is so large, it is rivaling the death toll of World War One, World War
Two and the Vietnam War combined for American casualties just in that first year.
And so this this this is such strong evidence now.
And we can only imagine how much Moderna killed.
Right. This also does corroborate the VAERS extrapolation estimate death toll,
which is actually six hundred thousand American deaths based on an underreporting
factor of thirty one.
But again, these are conservative estimates.
We are likely in the millions for American deaths.
I think the reason that many people who are in positions of responsibility, the
government might not want this disclosed is I think it has the possibility at a
moment when the dollar reserve currency status is in flux and and people are
feeling pretty sensitive about it.
I think if the truth about Epstein came out, those files would lead to a truth
about the money that's disappeared out the back door in the federal government
and the truth about Operation Warp Speed and why the agency missing twenty trillion
dollars is running around demanding we inject mysterious ingredients in people's
body, which this administration continues to promote.
I think it will help people integrate the dots between the missing money and
Operation Warp Speed in a way that really threatens the financial system.
You know, it's one thing to manage the dollar successfully.
It's another thing to try and management manage it when people know your sort of
covert tricks. And of course, that covert trick threatens Americans retirement
savings in a very deep and bad way.
We don't have a debt problem.
We have a robbery problem.
And I think if too many Americans connect the dots, many people feel it would be
dangerous for the financial system.
Dangerous lesson from what communist China spawned in that lab and it came from
that lab is that the American democracy seems extremely more vulnerable to
disruption by viruses than other countries.
We just at the end of the day, you look in that you could quarterback this.
We just did not handle that properly.
And we were lied to.
I mean, I go off on Fauci for.
I mean, I don't know if you read read my my last book, The Taking Back Trumps
of America, but there's a scene in the situation room where I first meet Tony
Fauci on January 28th, 2020.
Now let's frame that January 28th, 26 weeks before before all the shutdowns.
Seven weeks before Biden just took office, was sworn in eight days prior.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
This is a year prior to that.
This is January of the election year, 10 months before the election itself.
This is the year before Biden came in.
This is the virus that would take down Trump.
Okay.
Okay.
So I'm there.
I wrote, check this out.
20, 2006 in the coming China Wars.
I write that China is likely to create a virus that will kill millions.
2006.
So when that stuff started coming in over the cable traffic, I'm
I'm looking at that in December and it's like my antenna are up.
Right.
And the boss sends me to the sit room on the 28th and he says, give me
the travel ban on China, we got to do that.
And those people in that room are against it.
You know, it was Mulvaney running the room.
He was the acting chief of staff, Republican chief of staff.
Yes.
He's chair in that meeting.
I walk in there.
I don't know any of these people do from outside the white house.
Right.
So who's there?
Redfield from CDC and Fauci from NIH.
Right.
Those are the two big players.
I go in there and within six minutes, I'm in a shouting match with that son of a
bitch and all he keeps saying is with Fauci, I don't know who he is.
Okay.
Literally don't even know who Fauci is.
I didn't know who he was.
Didn't know he walked on water.
Wow.
Didn't know he killed tens of thousands of people during the AIDS epidemic
and got away with that's another story.
Um, don't know who he is, but you know, it's like, it's like somebody walks in here
and sits down here, you don't know who he is and you start interviewing him.
What do you do?
You take their measure.
Right.
And my measure of Fauci was this dude thinks he's a whole lot smarter than he
is and he's an arrogant son of a bitch.
This is within the first six minutes.
Six minutes.
Sounds like Antonio Brown.
And I'm, you know, the one, one of the things I'm good at is taking the measure
of people pretty quick.
The boss is good at that too.
Trump.
And I'm thinking, what?
And so I fight with this guy.
Mulvaney, I'm fighting with him.
Redfield comes in and supports Fauci and we leave that meeting with Mulvaney tries
to say, all right, we have a consensus.
We're against the travel ban.
I said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Mick, there's no frigging consent.
I just like it.
No, no, no, no, no, Mick.
There's no consensus in this room.
And, and Pondger finally says something.
He's a national security counsel.
And what I do that night as I go home and I write a memo that I, that I'm going to
plaster to the entire task force and broad chain that says that if we don't do this,
if we don't do this, this virus is capable of killing half a million Americans and
costing us trillions of dollars.
January 28th, 2020.
And that was, that's about as the best memo I probably ever written because it was
spot on and here's the punchline.
Fauci, when he was sitting there, that SOB knew for a fact that that virus came from
the Wuhan lab.
He knew that because he had funded the gain of function research in that lab and he
had already begun to design a coverup.
And we know that from the emails he sent to a group of, of researchers, academics,
trying to get their support to push that come from nature theory.
And that's the biggest lie of omission in American history, because if he had simply
owned up to the fact that that thing came from the lab, we could have pressured the
Chinese to give us the genome sequence, which would have allowed us to design an
effective vaccine rather than the crap we wound up getting.
And again, Trump got lied to about that, not just by Fauci, but by Pfizer, the drug
company.
In what way?
They didn't disclose the side effects of that and they weren't clear with him.
They made him think that it was a true vaccine when it's not.
It's mRNA technology.
And, you know, I, I, I worked with a guy named Dr.
Robert Malone.
You had him on the show sometimes.
We had him.
Yeah.
It's like the way I got me blown was out there beforehand, but what I had him on
and Steve Bannon's war room when I was guest hosting, he sat kind of like, like
you and me are sitting Patrick.
And we talked about all this and wound up writing a three part series in the
Washington times about how the universal Vax policy would basically spawn mutations
that would be more lethal.
Oh, you don't have to get too much in that.
But my point is that, is that that day, that January 28th day was a very
significant one overlooked in the history of the pandemic and in American
history, because Fauci was there.
He opposed the president's travel ban.
He lied to the American people by not disclosing right then what should have
been his, his, even if he didn't know that it came from the lab, he should have
told us it might have come from the lab.
And because he didn't do that, we didn't get the genome.
We didn't get a thing.
And Fauci goes on and sticks, sticks the knife in the back of the president
throughout that election cycle.
I told the boss to fire that SOB twice.
And what did Trump say when you told him?
Well, the problem was, um, I was the lone voice and I don't blame him for not taking
my advice in that, you know, I'm like what I'm like the trade advisor, right?
And, and he had like every time Fauci got into political trouble, uh, with Trump,
uh, Redfield, CDC, Steve Hahn, the head of the FDA, um, Azar, the head of the, uh,
Health and Human Services come to his rescue.
Hmm.
Now?
Yep.
Okay.
Fauci, when he was sitting there, that SOB knew for a fact that that virus came
from the Wuhan lab, he knew that because he had funded the gain of function
research in that lab and he had already begun to design a coverup.
And we know that from the emails he sent to a group of, of researchers, academics,
trying to get their support to push that come from nature theory.
And that's the biggest lie of omission in American history, because if he had
simply owned up to the fact that that thing came from the lab, we could have
pressured the Chinese to give us the genome sequence, which would have
allowed us to design an effective vaccine rather than the crap we wound up getting.
And again, Trump got lied to about that, not just by Fauci, but by
Pfizer, the drug company.
They didn't disclose the side effects of that.
And they weren't clear with him.
They made him think that it was a true vaccine when it's not.
Last month, the department of defense was made aware of an Obama Biden era legacy
program called digital escorts.
For nearly a decade, Microsoft has used Chinese coders, remotely supervised by
US contractors to support sensitive DOD cloud systems.
Program was designed to comply with contracting rules, but it exposed the
department to unacceptable risk.
I mean, if you're thinking America first and common sense, this doesn't pass
either of those tests.
So I initiated an immediate review of this vulnerability and I want to
report our initial findings.
So the use of Chinese nationals to service Department of Defense cloud
environments, it's over.
We've issued a formal letter of concern to Microsoft documenting this breach of
trust, and we're requiring a third party audit of Microsoft's digital escort
program, including the code and the submissions by Chinese nationals.
This audit will be free of charge for US taxpayers.
I'm also tasking the Department of Defense experts with a separate
investigation of the digital escort program and the Chinese Microsoft
employees that were involved in it.
These investigations will help us determine the impact of this digital
escort workaround.
Did they put anything in the code that we didn't know about?
We're going to find out.
Additionally, all Department of Defense software vendors will identify and
terminate any Chinese involvement in DOD systems.
It blows my mind that I'm even saying these things in such common sense that
we ever allowed it to happen.
That's why we're attacking it so hard.
We expect vendors doing business with the Department of Defense to put US
national security ahead of profit maximization.
I'm committed, like the president is, to ensuring that our national security
networks are secure.
Again, it's America first and it's common sense.
This never should have happened in the first place, but once we found out
about it, we've attacked it aggressively from the beginning and we're going to
follow all the way through the tape to make sure that this is addressed.
So DOD is working in conjunction as well with our partners and the rest of the
federal government to ensure that all US networks are protected.
God bless.
We get told that European wars happened because of religion or
nationalism or Nazis.
People fought for God or their country or because they hated their neighbors.
But what if we follow the money?
Why do we never ask who paid for these wars?
Who profited from them?
Who controlled the resources?
When you revisit history through a financial lens, a lot changes.
We find that the same people, the same families made money off war,
regardless of the outcome.
We find that supposed enemies often worked together behind the scenes.
And we find that ordinary people pay the price while the wealthy get richer.
This is what primary sources tell us.
I have thralled through the archives and gone all the way back to the start.
Only this time, instead of looking at folktales and propaganda, I looked for
receipts because you see bankers and governments and churches, they like to
archive their deceit.
And so they themselves show us what really happened.
Have you ever heard of the Knights Templar, the warrior monks during the
crusades?
Well, they were also Europe's first international bankers.
Their banking system worked like this.
A pilgrim in London could pay a deposit to the Templars.
That receipt let you travel as far as Jerusalem and withdraw the same amount
from any Templar bank.
This was much safer than having to lug all your gold around.
But it meant that the Templars consolidated huge amounts of wealth.
People on their way to Jerusalem might not come back.
And every time they didn't come back, their estate could be absorbed by the
Knights Templar.
Over generations, this compounds their power and they built literal fortresses
across Europe and the Holy Lands.
These fortresses were military bases mixed with bank branches.
And by the year 1200, they have more power than any king.
Most European kings are in debt to the Templars.
This is proven by the Vatican's own archives, which include deposit receipts
and transfer orders to and from the Templars.
It show you exactly how much money the Vatican owed the bank.
In 1307, King Philip IV of France owed the Templars a huge amount of money.
And so he had all of the French Templars arrested on charges of heresy.
The Chinon parchment was discovered in the Vatican archives in 2001.
And it proves that Pope Clement V actually absolved the Templars' heresy
charges.
Think about King Philip IV's position in France.
You get told that he was in death, which he was.
But the Templars were also tax farming in France on behalf of Rome.
So from his perspective, they were operating as unaccountable international
bankers inside of his realm.
He didn't just press the case for heresy.
He also called it usury, a practice condemned by the church as a mortal sin.
That document from the Vatican archives proves how deeply entangled the pope was
with international bankers.
To condemn the Templars outright would have undermined the papal propaganda
that was fueling the crusades.
By absolving them, the pope protects Rome and its partners.
If you asked French farmers at the time, they would have told you that the
Templars were not just into heresy, but also sodomy and devilry speak.
Apparently that's a rumor.
The papal file is an attempt to minimize the stain on the church.
The Templars lent money to kings, nobles and the pope itself at a time when you
three, charging interest on a loan, was still banned under canon law.
Yet the Templars did it anyway.
Agenda 2030 consists of 17 sustainability goals.
So that means that elected and some not so elected politicians came together
and agreed that if only every government in the world would adhere to these 2030
aims, some might say instructions, we could eradicate poverty, improve health
and education, reduce inequality, tackle climate change and so on.
You might recognize the branding.
It is everywhere, although you probably almost never consciously noticed it.
It was included in the Euros football.
It appeared at the Olympics.
It is in every corporate handbook and on every website.
Open your new mobile phone and there it is in the apps, even though you didn't ask for it.
But of course you wouldn't want to achieve these noble aims of eradicating poverty and so on.
It all sounds so lovely and benign, but it is not possible to achieve these utopian ideals
without a deliberate, perhaps forceful redistribution of food, goods, property and
rights, just like good old fashioned communism.
The ambition for equal outcome for everyone always results in the very rich getting
supremely richer, the very poor perhaps being lifted up a little, but the billions in the
middle getting colder, poorer, hungrier and enslaved within their digital prison.
Just as communism was never really about equality, this new version, which is deceptively
called stakeholder capitalism, is not about equality either.
This is Klaus Schwab's "You will own nothing and you will be happy" mantra.
No, you won't. You'll be miserable.
You'll be weak. You'll be obedient, but hopefully sufficiently angry to try and break free.
The UN's Agenda 2030 is all about control.
Leaders lacking empathy are not troubled by reducing humanity to a mere data set upon
which they can keep tabs. And at that point, we, the people, are nothing more than a
commodity which can be monetized.
Will the people of the world comply with this technocratic vision or will we rebel?
[Music]
Of a force right in the head.
[Music]

With a probability of 95% or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy nose.
[Music]