Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

4/5. Royston saying this one specific assessment that Harry expected to be done wasn't needed. Because Harry had already had three recent assessments, and because the key reason his security was being removed wasn't because of a change in risk but because he was in another country. So a... new assessment wasn't needed. And RAVEC doesn't work outside Britain, which is why his security was then a bespoke arrangement. And it's not a 'stitch up' to not do another risk assessment because each future visit to the UK by Harry would be different, which is why they chose to do it on a case by case basis. And all of that👆🏽doesn't suggest a 'stitch up'. Royston also talks about Harry's court case goal being inconsistent with his comments in Spare. That Harry was always going to lose police protection by moving overseas, and his lawyers were arguing for UK police protection only (because that's all that RAVEC handles). (𝘐𝘔𝘖 𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘐𝘗𝘗 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦'𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴) (𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘵𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯? 🙄) (𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯? 🙄)show more

mrc 🦇

7,372 subscribers

26,122 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

MUST WATCH!!!!!!! FULL BBC INTERVIEW OF HRH PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX REGARDING COURT DECISION ON SECURITY 2ND MAY 25 Prince Harry reacts to the Court of Appeal upholding the decision of RAVEC AND The Royal Household to give him a different security arrangement than others in his category (and which he says is inferior). Court disclosure that he has seen has SHOCKED HIM. Don't be side tracked by the British media's focus on Harry mentioning family 'reconciliation'. What he says about his family's hand in wanting him to be unsafe in the UK and Elsewhere, and the lack of genuine interest in Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana is VERY concerning. Princess Diana was the ONLY PARENT that Harry had that fought for him, and if she could not, at least wanted to.

MUST WATCH!!!!!!! FULL BBC INTERVIEW OF HRH PRINCE HARRY, THE DUKE OF SUSSEX REGARDING COURT DECISION ON SECURITY 2ND MAY 25 Prince Harry reacts to the Court of Appeal upholding the decision of RAVEC AND The Royal Household to give him a different security arrangement than others in his category (and which he says is inferior). Court disclosure that he has seen has SHOCKED HIM. Don't be side tracked by the British media's focus on Harry mentioning family 'reconciliation'. What he says about his family's hand in wanting him to be unsafe in the UK and Elsewhere, and the lack of genuine interest in Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet Diana is VERY concerning. Princess Diana was the ONLY PARENT that Harry had that fought for him, and if she could not, at least wanted to.

Glow Lee

50,583 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

One thing I’ve always been sure of is that there was nothing genuine about Harry & Meghan’s engagement story. It had major holes. One being that because he had to ask the Queen’s permission, that somehow meant he had to propose in the UK? Why? William proposed in Kenya. Did Harry throw Queen Elizabeth under the bus to imply he was forced by the institution to propose in London? Was it all to support the victim narrative for Netflix? If Harry was so in love why didn’t he take her back to Botswana? In my opinion, Meghan got Harry completely bombed one night and they reenacted a proposal for fun. She never showed the ring in any of the photos, which is something women usually do immediately. The whole thing felt rushed and forced, especially when you compare it to William & Catherine.

One thing I’ve always been sure of is that there was nothing genuine about Harry & Meghan’s engagement story. It had major holes. One being that because he had to ask the Queen’s permission, that somehow meant he had to propose in the UK? Why? William proposed in Kenya. Did Harry throw Queen Elizabeth under the bus to imply he was forced by the institution to propose in London? Was it all to support the victim narrative for Netflix? If Harry was so in love why didn’t he take her back to Botswana? In my opinion, Meghan got Harry completely bombed one night and they reenacted a proposal for fun. She never showed the ring in any of the photos, which is something women usually do immediately. The whole thing felt rushed and forced, especially when you compare it to William & Catherine.

Nancy Sidley

144,895 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Keir Starmer, "On Brexit, the reason I reminded everyone of what Nigel Farage said was because that was the promise he put to the country" "That we'd be stronger, we'd be richer, we'd have lots of money for the NHS, immigration will come down" "It all proved to be false" "Farage is not going back to the country now and saying it was a good thing, you've all benefited" "Farage will talk about almost anything else apart from the consequences of the one thing he delivered for the country, Brexit" "Farage doesn't want to talk about it, and there's a reason for that, it didn't help working people" "It turns out what he said wasn't true" "That's why Farage doesn't want to talk about Brexit" "But we have to talk about it now because we have to address the situation we are in" "We have to give this country a stronger economy, a stronger defence and security arrangement given the world we live in" "That's why I said what I said about being closer to Europe" "And this government being defined by bringing Europe back together and the UK at the heart of Europe"

Keir Starmer, "On Brexit, the reason I reminded everyone of what Nigel Farage said was because that was the promise he put to the country" "That we'd be stronger, we'd be richer, we'd have lots of money for the NHS, immigration will come down" "It all proved to be false" "Farage is not going back to the country now and saying it was a good thing, you've all benefited" "Farage will talk about almost anything else apart from the consequences of the one thing he delivered for the country, Brexit" "Farage doesn't want to talk about it, and there's a reason for that, it didn't help working people" "It turns out what he said wasn't true" "That's why Farage doesn't want to talk about Brexit" "But we have to talk about it now because we have to address the situation we are in" "We have to give this country a stronger economy, a stronger defence and security arrangement given the world we live in" "That's why I said what I said about being closer to Europe" "And this government being defined by bringing Europe back together and the UK at the heart of Europe"

Farrukh

151,685 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

MEGHAN MARKLE: “I WAS BEING FED TO THE WOLVES.” So why is she going back to the wolves? Harry and Meghan moving back to the UK is the clearest evidence yet that the story they sold the world about the Royal Family and Britain is a BIG FAT LIE. You don’t take your children back to the very country you described as toxic, racist and harmful to your family. You don’t choose to raise them there after telling the world how desperately you needed to escape it. And why would Harry willingly bring Meghan and their children back to the UK when Meghan herself claimed that life there had pushed her to the point of wanting to kill herself? Harry and Meghan lied about the Royal Family. Harry and Meghan lied about the racism. Harry and Meghan lied about William and Catherine. Harry and Meghan lied about the UK. Because you don’t spend years telling the world how toxic, racist and intolerable a place is, then voluntarily bring your children back to that very place unless the reality was nowhere near the story you sold us. Meghan Markle is going back because she knows she was never the prey. She was the wolf in sheep’s clothing all along. Harry and Meghan Markle are LIARS!!!

MEGHAN MARKLE: “I WAS BEING FED TO THE WOLVES.” So why is she going back to the wolves? Harry and Meghan moving back to the UK is the clearest evidence yet that the story they sold the world about the Royal Family and Britain is a BIG FAT LIE. You don’t take your children back to the very country you described as toxic, racist and harmful to your family. You don’t choose to raise them there after telling the world how desperately you needed to escape it. And why would Harry willingly bring Meghan and their children back to the UK when Meghan herself claimed that life there had pushed her to the point of wanting to kill herself? Harry and Meghan lied about the Royal Family. Harry and Meghan lied about the racism. Harry and Meghan lied about William and Catherine. Harry and Meghan lied about the UK. Because you don’t spend years telling the world how toxic, racist and intolerable a place is, then voluntarily bring your children back to that very place unless the reality was nowhere near the story you sold us. Meghan Markle is going back because she knows she was never the prey. She was the wolf in sheep’s clothing all along. Harry and Meghan Markle are LIARS!!!

Queen Esther

108,359 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

🔥🛸 "The startling thing is, is he's [the late Jim Ryder at Lockheed] revealing that he was one of the engineers that worked on the crash retrieval program with four other individuals." ~Eric Davis 🛸🔥 During AAWSAP, a senior VP at Lockheed (this is the late Jim Ryder) briefed Hal Puthoff, Colm Kelleher and Robert Bigelow, in a SCIF, about the crash retrieval program and that he (Ryder) had worked on for 20 years with four other people. In later interactions, he told Davis the same thing. They were all briefed up to the TS-SCI level but when they had more detailed questions, Ryder couldn't answer them because, "that's now rising up to the level of what's called the Waived Unacknowledged Special Access Program, which is the security cover that was provided for ALL of the crash retrieval programs that were going on since...probably that Italian crash of 1933 that had gotten recovered by the U.S. Army during its invasion of Italy in 1944, and transferred back to Wright Army Airfield that year. "This was kind of startling because now it's like, okay we're actually talking to somebody (Ryder) who's at a senior executive level in a major aerospace defense corporation that's pretty huge, and it's actually the largest in the world. And, of course, this is all in classified settings, so we know this is all legitimate. The only problem is we couldn't get further because we needed to get Waived Unacknowledged SAP clearances, and, unfortunately, I don't know what was going on in the background with that. I do know that Harry Reid and Jim Lacatksi attempted to get that kind of security clearances for all of us and Harry Reid failed because the Deputy Secretary of Defense during that period...William Lynn in the Obama administration. So [Lynn] turned down Harry Reid's request."

🔥🛸 "The startling thing is, is he's [the late Jim Ryder at Lockheed] revealing that he was one of the engineers that worked on the crash retrieval program with four other individuals." ~Eric Davis 🛸🔥 During AAWSAP, a senior VP at Lockheed (this is the late Jim Ryder) briefed Hal Puthoff, Colm Kelleher and Robert Bigelow, in a SCIF, about the crash retrieval program and that he (Ryder) had worked on for 20 years with four other people. In later interactions, he told Davis the same thing. They were all briefed up to the TS-SCI level but when they had more detailed questions, Ryder couldn't answer them because, "that's now rising up to the level of what's called the Waived Unacknowledged Special Access Program, which is the security cover that was provided for ALL of the crash retrieval programs that were going on since...probably that Italian crash of 1933 that had gotten recovered by the U.S. Army during its invasion of Italy in 1944, and transferred back to Wright Army Airfield that year. "This was kind of startling because now it's like, okay we're actually talking to somebody (Ryder) who's at a senior executive level in a major aerospace defense corporation that's pretty huge, and it's actually the largest in the world. And, of course, this is all in classified settings, so we know this is all legitimate. The only problem is we couldn't get further because we needed to get Waived Unacknowledged SAP clearances, and, unfortunately, I don't know what was going on in the background with that. I do know that Harry Reid and Jim Lacatksi attempted to get that kind of security clearances for all of us and Harry Reid failed because the Deputy Secretary of Defense during that period...William Lynn in the Obama administration. So [Lynn] turned down Harry Reid's request."

Joe Murgia

27,183 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

2/4. I have so much to say about this part, I actually found it shocking. Because when Roya asked Kate about Harry choosing 'friendly' rota, I really thought they'd comment on the fact he was creating a narrative (#propaganda) And funnily, they DID say he was creating a narrative, but they just acknowledged that was his goal. They clearly didn't see it as problematic or hypocritical. (𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘺𝘢 '𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨' 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵, 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢 '𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘺' 𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘢) Roya actually says she was told (by 'someone close to him') the goal 𝘸𝘢𝘴 to 'curate the narrative'. Which he did by choosing friendly rota. They also talk about how he's imitating the royal household's way of dealing with the media. 😑 You can actually see how wooed they are by him, so thrilled to have 'old Harry' back. Problem is they can't 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘦 that he's not a 'roving royal', he's an American resident, a celebrity, 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱. Do they think other US celebrities making very public donations aren't buying PR? Kate muses that that Harry and others must have 'sat around a boardroom' and planned a strategy, on what would work for a rebrand. And they decided 'old Harry' (the Lad™️) was the way to go. (so he's decided to not be nasty to the media - and say cruel things, publicly 🥴) Kate says it was different this time, because he went back to Britain to 'give' something, not 'ask' for something. (But that's not true, 𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 - wake up! He profits from this rebrand, Roya actually says in her article - briefed by his team - that he's looking to make money to pay bills. I'll include it in below post) I'm actually shocked after watching this, just the fact they are so unaware of how problematic what they're saying is, and the fact they're actually saying it. (I guess now it's more 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻, so that's a plus 😑).

2/4. I have so much to say about this part, I actually found it shocking. Because when Roya asked Kate about Harry choosing 'friendly' rota, I really thought they'd comment on the fact he was creating a narrative (#propaganda) And funnily, they DID say he was creating a narrative, but they just acknowledged that was his goal. They clearly didn't see it as problematic or hypocritical. (𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦'𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘙𝘰𝘺𝘢 '𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨' 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘵, 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢 '𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘺' 𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘢) Roya actually says she was told (by 'someone close to him') the goal 𝘸𝘢𝘴 to 'curate the narrative'. Which he did by choosing friendly rota. They also talk about how he's imitating the royal household's way of dealing with the media. 😑 You can actually see how wooed they are by him, so thrilled to have 'old Harry' back. Problem is they can't 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘦 that he's not a 'roving royal', he's an American resident, a celebrity, 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱. Do they think other US celebrities making very public donations aren't buying PR? Kate muses that that Harry and others must have 'sat around a boardroom' and planned a strategy, on what would work for a rebrand. And they decided 'old Harry' (the Lad™️) was the way to go. (so he's decided to not be nasty to the media - and say cruel things, publicly 🥴) Kate says it was different this time, because he went back to Britain to 'give' something, not 'ask' for something. (But that's not true, 𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 - wake up! He profits from this rebrand, Roya actually says in her article - briefed by his team - that he's looking to make money to pay bills. I'll include it in below post) I'm actually shocked after watching this, just the fact they are so unaware of how problematic what they're saying is, and the fact they're actually saying it. (I guess now it's more 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗹𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻, so that's a plus 😑).

mrc 🦇

15,741 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Listen to a Tale of Two Journalists who were given differential verdicts by the CJI DY Chandrachud who highly speaks of Liberty and Freedom but adheres to none. Was Kappan tormented because of his religious identity ?? Was he tormented because he was going to report a gangrape case in Hathras, UP; a BJP State and that is enough reason I suppose. Nevertheless, Rajdeep Sardesai sincere thanks and respect for you to have raised this tale, you told. It needed to be told. #DYChandrachud #Judiciary

Listen to a Tale of Two Journalists who were given differential verdicts by the CJI DY Chandrachud who highly speaks of Liberty and Freedom but adheres to none. Was Kappan tormented because of his religious identity ?? Was he tormented because he was going to report a gangrape case in Hathras, UP; a BJP State and that is enough reason I suppose. Nevertheless, Rajdeep Sardesai sincere thanks and respect for you to have raised this tale, you told. It needed to be told. #DYChandrachud #Judiciary

Pragnya Gupta

32,070 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Claim: Lazar Can't Show Us Why He Attended MIT Because He Doesn't Want to Risk Prison "[Lazar] had said he was at MIT, and that he was at Caltech." ~Dolan (No, Lazar said he had DEGREES from both. Surprised Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) downplayed that.) Luigi Venditelli (LV): "As far as things that I can say, [Lazar] shared with me, shared it also with my team, and also shared it with Joe Rogan in the past, in regards to his education...because that's something that I think a lot of people really attack Bob Lazar on, and rightfully so. Because if he doesn't have a paper to bring out, they can attack him. It's an easy, it's a low-hanging fruit attack for somebody who doesn't believe the story. "In regards to the MIT component, the only thing I can say is that there were national security issues there, okay?" (No, what you can say is that Lazar CLAIMED there were national security issues there. Unless you have proof that you're not sharing?) Dolan: "For people who don't know this, we'll just explain: Bob had said he was at MIT, and that he was at Caltech and no one was able to find or get any kind of confirmation that he was at those schools." (Lazar didn't just claim that he was AT those schools. He claimed he had degrees from both. This is from the 1993 Lazar Q&A at Rachel, Nevada near Area 51. Lazar: "As far as electronic technology, my degree there is from Caltech and physics is from MIT. [MIT] was a master's degree.") ~ LV: "Correct. Now, what's also important to note, specifically about MIT, is the one I wanna highlight, is that he said, 'I wasn't alone in this.' So, the government itself - he was at Los Alamos National Labs when this happened - he was sent to MIT." (Again, if LV wants to come across as unbiased and trying to get to the truth, he should be saying, "Lazar CLAIMS he was at Los Alamos and was then sent to MIT.") LV: "Now, the reason why this is important is because, and he also said, 'Not everything the government does or was doing was legal.' Okay? So there were things that were actually not necessarily legal, and they needed some scientists to go and learn certain things at MIT, and that's the reason why he was there. And there were other people there. "He said to me, 'Look, for me to bring this out, I would be revealing things that would, potentially, put other people in a compromising situation.' This had nothing...signed papers, something to do with national security. And he says, 'There's no reason for me to ruin other people's lives just to satisfy a small percentage of people who are constantly bickering about my education.'" (I don't think it's a small percentage. OK, so Bob, supposedly, says/claims he doesn't want to talk about the government allegedly sending him to MIT because he doesn't want to put other people in a compromising situation.) LV: "So, I understand that part. It's frustrating that it cannot be mentioned, but it it's also something that I understood, and it made perfect sense to me." (So Lazar can't mention any of it but LV can?) LV: "Now, I know it's frustrating to all of those who say we should still have something. Well, unfortunately, he's not gonna want to go to jail just to satisfy you." (So first it was: He doesn't want to "bring this out" because it would put people in a compromising situation and now it's: He doesn't want to risk prison. Which is it? How about we get that directly from Lazar instead of second hand?) LV: "And he would not be the only person ever to have been implicated in national security programs that were sending scientists to MIT. So that's a very important thing to also look into for history."

Claim: Lazar Can't Show Us Why He Attended MIT Because He Doesn't Want to Risk Prison "[Lazar] had said he was at MIT, and that he was at Caltech." ~Dolan (No, Lazar said he had DEGREES from both. Surprised Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) downplayed that.) Luigi Venditelli (LV): "As far as things that I can say, [Lazar] shared with me, shared it also with my team, and also shared it with Joe Rogan in the past, in regards to his education...because that's something that I think a lot of people really attack Bob Lazar on, and rightfully so. Because if he doesn't have a paper to bring out, they can attack him. It's an easy, it's a low-hanging fruit attack for somebody who doesn't believe the story. "In regards to the MIT component, the only thing I can say is that there were national security issues there, okay?" (No, what you can say is that Lazar CLAIMED there were national security issues there. Unless you have proof that you're not sharing?) Dolan: "For people who don't know this, we'll just explain: Bob had said he was at MIT, and that he was at Caltech and no one was able to find or get any kind of confirmation that he was at those schools." (Lazar didn't just claim that he was AT those schools. He claimed he had degrees from both. This is from the 1993 Lazar Q&A at Rachel, Nevada near Area 51. Lazar: "As far as electronic technology, my degree there is from Caltech and physics is from MIT. [MIT] was a master's degree.") ~ LV: "Correct. Now, what's also important to note, specifically about MIT, is the one I wanna highlight, is that he said, 'I wasn't alone in this.' So, the government itself - he was at Los Alamos National Labs when this happened - he was sent to MIT." (Again, if LV wants to come across as unbiased and trying to get to the truth, he should be saying, "Lazar CLAIMS he was at Los Alamos and was then sent to MIT.") LV: "Now, the reason why this is important is because, and he also said, 'Not everything the government does or was doing was legal.' Okay? So there were things that were actually not necessarily legal, and they needed some scientists to go and learn certain things at MIT, and that's the reason why he was there. And there were other people there. "He said to me, 'Look, for me to bring this out, I would be revealing things that would, potentially, put other people in a compromising situation.' This had nothing...signed papers, something to do with national security. And he says, 'There's no reason for me to ruin other people's lives just to satisfy a small percentage of people who are constantly bickering about my education.'" (I don't think it's a small percentage. OK, so Bob, supposedly, says/claims he doesn't want to talk about the government allegedly sending him to MIT because he doesn't want to put other people in a compromising situation.) LV: "So, I understand that part. It's frustrating that it cannot be mentioned, but it it's also something that I understood, and it made perfect sense to me." (So Lazar can't mention any of it but LV can?) LV: "Now, I know it's frustrating to all of those who say we should still have something. Well, unfortunately, he's not gonna want to go to jail just to satisfy you." (So first it was: He doesn't want to "bring this out" because it would put people in a compromising situation and now it's: He doesn't want to risk prison. Which is it? How about we get that directly from Lazar instead of second hand?) LV: "And he would not be the only person ever to have been implicated in national security programs that were sending scientists to MIT. So that's a very important thing to also look into for history."

Joe Murgia

32,323 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

There's no way Laura Silsby (now Gayler), wasn't trying to trafficking children, because she actually was caught 2x in a very short period of time. The second time she wasn't so lucky and was arrested and charged. But why on earth would the Clintons get involved with a child trafficking case in another country? Wasn't because they were connected? The most interesting aspect is that the Clintons hired a lawyer for Silsby to cover it all up, but ended up failing because the lawyer himself and his wife were fugitives and wanted in other countries for child trafficking and abuse. What a coincidence... Or was it? Was this about to expose a global child trafficking operation connected to the highest levels of government? Don't forget, this was way before Epstein was well known to the public and still very operational. When the mainstream media shy's away from the massive amount of child trafficking happening that's connected to all these elites and their shady and corrupt NGOs that allege to be helping children, when in reality, are the ones trafficking the children, should really tell you everything you need to know.

There's no way Laura Silsby (now Gayler), wasn't trying to trafficking children, because she actually was caught 2x in a very short period of time. The second time she wasn't so lucky and was arrested and charged. But why on earth would the Clintons get involved with a child trafficking case in another country? Wasn't because they were connected? The most interesting aspect is that the Clintons hired a lawyer for Silsby to cover it all up, but ended up failing because the lawyer himself and his wife were fugitives and wanted in other countries for child trafficking and abuse. What a coincidence... Or was it? Was this about to expose a global child trafficking operation connected to the highest levels of government? Don't forget, this was way before Epstein was well known to the public and still very operational. When the mainstream media shy's away from the massive amount of child trafficking happening that's connected to all these elites and their shady and corrupt NGOs that allege to be helping children, when in reality, are the ones trafficking the children, should really tell you everything you need to know.

The SCIF

136,231 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Ana Navarro: “I think that if they're going to haul the Clintons' a$$es into testify, then they should haul Trump's as well, because he knew to Epstein incredibly well for over a decade, they were best friends.” Jason Rantz: “They had four years to do that. They chose not to because they didn't find any specific evidence that tied them to a crime.” Ana Navarro: “Shame on Merrick Garland. I think Merrick Garland didn't act.” Jason Rantz: “Why didn't he act?” Ana Navarro: “Because he was afraid of his own shadow, because he was afraid of his own reputation and of being seen as too political.” Jason Rantz: “Okay, so everyone else that went after Donald Trump had courage, but just Merrick Garland didn’t. I REJECT that completely.” “Is it possible that he didn't act because there wasn't actually a crime that was committed by Donald Trump? Is that possible?” Ana Navarro: “No.” Jason Rantz: “So you say that Donald Trump committed a crime?” Ana Navarro: “No, I’m not saying Donald Trump committed a crime.” Jason Rantz: “So, but I'm asking you, is it possible that they actually did look at the documentation, the Biden administration, which obviously had reason to go after Donald Trump? They didn't find anything and that's the reason why they didn't bring that up.”

Ana Navarro: “I think that if they're going to haul the Clintons' a$$es into testify, then they should haul Trump's as well, because he knew to Epstein incredibly well for over a decade, they were best friends.” Jason Rantz: “They had four years to do that. They chose not to because they didn't find any specific evidence that tied them to a crime.” Ana Navarro: “Shame on Merrick Garland. I think Merrick Garland didn't act.” Jason Rantz: “Why didn't he act?” Ana Navarro: “Because he was afraid of his own shadow, because he was afraid of his own reputation and of being seen as too political.” Jason Rantz: “Okay, so everyone else that went after Donald Trump had courage, but just Merrick Garland didn’t. I REJECT that completely.” “Is it possible that he didn't act because there wasn't actually a crime that was committed by Donald Trump? Is that possible?” Ana Navarro: “No.” Jason Rantz: “So you say that Donald Trump committed a crime?” Ana Navarro: “No, I’m not saying Donald Trump committed a crime.” Jason Rantz: “So, but I'm asking you, is it possible that they actually did look at the documentation, the Biden administration, which obviously had reason to go after Donald Trump? They didn't find anything and that's the reason why they didn't bring that up.”

RedWave Press

704,483 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

HOLY COW 🚨: Ana Navarro: “I think that if they're going to haul the Clintons' a$$es into testify, then they should haul Trump's as well, because he knew to Epstein incredibly well for over a decade, they were best friends.” Jason Rantz: “They had four years to do that. They chose not to because they didn't find any specific evidence that tied them to a crime.” Ana Navarro: “Shame on Merrick Garland. I think Merrick Garland didn't act.” Jason Rantz: “Why didn't he act?” Ana Navarro: “Because he was afraid of his own shadow, because he was afraid of his own reputation and of being seen as too political.” Jason Rantz: “Okay, so everyone else that went after Donald Trump had courage, but just Merrick Garland didn’t. I REJECT that completely.” “Is it possible that he didn't act because there wasn't actually a crime that was committed by Donald Trump? Is that possible?” Ana Navarro: “No.” Jason Rantz: “So you say that Donald Trump committed a crime?” Ana Navarro: “No, I’m not saying Donald Trump committed a crime.” Jason Rantz: “So, but I'm asking you, is it possible that they actually did look at the documentation, the Biden administration, which obviously had reason to go after Donald Trump? They didn't find anything and that's the reason why they didn't bring that up.”

HOLY COW 🚨: Ana Navarro: “I think that if they're going to haul the Clintons' a$$es into testify, then they should haul Trump's as well, because he knew to Epstein incredibly well for over a decade, they were best friends.” Jason Rantz: “They had four years to do that. They chose not to because they didn't find any specific evidence that tied them to a crime.” Ana Navarro: “Shame on Merrick Garland. I think Merrick Garland didn't act.” Jason Rantz: “Why didn't he act?” Ana Navarro: “Because he was afraid of his own shadow, because he was afraid of his own reputation and of being seen as too political.” Jason Rantz: “Okay, so everyone else that went after Donald Trump had courage, but just Merrick Garland didn’t. I REJECT that completely.” “Is it possible that he didn't act because there wasn't actually a crime that was committed by Donald Trump? Is that possible?” Ana Navarro: “No.” Jason Rantz: “So you say that Donald Trump committed a crime?” Ana Navarro: “No, I’m not saying Donald Trump committed a crime.” Jason Rantz: “So, but I'm asking you, is it possible that they actually did look at the documentation, the Biden administration, which obviously had reason to go after Donald Trump? They didn't find anything and that's the reason why they didn't bring that up.”

Dr Charlie Ward

330,900 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents in Thermal, California literally admitted, ON CAMERA, that they stopped a man on his way to work because they saw him leaving a mobile home park. Not because he committed a crime, or they had a warrant. Not because they had evidence he was undocumented. Because he came from a mobile home park. The Constitution requires police and federal agents to actually have reasonable suspicion before detaining someone. You do not get to stop people because they live in a poorer neighborhood. You do not get to treat an entire community as inherently suspicious. And if the ONLY reason for the stop was “he came from a mobile home park,” that starts looking a whole lot like profiling based on class, ethnicity, or assumptions about immigration status… which is exactly why constitutional protections exist in the first place. The man was a LEGAL permanent resident and was released once they verified it. Which means this man was detained, questioned, and interrupted on his way to work because ICE agents decided where he lived was suspicious enough. That is not how constitutional rights work in America. The Fourth Amendment does not disappear because federal agents “have a feeling.”

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents in Thermal, California literally admitted, ON CAMERA, that they stopped a man on his way to work because they saw him leaving a mobile home park. Not because he committed a crime, or they had a warrant. Not because they had evidence he was undocumented. Because he came from a mobile home park. The Constitution requires police and federal agents to actually have reasonable suspicion before detaining someone. You do not get to stop people because they live in a poorer neighborhood. You do not get to treat an entire community as inherently suspicious. And if the ONLY reason for the stop was “he came from a mobile home park,” that starts looking a whole lot like profiling based on class, ethnicity, or assumptions about immigration status… which is exactly why constitutional protections exist in the first place. The man was a LEGAL permanent resident and was released once they verified it. Which means this man was detained, questioned, and interrupted on his way to work because ICE agents decided where he lived was suspicious enough. That is not how constitutional rights work in America. The Fourth Amendment does not disappear because federal agents “have a feeling.”

Jesus Freakin Congress

50,893 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

This is the same Robert Jobson who knows and admitted all of this, about Charles’ betrayal of young Prince Harry. And it’s the same Robert Jobson who, now wants Prince Harry’s young son to be dangled over the Buckingham palace balcony. What is completely, always ignored, is that just like the royal family, royalists don’t see a spare’s humanity. To them, as it is to the royal family, a spare is not a full human being, but something that belongs to the heir and to the monarchy. That’s why they’re still going after Prince Harry. In their eyes, a spare has no right to have a life of his own, to be fulfilled. That’s why they don’t see his children as children, but as things to dangle to destroy. That’s why they hate Meghan, because she showed Prince Harry his worth.

This is the same Robert Jobson who knows and admitted all of this, about Charles’ betrayal of young Prince Harry. And it’s the same Robert Jobson who, now wants Prince Harry’s young son to be dangled over the Buckingham palace balcony. What is completely, always ignored, is that just like the royal family, royalists don’t see a spare’s humanity. To them, as it is to the royal family, a spare is not a full human being, but something that belongs to the heir and to the monarchy. That’s why they’re still going after Prince Harry. In their eyes, a spare has no right to have a life of his own, to be fulfilled. That’s why they don’t see his children as children, but as things to dangle to destroy. That’s why they hate Meghan, because she showed Prince Harry his worth.

Carmella

18,449 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Nia Long reveals her relationship with her children’s fathers is in a good place, saying she’s past the hump and has forgiven because she didn’t want to go to the dark side of separation. She also says the Ime Udoka scandal was the best thing that ever happened to her because it allowed her to reflect on all the wonderful things she had done throughout the relationship. “It was the best thing that ever happened to me because it allowed me to pause. It allowed me to pause and look at all the wonderful things that I had done throughout the time that I was in that relationship. But now I can pour everything back into myself. So it's not about him. It wasn't about the headlines. It wasn't about the opinions. It wasn't about the trash ass assistant. It wasn't about any of that. It was about how do I preserve what's left and the new way my family is now Like, who are we now? Cos I could just walk away and never talk to you ever again and how does that affect my son? No, I'm not going to do that. But I'm going to also be forgiving and be your friend. And that's good. That's healthy.”

Nia Long reveals her relationship with her children’s fathers is in a good place, saying she’s past the hump and has forgiven because she didn’t want to go to the dark side of separation. She also says the Ime Udoka scandal was the best thing that ever happened to her because it allowed her to reflect on all the wonderful things she had done throughout the relationship. “It was the best thing that ever happened to me because it allowed me to pause. It allowed me to pause and look at all the wonderful things that I had done throughout the time that I was in that relationship. But now I can pour everything back into myself. So it's not about him. It wasn't about the headlines. It wasn't about the opinions. It wasn't about the trash ass assistant. It wasn't about any of that. It was about how do I preserve what's left and the new way my family is now Like, who are we now? Cos I could just walk away and never talk to you ever again and how does that affect my son? No, I'm not going to do that. But I'm going to also be forgiving and be your friend. And that's good. That's healthy.”

Heron

219,585 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Has Prince Harry been humiliated by the Buckingham Palace saga? Prince Harry will not be staying at Buckingham Palace this week, despite reports that he would be. The Duke of Sussex had initially declined the invite, but changed his mind and accepted the offer to stay at the royal residence. A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex said: "Following RAVEC’s decision not to provide security for his family, the Duke spent last week making alternative security arrangements. Once those arrangements were in place, he was able to formally accept the offer of accommodation for himself over the weekend.” The duke had been waiting for a review by the Risk Management Board (RMB), part of the process by which Ravec rules on his security requirements, but found out on Friday this has yet to take place. A government spokesperson said: “The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.” #princeharry #royalfamily

Has Prince Harry been humiliated by the Buckingham Palace saga? Prince Harry will not be staying at Buckingham Palace this week, despite reports that he would be. The Duke of Sussex had initially declined the invite, but changed his mind and accepted the offer to stay at the royal residence. A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex said: "Following RAVEC’s decision not to provide security for his family, the Duke spent last week making alternative security arrangements. Once those arrangements were in place, he was able to formally accept the offer of accommodation for himself over the weekend.” The duke had been waiting for a review by the Risk Management Board (RMB), part of the process by which Ravec rules on his security requirements, but found out on Friday this has yet to take place. A government spokesperson said: “The UK Government’s protective security system is rigorous and proportionate. It is our long-standing policy not to provide detailed information on those arrangements, as doing so could compromise their integrity and affect individuals’ security.” #princeharry #royalfamily

Good Morning Britain

32,135 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

NEW: Rep. Al Green says it's obvious that he is being discriminated against by Speaker Johnson because of his skin color, relates it to sitting in the back of the bus. Green was kicked out of Trump's address because he kept interrupting. "I'm a son of the segregated South. I had to sit in the back of the bus, the balcony of the movie, drink from a colored water fountain..." "When the speaker decided that I would be removed and then there was this resolution to censure me, it became obvious to me that I was not being treated as others were." This takes victimhood to a whole new level.

NEW: Rep. Al Green says it's obvious that he is being discriminated against by Speaker Johnson because of his skin color, relates it to sitting in the back of the bus. Green was kicked out of Trump's address because he kept interrupting. "I'm a son of the segregated South. I had to sit in the back of the bus, the balcony of the movie, drink from a colored water fountain..." "When the speaker decided that I would be removed and then there was this resolution to censure me, it became obvious to me that I was not being treated as others were." This takes victimhood to a whole new level.

Collin Rugg

553,766 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr