Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨🇩🇪“RUSSIAN ELECTION INTERFERENCE” — BUT THE CHANNEL HAD JUST 351 SUBSCRIBERS? German MEP Petr Bystron raises serious questions about the narrative used to describe alleged Russian interference ahead of the European Parliament elections. He describes a Prague-based news operation that authorities alleged was being used as a vehicle for...

12,022 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨🇩🇪“THEY ARE INFLUENCING ELECTIONS” — GERMAN MEP PETR BYSTRON This should concern anyone who believes elections belong to the people. German MEP Petr Bystron points to one of the most controversial statements made by former EU Commissioner Thierry Breton following the annulment of Romania's presidential election. Speaking about enforcement of European rules, Breton said words translated as: “We did it in Romania, and we will obviously do it if necessary in Germany.” Bystron's interpretation is explosive. He argues that what Europe calls protecting democracy is increasingly becoming interference in the democratic process itself. Breton disputes that interpretation and has maintained that he was talking about enforcing EU law against online interference — not claiming Brussels could simply overturn elections. But that makes the question even more important: WHAT EXACTLY DID “WE DID IT IN ROMANIA” MEAN? Romania's presidential election was annulled. Germany's AfD has faced extraordinary political and institutional pressure. And Bystron says these developments have now caught the attention of lawmakers in the United States. Democracy cannot mean: “You may vote for anyone you like — provided the establishment approves of the result.” If European institutions are acting solely to protect elections from unlawful interference, show the evidence. Show the legal basis. Show exactly what interventions took place. Because protecting democracy and managing its outcomes are two very different things. THE PEOPLE MUST DECIDE WHO GOVERNS THEM. NOT BRUSSELS. Petr Bystron

Jim Ferguson

16,240 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

🇩🇪 EXCLUSIVE: PETR BYSTRON SAYS EU ELECTIONS WERE “MANIPULATED” — CALLS U.S. REPORT A BOMBSHELL I sat down with Petr Bystron, foreign policy spokesman for Alternative für Deutschland and Member of the European Parliament, and he did not hold back. According to Bystron, the recent U.S. Senate Judiciary findings are a “bombshell” — alleging that the European Commission interfered in multiple European elections while censoring dissent across the bloc. His claim? That what many Europeans “felt” for years is now being formally documented: • Suppression of opposition voices • Pressure on social media platforms • Narrative control during COVID • Election influence in Romania and beyond Bystron went further — arguing that if interference is proven, then the legitimacy of the current European Parliament itself comes into question. He also alleged a double standard in Germany: Left-wing extremist violence ignored. Opposition voices prosecuted. Satirical memes punished with jail time. The political temperature in Europe is rising — fast. Bystron says his party supports dismantling the Commission structure in its current form and restoring authority to directly elected national lawmakers. And when I asked how close AfD is to power in Germany? His answer was simple: “Soon. Things will change.” The transatlantic pressure is building. The sovereignty debate is intensifying. And Brussels is firmly in the spotlight. This isn’t a minor policy dispute. It’s a legitimacy fight. Petr Bystron AfD

Jim Ferguson

92,046 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🇷🇴“THE EVIDENCE DOESN’T EXIST” — EXPLOSIVE CLAIM OVER ROMANIA’S CANCELLED ELECTION This goes directly to the heart of one of the most extraordinary democratic controversies in modern Europe. In my interview with Laura Gherasim, we return to the annulment of Romania's 2024 presidential election. And Laura makes an extraordinary allegation. She argues that the justification necessary to cancel the election was never established — and says: “WE WILL NEVER HAVE THE EVIDENCE, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST.” Think about the gravity of that statement. An election was annulled. Millions of votes were effectively discarded. A presidential candidate was subsequently prevented from standing in the rerun. Yet the fundamental question remains: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT JUSTIFIED OVERTURNING THE RESULT? Laura argues that allegations of electoral interference must be proved, not simply asserted. That principle should transcend Romanian politics. If democratic institutions possess compelling evidence justifying the cancellation of an election, the public deserves to see the case laid out transparently. If they cannot produce it, then Europe has a much bigger problem. Because democracy cannot mean voters are sovereign only when institutions approve of their decision. THIS IS WHY I WENT TO ROMANIA TO INVESTIGATE. Watch this exchange carefully. The implications extend far beyond Romania. IF AN ELECTION CAN BE CANCELLED WITHOUT THE PUBLIC EVER SEEING CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, WHAT DOES “DEMOCRACY” ACTUALLY MEAN? Laura Gherasim 🇷🇴 George Simion 🇲🇩

Jim Ferguson

16,534 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.

MAZE

58,564 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

696,713 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten