Badlands Media - Badlands Daily: 7/10/26 - EAC Purge, Machado's Rogue State Dept Saga & NATO's Greenland Showdown

Episode Date: July 10, 2026

CannCon and Chris Paul open by unpacking Trump's move to fire the remaining Election Assistance Commissioners ahead of the midterms, tracing it back to years of documented problems with voting machine certification. From there they dive into a genuinely strange Axios report about a State Department official accused of going rogue on Venezuela policy, tangled up with exiled opposition figure Machado and a very confusing international phone-call chain. The back half is pure NATO theater: Trump and Mark Rute's summit exchange gets picked apart line by line, from Spain's spending shortfalls to a fresh round of Greenland negotiations and troop withdrawal hints tied straight to it. They close out with Tyler Robinson hearing updates, including new testimony from Lance Twigs and a shoe-size discrepancy that has people talking. Sponsor breaks and Friday banter included.

The Badlands, what are the Badlands? Explain those Badlands. That's a hell of their name. All right. Good morning, Badlandia. Welcome to Badlands Daily. It's Friday. Made it through another week.

Going by Chris Paul, how you doing, brother? Another Friday, buddy. How would I ever be doing? Just wonderful. I mean, it's Friday, right? We get a couple days to breathe after. after this chaotic week. And has it been chaotic?

It feels uneventful. I'm streaming the Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson hearings. So for me, it's been pretty, it's been pretty chaotic. You're just like memorizing the whole scenario? Pull in 12 hour days. I mean, yesterday. Well, yesterday I started my day at 6 a.m., as I always do, prepping Badlands daily.

And I did not get away from my computer yesterday other than for dinner with my wife i'm going to make sure i do that uh until almost 11 o'clock at night wow so that's uh what 12 that's 17 hours oh we better we better decode that all right guys welcome to the show uh happy friday to everybody uh i'm gonna jump into our sponsors and then we will we will get into uh we'll get into all the shenanigans and there are our lot. Some are old because like shows have been condensed. So we are going to go through some things from a few days ago here. But we'll try and keep it fresh out of a lot of election news. So there we go. All right, guys. Unexpected health emergencies don't wait. And with SavePulse,

you can stay prepared from trusted medications like amoxicillin, azithromycin, Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to the medical emergency kit designed to help support over 30 common illnesses. SafePulse makes it easy to stock up on essential health supplies. at Safe Pulse, keeping your family prepared has never been easier and it's all delivered through a simple streamlined ordering process. It's prices that you can feel good about. Whether you need an emergency kit or you're stocking up on everyday essentials, now is the time to be ready for whatever comes your way.

Visit badlandsmedia.tv slash meds today and use promo code badlands to save 20%. Again, that's badlands. dot tv slash meds use promo code badlands to save 20%. All right. And then tell you what, I've been pretty excited about this sponsor here. And we've got this episode brought to you by Cacao Bliss from Earth Echo, a ceremonial grade cacao drink with seven superfoods that lower appetite, boost focus, and calm anxiety.

And the ceremonial part's awesome because they give you this. mug and like this like the whole thing is like a ceremony man it's it's pretty cool it's a beautiful package it's i was like whoa this is absolutely gorgeous yeah yeah Harvard medical researchers discovered something remarkable off the coast of panama about cardiovascular health they tested the blood of the kuna tribe and found that not found nine times lower rates of heart issues than the rest of the world with cancer rates 15 times lower the secret is flavonols natural compounds in raw cacao that modern chocolate processing almost completely destroys the cuna drink five cups of raw cacao daily you may know coffee contains some flavonols but it it's energy spike last only

about 90 minutes cacao works differently at its natural compound theobromine delivers up to six times longer lasting energy than caffeine with no jitters or crash raw ceremonial cacao cacao has 63 times more antioxidants than broccoli 54 more than kale times more than kale and it contains a compound that can nearly double your body's glp1 levels earth echo provides the best raw ceremonial grade cacao for americans investing in their health plus seven additional superfoods for focus calm sleep and gut help learn more and claim special discounts with free shipping today at try cacao bliss.com slash badlands that's t r y c a c a-a-o-b-l-i-s-s dot com slash badlands and uh let's make sure we get that back up on the screen there it's like we got a we got a black commercial there yeah we can't have that

uh i started drinking it because i was out of coffee this entire week and i don't know what happened to my coffee shipment but i was out of coffee and i think honestly i think i'm going to replace it uh wow yeah this stuff was really good really, really good. The only thing I will personally add is, you know, it recommends, or at least my wife, she made it for me, added a little bit of honey. And that almost made it a little bit too sweet for me, but it was still, it's like, it's absolutely delicious. And it has kept me going through these trials, man. We've had, you know, 14-hour days and the cacao bliss has kept me going through these. I definitely like a better than coffee in terms of.

Wow. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So let's jump into the news today. And let's go ahead and first start with the Asawa Vanaa aspect of the show because all shows are why we vote. Hat tip to Ash for that right there. If you have not done so, please smash that thumbs up.

Yes. As I've adapted, says, smash that. thumbs up. Jessica says it kept Brian blissful. Yes, it did. It did. It absolutely did. It kept me. It kept me grinding. So President Trump has fired all the commissioners on the EAC, the election assistance commission ahead of the midterms. And it, of course, has people freaking out. On Thursday, Trump terminated the last three members of the EAC, the independent federal commission. You can't have those two words side by side in a sentence, by the way. Independent, federal.

They can't go together, period. I'm with you on that. You know, I'm 100% with you on that. The independent federal commission that assists election administration officials nationwide. The remaining three commissioners of the four member bipartisan commission were forced out in different. ways. The one Republican appointee resigned while the other two Democrat appointees were fired via email from the White House presidential personnel office and the fourth departed back in April. It says the White House in a statement says, quote, the president reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America's elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted, according to the White House officials, citing the Supreme Court decision, the slaughter decision. The official added that the Trump administration has been, quote, working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse and investing in a strong infrastructure to sustain that mission, especially in the midterm elections, end quote. So it looks like we're seeing the first real, I guess, you know, implementation of the slaughter decision firing this quote unquote independent and quote unquote federal agency.

the EAC serves as quote the national clearing house of information on election administration end quote it accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems and maintains the national mail voter registration form developed by the NVRA of 1993 in his second term Trump repeatedly claimed without evidence that the 2020 election was rigged you always got to throw that in there always like obligatory man I'm surprised there's a mention of Kurt Olson in this article, by the way. It's kind of interesting. The election commission was established by Congress in 2002 through the Hava, Help America Vote Act. The four commissioners are required to be evenly split with two Democrats and two Republicans

and ultimately need to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I don't know how that's not a conflict of interest, that the Senate, who benefits from stolen and fake elections, uh, needs to confirm the people that are, uh, in charge with those. Senator Mark Warner says, quote, removing every remaining commissioner just months before the 2026 midterm election is an extraordinary step that demands an immediate explanation from the administration. No, it doesn't. And raises profound concerns about political interference in the institutions that support our elections. Holy meltdown, but that's not the end of it.

I'll let you jump in if you want to before we jump over to the Guardian. Yeah, no, we let's let's keep going. There's some interesting election stuff. week for sure i don't know if you saw spencer pratt's video but we can talk about it's next it's next i i'm it is a slow newsday so i'm almost tempted to play all nine minutes of it but i'll let you i'll let i've got it queued up to i think what is the most relevant part but uh i'll let you make that call when we get there uh so let's jump down into this story from the guardian trump called irresponsible and dangerous over election commission firings wait till you hear absurd how absurd that statement

is. It says without a board, the career staff, career staff at the agency are quote unquote frozen at the point of whatever the commission last approved. So the 2020 stolen election were good, right? Everything's frozen. So what are you guys concerned about? Crucially, the staff can still disperse the grant funds to the grant, excuse me, disperse grant funds to states for election security and continue certifying voting systems. Remember, remember that continue certifying voting systems keep that fresh in your mind the bipartisan policy center a think tank that promotes bipartisanship noted that the EAC often has operated without a quorum oh that's interesting leaving it unable to exercise its full authority but Trump's move is still

unprecedented so Chris the body that has been operating outside the scope I get I would assume that they need a quorum in order to make decisions that has been operating outside of the scope of what it's intended to do without a quorum, now all of a sudden doesn't have a quorum and they're freaking out about it's kind of odd to me. Yeah, well, you never want to have that sort of thing go public and now the public to understand that they don't even have the chance of creating a quorum, you know, they fly under the radar as much as possible, I suppose. Yeah, Matt Weill, who is the vice president of the bipartisan, what is it, bipartisan policy

center. I guarantee you we dig into their funding. I guarantee you they're not as part of much. There's no such thing as bipartisan. It's unipartisan. There's a unit party only. Yeah, the two parties working together only means that they are openly exploiting us rather than blaming it on one side or the other. They're like, we all agree. And you must agree as well, that this is the right way to exploit you now. It's like the triangle of how it goes. You got the Unip Party and then you got the Democrats, you got the Republicans. If you can't blame the Republicans from the Democrats, then you just go up to the top and we're bipartisan on this.

Now all of a sudden we're... Someone's going to screenshot you and be like... Making that signals? I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. It's the triangle of the Uniparty. The bipartisan, you're either uniparty, you're bipartisan, and you got the Democrats and the Republicans at the bottom left and the bottom right. That's all there is to it.

Matt Weill, the vice president of the president of the party. the bipartisan policy center said, quote, the commission's most recent members demonstrated that bipartisan collaboration on the practical work of election administration remained possible. The commissioners nearly always voted unanimously when they never had a quorum. So I just wanted to point this out. So it keeps reiterating this idea that they're responsible for the certifying of elections and of the election equipment. And we all remember 2020, right?

The big kind of reveal was that ProVNV, one of the voting system testing labs, the one that the former DHS special employee was working for, right? That was his testimony back in the day. And, you know, one of the first things I ever wrote, I documented when Clay Perich was testifying in the Lindell case out. I think it was in the Ninth Circuit. I could be wrong. but this was one of the Kerry Lake trade cases. He testified in his deposition that he was forbidden from testing these machines to the full, you know, ability, the capability of these machines. He was forbidden from going layers deeper into the system to show the vulnerabilities in the system.

Then, of course, we find out in 2020 that, and it wasn't DHS. I said DHS, it's D&I, excuse me. We find out in 2020 that ProVNV was not actually certified, right? their certification had expired in 2017. Where was the EAC on that one? They tried to cover it up. They tried to cover it up. They kicked the can down the road and said, well, you know, the certification of these organizations, it was a little behind because of COVID. Well, we didn't have COVID in 2017 when it expired. So you're telling us a bald face lie, right? You're lying right to our face. Now, I looked this up, Chris, before we went live, and the three members that were just fired is

Thomas Hicks, Benjamin Hoveland, and Christy McCormick. Hicks and McCormick were appointed to the EAC by Barack Obama in 2015, and Benjamin Hoveland was appointed in 2019 by President Trump. So all three of these people that were fired predated the certification discrepancy in the machines. And so they're grossly, what would you call it? I don't want to say inadequate, but the maladministration in allowing those certifications to persist and to go on during the 2020 election with unauthorized, uncertified companies testing them is a testament to how, you know, crappy they are.

I don't know how else to explain it. Yeah. And if the law requires a certain certification and that certain certification did not actually happen or did not happen legitimately, that means that the election was unlawful. That's just a flat out unlawful election. There's no other way to describe that. They set up the rules. They created the loopholes in those rules. They wrote the rules specifically so they could dictate the outcome of elections and then they didn't even follow the rules. If the rules are what make it lawful and you don't follow the rules, then what you have is an unlawful election.

Well, even the rules themselves that surround these voting system test labs, you know, ProVNV famously had up on their website. I don't know if it's still there or not, but I've documented this many times. I've screenshot it, written articles, you know, where I've cited it. We've talked about it on why we vote. But they literally said on their website that their job is to certify the machines to the satisfaction of their customer, right? To their client.

Well, their client is not the state government. client is not the county government their client is not the federal government it's not the eac their client is the voting machine testing uh company so when provi and v goes out there to certify a dominion voting machine they are paid by dominion to certify that machine and to me that's that's wild that you have that sort of a conflict where you know the entity that's being tested is picking and choosing which entity is going to test them and paying them to do so and they're telling you on their website that we will certify it to the satisfaction of our client. Yeah.

That's wild, man. The checks and balances within that system are all motivated by the same things. They're all part of the same thing. It really is just mind-blowing when you get into the system. And I think maybe the Spencer Pratt video will be a better opportunity to talk about some of this stuff. Yeah, before we get into the Spencer Pratt video, I want to just cover this story because I think this is kind of in line with what Spencer Pratt. going to talk about in this video from the hill plan parenthood targets vulnerable republicans with

47 million dollar midterm push okay again plan parenthood uh i did the you know i did the search on this real quick before the show and just preliminary search plan parenthood received about 148 million dollars in h hs grants or cooperative agreements from 2019 through 2021 and 1.5 4 billion in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP payments over that same period. It works out to roughly $592 million per year from the federal government. And now they're taking our taxpayer dollars and meddling in our elections. What the is going on here, man? I mean, I'm trying to cut back the swearing, but WTF, you know, I don't care if it's

Planned Parenthood. I don't care if it's some conservative organization that's funded primarily by the government, which you don't tend to have too many of those, ironically. But yeah, the quote unquote, we decide campaign from Planned Parenthood votes, that should never be a thing. It's such a mess. I know. What can you do but laugh?

I know. An independent Super PAC affiliated with Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood votes will target ads and voter outreach in battleground house races in Arizona, California. Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The funding will go towards key Senate races in Michigan against former GOP rep Mike Rogers and potentially in Maine, even though Susan Collins voted against the underlying bill that cut Planned Parenthood funding. So I just want to throw that out there. You have a government-funded entity that received over almost $2 billion, $1.5 billion in government subsidies through Medicare.

Medicaid chip and flat out received straight up grants from the federal government. They're now taking almost $50 million of our money, taxpayer money, and using it to influence elections in favor of one particular demographic of taxpayers. I don't know, man. Welcome to your system, Brian. All right. So the Spencer Pratt is nine minutes and 41 seconds. I am going to, I'm going to leave it up to the chat. Do you want the whole nine minutes? What's up? Yeah, there you go. I was going to say, don't leave it up to me. I'll say, no, let's not do the whole thing. But if the chat wants it, then why not? So the whole nine minutes, press one, just the relevant part that I have cut out. It's about three minutes. It's about the relevant part is about two minutes and 13 seconds. Yeah, my vote is for the three minutes.

Okay. Well, Chris, your vote weighs a lot more than. No, that's not right. That's not right. I can't take advantage of that kind of power. It's free and fair elections, bro. Come on. All right. The chat, oh, wait. Oh, no, a wave of twos. A wave of ones and then two. Did I put my thumb on the scale as the question? You did. Chris, you influenced the election. I'm 138, 4 aiding your ass. I feel like we are maybe three to two on twos. Oh, man. That's, that's close, dude. That is close. 60, 40. I don't think it's that bad. Yeah, I'm going to go with twos. Twos win it. We're going to play the relevant part. I can summarize it for you. Basically, Spencer Pratt is outlining everything that Ash and I have talked about with

if you've ever watched an episode of why we vote where Ash and I, in fact, I've talked about it on Badlands Daily. And to summarize very quickly, NGOs get money from the federal government, and then eventually that money filters all the way down to homeless people and people that are paying to register homeless people and they're able to solicit votes that way or farm votes that way. Here's Spencer Pratt. This is I think is probably the most relevant part. Let me make sure it's not on crazy speed. It's not. And here we go. Now for those of you who wanted me to fight the election, for those of you thought I was quitting where I was bought off to step aside and quietly disappear. I'll remind you, there's a smart way to handle these things and a dumb way.

Evidence is not proof. I don't say things without proof. Now, I need to. saying that there's no evidence of fraud is lying. There's tons of evidence, and I was the one who got it. All those videos you saw homeless people admitting that they were paid for their vote, where do you think they came from? Immediately after the big spike of votes came in for Nithia, I sent my team down to Skid Road to collect evidence. We were warned by some very well-connected people that this was happening,

so we acted on it immediately. But if you want to end this fraud, doing protests and bitching about stolen elections won't feed you anything. You need the fraudsters to start catching charges. For that to happen, you need proof. That's what investigators do. They turn evidence in a proof with a robust investigation. You think it's a coincidence, a 20 FBI agents suddenly descended on Skid Row to investigate vote fraud?

Why do you think they were there? You don't get evidence by going to rally or storming the ballot processing center. You get evidence by doing real work. And the first rule of criminal investigation is you do not talk about it. Here's the reality. It's too late for my campaign. A lot of people refuse to accept that, but I can't. I told you all to get your evidence.

Ask out and vote. Tell your friends a vote. Vote enough to beat the cheat. We didn't beat it, but that doesn't mean I quit. I don't know how to quit. He never knew when to quit. My goal is to try and salvage the campaign, just like my advocacy in the wake of the palaces fire wasn't about my own home. It's too late for me. This is about you. This is about the next one. It's about exposing this corrupt rig system and changing it for the next election. If I have to be the kamikaze pilot to finally get this big, so be it. There's a right way and a wrong way to do this. The right way isn't easy, but it ends with commie animals and handcuffs. I will restore faith in our elections if it's the last thing I do. And do all you fraudsters out there, we've been watching you. And justice is coming. So claiming that, you know, he's the guy that fall in the sword. By the way, today's the day.

Today is the deadline for California to certify that election. So, and so then I would guess that his video is probably times to align with that. And maybe something spring and not state fact. Maybe something will spring into action after that certification is done and the result becomes official. Well, that's what we were told, right? That's what we were told from, I think Bill Ossaly had alluded to that, that we can't do anything until they've certified the election. And so perhaps this is it. I did think this was fascinating.

I'm just going to mute it and bring this back up. But I thought this was, you know, this is kind of like a little teaser that he puts at the end here. like a hidden camera of a guy going through a USPS box full of ballot envelopes you know Franklin gloves on and then you know the kind of you know the kind of instigating war right designed to strike fear I don't know could be propaganda could be genuine I hope it's genuine I really do you know overall it's a really good video it's it is very good video yeah he uh he uh he says that that's going to rallies is actually not helpful.

And I think after witnessing what we did after 2020 and since, I think that that's probably right. There's kind of this internet wave online that says, do these things, and this is gonna show everybody that we want to fix elections, but the people who aren't convinced that elections are stolen in the first place don't find these things convincing.

They don't think. oh, look at all these people who are voicing their legitimate concerns. They think, wow, there's a lot of crazy people out there. How are these people so tricked by the news? And, of course, the people making that assessment are also tricked by the news. But I at least am open to this approach. It's funny. I actually thought there's a section about a minute or two in where Spencer Pratt makes arguments

that I've been making now for many years about this. And I don't know if you can find there's not a transaction. That's probably off Twitter, right? And Twitter doesn't do transcript videos. Okay. There's just a moment where he says that the fact that so many people have questions about the process of the election and don't trust the process of the election invalidates the election all on its own. And I think that that is a really, really, really important point to make. And I also really like the distinction that he makes between.

evidence and proof. Proof is a subjective term. And I mean, evidence is in some sense subjective as well, but proof just means you have been convinced. There's not some objective standard of proof. We're convinced otherwise or were conditions to believe otherwise because of the way our court system works. We are told that beyond a reasonable doubt is a certain standard. Or you've got a reasonable justification to believe in X, Y, Z. And that requires a certain set of evidence to be presented. And for the official bodies to assess that evidence and agree, yes, this is evidence. And you say, okay, this piece of evidence and this piece of evidence and this piece of evidence, well, the case is proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt.

I can't believe it would have ever happened any other way. So therefore, now we have proof of election fraud, which is a term that its meaning has been made relative and subjective over these last many years. You know, voter fraud and election fraud are often used interchangeably, even though they have different meanings. Right. Right. Election fraud is a particular claim, a particular set of claims, perhaps.

And the understanding is that we need to prove election fraud. That is not actually what we need to prove. All we need to do is collectively doubt that the election was legitimate. and ask the government, ask the state to prove that the election was legitimate, that they even follow their own laws. And of course, they're totally unable to do that, which is why they never let us check. And that fact set alone is enough to delegitimize every election in the country. Because if you as the state, as the governing authority, is unwilling and unable to prove your due diligence,

the accuracy of the results, and to be transparent, about the process and let anyone check, then you cannot make legitimacy out of that. And Spencer Pratt has come the closest to making that argument that I've ever seen from anyone. Yeah, I agree. This is a point that, you know, I've brought up several times. Me and Ash talked about it on Wednesday on daily, where, you know, this guy was saying, you guys can't just go out there and scream election fraud that every election was rigged. And I said, well, until you can prove to us, the burden of proof is not on us. The burden proof of showing that these elections are legitimate is on.

the people that administer the elections, right? It is not on us. That being said, when we have doubts about it and we are able to show anomalies, when we are able to show inconsistencies, lack of transparency, when we are able to show these things, they should be mandated to quell that. And not quell that as in like,

there's no evidence, no evidence, but to show us what it is we are demanding to see, to verify the veracity of the election itself. And I think, Chris, the part you're talking about is how he actually opens this. So let me just play. I haven't listened to this, but let me just play this. Because I think this is where he articulates that idea.

Because immediately, when I started listening to this, I was like, it's almost like he's been listening to me and Ash's arguments over the last two or three weeks on why we vote and on Badlands Daily when we talk about it. In judicial ethics, the mere appearance of potential fraud is disqualifying. Same goes here. Whether or not there is widespread fraud occurring, there certainly could be, and it doesn't matter how many times you scream, there's no widespread fraud. A lot of people believe there is, and there's no way to actually validate it. This isn't just about whether or not

fraud is swinging the election. The appearance of fraud already is swinging the election. People rightly have zero faith in this janky inefficient system. They feel like their vote isn't being counted. They feel like illegal ballots are being cast, and they're not wrong to worry about it. There's literally no safeguards in place to prevent that from happening and way too many openings for it to occur on a massive scale. You all saw how. I mean, that is that is one of the most important messages that we've been trying to articulate here on Badlands for quite some time. It doesn't matter if you prove the fraud. When you have James O'Keefe's independent journalists, you know, they're undercover journalists, I should say, going to Skid Row and documenting people that are putting their names out there,

on the record and saying, yes, NGOs are out here paying us money to fill out votes and they are dictating to us who we are to vote for. That is the appearance of fraud, period. Period. You don't need to go a step further now. There are no checks and balances to ensure that that fraud is not wide scale and that's not influencing elections. And that's all there is to it. Good. Yeah. In fact, all of the, all the rules and processes of the election, of the election suggest that they are intentionally opening opportunities for that sort of thing to happen. So it's not even just that you can find examples

that create an appearance and that offer opportunities for the example to be widespread. It's that the processes themselves are set up to make those examples widespread. It's the worst possible system, and we still put our trust in it. Now, the only thing I'll say, and I, as I said, I really enjoy this from Spencer Pratt, and I'm glad that this case is being put out there, but you know, you got to stick the landing

on this stuff. And if the solution is just to go to the SAVE Act, say everything's been implemented and fixed, and now we have elections that we can trust, well, that ain't going to get it done at this point. You can't have a wholesale loss of faith, I guess, in the election process, which is entirely warranted. There should be zero faith and zero trust in the election process anywhere, period. Okay, we talk about the standards that you need to meet to give the people a reasonable assurance that the elections are legitimate. None of those standards are met. This isn't just about fixing

appearances, though. You know, we often hear the conversation. We need to restore the people's trust in the integrity of our elections. Well, restoring people's trust is a collective belief manipulation game. Creating legitimate, verifiable, transparent elections is an entirely different priority than increasing people's trust, right? You could run a public relations campaign to convince people to trust a politician. That doesn't mean the politician is trustworthy. It just means you've sold the trustworthiness of this politician, whether or not that

trustworthiness exists. And so Spencer Pratt needs to take that next step. And I really hope he will. Like I've been in touch with one of his friends over the last few months. And I said back then before the election happened, I was like, is your dude ever going to talk about fake elections? And he's like, and he kind of steered toward immigrants voting. illegal ballots here and there, like actual means of potentially defrauding elections that are

otherwise legitimate. The elections are not otherwise legitimate, but for a few instances of fraud or even widespread fraud. The elections are themselves fake, and so we need a much bigger solution. And, you know, this is a good direction, and I hope he keeps going. Hold on one second. Stand by one second. We're getting breaking news in on the Brian phone. Well, I get a when I when I get a text, when I get text messages, I don't always, you know, heed them during a show. But when it comes from Ash, I will. And she said, there you go.

She sent me a Trump truth. So I'm going to pull it up real quick. I do want to point out, though, I saw in the chat, Ash that I made that argument in court appearance of impropriety is as bad as impropriety itself. And, you know, I point to your, your, what you were saying about, uh, you know, a campaign against a to, to, to, to raise. trust in a politician does not in fact make that politician trustworthy and I you know I go back and every time I read an article about the elections I make it a point to read as I did in that in that article from WTVB or whatever it was about the EAC the 2020 election Trump has claimed it's rigged without evidence and again that is the complicity of the media in this and the

media is saying that the election Trump has not produced evidence does not make it so Trump has produced evidence. Trump has produced evidence in the in the same scope as what Spencer Pratt alluded to there. You don't make your case in the media. You make your case in court, right? You make your case or to the legislature. Now, we're at the point of the people or to the people. Or I was going to say, we're at the point now where you make your case to the people.

Sorry. No, no, you're good. You're good. I think we're on the same page here. Okay. One last thing about the evidence, though. The media says that there is no evidence for widespread election fraud. And the reason that they, you know, the way they entitled themselves to say that sort of thing is that any debunking that comes out that calls the veracity of one of these claims into question, that's enough for them to say, well, you know, that that evidence is very suspect.

Look at this debunking. This makes a compelling case that you can't trust this evidence. Therefore, it's not evidence. The system has to accept the evidence as evidence before the media is going to say it's evidence. The fact is there's overwhelming evidence that each and every one of our elections is not only stolen but fake, that they are run by totally unlawful processes. They don't even follow their own rules and that none of it is constitutional in the first place. And then none of it abides by natural laws Jonathan Drake would make, the case that Jonathan Drake would make.

So we are so many levels beneath that, but this idea that there's no evidence, that persists only on the fact that the same media publishes these very half-ass debunkings of these claims. And that's it. Well, and I want to point out, you know, this is a tab that I have literally pinned to the top of my browser and has been there for probably four years now. And when they make those claims, these are all of the 2020 cases that Trump and his team brought. And if you look at the colored, you know, column here, that light gray or dark gray, whatever you want to call it, is cases that were dismissed on either standing or other procedural grounds. The green are cases that he won and the red are ones that were, they lost and most of them denied on statutory basis.

And so, you know, when they tell us that, you know, Trump lost all of his cases, he didn't. He won most of the cases that were actually heard on the merits, right? The cases that actually made it to court on the merits, I think he won like 75% of them. All the other ones were dismissed on standing and procedural grounds. Many of those aren't Trump cases as well, right? Yeah, there's Trump-Trump-aligned cases arguing. And again, most of these cases are just procedural cases. cases, statutory cases, they didn't follow the law, they didn't do this.

There really isn't any production and presentation of evidence. The one case where we were going to get the presentation of evidence. And I called this the day it happened was the RICO case in Georgia. When Harrison Floyd's attorneys came out and said, what if we proved President Trump won? And then goes on to subpoena, all of these election records that Fulton County was put on the, you know, put pressure on to produce, weren't able to produce. they wanted to charge like 80,000 man hours to produce the signature templates for the for the mail-in ballots in Fulton County. That case got dismissed. I called it the day that they said that.

The day that they said, what if we proved Trump won? I said, this case will never see an evidentiary hearing, never because they will prove that Trump won in Fulton County or Georgia. And so, yeah. Are there still a few cases on that list that remain open? Or are they all finished? I think they're all finished. I can pull it back up and just glance through real quick. Regardless, obviously a lot of the cases continued on after the fake inauguration of Joe Biden.

And that is its own statement as well. And I'm sure that we've talked about this before. But the idea that parts of government would override, would use the Constitution as a claim that it is necessary to override whatever court process is still taking. place that concerns the legitimacy of the election and install a set of rulers based on these fake elections. That in itself is reason, perhaps. I mean, that's the overthrow of a government. If you have an illegal and illegitimate election and it's still being adjudicated in the courts and you go and install a new government based on the results of the election being legitimate, you're really going far beyond any sort of minimum standard to call that a coup.

It's incredible that that happened, and it's incredible that people didn't bat an eye at that happening. We didn't even understand it in its proper context. Most people were just like, well, you know, Trump's a big jerk and he's challenging this thing, and we know he's never going to win. So, like, obviously the Biden is the winner. let's put him in and he's like hey guys vaccine mandates um the whole thing there's the reckoning that needs to happen around the 2020 election has not happened and i hope that this stuff pushes that to happen but i'm not convinced it's going to yeah it's bigger just bigger than this

liberty line points out in the in the chat that lea hoops uh hoops and greg stenstrom they're still fighting i think they still have a pending case uh garland faberito still has the pending Georgia case and it was remanded back down from the Supreme Court in Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court and has been waiting judicial assignment assignment to a judge for over, I think we're on like 1,300 days now that that case is. That's incredible. Yeah. I mean, that is, that's just shocking. What, what is that? And, you know, Curling v. Raffensberger was finally wrapped up. What was that in 2024 or last year? Okay. But that is that going on. Hold on, hold on, Chris. It's just to, to put a point on that.

Perling v. Raffensburg was wrapped up after a year of deliberation by the judge after the case was heard. And after like 16 years, no, wait, it was 2000. I think that case was brought in 2017 after like six or seven years of that case moving on and evolving to finally reaching a trial, which I was in the courtroom for that trial. After a year, the judge came out and is like dismissed on standing. Didn't even give a verdict or a decision. Yeah. Oh, you just froze. Oh, he, Chris froze. We'll get him back. Um, but, but yeah, that, that case was dismissed on standing. So when you, when, when you back? Yeah. Okay. So my, my point was is that case dismissed on standing. Garland Fabrito, 1300 days still waiting. Leah hopes. Hoops. Uh, why I keep saying hopes? Hoops. I've talked to her a thousand times. Leah, oops. Um, you know, you go back and look at the case, uh, so Spencer Pratt at the end of his. video puts out that kind of like candid camera whatever leo hoops had video him her and greg stendstrom had video of that exact thing in in in uh delaware county with i can't remember the guy's name jim

uh i can't remember his name off the top of my head but closed you know hidden camera of him destroying election records literally saying yeah we're going to destroy that we're going to we're going to burn that we're going to have a campfire tonight and burn these poll tapes burn these these things never goes anywhere. So, you know, when, when, when, when Spencer Pratt is out there saying that just the, the, the idea of impropriety, as Ash alluded to earlier, that's enough to, you know, nullify the system to disenfranchise all the voters because we have no, we have no transparency. And we have no ramification when we do find things. We have no cause to get justice for stolen elections. So. Yeah. Even just the fact that it takes six, or seven years as you mentioned or four years as in the case of some of these the fact that it takes years and that we go through multiple election cycles while there are court cases in process that call into question the entire election system what are we doing i mean that's not that's not a serious country that it just isn't and the fact that we're going to again commit to allowing people to take

power and rule us in that same election system in a few months and commit our lives to making sure that we that one side of the unit party wins a fake election which is not even possible that stuff that stuff's maddening and the truth is man people who have followed this stuff for many years know better and they are nonetheless still the most committed to the process here is um here is December 22nd, 2022. President Trump truiting my article about the Georgia Supreme Court sending the Garland Fabrito case back down to the Georgia, you know, superior courts to decide. December 22nd, 2020. We're in 2026.

Almost four years, bro. All right. So let's get into this post. This is the post that Ash sent me. I have not read it yet. So if she sent it to me, I'm going to assume that it's relevant. Otherwise, Ash, you're fired. No, I'm just kidding. It is relevant.

Okay, I will not sign the housing bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House in protest over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing the Save America Act, which is polling at 97% percent. He's bumped that number up, you know, 97% with the Republican Party and very high with the non-politician, dumb, Democrats. The act and I love that the non-politician Democrats. I love that. The act states quite simply that to vote a person must show photo ID proof of citizenship and that there will be no more crooked corrupt and destabilizing mail-in ballots, exceptions, military, disabled, illness, travel. The Save America Acts non- by the way, I just want to point it out, Chris, my theory, that Trump is pivoting on the Save America Act. You know, it's not mentioned there. What's that? Oh, the mutilization?

Yep, the mutilization, the men and women's sports. He's pulled that out completely now. He has, yes. The Save America acts non-passage is crazy and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it. If the Democrats or any rhino or worse, working with them, that's interesting or worse. What's worse? Do not allow a positive vote on the Save America, terminate the filibuster, and pass this, and every other bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of.

And by the way, that right there is a is a call not to pass it. Yeah. Republicans have ever dreamt of in addition to the upcoming budget bomb and the 1929 catastrophic style debt ceiling bill. What is that in reference to? He's saying that there's going to be another depression. Yeah. The Democrats will terminate the filibuster if and when they ever get the chance to do so

in their very first hour. And I will no longer be able to. able to call them Democrats again. The title of dumb will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our party and our nation itself make America great again President Donald J. Trump. It's a big post right there. That is. I, you know, I was with you, I was with you 100% that Trump was trying to tank the Save America Act by when he included the transgender stuff on there. And after, the Watson decision SCOTUS, he completely and totally pivoted away from that. And I think now

he's at least trying to bring it to the point where everybody, Democrats included, are calling for it. And I think they have been generally, but by taking out those Democrats strong, you know, their talking points, the transgender for everyone's stuff, he's now making it more appetizing more appealing to them as well. What would happen if the SAVE Act was passed in the next few weeks? I mean, we're under four months from these quote unquote midterm elections. So if this thing is signed by Donald, if it's passed through and it's signed by Donald Trump, and we are led to believe that it has then become law by virtue of that,

which I would suggest it has not become law. The court challenges to that would happen immediately. The election processes are already in motion. Are the states going to change their election processes by the time the midterms roll around? I mean, that would be absolute chaos. I think part of, you know, and he might be right, he might be pivoting. The fact that this has been delayed for so many months, you know, and it looks like specifically to create this problem even with its passage,

I think that that's remarkable in its own right. And we'll see, I mean, who knows where the thing is going to go. But that would be chaos. And you can imagine Mark Elias and Norm Eisen and the rest of them, firing up the whole lawfare engine. And all of that, maybe it'll be settled in the courts. Maybe they'll expedite all of this. You know, I was just talking about how it's taken many years to get a proper hearing

for some of these cases in the post-2020 period. Maybe they'll expedite all of these. And so we can get rulings, one after the other, on all of these. various election issues that are sure to arise if they go ahead and announce that the SAVACs is passed. I just want to point out, Ash in the chat says, dumb doesn't work with Republicans, maybe retaritans. It's not bad.

That's not bad. You could go, if you want to go a little more PG-rated for the soft ears out there, you could go re-derpicans or redumbicans, but, you know, one of those. those two. Let's keep workshopping that. I personally like retaritkins, right? And didn't, didn't Trump call, who called Tim Walz retarded? Was it, it was Trump, right?

I think it was Trump, yeah. Yeah, so retarikins is on the table for President Trump. Well, if we're allowed to say everything that Trump says, then we are right back to the same place that we were. There we go. Because he's, he said it all. All right. Just briefly. mention this because I have not had a chance to read this yet, but Patty McMurray, Gateway Pundit,

we finally have the evidence after examining over 155,000 absentee envelopes. We've discovered over 26,000 absentee ballots unlawfully counted in Detroit's 2020 election. This is stemming from a long investigation into Yehuda Miller's information that he was able to obtain via FOIA over a million records from Wayne County, a whole truckload. And they've been working very quietly on that for a long time. I haven't even been able to get any insight into that. And I know all those parties involved. And they've been keeping this very close to the chest.

So I'm very excited to read that after the show today. So just wanted to highlight that. We talked about the filibuster, Chris. And I think that this is a good time to actually genuinely consider getting rid of it. You know, just the news, key GOP lawmakers seek to restrict birthright citizenship as Trump weighs second SCOTUS appeal. So I mentioned this yesterday. President Trump has come out and said that they're going to request a rehearing for the birthright case. They have, I think it's 25 days to do so.

You need one Supreme Court justice that was in the majority to agree. for a rehearing and then they will get a rehearing on that case. So Representative Glenn Groffman said that he was co-sponsoring congressional bills aimed at clarifying the scope of birthright citizenship, ensuring that it only applied to children of citizens, permanent residents, or military members, quote, hopefully by limiting that, we'll give it another shot at the Supreme Court. Grohthman is co-sponsoring the Birthright Citizenship Act, which by amending the Immigration Nationality Act restricts birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are number one,

a U.S. citizen or national, a lawful permanent resident residing in the U.S. or a non-U.S. national, an alien under federal law with a lawful immigration status who is performing active service in the armed forces. Much like the Save Act, Grohman noted that the Birthright Citizenship Act Act faces an obstacle due to the Senate's cloture rule requiring 60 votes in the Senate to bypass a Democratic filibuster, Democrat filibuster. So maybe that's what Trump is alluding to when he says now is the time as well. Yeah, the filibuster thing, you know, they could pass all of the stuff that they have claimed to ever want. They could do that.

It's so strange that we just, if they did that, if the filibuster thing was gone, then it makes it so much harder to play their illusion of bipartisan, you know, their illusion of a two-party system. It makes it so hard to keep that, it makes it too hard to keep that going. Gosh, I can't talk right now. The filibuster just gives them this mechanism. They can say to the public, hey, you know, we want to do this thing that you all want and that the president wants, but we can't do it because we made these rules up for ourselves, and they're not in the Constitution, but we like to stick to them because if we don't stick to them, Man, when we lose fake elections, the other side of the unit party is going to do all the things that you say you don't want. And, you know, we could do the things that you do want, but we're not going to be able to do those because if we did them, then the other party, when you elect them, after we do the thing you want, you're going to elect them.

And then they're going to do the thing that you don't want. So we need to keep these rules that we made for ourselves. The whole thing is so convoluted, man. Yeah, and we've been hearing that for, I mean, we're talking numerous election cycles where we've heard that. That's been the rallying point. Is there going to terminate the filibuster? They're going to stack the Supreme Court, make DC estate, Puerto Rico estate, all these places of state. They're going to do all this.

And then they win the majority. It doesn't happen. And these are all things that, you know, and then they'll go on to things like abortion, which Supreme Court's ruled that's a state's rights issue. They'll go on to gay marriage. I said this at Gart. Where in the Constitution does Congress have any authority to regulate marriage in anywhere in there, one way or the other? You know, these are all things. But now you look at what Republicans are trying to actually do or what, excuse me, they're not trying to do, what Trump is trying to get Republicans to do. These are things are actually within the scope of Congress. Birthright citizenship, clarifying birthright citizenship is something that Congress can actually do. the electors clause of section one article one section four the electors clause that's something that

they can actually do constitutionally all the stuff democrats propose it's not it's not in the constitution it's not in the scope of so again maybe now as trump is highlighting these things that that congress actually has the authority to do but with a mandate you know all three uh you know both chambers of congress the the presidency and essentially the supreme court at this point with a republican winning a popular majority for the first time in over 20 years how are we not getting anything done we're not able to do anything and so trump is is is is highlighting kind of the stagnant uh you know status of of congress because of that filibuster so i don't know man you would you terminate well i think i think that you have to uh the president and the people are aligned on

on an agenda. The president is probably the only person with an obvious public mandate. And you could, I suppose, argue that that's been chipped away out over the past couple of years with the media operations as they've gone, you know, with the Israel stuff and some of the left, the quote unquote left. They have hated him the whole time. There's plenty of Trump-deranged people who identify as being on the right. But you could at least suggest that that public mandate has been worn away. But if the president want something and the people all clearly want something. The representative's job is to enact the will of the people,

as is the president's. And the Senate's job, I suppose, is slightly different. But the way the Senate operates now, they are also seen to be, their responsibility is seen to be representing the will of the people. So all the people want something, the president is willing to sign something. And we're being told, no, we can't do that

because of these archaic rules that the Senate has put in place to constrain itself to preserve the illusion of two-party opposition in the Senate. That is just crazy. You cannot, you know, and we can have discussions about the word democracy, but you can't even pretend that you have a democracy if the government outright refuses to do what the people expressly want the government to do and have wanted them to do for many, many years they could put all of the policies in place yeah they could and they don't they choose not to because of because of this and they say that this is what constrains them it doesn't constrain anything

well so even beyond like me i'm i'm i'm i'm morally torn on the filibuster because i've backed the not terminating it for years because the the reasons that they were trying to terminate it were to fundamentally change the united states right to add to the supreme court and and these were outward things that they were saying they wanted to do it for now what we're looking at here passing something that has you know more than three-quarters support amongst americans passing something like that and they're still refusing to do it meanwhile like you said there are still even without the filibuster there are other ways the national defense authorization act reconciliation there's other ways in which they can do this and the thing i would point to is not just i'm going

to point to a specific case right here but historically how many things that americans were detrimental to American people, how many things have they passed through means like the NDAA and the, and the reconciliation process and other bills like that that don't require a super majority or 60 vote, you know, majority. And the one that I would point to, and we've pointed this so many times here on Badlands, is the Smithmont Modernization Act in 2012. Obama could not get that passed. And so what did he do? He stuffed it into the National Defense Authorization Act and got it passed with that major piece of legislation. you know that bill and and so you just you look right now and what you are seeing is a a revolt by the republicans that are supposed to be you know in in trump's corner they're revolting against him

and and they're not doing it like they're not going to bat for trump the way that the democrats did for obama is is what i'm getting at there yeah yeah i mean i would suggest that that's because they are trump's actual opposition absolutely Yeah. So it's not at all surprising. And I don't think that Trump expects him to do this. I think that he's just hammering this so that people understand this is the actual state of play in your government. They have no interest in doing your work. They are doing someone else's work. Absolutely. All right. Let's jump into this story here from Axios. Have you, BB posted this story in a couple days ago. And I thought this story was absolutely fascinating. How a top State Department official went rogue over Machado or Maria Okuna Matata. Kuna Matata. I was trying to think of how to say that lovingly known as Akuna Matata.

Kuna Matata. Nice one. Well, you know, with the with the Unipanuna, I had to get that in there as well. Over Machado's Venezuela plans. This is a really curious story here. says Trump admin officials position on Venezuela's exiled opposition leader is simple. Don't help Maria Kuna Matata gain entry to her home country. I just want everybody to notice how incredible it is that the countries like popular leader were told,

the woman who was supposed to take over Venezuela is not in Venezuela and has not been in Venezuela. She didn't the United States. Remember her whole escape story? On the boat in the middle of the night, rowboat. Oh, the blind show. Yeah. People loved it, though. Deputy Secretary of State, Chris Landau, didn't appear to get the memo.

He is suspected of twice miscommunicating U.S. policy to two countries about Akuna Matata, according to seven, seven, seven senior administration officials. Quote, there's a widespread belief that Landau, rogue said one of the sources and the evidence supports that belief another said marco isn't happy with landau after the june 24th earthquakes machado was uh living in exile in the u.s living in exile in the u.s without a valid Venezuelan passport and wanted to return to Venezuela to help with relief efforts but administration officials interfered with their travel plans saying that they amounted to quote gross political opportunism, end quote, that would interfere with recovery and relief efforts. And then, of course, Axios has to throw in that she is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

Got to throw that in there. Yes. And I just want to throw this in there really quickly as well. It's just important to remember when they're talking about how she doesn't even have a Venezuelan passport. This is the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs. 2009 Yale World Fellow Maria Karina Machado wins Nobel Peace Prize. So she has been part of that globalist system very long time in America. Oh, dude, they got her back during the Bush administration in the White House with George W. Bush. There you go.

The skull. The whole Yale thing. Yep. Yeah, the whole Yale connection. Yeah, spot on. It says the U.S. elevated Maduro's vice president, Rodriguez, Delci Rodriguez to lead the country, which proved deeply unpopular with supporters of Machado, leader of the Venezuelan opposition.

They want, they want elections. Maduro stole his in 2024 in parentheses. So it's okay for Axios to claim elections in other countries are stolen, but. That really is incredible. Don't you dare, you know, without evidence. That's what we should put there. Where's the evidence? Well, of course, I know you know what the evidence is.

the evidence is exit polling from Edison research and then a collection of ballot receipts presented by the quote unquote opposition, which is just global intelligence behind Maria Carina Machado. Yes. That's all the evidence. That is all of the evidence that it takes for Axios, the New York Times, and these other outlets to declare that Venezuela's election was stolen. That is all the proof that they need.

that right there needs to be clipped that right there that is all the proof that needs to be clipped meanwhile ash and i on why we vote for the last five four years have been laying out insurmountable evidence that 2020 elections are stolen but axios will still run the disclaimer there is no proof that the 2020 election was stolen but exit and you need to be then you need to be desensored and monetized for that sorry to cut you off no no no you're spot on but but exit polling in Venezuela exit polling and opposition submission of ballot receipts is sufficient evidence to not only say that Maduro stole the election in 2024, but also to try and attempt to escalate this to some sort of global conflict as a result of that in order to get the CIA's, you know, puppet Akuna Matata, Machado,

uh, installed. Fascinating. All right, Landau is a former USA, by the way, clip that. I got to throw that out clip that and then and then the program picks it up landau is a former u.s ambassador to mexico and is the son of a former u.s ambassador to venezuela hmm he's suspected by senior trump administration officials of opposing u.s policy towards caracas and being too close to akuna matata's inner circle quote he's eerily incapable of saying anything positive about the interim authority in venezuela or negative about machado says one official in a conversation with the netherlands ambassador to the u.s landau appear to advocate for Akuna Matatus travel to Kurosau and then Venezuela, according to three sources with Axios. Quote, this is U.S. policy and it's supported by Secretary Rubio Landell allegedly told Netherlands ambassador to the U.S.

Brigittea Hazelar, who relayed that conversation. Machado planned to stay at the U.S. consul General Ramon Chico's residence in Curacao. Tazilar became concerned that the U.S. didn't want Machado traveling to Curacao. She called the U.S. assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere, Mike Kozak. Kozak told her the U.S. was not helping Machado get to Venezuela,

and she was, quote, unquote, completely confused because, quote, yesterday the deputy called and told me to complete, to the complete opposite, according to an account from an official. The Dutch then reversed permission for Machado's arrival as she was in flight, and her plane returned to Manassas, Virginia. Landau then miscommunicated the same sentiment to a second time to a foreign official. This time it was Panamanian foreign minister Javier Martinez Acha, who memorialized their conversation about Machado in a text message that he sent to Landau.

Quote, I understand that your country will make arrangements so this person can enter Venezuela. Interesting, they use this person. Martinez Acha wrote at 9.21 p.m. on June 26th, quote, perfect description of our position Landau wrote back immediately. By Sunday, June 28, Machado was in Panama and tried to fly to Venezuela on Copa Airlines, which declined to carry her when officials in Washington and Caracas voiced their displeasure. U.S. officials are monitoring Machado in Panama and are bracing for her to enter Colombia to the south, where she could then head east to the border with Venezuela. other U.S. intelligence indicates she plans to travel to Europe.

This is a wild story, man. Listen to the end of that story. U.S. officials are monitoring her in Panama where they suspect she'll enter into Colombia. Like this is a, you ever watch the Hollywood movies, Chris, where they're trying to enter into like one of these South American countries and they're driving on this abandoned road in the middle of the jungle and just all of a sudden they roll up on this checkpoint with like five dudes. and they've all got AK strong across their chest. And they're, you know, they got the people in the back and they're like, we'll handle this. And then they go out there and they're talking with the people

and they hear the screaming outside and the people in the back are like, oh my God, what's about to happen? What's about to happen? And then they're like, okay, you can go through. Like that's what they're drawing a picture of right here. Yeah. I was looking up what in particular is in Manassas, Virginia

that might have had her there. And of course, there are government buildings. nearby and within Manassas, but there's nothing jumping out to me in particular. FBI Northern Virginia resident agency. I mean, that's Social Security Administration field office. Yeah. So nothing in, nothing in particular. I wonder what she was doing there, though.

That's Northern Virginia, right? Manassas. I'm not all that familiar with Virginia. Maybe Ghost is in the chat and can tell us what happens. Can we can get an item? residency list of CIA official exactly yeah I just wonder what Maria Karina Machado is doing hanging out in Manassas who's the woman that was running USAID does she live in the masses I mean that's just to me that's a crazy story and one of the

reasons I think it's really interesting is because you see the deputy secretary of state there directly directly disobeying allegedly disobeying uh policy set by Marco Rubio and President Trump. And this kind of ties into when you look at when Pam Bondi was dismissed as AG or when she resigned or was fired, whatever the case might be. And the deputy AG Todd Blanche takes over. One of the things that came out at that time, a lot of people were talking about this. It's a not well-covered secret is that the deputy in all of these cabinets has way more hands-on than the actual political appointee of that of that of that particular cabinet and so when you see the deputy secretary of state out there making these types of

policies you have to wonder how the hell that guy got in that position in the first place and so you know we'll see what happens if land out gets fired he should absolutely be fired for this there's no question no question so uh anything else on that no no no Did you see where Manassas was? Somebody in the chat. Somebody in the chat said Northern Virginia, yes. That destroyer said, just say Jew three times and ghost of base Patrick Henry will appear. I'm not sure that's true.

You know, we'll have to ask off if ghost pops up in the chat right now. Ash has probably taken. We didn't say, we didn't say Jew three times yet. do you do let's see if that's five times now that cancels them out i suppose yeah that's like when you try to trick them in the same beetle juice beetle juice beetle juice beetle jews oh oh yeah beetle juice beetle juice what about uh candy man did you ever see that movie i did i did candy man candy man candy man yeah oh well you're already right oh don't you have to say it into a mirror though yeah you have to be well i mean i'm looking at myself oh

jeez oh geez oh man if anything here's this episode of daily if anything happens to me this weekend guys yeah and i mean i'm looking into by definition a mirror so yeah all right let's um let's jump into actually you know what let's pause for a second here and uh talk about uh soft disclosure No, Cheeky, we can't stop for snacks, do we have to deliver all of the soft disclosure gift cards? He goes by Zach Hay. The motion detective. Go to the beerbrush. Softdisclosure.com.

promo code muffin, hit it. Get you 15% off. Get you some of that beard oil. Get you some of that tallow bar. Get you some of the deodorant, all natural products made by American font. across the country, fantastic stuff. And you're supporting bad lands and those farmers at the same time. And you're also supporting epic, the most epic ads, maybe in existence.

I think I think, yeah, I think we can go that far. I think it's also fair to say that soft disclosure is what gives Zach the ability to move like that. Mm-hmm. And it's what protects his knees after they've been on fire. Hydrates the elbows, man. It keeps some, keeps some limber, right? got to keep them limber. Also, you know, President Trump's a fan. I'm convinced, you know, Mack to the future in the middle of the 1776 ad that we ran for the first time premiered

publicly for the first time at DPH and President Trump truthed out Mac to the future during the ad. So I'm going with I'm going with President Trump's a fan. That's a big boop. That's a huge boop. That was a massive boop. That was a really big boop. So by the way, Chris, Manassas is 25 miles from Langley. Okay. So it's in range. There you go. And technically Langley is in like unincorporated area.

So they could be like one of those situations where it's like we're just going to call it. Like I live in unincorporated Broward County. We just get called Fort Lauderdale. So maybe that's like the same kind of thing there. Could be. I wonder how long that takes in in DC area traffic 25 miles. I remember in Los Angeles, 25 miles was like an hour and a half. It's funny you ask 30 minutes because it said that when I, when I searched it during that ad, it said 30 to 30, 30 to 40 minutes to get there.

Now also she's probably taking a helicopter. Yeah. She's very important lady. She won a Nobel Peace Prize. She's a Nobel Prize laureate. Yes. And maybe it's worth remembering that Donald Trump was the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize. He won the FIFA Peace Prize for solving nine wars. And Maria Karina Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing. For trying to overthrow Hugo Chavez and then Nicholas Maduro, really just being the avatar of that effort.

Yeah. Yeah. I just want to point this out real quick. We're talking about subversion of the State Department and everything. City Journal put this out. A top Mamdani official tried to meet with Iran. Commissioner Anna Maria Archilla was scheduled to meet with Amir Sayyarvani, Iran's permanent representative to the UN, alongside two other senior officials in the New York mayor's office

for international affairs on July 7th at 11 a.m. The meeting was called off after the State Department. which was not informed ahead of time, met with the Mamdani administration to clarify acceptable conduct. New York City's officials did not originally envision the mayor's office of international affairs as a means of shaping foreign policy. Its purpose is to exchange best practices with other global cities, bring foreign business to the city, and support city government's relationships with the entire diplomatic community residing in New York City without regard to political ideology or party. Now, you got to wonder why the New York City mayor's office would have a meeting with Iran's U.N. representative to discuss any of those things that were listed there when Iran is severely sanctioned against the United States. They cannot do business in the United States.

So why is New York City officials mayor, mayoral officials? We're not even talking about state government here. We're talking about a city's government. Why are they meeting with Iranian officials? Yeah, that's a good question. It does. I think that you make an interesting point there, and it does really call into question. Either what they're doing under the scenario you just laid out or the question of whether or not the scenario you just laid out that we have been told is the scenario, whether or not that's actually true or meaningful in any important way. I mean, in a...

So from the good twin, evil twin stuff, if you're thinking about this is like a global. level. The idea that they are Iranian is not any more significant than if they were Nigerian or French. It's just another country that has that globalist faction. And the globalist faction does business with the globalist factions everywhere else because they are trying to operate a global system. So that part of it. And the sanctions, of course, are the same way. Sanctions are a tool that they can use against the oppositional faction in any nation. So they're not like going to limit the business they want to do with their factional partners in Iran through the use of sanctions. So of course there's other business channels still that persist even under the conditions we just talked about. Yeah. I want to, I want to quickly just highlight the proceedings that have been going on with Brian Cole Jr.

The alleged pipe bomber in D.C. Yeah, we've got Alicia Powell is actually in the courtroom for these proceedings. it's federal court so it's not televised which is a travesty to the fullest that we can't see federal court proceedings on like everybody should be allowed to watch that but you know whatever um and just a couple highlights real quick that i thought were very interesting um so we we talked earlier in the week that brian cole junior is uh not subject to the j6 pardons that president trump put out mainly because he has not yet been convicted of the crime and the people that president trump pardoned had been been convicted, meaning prior to the pardon itself. And so therefore, any J-Sixer that is charged or arrested following the pardon, you know, after the pardon, could still be subject to, you know, the weaponization. But here's two key parts right here. And one of the most significant rulings, Alicia Powell writes this for the Gateway Pundit. And one of the most significant rulings of the day, Judge Ali, Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, ordered that there will be no redactions,

on materials referencing the Capitol Police's role on January 6th. A large volume of filings will now be publicly disclosed, potentially opening the floodgates to evidence that has remained hidden for years. That's a major, major ruling right there, that they're not going to have redactions on Capitol Police filings. Because the Capitol Police, one of the things we learned following J6, was that they're not subject to FOIA. They are not beholden to freedom of information,

and they can keep their records, concealed. So now a judge is ruling that they're not going to be redacted. So we're going to get potentially some, you know, some answers, hopefully. You know, I don't know what we're going to get, but I don't want to speculate too much. Anything on that before we get to the next part? No, go ahead. Okay. From the moment Cole entered the courtroom, the physical differences, Powell writes this from the courtroom, the physical differences were impossible to miss. Cole's head size, the torso length, leg proportions, and notably large feet stood in stark contrast to the suspect capture on surveillance footage to of the pipe bomber.

As investigative journalist Steve Baker is repeatedly reported, Cole wears a size 12 shoe, while forensic analysts indicates that the analysis indicates that the bomber were approximately a size 9 shoe. And Thomas Massey put out this ex post here just to kind of show you the comparison, reposting actually Steve Baker, the comparison of the difference between a size 9 and a size 12 shoe. and that's pretty significant.

So again, this is just an early on proceeding. It's not the trial or anything like that. So I just wanted to highlight those two things. Sorry, pulling up the next story here. So I said we were going to talk about some old stuff here from previously in the week. I want to highlight this segment here of President Trump and Secretary General of NATO, Mark Routé, at the NATO summit. this I think it ended what on Wednesday but here he's talking about quite a few things

and you can see a little bit of alpha male dominance I will say over Mark Routé check out this clip they do need a touch for a bit few weeks and the United Kingdom would let us use the island for two weeks so we had to fly back I'm saying you're right or actually and Italy was very bad having to do with their bases as you know and a couple of others so it was still generally five thousand is huge and and and you make even you got Spain to pay 2% they spent they made a huge step in last year so there's still issues we have to solve but hey also even on Spain I would say they got to 2% and and I know you're very strong relationship with the United

King but also you personally always with the Kirstarvon who is now leading office he has now also committed to spend another $20 billion extra 15 billion pounds of defense so I would argue without you in this chair this would not have happened it of course because of Russia but also because of you so grab to win it's there and you did this it was the Hague and now they're implemented and on Greenland you and I made a deal in Davos I will make sure that that deal is step by step being influenced that you can if you want to go them down on Greenland you have your trilateral talks and Mark was leading them from your side with the Greenlanders and

the Danes that comes to if they will change their constitutional position in the kingdom and such but hey we just said they understand Greenland is very important for United States, but it's not important to Denmark. In fact, when Denmark was overrun by the Nazis in less than one day, Hitler beat them out and one day took over. They asked us to take care of Union. In fact, we took Breeland, and then stupidly we gave it back. We shouldn't have given it back to them because we're the ones that needed. We need it for protection of the world, not just the United States. And it's very important. It doesn't help Denmark, but it helps us. And it's very important for us and again they were defeated very quickly. Denmark was beaten in one day, less than one day

by the Nazis by Hitler. And when this happened, they immediately switched it over to us. We owned it. We had it. We were taking care of it and then we gave it back, which is, I don't know why. I wouldn't have given the Panama Canal back either. So what do I know? I certainly wouldn't have done that because China's trying to take over the Panama Canal and that's not going to happen. So, but I just, you know, It's interesting. I'm very unhappy with NATO and yet this man is a great leader and he gets it. He gets it, gets it maybe better than some of the leaders. But also, did your allies get into things to you? I could not do this without you.

It's too bad Biden didn't do it for Obama. Hey, but you were here now. And you're in terms of 45, in total more than $1.2 trillion. I called this to Trump trillion. No, it's true. But $1.2 trillion extra spent by Canada and the and the And I'm not always blaming you're getting a, they got a free ride and not even Biden had any brain which he didn't he would have said you got to pay more and

same with Obama too bad presidents they could have asked and he would have done that too it would have been I mean who knows who knows if they would have happened and it should have happened years ago and it couldn't but Obama didn't do it and Biden didn't do and frankly Bush didn't do it either but you did what Eisenhower started trying to do equalizing he tried yeah I and all the other presidents None of them were successful. You're the first off. It's your win. You're winning the head.

That's why I like it. This is true. Without you, this would not have happened. So, I mean, you essentially have, you know, Rutei who last year called him Daddy Trump or something like that. What was it? Like, who's your daddy Trump? I think he called him. Yeah, I think that he was making the point that Trump was like the authoritative figure among these people.

And so that they were like, oh, Daddy's home or something. I think he said. That's what it was, right. Well, now you have Routé just completely and totally capitulating to Trump and just like bending the knee. However, I don't know if you got this impression, but the way Routé is talking there, it kind of sounds like the same thing we're seeing here. Can we kick the can down the road long enough to where you're not the man there, right? Right. That was kind of the feeling that I got when he's talking there. They see, started out talking about Spain, right? Oh, well, look, look, sir, don't, don't, don't, diminish Spain too much. They're, they're coming around, right? They, they,

they pledge this. There's still a lot of work to do, but we're working in that, right? Greenland, I promise you step by step by step to get you Greenland. Okay, well, you better hurry to leap up because our president only has maybe, you know, two more years, maybe more, or 10, or 10, or 10 more years. Who knows? I don't know. That was just kind of the feeling that I got there. And of course, Greenland's back on the table. I love that. It seemed like he was trying to protect the other NATO allies and run PR cover for them. While at the same time appeasing Trump.

Yes. Yeah. He wanted Trump to stop saying bad things about all of those other partners because he's probably, he's probably the man between Trump and those allies trying to maintain a delicate balance in the communications realm. Yeah, I think Trump was intentionally making his job much harder there. And President Trump in a manner and fashion and only which President Trump could do comes over the top and so subtly, so gently, just bitch slaps them across the face with we maintained Greenland the whole time that you guys were getting your ass kicked by the Nazis, which, by the way, we also came over there and bailed you out from that as well with the help of the Ruskis, who, by the way, he also mentions there that the only reason NATO's stepping up is because of America and the running. Russians. So, you know, to me, Trump was very polite and very appeasing in saying, Greenland is ours.

It's off our coast. You got nothing to do with it. Germany overran you in a day and we had to protect it the whole time. Just give it back to us. We were stupid forever giving it to you in the first place. I don't know. We'll see. We'll see. A couple more comments on that. This was from Air Force One. A lot's going to depend on Greenland. You know, make a very good deal in Greenland. And if we don't, maybe I will. And a lot's dependent on Iran. I mean, they want to help now.

It's a little later, I think is essentially there's not that much fighting to be done. But some will depend on Iran, you know. When they had a chance and an opportunity to help, they chose not do so. But we're sort of forgetting about that. And now they want to help. They all want to go in. They want to help on Iran. so badly but we don't really need help it's little things we don't really need help he gave you your

chance you guys weren't there and now you can you can kick rocks um and then the last clip on greenland real quick is uh the prime minister of uh of denmark met frederickson meta position is uh unfortunately very clear on this topic and our position is as clear as it has been all through um greenland is of not for sale. We hope that all, including all allies, will respect the Green Atlantic people right for self-determination. And we are a sovereign state and we need everybody to respect our territorial integrity and our sovereignty. And again, Trump reminding you, you're only a sovereign state because of us. You are only a sovereign state. You got overrun in one day, one day, and you're only a sovereign state because of us. And we took care of that

sovereign state or that sovereign territory. We took care of that while you guys were being overrun. It was interesting in Trump's remarks. He connected the withdrawal from bases in Europe to having Greenland, which suggests that that would be then the territory for the bases after the withdrawal from Europe and we're seeing withdrawal from a number of these countries you know i've been calling it the pull-out method uh i think we're gonna i think we're gonna i think we're gonna continue to see more of that over the coming couple of years well yeah here you go this uh from the associated press germany agrees to deal deal to buy long-range u.s tomahawk missiles uh it says the agreement was reached to the sidelines of the nato summit quote this will close an

important strategic gap in our defense and at the same time we will work to develop our own European systems and station them in Europe. MERS told the German parliament. Trump said on Wednesday that the U.S. will give Ukraine a license to make patriotic air defense systems to counter missile attacks from Russia. And then it adds down here at the bottom, deployment of U.S. personnel to operate the system was not part of the letter of intent signed on Tuesday that underpins the agreement. And so Trump is saying, hey, you guys are on your own. We'll help you out. We're going to make money off you. We're going to sell you guys weaponry to defend yourselves. You're on your own. You better start preparing for it.

And MERS is taking that seriously. I love it. Man, where do we go next? You know what? I did say, well, I do want to talk briefly. And this will kind of segue into closing out the show and um because i got i got trial coverage that i got to do today so uh let's let's jump into just some brief updates on um on the uh tyler robinson hearing uh we finally got lance twigs uh speaking like we finally got him speaking and there's a lot of controversy over this um and here is uh this is the first clip here i think this is the one where he's talking about uh what what him and Tyler Robinson, Lance Twigs and Tyler Robinson,

he was someone that my friends invited. Okay. Did you and he ever talk about politics? He did more than me. I didn't really, still don't really keep up with politics very much. He'd usually talk about stuff he heard on the radio on his drive to work and like their work car, since it sounds like their whole crew went in the same car most of the time. But I wouldn't say super consistently because it wasn't a topic I really contributed much on.

What about Charlie Kirk? Did you ever talk about Charlie Kerr? I personally had never heard him talk about Charlie Kirk before specifically. Okay. How about political issues? So did you ever talk about gender identity issues and LGBT rights? No, not really. usually if he did talk about politics stuff it was relating to Trump or current like policies being like issued or voted voted on I think so the the issue that I have here again the before we get into the content of what he actually said there the issue that was brought up here is the constitutional rights of Tyler Robinson because you essentially have a state deposition there,

right, a sworn, he was given immunity to testify there. He was given immunity for that, for the scope of his testimony. And Tyler Robinson and any American has a Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness against you. And they did not afford him that opportunity. Twiggs was not in the courtroom for him to cross-examine. And the reason that's significant, So you look at the testimony that was given right there under oath with immunity. And Lance Twiggs is testifying that him and Robinson never, and by the way, they did admit that they were lovers and all that stuff. Lance Twiggs admitted that in the same testimony. That they were in a relationship, yes.

It's very weird. He does not seem like a gay furry in his mannerisms there. Go ahead. Hold that thought for a second. They did not talk. He never talked, well, he doesn't really, no, not really talk about Charlie Kirk. An LGBTQ couple in their early 20s and maybe late teens when it started, I don't know. They never talk about LGBTQ or identity when we're told he's a trans furry, right? But they never talk about that. But when they do talk about politics, it's about Trump and it's about voting issues, which none of that has. that was it and that is where you need to have the ability to cross-examine to go out there and be like wait so you guys never you never talk about charlie kirk but this guy was so radicalized that he sent you a text message saying i had the opportunity to take out charlie kirk and i'm going to take it how do you go from not talking about charlie kirk not talking about LGBTQ or any of this to so radicalize that you're willing to throw away your entire life to go and and take out a four you know a four hour drive

and this long drawn-out plot to shoot a man and kill him insane. And so, you know, and not having the ability to cross-examine that is just, I mean, that's not, that's not justice, man. Right. Well, this is only the preliminary hearing, right, to decide whether or not the case goes to trial. The whole thing, as far as I'm concerned, is totally unbelievable. So I'm not going to put in the time that you are into this whole thing.

And so I'm very interested in hearing what you conclude about all of this. But man, oh man. I watched, I think, so Steve Bannon has been showing this. And he kind of previews, he leads the audience in by saying, see what you see. And I don't know if you've ever, are you familiar with that clip from Bannon? Which one? What you see thing? When he says, see what you see, have you ever heard him, have you ever heard him go through that?

No, I don't think so. Give me a second. Let me grab this video. I have it. in telegram. And I think it's really great. And I think it's a good approach for people to take when they are interacting with information in this kind of information environment.

Yeah. And just while you're looking for that, you mentioned this is just preliminary. And it is. And it is. All you have to do is prove that there's reasonable doubt in or reasonable cause to probable cause to bring the charges. Now, I agree with that. However, you still can't introduce something that's fundamentally unconstitutional and you cannot have a witness against your clients that you're not able to cross-examine. And so, you know, and there was a big discrepancy. They talked for like

three hours about this and it was very drawn out. It was very boring and it was, you know, the, the attorneys kind of saying the same thing over and over again, but they allowed it. And again, I'll show you another clip here in a second after we play your banning clip that i think that there's going to be more that comes out on this but uh here's my ever crack uh staff here says you know outside of 10 downing if you pull the camera back because it's got that beautiful door if you pull the camera back it's got a thousand report the whole world's there right every bbc all the network cnn they're all put from the door but they got a picture somebody is playing the um was it not the mighty python benny

Benny Hill, my dad's favorite. Playing the Benny Hill song, you know why? It's spoofing them, and it's a joke, and they're saying it's a joke of what's happening. The countries in an economic collapse, right? Their economy's worse shaped than ours is. And they're talking about, you know, having a conference in a couple of weeks. It shows you the disconnect from the political class to reality. That's it.

This is what we keep saying, that it's that French, it was a French, it was a French poet who volunteered and was an officer at Verdun and was killed right away. I forget his name now. Killed immediately. Died at Verdun. And he had a saying, he said the important thing is not to come back into report of what you see. The most important thing in your life is to see what you see. That's what we try to do in the show so that you can see it.

So that first section of that, I should probably clip it out in that clip. But yeah, the idea is to go and use your eyes and really observe and understand what it is you're seeing. Don't go. The important thing is not to go tell somebody else like the broad scope of it. The important part is to observe the thing in what it is and be truthful in yourself about what you're seeing it. So Bannon has been reminding his audience at every turn to take that approach when watching this Charlie Kirk coverage. And man, I ended up watching an hour or two of it the other day on, I think it was the first day maybe. But watching them, watching the defense challenge, the pieces of evidence, the whole, and I know you've probably gone through this at length, but the video that was like this internet mashup and he didn't, the prosecuting attorney didn't have at his immediate disposal the original clips of all that content.

I mean, the only thing that the first couple days from what I saw, you know, in brief segments watching Bannon and have not the scope that you have, was that there really was no direct evidence whatsoever that Tyler Robinson had anything to do with the Charlie Kirk trauma event. That was my takeaway. And I think that's been a lot of people's takeaway. And I don't, obviously, you have spent considerably more time with this. And so maybe I'm just seeing a very biasing sample. but so again there is a huge media op against this on both sides there's both sides and i've tried to remain very objective uh on and covering this and uh you cannot prove that the grainy footage there's no way to prove that that's him and and that's just being honest is it is it is it

does it resemble him sure does it look like him sure is there any actual proof that he went from you know, point A, all the way through the building up to the roof and then went over, got in the prone, took a shot, then left and went in the wood. There's zero proof of that. There's a little black dot from a thousand yards away where a camera caught a little black dot running across the roof, laying down, doesn't even have the video of the shot itself. And then, and they admitted this in court, right? The prosecution admitted we do not have video of the shot being taken. But you have everything else. So it's just kind of weird. do want to play two more clips and then we'll wrap the show up and by the way somebody in the chat

i'm not going to name names said i don't watch clips i watched every minute of it um in case you didn't notice that's my chair right there in the bottom right now i'm not in that chair at that moment but i have the headphones still on because i'm sitting right there on my couch it's a little more comfortable than sitting in this chair um but yeah i live streamed the entire thing so this the the reason that this caught me as weird chris is because there were certain parts of this that were redacted. Now, to be fair, at the defense's request, right, at the defense. But there's certain parts that were redacted here. And I think there's a really important part that's redacted in this. Radically, was he pacing? They're just sitting down, relaxing. He was walking around

a lot. This is happening. That's within the home. And did he talk about what he had done? I didn't go into detail. He just, I just asked him in person what he said was true than I before, and he said it was. I started crying a little bit and said he wishes he hadn't done it. And then kept going around and just doing stuff, I think, to keep himself busy or distracted or something. Did he talk about what he was going to do next? And then eventually he said that he would talk to his parents or turn himself over.

So they redact the first thing that Twig says he's going to do next. And I don't know why that would be redacted. You know, did he say what he's, so at this point, Robinson got back to his home, their home, I guess they lived together in an apartment or whatever. They were talking. And then we don't know what he's going to do next. It was also, there's also a piece that's been floating around where before the alleged person that's Robinson with the rifle in his pants goes down.

There's a minute and 16 seconds that was cut from the security footage. Like there's a jump from like 1053 or 1253 or whatever to a minute and 16 seconds later. And he has a phone in his hand and nobody knows what he does during that time. So also very interesting. And then the last clip I'll play. And again, just to be clear, I'm trying to remain objective in this. And I do believe that the prosecution has made enough of a case that there is probable cause. And this will either go to trial or he'll take a plea deal after the fact, which very rare to get a plea deal after a preliminary hearing.

Usually it's before that you get a plea deal. And, you know, me and Alford are going to do an unpack show on this because we're differing opinions on this. I don't think they've reached that point, that threshold. I don't think they've reached a threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. I think they've established probable cause. So we're going to have a show unpacking it. This is the last thing, and this is mind-blowing to me. Does he think that they've proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Yeah. I mean, that's insane. There's not a single piece of direct evidence. I don't want to speak for him, but in the conversations that we've had, he seems to think that, yes, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. But again, I don't want to speak for him. And then again, yesterday when we talked, I kind of brought up some of the things. He's like, well, that's a good point, you know.

But that'll come out in trial. that's kind of his theory and and he's had some theories what's up yeah nothing i just i wonder what the social incentive is on saying that it's beyond reasonable doubt like what kind of person would be spreading that online that just seems insane well i mean everybody is everybody is it's like and there you go yeah and if you say like like the other day yesterday it came out that the 30 odd six round was a remington core locked uh soft tip ammo and everybody's like ah see we told you it could be stopped in his neck i'm like it doesn't matter i i said this before we even knew that that 30 odd six round could be made of glass and it will blow through your neck it's it's traveling at 2 800 feet per second

and it's 160 grain 155 to 230 grain bullet that is going through anything period period it goes through a quarter inch of steel and then still goes through us anyways imagine so if if the zero evidence virtually that has been presented is actually evidence beyond a reasonable doubt what kind of evidentiary standard are we working with here who would want to be tried under a standard like that it is preposterous it is prelum so again i when they do find probable cause which they will i i hope they go to trial because i want to see this entire trial i want to see nitpicking on the metadata that was in the cell phone that alleged allegedly had it anyways A whole bunch of stuff, Chris.

When me and Alpha do the recap, I would recommend watching that. We'll put all this stuff kind of together. But here's another moment that I just thought was mind-blowing to me when they found out that between the medical examiner and ATF, parts of the bullet fragments went missing. Thank you. Ms. Carter, one of the items you were asked to look at was, as described in your report,

one bullet jacket fragment and four lead fragments. correct yes were you informed at some point that there was a discrepancy between what you were examining and what had been documented by the medical examiner in terms of the number of bullet fragments I was yes were you asked to see if maybe the ATF had lost certain portions of the evidence no I was not right do you think and was that your understanding that there were originally seven bullet fragments but you ended up with four I was alerted that there was potentially seven fragments from the medical examiner in a photo just a few months ago.

Okay. You're clear, though, that when you got the evidence, it was in a sealed condition, correct? It was, yes. And when you open, what was it an envelope? A small individual manila envelope, yes. And did you take the contents of the envelope containing the bullet and take photographs of it? I did, yes. Okay. Could you?

So, yeah, that's beyond strange to me, that fragments of a bullet. And I, you know, I posted this and I've heard all sorts of explanations. Well, you know, the medical examiner felt that it wasn't evidentiary, you know, it wasn't worthy of evidentiary status or whatever the case might be. That's not his job. He's a, he's a medical examiner. He's not a, he's not a ballistics expert. you know that that would be her job and and by the way one of the other points during there is all the bullets the strays and grew and land the uh lands and grooves on the bullets uh do not they're inconclusive they don't line up necessarily with uh a test round fired from that mouser 98 rifle so you still don't have anything to definitively show that the bullet that killed charlie kirk was fired from that rifle yeah the the problem is with this sort of reasoning that you see and the argumentation that you see on the internet all the time is that they are obviously

incredibly biased toward the protection of the official narrative about this story. That's the only thing that could cause someone to make such ridiculous arguments. You know, objectively, it is, you can't, what they're doing is they're making justifications for why the official story could still have plausibly happened because your your your point of view is a refutation of that piece of the official story and when that happens when you accept these reputations which are reputations there's no there's no way to actually uh they're just saying it's plausible that the that the story could have happened the way we're told that it did but if you begin to accept those refutations the whole thing collapses and then they're left with nothing and they've spent now 10 months

this is i guess today the 10 months um 10 months from that date they've spent that entire time protecting the central narrative and the facts don't support it wow i'm i'm kind of blown away you you look at you look at somebody in the chat said we are living through a modern day jfk you know patsy whatever maybe maybe i'm not saying definitively one way or the other personally and i'm looking at this objectively personally i believe we are personally That being said, the difference between right now and JFK is millions of people are watching it in real time. Hundreds, maybe hundreds of thousands of people are watching it in real time. We have widespread platforms where we can discuss these things.

It's not being done in a very centralized location like the JFK assassination coverage, you know, Jack Ruby, Lee Harvey Oswald, all that stuff. But, I mean, it's strikingly similar, you know, somebody that distracts from, you know, potentially the real person, somebody that distracts for Oswald to get away at first. We have the George Zinn in this case in Utah, right, that distracts allowing Robinson to get away potentially, you know, pulls resources off because they think they got the guy. Same thing. Like the whole thing, you know, even down to the magic bullet, right? We got a magic bullet in JFK that just conveniently was perfectly intact and we were able to get everything else.

Now, we don't have the magic bullet with, with, with, with, with in, you know, Charlie Kirk, but we got five, four fragments. We got four fragments of a 30 odd six round that will, you know, blow through, you know, it's just, it's, it's really crazy. I want to see a full trial on this where they're able to just bring on expert after expert to assess this. and pray to God that he actually has a competent representation in that, in that, you know, in that realm of an actual trial. Because, you know, I want to see the truth. And I don't care if, if there is more definitive evidence that points in that direction. I'm fine with that.

I have no horse in this race whatsoever, none. But again, I don't know. I'm going to land that there. I do want to talk about one more sponsor. I'll give you the final word on that, Chris. So I do want to talk about our last sponsor of the show. And there we go. We hear a lot about crypto, but here is the part that most people miss.

Crypto was created so you could actually own and control your money. After the 2008 financial crisis, Bitcoin was designed as an alternative to banks. So instead of a bank holding your money, delaying transfers or limiting access, you are in control. And if you've ever had to wait for a transfer to clear, you felt that problem. Now, fast forward to today, and everyone's heard of crypto, getting started still feels kind of complicated that's exactly why we use rumble wallet takes all the complexity and makes it simple choose what you want whether it's bitcoin dollar back stable coins or even digital gold back by real gold there's no complicated setup it connects with moon pay so you can

use your credit card debit card or bank and be up and running in just minutes once you're set up you can even support your favorite rumble creators like me directly so do this now scan the QR code or click the link in the description and download rumble wallet and from there you can set up your wallet tap by and you are in there the game in just a few minutes you go from hearing about crypto to actually owning some all right and then uh on that note chris any any final thoughts on that before we no i don't think so i mean i'm just i'm interested to hear your takeaways when this finally concludes well i think uh again me and alpha talked about it last night doing a show maybe sometime over the weekend uh to kind

of because we're mostly on opposite ends of the spectrum on this. And I think it's, you know, and me and Al for two guys that we can get into a pissing match and still walk out and brohug and all that shit. And we always do. And so it'll be a really interesting show. Also today, as soon as I get done here on my channel, rumble.com slash cancon, I'm going to start the stream. I'm going to go back to the beginning, which means we get to fast forward through breaks and recesses and sidebars and lunch and all of that stuff. So if you want to watch the proceedings today, they've got one more witness on the ATF agent for the defense,

and then they're going to go into kind of de facto closing arguments. And so today, if you haven't watched the whole trial, today you'll kind of get the overview of what was said and what their key takeaways are. We won't get a decision today, but it'll be fun and entertaining and you'll informative. hopefully so there we go chris what you got coming up brother i'll be on with john on d ph tomorrow night and i'm just trying to make the void into a studio i was gonna say a new void now you got

you got to you got to black yourself out you got a you got to get you're gonna have to sat in those walls behind you this is going to be uh this is going to be much much different a different layout than my old one are you missing your sure sm7b yet Well, I'm sure that the audience misses it more than me. I sound the same to myself either way. Oh, okay. All right. Well, thanks for joining me, brother, as always.

Have a great weekend. And we'll see you guys later. Yes, sir.