"A PEACEFUL SOLUTION" Loop Animation (EARLY ACCESS) Via: CanaryPrimary #nsfw #canaryprimary #dracowrldz #animationleaks #leaks #leak #thebestleaker #DWLKS #nsfw #earlyaccess
17,211 次观看 • 11 个月前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
17,211 次观看 • 11 个月前 •via X (Twitter)
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![JAMES COMEY LEAKED CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE TO THE NEW YORK TIMES in order to push the Russia Collusion narrative onto the American people to take down Trump. Adam Schiff wasn't the only leaker of classified intel. James Comey specifically leaked classified intel to the NYT in order to enable a special prosecutor to take down Trump and conspire with other mainstream media organizations to fool and lie to the American people to push them to go against Trump with a false narrative. This is basically "Project Mockingbird." The main media channels were colluding with government in order to take down a sitting president and undermine the U.S. This has been going on since 2016 against Trump and still is to this day. The FBI concluded numerous legacy news media stories that crafted the false Russia collusion narrative contained illegally leaked classified intelligence but failed to definitively identify the leakers. But agents did force a stunning admission that ex-FBI Director James Comey used a special conduit to the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times in his bid to polish his image and push for a special prosecutor to take down President Donald Trump. Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman admitted to agents in interviews he routinely communicated on behalf of Comey, his longtime friend, with Times reporter Michael Schmidt, whose work was among the newspaper's 2018 Pulitzer-winning stories on Russian election interference. The goal, Richman told the FBI, was "to correct stories critical of Comey, the FBI and to shape future press coverage" outside of the bureau's official press office, according to internal FBI memos that current Director Kash Patel delivered to Congress this week. While Richman was known to have been publicly quoted in news stories as an advocate for Comey, he admitted to agents — who were part of the FBI’s Arctic Haze classified leaks inquiry — that he was given access by Comey to what turned out to be highly classified information up to the SCI level and sometimes provided information to reporters on an anonymous basis. Richman insisted he did not believe he had confirmed or provided classified intelligence to reporters but said he could not be 100 percent, the memos state, noting he could only make his leak denial “with a discount.” "Richman was pretty sure he did not confirm the Classified Information. However, Richman told the interviewing agents he was sure 'with a discount' that he did not tell Schmidt about the Classified Information," one FBI memo recounted. In the end, the Justice Department decided not to pursue any criminal charges against Comey or any of his lieutenants or now-Sen. Adam Schiff despite potential evidence of leaks, saying it could not be certain of who leaked what and when. But its interrogation of Richman and his admissions of significant contact with the Times' Schmidt provide the most detailed account to date of how Trump critics like Comey — who was fired by the president — used the media to craft narratives that ultimately turned out to be untrue or misleadingly overstated, the memos show. Just the News also revealed this week that a career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal. Schiff has denied the allegation. Newly-declassified FBI memos also include details on classified leaks investigations dubbed Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Sirens Lure, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Comey, Richman, and “Arctic Haze” The FBI leak investigation code-named “Arctic Haze” revealed key details about Richman — Comey’s longtime friend, confidante, and media conduit — including what was at that time his nearly decade-long source relationship with Michael Schmidt of The New York Times. The leak investigation zeroed in on four news articles which contained leaked classified information. The first was a New York Times article by four reporters — Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, and Eric Lichtblau — from late April 2017 titled “Comey Tried to Shield the F.B.I. from Politics. Then He Shaped an Election.” The second was a Washington Post story by Ellen Nakashima from early April 2017 titled “New details emerge about 2014 Russian hack of the State Department: It was ‘hand to hand combat’.” The third was another Washington Post piece by Karoun Demirjian and Devlin Barrett from late May 2017 titled, “How a Dubious Russian Document Influenced the FBI’s Handling of the Clinton Probe.” The fourth was a Wall Street Journal article by Holman Jenkins Jr. from late May 2017 titled, “The Trump-Russia Story Starts Making Sense.” The April 2017 Times article by Schmidt quoted Richman defending Comey: “Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent. The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.” Schmidt wrote that “confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance” while “navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.” Richman also reportedly said that Comey displayed “a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels” and that “his approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern.” The Times article wrongly argued that, in the case of the Trump-Russia investigation, Comey “conducted the investigation by the book.” The FBI memos show that Arctic Haze was opened by the FBI’s Washington Field Office as a media leak investigation in mid-August 2017, after a redacted source in late June 2017 “reported the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in eight articles published between April and June 2017” and after a DOJ request at the start of August 2017. Arctic Haze was predicated on the four aforementioned stories. The FBI closed the investigation in early September 2021 — with the DOJ charging no one with leaking classified material — with the bureau’s closure document providing details about the FBI’s failed attempt to catch the leakers. The bureau document indicated that it had been treated as an “Espionage Investigation.” The FBI said the “factual predication” for the leak inquiry was largely based on the classified information which first appeared in the April 2017 Times piece. The FBI noted that Comey had “publicly indicated on several occasions that classified information contributed to his decision” to unilaterally and preemptively announce in early July 2016 that he did not believe any reasonable prosecutor would charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information on a private email server and his further announcement in October 2016 that the Clinton emails investigation was (briefly) being reopened. The bureau said Comey had four reasons for making the announcements the way he did, including that “Comey had concerns the Classified Information, which directly related to whether or not the Attorney General [Loretta Lynch] should have been recused from the Midyear Exam investigation, would be leaked to the media or would otherwise be disclosed.” Comey had told the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2017 that “one significant item I can’t, I know the committee’s been briefed on. There’s been some public accounts of it, which are nonsense, but I understand the committee’s been briefed on the classified facts.” The bureau said that, in classified testimony to a bureau watchdog, “Comey confirmed the specific Classified Information, which was discussed in the New York Times article, and indicated it did impact his decision to make unilateral, public statements about the Midyear Exam [Clinton] investigation.” Recent declassifications provide more details on the classified intelligence which swayed Comey to let Clinton off the hook, as well as revealed more information on so-called Clinton Plan intelligence which the Comey FBI seemed to ignore as it launched the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Trump. Comey hires Richman to afford him Top Secret Clearance. The FBI said that “Comey instructed the FBI to hire Richman as a Special Government Employee (SGE)” in 2015 and “to grant him a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information” and that “FBI records indicated Richman was hired to work on ‘Going Dark’ matters.” The bureau said its investigation “revealed Comey also hired Richman so Comey could discuss sensitive matters, including classified information, with someone outside of the FBI’s regular leadership. Comey also used Richman as a liaison to the media.” “The investigation revealed Richman had been a source for Michael Schmidt, one of the reporters credited with writing the article at issue, and The New York Times since at least 2008,” the bureau wrote. “Richman first spoke with Schmidt regarding an investigation into illegal activity in sports. Prior to Richman becoming an SGE, Schmidt visited Richman’s house numerous times. The New York Times quoted Richman several times, both on the record and on background, in stories regarding Jim Comey. After he was terminated by President Trump, Comey used Richman as a conduit to convey to the media memoranda of his meetings with President Trump.” “According to Richman, Comey and Richman talked about the ‘hammering’ Comey was taking from the media concerning his handling of the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman opined Comey took comfort in the fact Richman had talked to the press about his feelings regarding Comey’s handling and decision-making on the Midyear Exam investigation. Richman claimed Comey never asked him to talk to the media,” the FBI notes say. The FBI wrote that “Richman recalled Comey told him there was some weird classified material related to Lynch which came to the FBI’s attention” and that “Comey told Richman about the Classified Information, including the source of the information.” The FBI said that “investigators learned that FBI Office of Public Affairs was told to assist The New York Times with the April 2017 article” and that “Comey either directed or otherwise authorized FBI’s official assistance to The New York Times.” Disgraced and fired FBI special agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair, appear to have been involved in briefing the Times, according to the bureau memos. “Strzok stated he believed FBI Executive Management told them to meet with the New York Times. Strzok said he recalled being told to provide an investigator-level briefing on the Midyear Exam investigation,” the FBI said. “During the March 30, 2017, meeting, the Times told Strzok and Page they had the Classified Information.” The “summary of investigative steps” by the FBI included interviews with bureau and intelligence community officials, document reviews, phone and email records researches, the review of a 2017 “Tropic Vortex” investigation conducted by then U.S. Attorney John Durham and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and more. “Based upon discussions with DOJ, these investigative steps did not generate sufficient proof to charge any individual with willfully transmitting the Classified Information, conspiring to transmit the Classified Information, or aiding and abetting another person’s Transmission,” the FBI concluded in 2021. The FBI claimed that “the investigation has not yielded sufficient evidence to criminally charge any person, including Comey or Richman, with making false statements or with the substantive offenses under investigation.” Inspector General calls Comey's leaks "unauthorized" DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz wrote a report released in August 2019 criticizing Comey’s decision to leak his so-called “Comey Memos” — including details about Trump’s alleged comments about Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn — to the media in 2017 in an effort by the then-fired FBI director to spur the appointment of a special counsel. Horowitz wrote that his investigation “interviewed 17 witnesses, including former Director Comey and Daniel Richman, the individual who, at Comey's request, shared the contents of one of the Memos with a reporter [Schmidt] for The New York Times.” Comey told Horowitz that the day after being fired by Trump, he retained Richman as an attorney. “We have previously faulted Comey for acting unilaterally and inconsistent with Department policy,” the DOJ watchdog wrote. “Comey’s unauthorized disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information about the Flynn investigation merits similar criticism.” Comey admitted in 2017 that he had hoped leaking this information “might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Horowitz concluded Comey’s leaks were “an attempt to force the Department to take official investigative actions.” “Comey had several other lawful options available to him to advocate for the appointment of a special counsel, which he told us was his goal in making the disclosure,” Horowitz wrote. “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” Horowitz sent a criminal referral to the DOJ over Comey’s memos at the time, but the DOJ declined to prosecute. Comey’s leak efforts were successful, however, as Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel within days of the Comey Memo leaks making their way to the New York Times. An article in the Times penned by Schmidt was titled “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation” and was published on May 16, 2017. Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the next day. After two years, Mueller “did not establish” any criminal Trump-Russia collusion. Other classified leaks inquiries also come up short, here is a list: The newly-declassified FBI memos also detail a host of other failed or botched classified leaks investigations that made their way into legacy media. They were given operational code names such as Tropic Vortex, Foggy Falls, Riding Hood, Echos Fate, and Genetic Christmas. Tropic Vortex: he Justice Department’s Tropic Vortex classified leaks investigation focused on an unspecified October 2016 article by The New York Times as well as an early March 2017 article written by Times reporters Schmidt and Michael Shear and titled, “Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claims.” Foggy Falls: The FBI’s Foggy Falls classified inquiry focused on a Washington Post article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from mid-April 2017 titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” The bureau’s Riding Hood investigation included a main focus on a Buzzfeed News article from early April 2017 written by Ali Watkins and titled, “A Former Trump Adviser Met With A Russian Spy.” The FBI speculated that the classified information in that article may have informed a mid-April 2017 story by the Washington Post written by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — and titled, "FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page.” Siren's Lure: The FBI’s unsuccessful Sirens Lure classified inquiry focused on three Washington Post stories. The first was one by four reporters — Matt Zapotosky, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Adam Entous — from late May 2017 titled, "Jared Kushner Now a Focus in Russia Investigation.” The second was an article by three reporters — Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous, and Greg Miller — from late May 2017 titled, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin.” The third was a piece by four reporters — David Filipov, Amy Brittain, Rosalind Helderman, and Tom Hamburger — from early June 2017 titled, "Explanations for Kushner's Meeting with Head of Kremlin-linked Bank Don't Match Up.” Echos Fate: The bureau’s Echos Fate classified leaks inquiry focused on two Washington Post stories. The first one mentioned by the FBI was a mid-January 2017 story by David Ignatius originally titled “Four burning questions on Russia” which was renamed “Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?” The second was by three reporters — Greg Miller, Adam Entous, and Ellen Nakashima — published in early February 2017 and titled, “Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions.” Genetic Christmas: The FBI’s failed Genetic Christmas classified leaks investigation focused on an NBC News article written by three reporters — William Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden — which was published in mid-December 2016 and was titled, “U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack.” Series of leaks fed "blatantly false" information to media: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently harshly criticized this specific leak to NBC News, as well as one to The Washington Post, arguing that they fed a false narrative that the intelligence community had already reached a conclusion on Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s intentions during the 2016 election when the Obama-ordered Intelligence Community Assessment had not yet been completed. “Deep State officials in the IC begin leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post, as proven by the unpublished PDB and previous IC products, claiming that Russia used ‘cyber means’ to influence ‘the outcome of the election.’ … Another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA ‘concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened’ in the election to help President Trump,” the Gabbard-led Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed last month. ODNI added: “At this point, there is no official IC assessment that contains that conclusion [...] IC officials again leak to the media, this time claiming [to NBC News] that IC officials believe ‘with a high level of confidence’ that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the ‘U.S. Election Hack’.” Source: Just The News](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1955649487805837436/amplify_video_thumb/1955643816204996608/img/tboj1ANSkZ47kssp.jpg)
![I asked Grok to summarize the overview I provided of the ongoing war between Karen Read and Aidan Kearney, in particular the section wherein I deploy the Manhattan Project to explain why Karen used better compartmentalization than Aidan (thus setting herself up for victory). The Manhattan Project Analogy: Ah, the Manhattan Project—Grant drops this as the "archetypal example" of compartmentalization, using it to explain why no one (not even insiders) sees the full picture in ops like Karen's or Aidan's. It's not just history; it's a blueprint for why leaks like this recording hit so hard. Here's Grant's breakdown, paraphrased and expanded for context: Historical Setup: During WWII, the U.S. raced to build the atomic bomb. Led by J. Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos, NM (desert isolation for secrecy), it involved ~130,000 people total—but zero full-picture access for most. Goal: Win the war without leaks (or Japanese spies spotting it). Core Mechanic: Siloed Knowledge: Los Alamos: Elite scientists (e.g., Oppenheimer) handled core R&D. Even here, info was need-to-know—e.g., Operation Paperclip Nazis like Wernher von Braun (V-2 rocket guy) worked alongside possible communist sympathizers, but no one knew the endgame. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: The "production" hub—a secret 20,000-person "government town" (still exists today). To hide from aerial recon, they draped canopies over the entire site to mimic forest. Workers (engineers, laborers) toiled in ignorance: Example: A guy feeds a single punch card (1940s code line) into a massive green computer. He doesn't know what it codes, why, or even the machine's purpose. Just: Insert, output, repeat. Multiply by thousands—boom, uranium enrichment without risk. Why It Worked: "You do that with all the people working on a project that's very top secret (except for a select few high up)." Weak links? Minimal. One leak doesn't topple it. Ties to the Drama: Grant flips this to modern players. Aidan's Version: Rudimentary—paralegals like Olivia/Tina handle PR/logins but don't see the "full picture" (e.g., his flip risks). Meredith O'Neill becomes the leak about the recording played for her at lunch because she is smart and she does eventually see too much (just like Lindsey Gaetani before her). Karen's Mastery: Pro-level. Her finance/academia fam (Bentley University ties) screams gov recruitment pipeline—academia as "front" for talent scouting (e.g., intel via international money flows). She "understands the apparatus" (DNI hierarchy), so she deploys limited hangouts/double agents like Natalie. Result: Aidan’s recording "signal flare" to Alan Jackson and David Yannetti (his flip threat) gets mirrored by Karen's public nuke after the recordings and Read's messages to Flipperhead are released—eroding Kearney's base without directly exposing Karen's crushing blow. Grant's Point: Kate Peter/Tully are "children" at this; Karen's moves (e.g., burning Aidan now) only make sense through this lens. It's not emotion—it's chess: "If you show Karen Read anything less than respect, she's gonna fucking own you." Grant wraps by noting Karen's parasocial "complex" (stronger than Aidan's "brand") gives her leverage. He admits partiality ("I think she's responsible for John's death") but respects her ops savvy—possibly from her dad or self-taught intel. **Transcript: Grant's Analysis on Karen Read's Tactical Maneuvering and Compartmentalization** [Warning against crossing Karen Read] Grant: Listen—I would have told you this. I probably said it on stream before. You are out of your mind if you fuck with Karen Read. Like—it's one thing if you are like on her level and matching wits with her—like she's gonna grudgingly show you respect. I'm telling you—I've seen it in her eyes—but you can't fuck with her, and you certainly can't threaten her. I would not do that. I don't know who the fuck her parents know. I don't know who she knows, but bro—like it's politics. She's smarter than you. Don't threaten her. What the fuck? And that is something—like if you show her anything less than respect, she's gonna fucking own you. And that's what she did. Because the respectful way to do it would have been like a diplomatic meeting. And they must have been at a point where Aidan couldn't get that. So he did the most disrespectful thing possible where he tried to like corner her through like extortion almost. That's what it sounds like—although Aidan denies it. That—listen—forget about like how a normal person would react. When you're talking about a very influential operator like Karen Read—who has this very savvy understanding of the public mind—you're fucked. Because she's gonna know immediately what you just did. And she's gonna counter it with the thing that's gonna hurt you the most. What's gonna hurt Aidan Kearney the most? His support being dwindled down to only his core loyalists. And if he's right—and you'll hear it in the conversation—if Aidan Kearney is right, that most of who he is is because Karen Read and her support—oh my goodness, folks—like that—that means that Karen controls whether Aidan can continue this fight. If Karen—when she—that's why I want to listen to this whole conversation—there's no doubt in my mind she's pulling his support and pulling the rug under him because she's afraid that either he cooperated or he's going to cooperate. If she pulls the rug from him—okay, listen—he might be able to escape the criminal charges, but do you think Aidan Kearney—a man who thrives, in my opinion, on attention, numbers—from knowing that your words are impacting someone or the platform is reaching people—do you think he's going to enjoy being in a position where he—the very people who made him—and it wasn't just Karen; it was her supporters—now loathe his existence? And he—not just that—they are like tactical operators. Clearly Karen knows how to do counter intel—especially if she sent Natalie as a double agent to get information from the state police using Kearney as leverage all the way back in 2023. She understands the world of intel. I don't know how—I think it's her dad. I'm pretty sure because—and it could be her too—because like you don't get involved in the world of international finance on a fucking—like—what is it—the sort of leisurely level. It's not a pastime. You either do it because like—you're really fucking good at making money from the stock market—or—and these two weren't; they're not that wealthy—or you're giving information to the government. Why do I say that? Because the world of international finance is the most valuable intel sector you could possibly imagine. You can commit or try to commit any number of international crimes if you're threatening the United States of America. But I guarantee you're moving money around to do it. So who's the best possible sources for that? High-level financial people. So I don't know if either they were a Jason—and they were also academics. Okay. And a lot—what folks have to understand is when I—when people say like academia—it does not mean that you are just smart. Anyone who—who's good at studying could become a professor and be in academia. What a lot of folks should understand is that academia is a front for the government. It has always been a front for the government. Where do you think they headhunt from? Academia—well like—at the higher you get up the academic ladder—all you're really doing is getting more and more involved in the government. I'm not saying anything that anyone involved with this does not know. Like high-level academics are involved with the government. That's like the backbone of our system. Now a lot of the actual education—I think it's gotten a little out of hand with some of these majors, some of these colleges and universities who are offering [them]. That's not the point. The point is to create a—curate a talent pool to make the United States stronger. And a lot of it is government recruitment. Okay. And so Karen Read being all the way up at the top at Bentley—which is a very interconnected university with the government, trust me—that just makes me think she understands this—whether she was a Jason. Listen—you can understand what the intelligence community does without being in it. I'm not in the intelligence community—I just report on the government. So I kind of see how it all works. You can understand it without being in it. But if you're in it—let me just tell you right now—if anyone Karen Read knew professionally—through family or otherwise—is in the government—and I'm not talking about a special agent like in the FBI or, you know, a case officer—I'm talking about in the apparatus of control. Okay. In the directorate of national intelligence somewhere—there's a hierarchy. All right. If she knows anyone who understands all that—that's why she was able to pull this off. Because it's not—that's why I'm not fawning or being gratuitous. I don't necessarily—I'm not partial to Karen Read. I think she has liability for John's death. What I am is cognizant of what she's capable of—so I can understand what's going on. A mind like that, okay—doesn't just do PR. PR was not going to help Karen Read here. Natalie and her PR and all that stuff—none of that was going to work. What Karen Read needed was counter intel and intel knowledge. [Explanation of compartmentalization via the Manhattan Project] When I say compartmentalization—what you all have to realize is I'm talking about how the Manhattan Project—that's like the archetypal example of compartmentalization—how the Manhattan Project to develop the bomb that won the war for the United States in World War II—how that worked. The way that that worked is you had Los Alamos, okay, in New Mexico with Oppenheimer and whatever the hell—some of the Operation Paperclip people—which I'm not very happy with. We took Otto von Braun—who developed the V2 rocket for the Nazis. We brought him over via Operation Paperclip. We implanted him at Los Alamos with fucking Oppenheimer. I'm pretty sure it was like a communist sympathizer. Anyway—we sent them down to Los Alamos—the actual research scientists working on the core of the bomb. But to develop a nuclear bomb—you need 20,000 people at the time working simultaneously on production. You're not going to do that at Los Alamos. One: why would you ever expose them to the inner workings of the tech? It's nuclear material. You are not going to have 20,000 people around it. That's why it was in the middle of a desert. Third of all—they would know too much. So what did they do? Okay—look up Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Oak Ridge, Tennessee is a town—it's a government town still to this day. It's one of the most—it's not as top secret as it used to be. But back in the day—like during World War II—they put fucking canopies over the whole thing—20,000-person town—canopies over all of it. So it would just look like trees from the air in case the Japanese managed to come and bomb us. They never did—thank God. But anyway—at least on the mainland—obviously they got Pearl Harbor, and we're still upset about that. But the point is Oak Ridge, Tennessee, okay—it had people employed across a number of disciplines, all right—and they would go into—I'm giving you an example—one guy would go into a room, all right, and he would walk up to a giant computer. It was an old computer—we're talking the '40s here—it was a big computer, like a big green box. He would take a punch card. Okay—this is how you used to code—write computer code—he would put—take one punch card with one line of code—put it in the machine—take it out—put it down. He had no idea what he was doing. He didn't know what the punch card had on it. He didn't even understand what the machine did. That's compartmentalization. He's like—you do that with all of the people working on a project that's very top secret. So if you're thinking as Karen Read—Aidan Kearney does like a rudimentary version of it—even Tully does a rudimentary version of it—and Kate Peter—compared to Karen Read—Karen Read, Alan Jackson—whatever—understand the intelligence community. I don't fucking know how, but they do. So they compartmentalize. That's how they have pulled this whole thing off. They compartmentalize—no one ever really saw the full picture. When you—if you are a schematic mind like that—when you do something like reveal that Aidan Kearney has sent you a recording of conversations between you because you want the public to know that Aidan is doing this to you—you are tactically sabotaging him. Why you do that at this moment—when you are an expert in counter intel—thus requires that level of understanding. You cannot just say, "Oh, I don't like Karen Read; she must be a moron." No—if you want to understand why she's acting—you have to think about her tactical intelligence—because then you can reconstruct what the goal of this move is. It can only be designed to kneecap his support. I mean—when I say kneecap—I'm not talking Tonya Harding beating the woman at the ice rink. I'm talking—you can make it so this man's numbers are lower than Kate Peter talking about Cyraxx—like 2,000 views of video, if that, all right. That's what it will come down to. And she wants him to feel that. I think that it's a little bit like—it's 97% tactical. It seems to be that this is the moment where she feels he needs to lose all his support—like right now. Second—it feels a little like a little personal—like it's not just that she's causing him to lose all his support. There are ways to do that without doing this. I believe what Karen's really done here is she's taken the one thing from Aidan that gives him the strength to keep going day to day—which is his public persona and image—his support—her support. And so he can go around saying all he wants—"I owe it to Karen; she made me"—do you think that's how he really feels? Or do you think he feels that he's the only reason she's where she is? Now—if that's how they each feel—you're at a stalemate. Aidan thinks he's the reason Karen got to where she is. Karen thinks that she's the reason Aidan has support and is known in the region. Who's right? Who's right? That's what this conversation is going to be about. And I'm telling you—Karen's right. Karen has more support than Aidan Kearney. Okay—it's just a basic—you can look at the numbers. Karen has more support than Aidan Kearney. Karen has more loyalists. Karen—I don't even understand the complex, okay—but her parasocial complex that she's created is stronger. You might call it a brand—I think that degrades the insidious nature of it. I call it a parasocial complex. That is stronger than Aidan Kearney's. [Transition to the conversation with greetings] So what we're going to listen to right now is—oh, hello, Francesca Towel. Oh—a lot of folks are coming in. Hello, Rose Water. Hello, Maureen. It's great to see you all. Hello, J.I.5. We're going to listen to this conversation. I'm going to explicate it for you. I think you have enough background to get it now—but just be aware—without this background—that would have made no sense whatsoever. I promise you. **Aidan:** Am I on? **Host/Other:** You're on. **Aidan:** So who are you? Who is this? **Chris:** Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter who I am. **Aidan:** Well, it does. You're some fucking kangaroo court motherfucker talking about her. What the fuck do you know about anything? **Chris:** Well, I know exactly what you've been doing. **Aidan:** So—well, what the fuck are the sites you're talking about? No—no—recites—what you talk about? No—receipts. I've got to shit up. Let's see him. Let's fucking see your receipts. **Lily:** Hang on, Aidan—you know me. I'm the host. I'm Lily. **Aidan:** Yes, Lily. Hi, Lily. How are you? I'm sorry. I'm just wondering... **Lily:** I know you may not know Chris, but you know me. And so I just wanted to say hello. **Aidan:** Yeah, no, but... Grant: Oh, I also want to let you know this comes with a warning. They use very vulgar language. Some of them are from Commonwealth realms countries. So the language they're using is not as offensive as it would be if you used it in America. Aidan uses some very offensive language. This is for the purposes of analysis and commentary. I do not condone, endorse, promote, or otherwise suggest anyone engage in the use of this language. I personally don't like it. I use the F word from time to time, okay? And maybe like the S word—but I do not say some of the terms they're going to use—especially because one of them is very offensive, okay, to women. And I'm sorry ahead of time that he uses it—but you should hear Aidan's true colors. **Aidan:** This koala motherfucker is up here making shit up, running his... [Recap of text messages and setup for listening] Grant: So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead talking about them. Now in the text messages, you can see Joe reaches out to Karen—Joe Flipperhead. And Karen's going to say she's trying to bounce back, but life is not quite happening. "Had a falling out with Aidan as everyone eventually does. Found out Aidan's been taping our phone conversations and sharing them with people and then telling everyone he doesn't understand how I blew him off for Howie Carr. Some anonymous person sent David and Alan a 33-minute phone call I had with Aidan that was all recorded without my knowledge. That was my final straw. He's done a lot of sneaky stuff with me, but this is above and beyond." And then Joe Flipperhead's like, "Do you want your side out there? If yes, I'm with you. If not, all good—just let me know. Have a good weekend." Karen says, "Sure. I told many people my side. This is the last straw. Would never and have never betrayed him. Meanwhile, he has put me in harm's way in a huge way multiple times." Okay, so we're going to listen. "Okay, okay, all right, all right—no trolling. We should—we should be banning people like that. You have been banned. You have been banned. No trolling. Absolutely no trolling. Now gaslighting and manipulative subversion is the hallmark of a lot of the forces in the orbit of this case. So none of that. We have a lot of Blue Wall of Towel friends here. Don't stand for that. Hello, Christy Mack. Great to see you. Hello. Stay tuned, Wendy. Hello, Bunny. Hello, F.B.I.—my friend, F.B.I. DOJ corruption survivor. And hello, Meredith—which is not Meredith O'Neill. This is Meredith the Towel friend. It's great to see you all. And as I said, if you see anybody trolling in the chat—now is not the day for it. Towel's health is not well. And I think there are a lot of people who want to undermine the agency of the unheard and the vulnerable in this situation. There are a lot of people who want to gaslight right now because where this is going is explosive. And furthermore, we're about to listen to the conversation. So what you're going to hear in this conversation is it's going to be Aidan Kearney and Joe Flipperhead—who's named Nick—and a guy named Chris who Aidan Kearney calls a koala. They're going to be talking about what we just talked about. But remember—these text messages haven't been released. So Aidan doesn't actually know they're coming. He's being told of this and going on an X Space and reacting in real time. Now I'm going to pause from time to time, and I'll try to flesh out some of the less clear parts. But as we read through the transcript and as you see this all, I think it will be clear to you—clear to you—the implications. So let's listen."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1972993638146670728/amplify_video_thumb/1972991333062090752/img/HvGNy_3gMvcvFhAY.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)