Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

BOMBSHELL TUESDAY BROADCAST: House Oversight Committee Finds Biden’s Autopen-Signed Actions “Illegitimate” & “Void,” Demands DOJ Investigation! PLUS, Largest Federal Union Sides With Republicans, Demands Dems Reopen Government Ahead Of SNAP Benefit Apocalypse! FINALLY, Secret Tech & Government Programs Behind Havana Syndrome Phenomenon EXPOSED By Top Researchers In The Field!...

81,506 views • 10 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 THEY BUILT THE ESCAPE ROUTE BEFORE THE CRIME 🚨 WHO LET TRUMP JR., JARED KUSHNER, AND THE WHITE HOUSE PROFIT OFF THE IRAN WAR? Step 1. Donald Trump's DOJ dismantles the Public Integrity Section from 36 lawyers to 2. The unit created after Watergate to prosecute corrupt officials. Gone. Step 2. Trump's DOJ cancels 159 federal enforcement actions against 166 companies. 30+ of those companies donated to Trump's inauguration or White House ballroom. Gone. Step 3. Trump's DOJ drops its criminal investigation into Polymarket. The same Polymarket where Donald Trump Jr. sits on the advisory board and his venture capital firm 1789 Capital poured millions. Step 4. Trump's CFTC drops its investigation into Polymarket. The same CFTC now controlled by Trump appointee Chairman Brian Quintenz. Step 5. SEC Enforcement Division Director Margaret Ryan resigns after SEC Chair Paul Atkins and Republican political appointees block her from pursuing cases touching Trump, Elon Musk, and crypto mogul Justin Sun, a major backer of the Trump family's World Liberty Financial venture. Step 6. Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff fly to Vienna for public peace talks while the strike date is known to a tiny circle in Washington and Tel Aviv. Step 7. Pete Hegseth's Defense Department executes Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026. Step 8. Six brand new Polymarket wallets, all created within 24 hours of the strike, bet on the exact date and walk away with $1.2 million. Account Magamyman turns $87,000 into $553,000 in 71 minutes. Accounts Planktonbet, Dicedicedice, and nothingeverhappens911 all cash out. Step 9. Monday March 23, at exactly 6:49am New York time, $580 million in Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate oil futures trades in 60 seconds. $1.5 billion in S&P 500 E-mini futures moves simultaneously. 4 to 6 times larger than any other order at that moment. Fifteen minutes later Trump posts on Truth Social about productive conversations with Tehran. Step 10. Senator Chris Murphy calls it mind-blowing corruption. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman calls it treason. The White House calls it baseless. Every lock on the enforcement door, DOJ Public Integrity, CFTC oversight, SEC enforcement, was removed before the first bomb dropped. Before the first bet was placed. Before anyone with a badge could ask a single question. Is this the most sophisticated government corruption architecture in modern American history or are you still calling it a coincidence? Watch the full receipts breakdown 👇

Danks

126,802 views • 5 months ago

In the spring of 2022, former President Barack Obama gave a major policy addressat Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, where he laid out a sweeping proposal for government censorship of social media platforms through the Platform Accountability and Transparency Act. Six days later, President Joe Biden’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had created a “Disinformation Governance Board” to serve as an Orwellian Ministry of Truth with the clear goal of controlling the information Americans could access online. At the heart of Obama’s vision for Internet censorship was legislation that would have authorized the US government’s National Science Foundation to authorize and fund supposedly independent NGOs to censor the Internet. The DHS and Stanford Internet Observatory, which was part of the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, pioneered this censorship-by-proxy strategy as a way to get around the First Amendment in 2020 with posts raising concerns about the 2020 elections and in 2021 with “narratives” expressing concern about the Covid vaccine. The 2024 election of President Donald Trump significantly reduced the threat of Obama, DHS, and NSF censoring the American people. Trump defunded much of the Censorship Industrial Complex. The Platform Accountability Act is going nowhere in Congress. Elon Musk fired most of the censorship staff at Twitter and has allowed a significantly wider range of speech on the platform. And even before Trump’s election, Stanford donor Frank McCourt stopped funding the Stanford Internet Observatory after Public, Racket News, and House Weaponization Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan exposed its central role in the DHS censorship-by-proxy scheme. But now, foreign governments, including Europe, the UK, Brazil, Australia, and others are demanding censorship, including of the American people. The risk is that US tech companies will find it significantly less expensive to have a single global censorship regime and just go along with foreign censorship requests. Facebook complied with Biden administration demands to censor because it needed Biden’s help in dealing with European censorship officials. And the Brazilian government forced Elon Musk to continue censoring the Brazilian people after it froze Starlink’s assets. And Public has discovered that the Stanford Cyber Policy Center, which is led by Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is at the heart of a new, secretive, and possibly illegal censorship initiative that appears even more ambitious than the one Obama proposed in 2022. On September 24, the Cyber Policy Center hosted a secret dinner between its leaders and top censorship officials from Europe, UK, Brazil, California and Australia. The meeting was titled “Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.” Frank McCourt, the same person behind the Stanford Internet Observatory, financed the gathering through his “Project Liberty Institute,” (PLI), toward which he gave $500 million to “strengthen democracy” and “foster responsible technology.” Public emailed all 21 participants and organizers and only heard from four, PLI, the Australian government, the UK government, and the European Union, which declined to comment because, even though Public gave it over 24 hours, a spokesperson said, “We would need several days.” The UK government said, “The legal framework gives Ofcom power to enforce the duties in the Act which are related to securing protections for people in the UK; it does not give Ofcom powers to enforce under any other legal regimes…. Ofcom has always engaged with various international forums and networks across all of the sectors we regulate, including online safety, spectrum, telecommunications, post, and broadcast and media. Regulators around the world regularly exchange insights, experience, and best practice.” A spokesperson for PLI said it “has made unrestricted gifts to several academic research programs, including Stanford University” and that “PLI does not receive funding from governments, intergovernmental organizations, or large technology companies.” But PLI’s own policy “blueprint” reveals that it is demanding a single total global censorship regime and intends to use the EU’s market power, known as the “Brussels effect,” to force big tech companies to comply. The blueprint calls for governments to “Recommit to a Single, Global Internet,” with “regulatory interoperability and oversight, to achieve a single unified market” and use the large size of the EU market to “drive bilateral and multilateral agendas to formally enshrine reciprocal guarantees.” A spokesperson for the Australian government said, “Whilst in attendance at Stanford for the 2-day conference, some attendees, including trust and safety researchers, industry, civil society, and government representatives, were also invited to attend an informal evening roundtable event organised by Stanford University entitled, ‘Compliance and Enforcement in a Rapidly Evolving Landscape.’ This roundtable did not involve any discussion of compliance coordination or regulatory information sharing.” The Australian spokesperson claimed that “eSafety has no role in regulating hate speech or disinformation. eSafety has no remit or interest in regulating the affairs of other nations, nor does it have any role in diplomatic, trade or other government-to-government relations.” But it also said, “As the internet is global and functions irrespective of national borders, by necessity eSafety collaborates with law enforcement, other government agencies, and non-government partners around the world, including in the United States.” The leaked agenda’s stated purpose was to “discuss the state of compliance and enforcement” in order to “identify where data, research, and expertise can enable more effective compliance with and enforcement of existing policy.” Much of the following two days of the public conference were focused on coordinating government censorship (“regulation”) of social media platforms, and the other nations that attended the meeting are all intensively involved in censoring their citizens and US tech companies. And, the head of Australia’s eSafety, Julie Inman-Grant, who was a keynote speaker at Stanford’s foreign censorship meeting, is also the head of a global government censorship network that serves as forum, she told the World Economic Forum, “to help us coordinate, build capacity and do just that…. We use the tools that we have, and can be effective, but we know we’re going to be, go, much further, when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe.” As such, the people who are demanding censorship are once again spreading disinformation about what they are doing. All of this is happening in a context of global censorship intensifying. The UK government arrests 30 people per day for “offensive” social media posts, is attempting to censor 4Chan, which has no servers in the UK, and will mandate digital IDs for employment, which may give unprecedented control to politicians and bureaucrats to censor. The Brazilian government has, for year,s been censoring journalists and policymakers, incarcerating people for legal social media content, and threatening prosecution of journalists, including this author. And several European nations are censoring and arresting their citizens, preventing opposition political candidates from running for office, and preparing to implement digital IDs. Why did Stanford Cyber Policy Center hold this meeting, what is its strategy for global censorship? Who leaked the agenda to Public and why? And what can be done to stop Stanford, Brazil, Australia, the EU and others from realizing their totalitarian censorial vision? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigatie journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

196,124 views • 10 months ago

🚨Canada's former Minister of Public Safety is on camera calling the COVID agenda "a cover-up of mammoth proportions." Will Ottawa Chief of Police Eric Stubbs order his prosecutors to retract their punishment demands against Detective Helen Grus before Tuesday morning's decision? Stockwell Day sat at the federal cabinet table. He led the Official Opposition. He spent a quarter century in elected office in this country. Watch what he says in this video, and then remember that on Tuesday morning the Ottawa Police Service will punish Detective Helen Grus for trying to investigate this exact cover-up back in 2022. Day's own words: "Canadians by the 1000s, and this is according to mainstream media, are saying we want the truth to be told. We want to tell the truth, and we want to do it without our lives being destroyed." On Dr. Charles Hoffe, one of the many practitioners who were silenced: "He was told to shut up when he was crying out for attention to the fact that many of his clients who were receiving the vax were suffering terrible consequences. He just wanted the truth." On the damage: "We're just beginning to see the tidal wave of damage, health damage that was done to 1000s of people in Canada. The heart-related problems and deaths, turbo cancers, brain clots, on and on it goes. It needs to be addressed." On Canada's Chief Public Health Officer: "And now the pressure is on Dr. Theresa Tam in Canada. What did she know? Did she know about these adverse effects? And if she did, why wasn't she raising these issues?" And directly to the Prime Minister: "Prime Minister Carney. 1000s upon 1000s of Canadians want a national inquiry into the destructive effects of the COVID vaccine agenda. You need to listen to the citizens." Stockwell Day is asking the right question about Tam, because we now know what her American counterparts were saying to each other in private. On August 10, Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul released the first text chain recovered from Anthony Fauci's government cellphone. In January 2021, Fauci privately warned the new CDC Director and the incoming Surgeon General that the reaction after the second dose "theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester." Vivek Murthy replied that he'd been "hearing the concern about the mRNA causing mutations in the developing fetus as well." Nonetheless, nine days later, Fauci stood in front of the cameras and told the public the review had found "no red flags" for pregnant women. That phone reportedly holds more than 34,000 text messages and 522 voicemails, and the Senators say more releases are coming. Now hold that date in your mind: January 2021. A full year later, in early 2022, Detective Helen Grus of the Ottawa Police Service looked at a cluster of sudden infant deaths in her own city and asked whether the mothers' vaccination status might be relevant. For asking about the deaths - that were triple the rate before the COVID vaccine - she was charged with discreditable conduct. In May 2022 she handed Professional Standards investigators twelve volumes of published studies along with Pfizer's own post-marketing records, pried out of the FDA by order of a US federal court, documenting pregnancy losses and fetal and neonatal deaths. The internal disciplinary tribunal judging Grus’s actions refused to hear expert evidence on whether her concern had medical merit, convicted her anyway, and this Tuesday, August 18, it delivers her penalty. Ottawa’s Chief of Police is asking for a two-year demotion. Follow the sequence. Fauci and the head of the CDC were privately texting about miscarriage risk in January 2021. Pfizer's own regulatory files recorded the deaths. The material sat in the hands of the Ottawa Police from May 2022 onward. And the OPS still wants a veteran detective with more than twenty years of service demoted because she asked, in 2022, the same question Washington's top health officials had already asked each other behind closed doors a year earlier. Stockwell Day says it was a cover-up. Damned right it was. It still is. And understand how far Canadians have already carried this without any help from their government. In 2023 the National Citizens Inquiry The Real National Citizens Inquiry (NCI | CeNC) heard more than 300 witnesses under oath across eight cities, from Truro to Vancouver. Its commissioners produced a 5,300-page report recommending a full judicial investigation into how these products were authorized in Canada. Ottawa ignored every page of it. In a few weeks the questions arrive at Parliament Hill itself, when Dean Allison conducts a non-partisan inquiry into COVID vaccine injuries and deaths convenes September 8 to 11. Broadcast live, the Allison Inquiry is the first inquiry of its kind ever held there, but it is not a full-blown government backed inquiry. And now a former federal Minister of Public Safety is demanding what only a government can deliver: a full national public inquiry, with the power to compel the testimony and the documents. The record is being assembled right now, with government cooperation or without it. And when it is complete it will show who asked the questions, who buried them, and who punished the people who asked. On Tuesday morning, will Ottawa Chief of Police Eric Stubbs order his prosecutors to retract punishment demands for Detective Grus, especially in light of the new Fauci evidence showing that in 2021 the top doctors in Washington were privately asking the same question she asked? Or, will the Ottawa Police Service press ahead and demote a veteran detective for asking, four years too early, the question the whole country is asking now? Either way, Tuesday's decision goes into the record. The choice is Chief Stubbs' until the moment the decision is read. Canadians will remember which one he makes.

DonaldBest.CA * DO NOT COMPLY

26,197 views • 20 days ago

Ref: GSH/XX/CXA/INT_19 Date: 17/05/2025 To: The Somali Public To: Members of the Federal Parliament Cc: The United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM) Cc: European Union Delegation to Somalia Cc: Embassy of the United States of America in Somalia Cc: Embassy of the United Kingdom in Somalia Cc: African Union Mission in Somalia Cc: World Bank Country Office – Somalia Cc: International Monetary Fund (IMF) – Somalia Desk Subject: Submission of Evidence of High Treason by the President and Speaker in the Turkey - Somalia Oil and Gas Agreement Dear Honorable Members and Fellow Citizens, I write this letter with the highest sense of national duty and legal obligation to inform you of a grave constitutional betrayal committed by the President of the Federal Republic of Somalia, H.E. Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and the Speaker of the House of the People, Sheikh Adan Mohamed Nur, in relation to the recently ratified Somalia - Turkey Oil and Gas Agreement signed in March 2024. The oil and gas agreement between the Federal Republic of Somalia and the Republic of Turkey has sparked intense concern both nationally and internationally. Among its most troubling provisions are: o Exclusive Rights granted to Turkey’s TPAO to explore, develop, and produce hydrocarbons across Somalia’s sovereign maritime and territorial zones. o Revenue Sharing terms that allocate up to 90% of oil and gas revenues to Turkey under the guise of “cost recovery,” leaving Somalia with as little as 5% in royalties and no signing bonus. o Legal Jurisdiction being transferred to Turkish courts in the event of a dispute. o Security Oversight effectively outsourced to a foreign government, threatening Somalia’s constitutional command of national security. Despite repeated claims by the President and Speaker that Parliament was consulted, and that Somalia’s national interest was safeguarded in the agreement, I have come into possession of direct audio evidence that indisputably contradicts their public and official statements. This audio recording captures a private phone conversation between the President and the Speaker - and was shared with me last week by a high-level senior official from Villa Somalia who was present in the room during the call. The content of the call confirms the following: o Full Awareness: Both the President and the Speaker explicitly discuss that Turkey would retain 90% of the oil and gas profits under the agreement, leaving Somalia with only 10%. o Deliberate Concealment: They both agreed to withhold the actual agreement text from Members of Parliament, referring to MPs as a “rubber stamp,” and planning to pass the deal without disclosure or deliberation. o Strategic Manipulation: They conspired to push the vote through “unanimously” by claiming the deal was a “security cooperation framework” rather than a binding extractives contract. Under Article 54 and Article 71 of the Provisional Constitution of Somalia, all matters relating to the exploitation of natural resources and international agreements must be handled in full consultation with the Federal Parliament and in accordance with public interest. The deliberate falsification of the agreement’s nature and denial of MPs’ access to its contents constitute a direct breach of the Constitution and an act of high treason. Furthermore, under Article 90 and Article 91, the President is required to act in accordance with the law, and any action that undermines the sovereignty and economic integrity of the state is subject to investigation, prosecution, and removal from office. In light of this evidence, I respectfully request the following: o Immediate Parliamentary Inquiry into the agreement’s legality, terms, and approval process. o Release and transcription of the audio recording to the parliamentary ethics and legal committee. o Suspension of the agreement’s implementation pending a full legal review. o Initiation of Impeachment Proceedings against both the President and the Speaker for acts of constitutional betrayal and gross abuse of public office. Somalia is a sovereign nation whose resources belong to its people - not to foreign interests or to leaders willing to sell our future for personal or political gain. This case represents a fundamental breach of the social contract between the government and the people. We must act swiftly to uphold the rule of law, protect national sovereignty, and prevent future exploitation of our strategic assets. Respectfully submitted, 📷 Dr. Abdillahi Hashi Abib - BA, MA, MASc, Ph.D Member of Foreign Affairs Committee Federal Republic of Somalia the House of People Mogadishu, Somalia MP- HOP #201 Awdal Region and Gebileh District Leader of the Accountability and Transparency Caucus of the House of People E: [email protected] W: + 1-571-436-7586 M: + 252-6108-22469 Rep. Tom Tiffany Rep. Andy Ogles GOLAHA SHACABKA JFS Rep. Brian Mast House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority Rep. John Moolenaar @committeeonccp Donald J. Trump Secretary Marco Rubio Department of State Treasury Department U.S. Department of Justice Speaker Mike Johnson Rep. Jim Jordan House Freedom Caucus Susie Wiles Stephen Miller Tom Emmer Congressman Brad Finstad Rep. Michelle Fischbach Pete Stauber Marjorie Taylor Greene Fox News Breitbart News NEWSMAX Hassan Sheikh Mohamud Villa Somalia Hamza Abdi Barre Sheikh Adan Mohamed Nur Madobe Somali Embassy-Qatar🇸🇴 وزارة الخارجية UAE in Somalia Chinese Embassy in Somalia Foreign Ministry 🇸🇦 U.S. Embassy Mogadishu, Somalia EU Delegation Somalia Italy in Somalia UNSOM Türkiye in Somalia UNDP Somalia Mike Nithavrianakis World Bank Africa IMF Africa Joshua Meservey Hudson Institute

MP Dr Abdillahi Hashi Abib

13,571 views • 1 year ago

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News last night that the interview he gave for the new documentary film, “The Age of Disclosure,” about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) or what used to be called UFOs, was “three or four years ago when I was in the Senate,” that “I was describing what people had said to me, not things that I have firsthand knowledge of.” He described the “pretty spectacular claims” made by “people with high clearances in government” and said, “I just don’t have any independent way to verify everything they said.” And Rubio said the film engaged in a “Little bit of selective editing, but it’s okay, because, you know, you’re trying to sell a show there.” But Rubio also said, “I’m not disavowing” what he said in the film, and, as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor (NSA), he should have ways to either verify or debunk the spectacular claims made in “The Age of Disclosure.” If Rubio feels he lacks the power to verify the claims in the film, then he should explain why. As NSA and Secretary of State, Rubio has unparalleled access to Special Access Program briefings, compartmented intelligence, and interagency assessments comprised of top-secret and classified information. If Rubio cannot determine whether highly cleared officials are telling the truth or lying, that raises questions as troubling as those around UAPs. Many UAPs are, without question, drones and balloons. Rubio said “the point I was trying to drive at” in “The Age of Disclosure” was preparedness for anomalous threats. “We’re looking for missiles and fighter jets, and they’re coming at us with drones and balloons,” the Secretary of State explained. “I remember when NORAD turned on the radars and started looking for balloons, and all of a sudden, they spotted a bunch of balloons flying overhead, and 90% of them were innocent. A couple of them were Chinese. But we never looked for balloons because our radars aren’t trained for that.” But the Intelligence Community, the Department of Defense, and Congress have rejected the notion that all UAPs are simply advanced Chinese or Russian drones. “None of these resolved [UAP] cases substantiated advanced foreign adversarial capabilities or breakthrough aerospace technologies,” noted the Department of War last year. In “The Age of Disclosure,” Rubio, Senator Mike Rounds, Senator Chuck Schumer, and others say the government is hiding UAP information from the public and Congress. Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, said in August she thought UAPs could represent nonhuman intelligence. “Some of these people were Navy pilots, admirals, generals, whatever,” Rubio told Hannity last night, “that would come forward and say that there were programs in the US government that not even presidents were made aware of.” Pointing this out is not an appeal to authority but rather the recognition that their security clearances and activities give them access to information the public and most lawmakers do not have. Such secrecy must be justified. Whatever UAPs ultimately are, the possibility, raised again by Rubio in his Hannity interview, that America’s President, Secretary of State, Senate-confirmed intelligence heads, and Congressional overseers are being kept in the dark, is troubling. Excess UAP secrecy, as displayed by the redacted documents below, not the claims that UAPs represent nonhuman intelligence, is undermining public trust in government, which is essential for democracy and national security. For years, a large share of the American people have believed the government is hiding what it knows about UAP. Earlier this year, a survey found that 44 percent of Americans “believe the US Government is hiding information about the existence of UFOs,” against 28 percent who don’t. Gallup found that 71 and 68 percent of voters believed the government knows “more about UFOs than it is telling us” in 1996 and 2019. The public is right to believe that the government is hiding what it knows. Dramatic visual proof of this can be seen in the blackened-out pages of the handful of documents that the federal government has released about UAPs in recent years. A February 2020 US Navy UAP briefing document redacts the entire analysis section. The entire “Background,” “Objective,” and most of the substantive sections of the Charter for the Navy’s UAP Task Force is redacted. Even the guide for how to classify UAPs, “The UAP Security Classification Guide,” is heavily redacted. I have, for the last several months, urged President Trump and the leaders of the Intelligence Community to lift the redactions on these documents to no avail. Trump has repeatedly said the government is hiding information. In a summer 2020 interview with his son about an alleged UAP crash in Roswell, New Mexico, Trump said, “I won’t talk to you about what I know about it, but it’s very interesting.” In June of 2024, Trump said that the government has information about UAPs that it has not released. “I have access,” he said, “and I speak to people about it. I’ve had actually meetings on it. And they will tell you there’s something going on.” And Trump told Joe Rogan last year that “a lot” about UAPs has not been revealed. Others in the administration point to secrecy. “Frankly, there are a lot more sightings than have been made public,” said CIA Director John Ratcliffe in 2021. John Greenewald, who filed the successful FOIA requests for the redacted UAP documents described above, told Public in 2023, “Secrecy is tightening. If we are in a new level of transparency that some UFO believers want us to believe we are in, then why is that the case?” Whatever the reason for the secrecy, it is time for President Trump to level with the American people about what the government knows about UAPs. The president has significant discretion over what to share with Congress regarding classified national security material. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have expressed frustration with the information they have received regarding UAPs. “I don’t really know what is true on this subject,” said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) at a UAP hearing in September. “But I do know when we’re being lied to and we are definitely being lied to, there’s just no doubt about that.” Said Chuck Schumer in 2023, ”The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena. And Rubio said, that same year, “There is a lot we still don’t know about these UAPs and that is a big problem.” In 1953, the Office of Scientific Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked with a professor at the California Institute of Technology to create a panel of experts to discredit (“debunk”) sightings out of fear that the Soviets would use public panic and misinformation to undermine trust in the government or distract from actual threats. “The ‘debunking’ aim would result in a reduction in public interest in ‘flying saucers’ which today evokes such a strong psychological reaction,” wrote the report’s authors. But the report, declassified in 1975 and made public in 2001, simply asserted these risks and offered no evidence of such threats. In fact, while the report expressed concern that “skillful hostile propaganda could induce hysterical behavior and harmful distrust of duly constituted authority,” it also noted that “the general absence of Russian propaganda based on a subject with so many obvious possibilities for exploitation might indicate a possible Russian official policy.” Despite the “debunking” effort, President Jimmy Carter said, while running for office in 1976, “If I become president, I’ll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public and the scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because I’ve seen one.” Public distrust of the government is proof that the CIA’s 1950s approach of “debunking” has not worked. And anyone who thinks it’s dangerous for current and former government officials to say that UAPs may represent nonhuman intelligence should advocate for greater transparency and disclosure by the government about what it knows.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the full article, and watch the entire video!

Michael Shellenberger

88,792 views • 9 months ago

HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAIL SCANDAL INCRIMINATED OBAMA & EXPOSED CHILD TRAFFICKING. Obama told the DoJ not to prosecute Hillary Clinton because if Hillary went down, it would implement and incriminate himself, the sitting president of the United States. Not only did Hillary have a non-government private server in the bathroom of her house, but she was accessing CLASSIFIED, TOP SECRET, and High-Level information from SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS (SAP). Not only stealing these state secrets but selling this information to foreign countries, "allegedly." Which sources confirm are most likely true. James B. Comey, FBI Director at the time, recommended no criminal charges for Hillary over this email, server, and the "mishandling" of classified state secrets, is what they called it. It was much worse than just mishandling. Way worse. This is how the media plays with words to downplay and hide key details, especially in headlines. This is treason. They both also signed papers stating that they knew these crimes, if committed, came with severe penalties, but committed the crimes anyway. First off, who is James Comey? Comey just happens to be the director of the FBI during the Anthony Weiner case. The infamous "Insurance File" on the laptop from hell that "allegedly" has Hillary and Huma doing very horrific things to a young girl. The emails associated with Hillary were also connected to John Podesta who was known and connected to Pizzagate, and caught in those emails using child predator code words confirmed by the FBI. The emails also included the communications with Laura Silsby or "Laura Gaylor," who was caught trafficking children from Haiti who was associated with the Clinton Foundation. The emails also allegedly contained them discussing the prices of the children and for their transportation out of the country. This is just one of many emails and subjects discussed within the 600,000 plus emails that were discovered and the primary reason besides implementing the current sitting president of the United States at the time, Barack Obama. People always complain about their never being any justice. What people do not understand is at the time of many of these scandals and to this day our government and the ones involved in all these crimes and corruption were the ones in power and control. Why would they indict themselves or their associates? Especially because now you have even more power and control if you blackmail these politicians and officials, rather them sending them to prison. Politics is a dirty world, especially when intelligence agencies are involved. The NYPD wanted to go after Hillary after discovering these files and others on the Weiner laptop which was also connected to the Hillary email scandal through Huma because she was married to Anthony Weiner at the time and Huma was associated and worked for Hillary. The FBI, "James Comey," shutdown the case and took the Anthony Weiner laptop away from the NYPD. They then threatened Comey and demanded that they prosecute Hillary and everyone involved to what happened to that little girl and everything else on the laptop, or they would expose it themselves. Then, coincidentally, 9 out of the 13 NYPD officers and detectives who were on that case who demanded justice and to prosecute Hillary and others all mysteriously "unalived themselves," in a very small period of time. Both cases were closed and never heard of again. James Comey's daughter, "Maurene," just happened to be the one in charge of the investigation of the Epstein suicide tapes which just happened to be erased or go missing during that time. Now, magically, the tapes have reappeared and ALLEGEDELY show Epstein as the only one in his cell, according to the new FBI Director and Deputy Director... The people still do not believe it and are waiting for the evidence to be shown. Are you starting to see how everything and all these people are connected? So Obama was using a pseudonym to communicate with Hillary and others and involved with stealing and selling secrets as well, while he was the president of the U.S., "allegedly." Obama tells the DoJ not to prosecute Hillary because he would go down with her. The DoJ tells the FBI not to prosecute Hillary and boom, Hillary is off the hook because they're ALL GUILTY. The FBI also stated that it's possible foreign governments gained access to Hillary's account, emails, and server. One last thing I want to bring up is how sensitive "SAPs" are, or "Special Access Programs." SAPs consist of many programs or projects that many others are NOT a part of and usually contain very important information or technology. I just want to make a point that some of our secret projects are under SAP programs. Projects like the "Tic-Tac UAP," and other UAPs, drones, DEWs, etc. Are you starting to understand the big picture and put things together, timelines, and information? There are no coincidences. All these people are on the same side. They're all controlled and/or compromised by the same people as you travel up the ladder. This started a long time ago, and a wrench was first thrown in the gear when Trump first took office in 2016. We literally had a sitting president and the secretary of state stealing and selling state secrets to foreign countries and discussing the trafficking of children on a non-government, unsecure private server in their own home. This ladies and gentleman is crimes against humanity and treason. Justice will be served and there will be no mercy.

The SCIF

428,198 views • 1 year ago

"We're hoping to present that information and at least acknowledge it from a government perspective, that we are not alone." ~Luna (I clipped all UAP-related comments by Luna and Comer, except a few that were repetitive.) Luna: "It is with profound honor that I have been entrusted by Speaker Mike Johnson and Chairman Rep. James Comer to lead the House Oversight Task Force on Declassification of Federal Secrets. Together, with the help of the White House, our intelligence allies, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, we will be conducting investigations into the following: the assassinations of JFK, RFK and Dr. Martin Luther King, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, also known as UAPs, Unidentified Submerged Objects, also known as USOs, the Epstein client list, the origins of COVID 19 and the 911 files." Matt Laslo: "Do you have subpoena power?" Comer: "The Task Force does not have subpoena power, I do. The Task Force is going to be a subsidiary of the full Oversight Committee. So if we have to issue one, Congresswoman and I, we'll discuss it, and we'll take appropriate action." (I suspect some of the agency folks who have the most sensitive files under their watch may fight this tooth and nail, and subpoenas will be needed.) Luna: "But full transparency, we have a great working relationship, as I said earlier, with the White House, with the DOJ, with the Secretary of Defense (Pete Hegseth) and the Secretary of State (Marco Rubio). The incoming FBI director (Kash Patel), I think, will be very supportive. And we've also been told that the CIA director (@JohnRatcliffe) is very supportive. To put in perspective, I think that this issue transcends not just one administration, but multiple administrations, and it hasn't been until now that we've been able to get people actually in positions of power that will push for transparency. "Now, if I find that different entities in the various intelligence agencies are stonewalling us, I'm going to make that known to the American people. But as of right now, we are cautiously optimistic." ~ Luna: "But also, UAPs, you guys know that that was the biggest bipartisan, bicameral hearing that we've ever had, I think, in congressional history." ~ Q: "With this Task Force, what are you hoping to uncover, as far as UAPs, that you have not already heard from other UAP hearings?" Luna: "The biggest information...eh, problems that we've had with UAPs is the amount of stonewalling, stovepiping, and also it seems that there is this push to gaslight the American people into looking at the evidence and then not fully believing it. I think, for us, if we're writing the budget, for example, into the Pentagon, if we're writing the budget, overall, for whatever programs might be out there, why is it that members of Congress who are given a Top-Secret security clearance are being denied access? That's not a free and true government. "And so for us, especially being that we have now a Secretary of State who's actually open to declassification in Marco Rubio, we're hoping to present that information and at least acknowledge it from a government perspective, that we are not alone. But also, let's see what the evidence is." What was addressed in the letters you sent out? Luna: "So letters went out this morning, not just on RFK, JFK and MLK, but on everything that I listed above, to include UAPs, Epstein and 911 and COVID, to the State Department, Department of Defense, CIA. And then also, we'll be sending some to the FBI and letters have also gone out to the NSA." See those letters here: ~ Laslo: "Did you get a Top-Secret clearance?" Luna: "I already have a Top-Secret clearance. All members of Congress, have a TS-SCI." ~ Luna: "The question is, is do we get SAP access, of which Chairman Comer's been very supportive and we'll be getting SAP-access as well." (The question is: How will they get access to alleged hidden, UAP-related USAPs that we've been told don't exist?) ~ Luna: "All right, one last question, then we're going to wrap it up. NewsNation, let's go (laughs)." Joe Khalil: "Can you talk about your relationship with whistleblowers. Is it gonna be the normal process that Oversight typically does, or would this be...or are you gonna create a separate avenue for the Task Force?" Luna: "I mean, we're all about the normal process, but look, if you have information and it's credible, we've always approached it in that I'd like to be the person that does the interviews for it. Mainly because, especially with stuff like this, we want to make sure that there's, you know, not bad actors that are pushing false information to create a narrative that's simply not there. "And so, you know, every whistleblower that does come forward, as of right now, there's people that have been publicly out there, for example, on the JFK stuff, that were actually present at the operating room where he was actually brought to right after the shooting. So, we hope to bring those people in to testify. "And again, these hearings will be open to the public. I am also expanding this to the entire conference. So, if someone's going to take this seriously and look at it through an investigative lens and get answers to the American people, they are welcome to ask questions of the witnesses, and you guys will all receive notice of that."

Joe Murgia

22,032 views • 1 year ago

"Whistleblowers, very likely, do NOT need to fear prosecution for providing classified information about Legacy programs to Congress." ~KM (IMO, this was the most important part of the Varginha Press Conference) 🔥🛸 McConnell: Eric Davis and Other Witnesses Don't Need Their NDAs Waived in Order to Spill Their Guts to Congress 🛸🔥 "No one has ever been prosecuted for providing classified information to Congress." ~KM "Congress and the American people need to hear directly from more people with firsthand knowledge of Legacy UAP programs." ~KM (Kirk McConnell spent 37 years as a professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee, and the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China. ~strategicmi dot com) "I'm confident, personally, that the government would lose any serious legal challenge asserting that Congress is not authorized to receive sensitive classified information covered by executive branch non-disclosure agreements" ~KM ~ Kirk McConnell: "James (Fox) asked me to put something together today in response, in a way, to a segment of his recent film. During, as you'll see if you if you watch his recent film, you'll see that aerospace engineer Dr. Eric Davis, one of the nation's most respected experts on UAP programs, including classified programs, stated, that because of his non-disclosure agreements - NDAs - because of the obligations of his NDAs, he believes that he cannot share further information with Congress about Legacy UAP programs without explicit authorization from the executive branch." ~Here's exactly what Davis said~ Eric W. Davis: "If the President of the United States issued an executive order that absolves me of all of my TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) NDAs. NDAs are non-disclosure agreements. Those are the agreements we have to sign for every compartment in our SCI clearances. "So, if the president waives or absolves my obligation to those NDAs, and I get subpoenaed by Congress - somebody on Capitol Hill, some committee, either in the Senate or the House or both - to reveal everything I know, that I learned from my investigations, both unclassified and classified into the Legacy UAP crash retrieval and hardware reverse engineering and NHI programs? I would do so. "If I could be waived from that, or absolved in some fashion by a presidential order, and if Congress subpoenas me, yes, I would go and tell them everything I know." Source: ~End Davis Excerpt ~ McConnell: "Eric is not alone in this belief. Many, actual, and, potential, UAP whistleblowers have the same understanding of what the law and regulations require of them or prohibit them from doing. So, this question of what executive branch employees and contractors are legally permitted to disclose to Congress is actually complex, and it's not so easy to summarize the entire issue of the problems that whistleblowers face in this short segment. But I'm going to try to at least give you an idea of what's at stake and what's involved. "Equally complex and far more consequential for individuals is what can happen to those who do choose to report wrongdoing in classified programs that have been deliberately withheld from Congress. I want to outline several key points because Congress and the American people need to hear directly from more people with firsthand knowledge of Legacy UAP programs. And right now, we're consistently informed...there are many who do want to come forward who believe Congress and the public have a right to know, but who are deterred by doing so by fear. Fear rooted in, partially, at least, misunderstanding of the law, and partly also in the very real examples and experiences of retaliation to people who have come forward. "Potential whistleblowers worry about prosecution for violating NDAs, as I've mentioned. They worry about the loss, they're fearful of the loss of their security clearances, the loss of their employment, and other forms of retaliation that are very difficult and costly to challenge, even where formal avenues of appeal exist. It is true that protections for whistleblowers, particularly those handling classified, national security information, are often weak in practice, despite the fact that there are laws and regulations, ostensibly. Well, they were passed and enacted to protect whistleblowers. "Sources who possess information about U.S. government. UAP activities, or who have witnessed UAP events, have consistently reported threats to their livelihood and even their personal safety. Harassment, in some cases, has been severe. It is publicly known, for example, that figures like David Grusch and Lue Elizondo, who have not disclosed even firsthand information about Legacy programs, have faced clear retaliation. "However - and this point cannot be emphasized strongly enough - whistleblowers very likely do NOT need to fear prosecution for providing classified information about Legacy programs to Congress, provided that they do so through secure channels. That is to say, you don't just tell them in a foyer of a Capitol Hill building. You need to arrange to be in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, in a SCIF. "What I mean to say, is that laws and regulations are very clear on this point: NDAs prohibit sharing classified information with unauthorized individuals, but Congress is, by statute and regulations, an authorized recipient of classified information. NDAs cannot legally be used to withhold classified programs or associated wrongdoing from congressional oversight. This is explicit in law and regulation." (In other words, according to McConnell, any witness can walk into a SCIF tomorrow and share everything they know about UFOs with any member of Congress. And that includes information related to any Legacy UFO program they may have worked in. They might have fears of retaliation (administratively, and also via threats to their well being) but being prosecuted for speaking to Congress in a secure setting should NOT be a concern of theirs.) McConnell: "Furthermore, the executive branch is required by law to report all Special Access and compartmented programs to Congress, regardless of their sensitivity. Failure to comply with these laws is unlawful and unconstitutional, certainly in the view of Congress. NDAs cannot be used as a shield to evade these obligations." (I wonder if, right now, one or two members of Congress have already been briefed on a certain UAP Legacy program, does that meet the requirement of reporting to Congress and thus, make the program legal?) McConnell: "Now, presidents have claimed in quotes, 'Plenary Article II' authority over sensitive, national security information. Plenary, if you look it up in the dictionary, means total, unfettered, unlimited, and so on. But this is an inferred power, not an explicit constitutional grant. That is, you'll never see, you don't see language in the Constitution that states this. Congress holds equally strong Article I authorities, entitling it to the information it needs to legislate. "I'm confident, personally, that the government would lose any serious legal challenge asserting that Congress is not authorized to receive sensitive classified information covered by executive branch non-disclosure agreements. (Let's test this and send a few firsthand, hands-on whistleblowers who worked in the crash retrieval program to Congress so they can tell all, in a SCIF.) McConnell: "In reality, for the reasons cited, although officials may threaten prosecution, as far as I can tell, and those of other colleagues that I've worked with on this, no one has ever been prosecuted for providing classified information to Congress. Such a prosecution would require showing harm to national security, a claim nearly impossible to sustain when the disclosure is made to Congress itself. For these reasons, I believe the government would not pursue legal actions against whistleblowers who provide protected UAP disclosures to Congress in a secure setting, "Judges, Congress and the American people would not tolerate prosecuting individuals for revealing truths that demonstrate Congress has been misled, has been lied to, about issues of profound importance. But the fear of such such actions, this Alice-in-Wonderland dynamic, remains a powerful deterrent, and it must be addressed." (Play this video clip for every, potential, whistleblower. They need to be educated about this one aspect of the process. But we also need the first person to come forward and test it. A guinea pig, if you will. This assumes they've overcome any fear of retaliation. We know Dylan Borland didn't go through DOPSR and shared what he knows with certain members of Congress. So far, no prosecution.) McConnell: "So what can be done? There is, in fact, a straightforward solution. With the stroke of a pen and a public statement, even a social media post, the President could explicitly affirm that federal law allows protected disclosures to Congress, because Congress is an authorized recipient of classified information covered by NDAs. It could be that simple.) (Will Trump do that and allay the fears of whistleblowers so they're more likely to come forward? Doubtful, IMO.) McConnell: "If the President or his Cabinet members will not make this clear, then Congress should. In addition, congressional committees already possess the authority to grant immunity in exchange for testimony. That is to say, NDAs aside, if you appear in front of a congressional committee that has offered you immunity for your testimony, you cannot be prosecuted for doing so. "However, even if the threat of prosecution is largely a bluff, other forms of retaliation are real and damaging. These include, the fabrication or exaggeration of allegations of security violations for individuals leading to indefinite clearance investigations or revocations. Manufactured claims of misconduct for poor performance, to justify termination of employment. Black marks placed in security files preventing future employment. Reassignment, isolation, marginalization, or hostile work environments. Administrative leave, placing individuals on administrative leave, with or without pay. "For contractors, sudden quote 'changes' to government requirements that simply eliminate their position and their job. And if an individual must take another job during an appeals process, simply to survive, financially, because it takes months and months and months to grind through these appeals processes, simply to survive, financially, they may be forced to take another job. Well, if you take another job, you lose standing to pursue your case, typically "Whistleblowers can face financial ruin, as you can see, especially as legal expenses accumulate. Congress must address this fundamental problem and incentivize potential whistleblowers to come forward by establishing a rapid, assured mechanism to compensate them for lost wages and expenses." (This must happen ASAP. If they know they're going to be taken care of, financially, no matter what, it should encourage more whistleblowers to come forward.) McConnell: "Some may ask, understandably, why UAP whistleblowers deserve special consideration over other whistleblowers? The answer to me is straightforward: The stakes are extremely high when it comes to this topic, few would dispute that the discovery of non-human intelligence visiting Earth would be an event of profound significance. The executive branch appears determined to keep this information secret at the highest levels, making this a major policy decision. One that could place officials assigned to protect whistleblowers, such as Inspectors General, in direct conflict with senior policymakers." (Sharing details of what could be the most important story in the history of humanity definitely deserves special consideration.) McConnell: "These factors distinguish UAP-related disclosures from typical cases of fraud, waste and abuse. Congress may need to take a more active role, even than I've suggested so far, in protecting these individuals. Potentially, by creating and administering a dedicated restitution fund, and modifying current law to allow whistleblowers to go directly to Congress without first filing a complaint with an Inspector General." (These are great ideas that need to happen NOW!) elsewhere Thank you, Kirk. It's a complex issue. People just go, 'Well, why don't they just come forward? It's so easy.' It's actually not. So, just trying to create an environment to enable people that do want to come forward, firsthand, metal benders, people that are working in the labs. And I think it's important for not just the public to understand, but making the plea to members of Congress."

Joe Murgia

18,668 views • 7 months ago