Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
[#shortporn] “I think something’s wrong down there… would you mind taking a closer look at this wet cunt, doctor?” Reagan Foxx Reagan purred! 😈🍆💦 👩 #reaganfoxx #MILF #MYLF #pornstars #cougar #stepmom #horny #busty #slutty #lustful #bigtits #bigass #erotic #chudai
12,324 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![#JANHAE #JANIVERSE space #1 pt.2 - why she decided to get her styes removed ☹️💜 🦊: i went to the hospital; i was mentally ok at that time. when i went to the hospital and waited for the doctor. at first, i was going to go the same place [i normally go], but the doctor was fully booked there. so i switched to another hospital, but i had also been to this one too. there were a lot of people too, so i went back here and got a slot. i waited for the doctor 🦊: once i saw the doctor, they asked, “let me take a look at your eye.” they then checked by flipping my eyelid over and looking at it. they were like, “oh here! i see it here! there seems to be two [styes].” i was like, “right, doctor? i also saw two.” because i could see them at the edge of my eye, like there were swollen bumps. the doctor was like, “wow you’re so good! how did you see them? you flipped your eyelids and looked at them yourself?” then they continued checking for a while and showed me pictures. they said, “here! what i’m seeing is right here” which were actually inside my eye 🦊: everyone! people who have had a stye might know what that is, but people who have never had one before - it’s the inside of your eyelid. when you flip your upper eyelid, you’ll see something like pus there. and there were two spots. i was shocked at that time. i asked the doctor “so what should i do?” the doctor said there were two options. if i was afraid of needles, then take medicine. but if i wasn’t scared, then get it surgically removed 🦊: then in my mind, “i’ve never had procedures in this area. what should i do?” honestly, i wanted to get it over with. and [i also thought] how [serious] the prcoedure would be, because the last time i had one, the doctor just… i thought it was already the procedure. it was just pricking the oil glands, but that one got better and went down, right? so i thought it was something like that and would get better, like a little more than this. i didn’t think it was going to be serious. so i said i wasn’t afraid of needles, but i also asked how long it would take before getting better, in terms of the wound, or if i could wear makeup 🦊: they said, “well, i would want you to give it about a week before you wear makeup. on the inside, it might take around 2 weeks for the wound to get better. so cut back on wearing contact lenses for now.” i thought, “wow so long! but does that mean the procedure would be bigger than the one i did with pricking?” at that time, i still thought what they did was a surgery. so i was like, “the procedure was bigger than the one i did?” 🦊: so i started to think, “nope, i can’t do it,” and said, “then what if i take medicine instead, doctor?” the doctor said, “it might go down if you take medicine. but it might still come back up again. i don’t know when it might swell up again. if you take medicine, it might only temporarily suppress it.” so i opened up my work schedule. i didn’t dare to risk and let it swell up during don’t know when, everyone! do you get it? 🦊: after this, i still have more back-to-back work. and the doctor also recommended that it would be better to get it removed through procedures. so i decided, “ok, i’ll have the procedure.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2087969092942602631/amplify_video_thumb/2087968827518672896/img/cLI_Tqx-9CB7Of2f.jpg)
![Why is this easy for G. Edward Griffin to explain but hard for people to understand? "[The] people...running the show [have]... put... political actors on the stage to tell us what we want to hear... [and people will say Trump has] bad... advisors [but] he chose [them]." This clip of G. Edward Griffin (G. Edward Griffin), an author, speaker, researcher, President of Reality Zone, Faculty at Red Pill University, Host of Red Pill Expo, and Editor of Need To Know News, is taken from an interview with Brannon Howse (Brannon Howse) posted to the WorldviewTube (WorldviewTube) Rumble channel on August 12, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "But the bad guys, let's say the ones that are apparently running the show, could not have achieved the same thing under Harris, or Barack Obama or anybody else. They needed somebody who had the aura, of being Mr. Right, Mr. America, Mr. Conservative or Free market and so forth, because that's where the heart and the mind of the American public still is, even though it's being whittled away. They had to appeal to that. "And so, in my skeptical, view, Brannon, I think we have to take a deep breath and say maybe we've been fooled. Now we don't want to be fooled. You know, the old saying is it's harder to deceive somebody than it is to convince them that they've been deceived. And, I understand that because I've made some big mistakes myself, and I, you know, I stuck by them. I said this was not, I wasn't being tricked or anything. This. This guy is dependable. Well, it turns out he was a thief and stole a lot of money from us. And I was deceived, and I didn't want to admit it. "But let's go back to the main question here. We're talking about politics and not just money transactions. We're talking about big money transactions, actually, but more than money. We're talking about human control and power over nations and societies and everything. So, I have to go back and question the sincerity of our political leaders. "Now. I don't care. I'm not talking about Mr. Trump in particular or Mr. Any of them even. I know some of the best guys that we think we've had as presidents, like President Reagan, for example, has the aura, of being Mr. Conservative and so forth. But yet, look at what happened in the Reagan administration. We got, the free ticket for the, vaccines. We got some of the biggest spending that the government had ever done, even though the promise was that we're going to reduce the size of government. Government grew as usual. And, a lot of things were passed in the Reagan administration that were totally contrary to what the Reagan image was. "And of course, the, the press and the followers of Mr. Reagan, including myself, all rushed to the. To the conclusion that he must have had some bad advisors. Right? It's always, well, he's got, he's got. He's listening to wrong advice. If we could just give him the. I'm going to Send him a letter, I'm going to explain it to him, and then he'll see the light and, and all would change. My view is not that anymore. It used to be pretty much, I think that these people who are running the show actually deliberately put actors, let's call it what it really is, political actors on the stage to tell us what we want to hear. "And we will think, oh, this is going to be a change if we vote for this guy and put him in office. And then when this guy is in office, whoops, nothing changed, actually. And so we. Oh, he's got bad advice again from the advisors, by the way, which he chose. And most of them come from the Council on Foreign Relations, who, if you know anything about that group, you know, these people are dedicated to international government globalism based on the model of collectivism, which means a totalitarian system of government. "I don't care whether you call it communism, fascism, Nazism, socialism. I don't care that. Look at what it is. It's the same thing. And so I think what's going on is a great theater where we are given the illusion that we are choosing our own political destiny by voting one candidate or the other. And if you notice, there's an interesting trick there. People don't vote for anybody anymore. Most people don't vote for candidates. Anymore they vote against candidates. They say, I'm not so sure about either one of, them. I don't like either one of them, but I really hate the other guy. He scares me to death. So I'll vote for the lesser of two evils. "And that's how they niched us in step, little baby step by baby step, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and we're still buying into the collectivism that's been destroying the country, but in baby steps instead of big leaping bounds. And in that fashion we sit back and say, gosh, the guy is so good, I voted for him. I would never have voted. I would never have voted for a bad person. So since I voted for this person, he's a good man and he must have bad advisors. So now I think you got the gist of my opinion here. I think the whole political system today is corrupt and this."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1957137784575345128/amplify_video_thumb/1957133981528313857/img/TKLfxjjFdcKlrNTe.jpg)
![Coulthart: "I am...told by White House sources that President Trump has personally authorized [the shoot down of UFOs]." Knapp: "I take with a grain of salt the reports that the President has authorized the shoot down of UFOs. That doesn't make sense." (Regarding those reports (from Ross Coulthart), I said this on August 9th, after he said it.) Murgia: "A year ago, Ross told us he thought certain senators were read into the crash retrieval program and he'd start naming them. Still waiting. "Now this? 🤔 "Something seems off." This is what Ross said: Coulthart on 8/9/2026: "The Department of War has quite literally taken on the running of its own covert operation to intercept these mystery objects. And I'm told they have recently downed objects, craft, both in the U.S. and across the border near Juarez in Mexico. "I am also told by White House sources that President Trump has personally authorized this operation, which perhaps explains why no full admission has yet been made to the public about the full extent of what the government really knows. "There is a full-on effort underway by the administration to recover suspected non-human intelligence exotic technology in a program totally separate from the so-called Legacy program. This is an attempt by the President to circumvent the legacy program. "It's been run out of the White House by the President's most senior intelligence advisers. President Trump has tasked the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to find out what these objects are and to capture them. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence - ODNI - is also involved. "Sources have told me that one of the directed-energy-weapon systems used at White Sands, in an attempt to shoot down these mystery craft, is what's called high pulse microwave. It shuts down an aircraft by emitting an intense burst of electromagnetic energy that travels at the speed of light, penetrates the aircraft and fries its electronic systems. "My sources tell me that the craft objects, UAPs, whatever you wanna call them, are being targeted over White Sands, and they definitely show anomalous properties conforming to the five observables that define UAPs." Regarding psionics and the alleged electronic dog whistle being used at Sierra Blanca, Ross added this... Coulthart: "Defense sources tell me that their observers were watching on during Skywatcher's Sierra Blanca operation, and they made a major discovery during Skywatcher's psionic summoning and dog-whistle operations during 2025, including in that last July 2025 test, I can't name my sources, but I'm very sure they're rock solid." ~From Today's Weaponized~ George Knapp: "I take with a grain of salt the reports that the President has authorized the shoot down of UFOs. That doesn't make sense. I don't get that sense from the conversations he had with Robert Bigelow back in February that that kind of order would ever be issued or would ever make sense to any country. "I am intrigued by the reports of luring operations, because as you and I know, there have been operations like that in years past that did produce pretty dramatic results, in terms of something following nuclear assets. But drawing them in and shooting them down, as some people have said, or bringing them down with the power of your mind, I take that with a grain of salt. "I do give credence to Rep. Eric Burlison - and you've been in closer contact with him than I - that says there is something to those reports. At least part of that, right?" Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yeah, I mean, look, people have deduced that December of 2025, that White Sands was the location. They kind of deduced that, that there was a massive incursion. There's two sets of documents, one by FBI, one by ODNI, that's in the tranche releases. And that is the same event, that's what people are talking about. "And they called it luring because it was described to me that they had set up all of the same situations that typically seemed to provoke a response from UAP, and would stimulate like, an incursion. And sure enough, it happened. Now, I have not heard, and I do not believe it was some psionic thing. I think that they were moving stuff. That's to the best of my knowledge, they were moving stuff around. This is what was said to me, and I read between the lines. "But at no point was there anything said to me for all the sources and everything that I've heard about it, about any psionic assets or any shoot downs or anything like that. I'd be highly surprised. I think what they did was, they started moving stuff around - that you and I know, notoriously, stimulates response." ~ (When I interviewed Lue Elizondo in March of 2022, we had this exchange...) Murgia: "Baiting and luring UFOs. You mentioned it on 𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗔 𝗚𝗢𝗠𝗘𝗭' show...how you successfully did that in AATIP. "Somebody I know, a source, said, 'The way we attract and coax UAP has to do with nuclear power; nuclear weapon sites; deployed weapons; weapons or nuclear fuel being moved around; weapons being manufactured; nuclear fuel being manufactured; and manufacturing sites...and that attracts them.' To me, that sounds like AI. It seems like it's reacting to something automatically." Lue: "Your friend seems to be very well informed." ~ Corbell: "You used to chase those armored nuclear vehicles in Las Vegas, and I got a call from one of the drivers who said, 'Oh, when George Knapp was going behind us and did that news report, it completely changed our protocols of what we had to do. It rewrote the manual.' "But you had heard about these trucks and about how moving them, these nukes, would sometimes create or stimulate a UAP response. This individual that called me to complain to me about you, affirmed that to me." Knapp: [Laughs] Corbell: "So, you know, it's like one of those things, man. So if that's what they were doing and they did get a response, I know a couple people in the political realm who have specifically asked to be invited to the next time that they set up those those protocols. Again, I'd heard nothing of psionics or anything like that. I think they were moving nuclear things, and I think that that's what stimulated the response. "It'd be amazing to see if they get a Round 2 on that, and again, get the same response that they can document it, film it. Think about all the footage, George, that we're not seeing from those two sets of documents about that White Sands - is what people think - incursion event. There was so much footage, so much footage taken from so many different military assets. We're seeing just the just the top of it, you know?"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2095257834451882234/amplify_video_thumb/2095243304355139584/img/pCH3UyPFOKaGPiKu.jpg)
!["I may be wrong about Elizondo...but I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature [and], potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort." ~Dolan (This is WAY too long, and I probably should have spent my time on something else. But here it is. The video clips give you a taste of Richard Dolan's excellent 31-minute video.) "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." ~Dolan "I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further." ~Dolan ~~~ Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public. You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." (As I've shown before, that's just not true. Did Gerb not do his research on that? I'll share A LOT of quotes from this Richard Dolan (Richard Dolan Intelligent Disclosure) podcast, and from my previous posts detailing the various times Lue has addressed crash retrievals. Plus, my take on various points. Dolan starts out by praising Gerb's research. I agree. Then he moves on to the Lue-was-brought-in-by Clapper claim.) Dolan: "The theory that's been put out (by Gerb) contains, at least in my view, substantial problems of evidence, of chronology, and, at times, I just have to say, basic logic." Dolan: Gerb claims Elizondo had to adapt his public position on crash retrievals because Grusch coming forward changed the game. "Gerb called this, adapt or die. "I think I understand what [Gerb] means by the controlled narrative and what it was intended to reveal and what it was supposed to hide (crash retrievals). What I still do NOT understand is why anyone protecting a retrieval program would initiate this type of a strategy." Dolan: Before 2017, one of the most significant protections for any alleged Legacy program was ridicule, silence and ignoring. "As long as UFOs remained culturally disreputable, any claims of crash retrievals were easily just brushed aside without any bother to investigate. That didn't change until December of 2017," and the two NYT articles. "That kickstarted a major, mainstream, national-security discussion. "So, if this was a controlled-disclosure program, my question simply is: You get the government, eventually admitting, that non-human intelligence seem to be operating advanced craft here, who could not know that the next questions would be inevitable? Like, have any of these crashed? Were any of these recovered? Where did the material go? Who's been studying it? In other words, this would, obviously, increase pressure on the retrieval secret. It would not protect it in any logical way. The most safest option would have to be continued silence. "Maybe this strategy could become plausible if insiders believed that something was about to emerge beyond their control, right? Some kind of trigger. Maybe there would be an imminent whistleblower that we do not know about 'til this day, that they were afraid of and they wanted to get out ahead of the narrative. Or some kind of foreign disclosure. Some other reason, some other cause that would prompt the secret keepers to think, 'Okay, we need to get out a controlled disclosure.' But, there really is no evidence that's presented, in any of Gerb's analysis, for such a triggering event. Why would the custodians of this secret, voluntarily, weaken the whole system that had protected them for decades and decades?" (Agree. I've had this convo with friends over the years about the theory that TTSA was created to get ahead of a disclosure effort that was coming from someone/somewhere else. But it never made sense because we could never find anything (disclosure-wise) that was happening before 2017 that would force the hand of the gatekeepers into starting some type of controlled disclosure such as what TTSA was allegedly doing. Except maybe... Dolan talks about how, when Hillary Clinton was running for President in 2015 and 2016, she mentioned UFOs and UAP in various interviews on the campaign trail. Dolan: That was gradually making UFOs, "slightly, and I would say, very slightly, becoming more acceptable to discuss." Plus, John Podesta (her campaign manager) was pushing for declassification of UFO files. "There were people at that time who really did believe that Hillary Clinton would become the Disclosure president." (I wanted to vote 3rd party in 2016 and didn't want to vote for Hillary, but did so, in part, in the hopes (slim hopes) that she would engage in some sort of disclosure, if she won.) Dolan: "I've always interpreted [Hillary talking UFOs during her campaign] as a much more, just pragmatic, you could almost say, cynical, if you want, treatment of the [UFO] subject, just to win some votes. The most that she ever said as a candidate, I think was, she would try to get to the bottom of this, whatever that means." (Well, she said more than that... ⬇️⬇️⬇️ “I think we may have been (visited already). We don’t know for sure.” ~Hillary Clinton That was covered in the NYT in 2015 My full post on that Hillary quote is here. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ And let's not forget the photo of Hillary from August 1995 where she's with Laurance Rockefeller on his ranch and holding Paul Davies' book, "Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life." She and President Clinton have an interest in this subject.) ~~~ Dolan: "I just think that the leap from a political opportunity - talking about UFOs during the campaign - to a kind of, James Clapper-managed disclosure operation? I just don't think that's been demonstrated and I don't find it very persuasive." ~~~ Dolan then gets back to this claim by Gerb... Gerb in March: "When did Lue Elizondo start talking about crash retrievals? That was after David Grusch went public (in 2023). You will not find him speaking about it beforehand." Dolan: Gerb said that, "Elizondo, essentially, avoided discussing crash retrievals, except for Roswell, And that is just not accurate." (The Lue-avoided-crash-retrievals-until-Grusch quote from Gerb in March didn't include an exception about Roswell so maybe Gerb saw my posts on that and updated his claim? But it's still wrong. Dolan brought up Lue's comments on Tucker Carlson in May of 2019, but no other comments from Lue. I covered that and much more in various posts, which I'll share here.) Did Lue Avoid Talking About Crash Retrievals Before Grusch Went Public in 2023? From the 12/16/17 NYT article that started it all. "Under Mr. Bigelow’s direction, [BAASS] modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena." (Not a direct quote, and not exactly "crash retrievals of vehicles" but the seed had been planted in that first article. We know now (allegedly) that at least one of those buildings was supposed to store exotic materials that Lockheed was going to divest itself from, but the CIA nixed it all. Again, allegedly.) ~May of 2019~ Tucker Carlson: "Do you believe, based on your decade of serving in the U.S. government, on this question, that the U.S. government has in its possession any material from one of these aircrafts?" Lue: "Whoa. Umm…I do, yes." Tucker Carlson: "You think the U.S. government has debris from a UFO in its possession right now?" Lue: "Unfortunately, Tucker, I really have to be careful of my NDA. I really can’t go into a lot of…more detail than that." Tucker Carlson: "Okay." (And that could have been the end of the interview. But Lue decided to add this.) Lue: "But…simply put, yes." ~ NYT article in July of 2020... "Mr. Elizondo is among a small group of former government officials and scientists with security clearances who, without presenting physical proof, say they are convinced that objects of undetermined origin have crashed on earth with materials retrieved for study." ~ "My personal belief in Roswell? 100%. But I cannot speak officially and I cannot discuss about anything else that may or may not have transcribed." ~Lue on "Disclosure Tonight in Feb. 2021 Source: ~ Lue on Clubhouse in July of 2021 Lue: "Am I aware of the notion that there was some sort of retrieval of biological samples? Yes, I am aware of that notion. Am I aware that there may have been some U.S. government involvement in that? Yes, I am aware of that as well. I am aware that people have talked about it and I have heard it as well...regarding, anecdotally, of biological recovery." Source and longer transcript... ~ Lue on Dossier X in April of 2021 Lue: "You said something...that (Roswell) was the 1st time the U.S. gov't was engaged, and I'll share with you, that may not necessarily be true. There may be anecdotal information that indicates that perhaps the U.S. government was involved even before that, in purported, recovery-type activities." Host: "You mean probably 1942, in Los Angeles or something?" Lue: "I don't wanna elaborate, yet. I think some information's gonna come to light here, probably pretty soon, about some interesting incidents. Again, it's not up to me...there are some people out there are willing to come forward, I think. I'm just providing you the information that was indicated to me. I think we need to be careful jumping to presumptions or assumptions that Roswell was the first event similar to what we're thinking about." Source: ~ "I think people would be surprised to know there's more to Roswell than I think most people are aware of. Some people are aware of it. But, you know, there's more to Roswell and there's other similar incidents that are equally compelling." ~Lue on UFO Garage in 2022 Source: ~~~ March of 2022 - My Interview with Lue Murgia: "You said you believe Roswell was real. Are you as confident in other incidents as you are with Roswell?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Yes?" Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: "Okay." Lue: "Yeah." Murgia: After you were on Tucker and said you believed the U.S. government had material and debris from a UFO, "Eric Davis came out and said, '100%!' And he said landed craft, too. Did you see that when that came out?" Lue: "I'm aware of that." Murgia: "(laughs) Okay." (Probably an inappropriate laugh by me as Lue was dead serious and probably pushing the limits of what he was allowed to say in public about crash retrievals. He later said this in his November 2024 congressional testimony.) Lue in 2024: "I signed documentation three years ago that restricts my ability to discuss, specifically, crash retrievals." (I wonder what would have happened if he had refused to sign that?) ~~~ Dolan: "Grusch definitely went further (than Lue), much further, yes. That's a lot different from claiming that Elizondo kept retrievals outside the public narrative until Grusch forced his hand. And you really have to ask, if Elizondo's job was NOT to reveal the crash retrieval program, why, in 2019 - again, four years before David Grusch, is he going on and putting it out there? It just seems like there's a chronology problem there." (1000%, Richard! Makes no sense. My June 29th post was entitled... If Elizondo Was Brought in to Control the UFO Narrative Away from Crash Retrievals, He Did a Poor Job 🛸 Nice to see Richard and I on the same page with that. Richard speculates how the disclosure effort would look like right now if Lue hadn't gone public. Would we have several UAP hearings in the books by now? Would David Grusch had come forward? No way to know.) Dolan: "But I will say, or suggest, that it's entirely reasonable to think that Elizondo helped to create the institutional and cultural conditions that made someone like David Grusch possible. Elizondo did not keep retrieval out of the discussion." (In July of 2023, I directed this tweet to Lue.) "None of this would be happening without you." ~Murgia (Over the top and a bit fan-boyish? Probably. But... Knapp talking with Senator Harry Reid about Lazar and UFOs in 1989 - in a limo headed to the airport that would later bear Reid’s name - was a vital part of getting this whole thing started. Lacatski and Stratton launching the more recent effort around 2005, which eventually led to AAWSAP, AATIP and the UAPTF, was also REALLY important. But Lue going public in 2017 was MASSIVE. The media coverage that followed brought a ton of new people into the topic, and I’m not sure where we’d be today without it. Dolan goes on to talk about Clapper and how it's conceivable he would be on top of any alleged Legacy UAP/crash retrieval program. But he failed to note what Grusch said this past January on "The Megyn Kelly Show." Grusch: "General Clapper was well aware of the crash retrieval issue, managed the crash retrieval issue, and...he placed people in critical roles to manage this issue." (Is Lue one of the people Grusch was referring to? Does he have proof of that? From my own information, I have no doubt that Clapper was instrumental in Lue being connected to the UFO topic. But exactly how that went down and what did it entail? I don't know. I hope Clapper speaks to all of this in detail one day soon.) ~ Dolan: "Gerb has stated that Clapper gave cover to AATIP and, basically, directed the National Security Council retrieval activities. And that he selected Elizondo as the front man. Gerb described Clapper as the mob boss of the NSC crash-retrieval portfolio. "Those are very, very powerful allegations. I'm not saying they're NOT true, but that interview with Ross Coulthart, I would say, did not produce anything in the way that anyone would actually call evidence. Like, there was no documents...or firsthand witnesses that were named, or anything like that. "So you have this, basically, a link from Clapper, to the NSC operation, to AATIP, to Elizondo, to controlled disclosure. This could be true, but no one's seen any receipts on this, and I would like to. "And there's more things that I think raise questions about this whole scenario, frankly. I mean, I think of the Pentagon campaign against Lue Elizondo, which lasted for many years. Any theory that has Elizondo as a controlled-disclosure frontman, I think has to account for the documented, institutional effort by the Pentagon to undermine Lue Elizondo." (When the Pentagon spokespeople said that Lue had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP, it's not so clear cut to say they were trying to undermine Lue, since AAWSAP also had the nickname of AATIP, which I'll call AATIP 1. So, if we're talking about AATIP 1 (AAWSAP), Lue did NOT have any assigned responsibilities, except early on when he did some counter-intelligence. And if we're talking AATIP 2, which Stratton said he created in 2015, Knapp explained in 2019 that it was, "not so much a program as it was a loose network of intelligence officials in different agencies." And on April 8th of this year, Lacatski told Knapp that, "they started using AATIP in 2015-16 to describe their uh...what would you describe that as, more lunchtime get togethers? And George Knapp is laughing. I don't know how else to describe it." That tells me Lacatski felt AATIP was REALLY informal, and that could explain why Lue's role wasn't clear cut in the minds of those spokespeople, and why so many of my contacts told me he wasn't the director of AATIP. But those same folks also told me Lue played in an important role in that effort. My guess is that, since AATIP was so informal, there really was NO official director, but that should be clarified when Stratton's book comes out. Semantics? Maybe.) Dolan: Gerb's hypothesis featuring, "the management of an approved public representative (Lue) of a controlled-disclosure narrative...just doesn't make sense to me. What does make sense to me is something like a factional conflict. I think [that's] much more of a logical explanation for everything that we have seen. You have one group that may have supported some kind of opening - not even necessarily a complete opening - while another fought to preserve the secrecy as much as possible. "But that's a bureaucratic struggle. That's not, necessarily, a unified, controlled-disclosure operation. So I think that is a contradiction that was not really adequately discussed in this hypothesis. "I may be wrong about Elizondo, and I'm not here, again, to be his defense attorney. But I think that the rush to condemn him strikes me as premature. It strikes me also as, potentially, damaging to the community and to the disclosure effort, frankly. We can investigate serious allegations without first assigning everyone the role of either hero or villain. "So, I guess I would say that Gerb may have genuinely identified some real relationships and hidden activity. In fact, knowing his excellent research track record, I would be surprised if he didn't. "Elizondo - probably - does have undisclosed elements in his background, and I have no doubt he knows much more than he has said. When I look at the this idea of, like. you look at TTSA coming out at the end of 2016, and you see, basically, a kind of faction that had a very managed narrative indeed. Like, they did not come out and talk about crash retrievals. They did not at all. They talked about these military encounters and sensor readings and this type of thing. And that's a lot less interesting than crash retrievals. "But I try to look at it from, let's say you're a Pentagon insider and you are trying to fight for an opening in the public conversation. You're not gonna start with crash retrievals. First of all, you may not have the receipts on them yourself, to provide to the public. And also you're gonna know, right off the bat, that that's going to be a bigger hill to climb than just trying to get Congress to look at some of the more easily-verifiable reports that you probably have available. So, you're probably going to take it in a very tactical, strategic way. "That's not the same thing as saying that they're lying. It could simply be that was a strategy that was decided upon by these insiders. It's also possible they may not have believed in an uncontrolled, catastrophic disclosure. We can disagree with them on that, or you can agree with them on that. But again, I don't know that that's the same thing as saying that they're actually being dishonest. "If the factional thesis that I believe in is correct, then you'd have to assume that these people have to have their strategies and tactics in this broader struggle. Like, it would be ridiculous not to assume that. "So, I think, you know, it's entirely possible that someone like Elizondo has elements in his background that we would want to know about that are not there. It is very intriguing, and even plausible, perhaps, that someone like Clapper belongs somewhere in this deeper history. I would like to know what that is myself, and I would like to see something, you know, in the way of what we would call genuine evidence for that. Not saying it's not there. "I'm just suggesting that the current theory on Elizondo and controlled disclosure is asking us to accept several unsupported links, and, essentially, I would say a disclosure strategy that appears self-defeating and really illogical. Again, like, why initiate a disclosure program? Especially if you go back to the beginning of the AATIP era, like 2009-ish, 2010. Where was there any perceived need that we have to do disclosure?" (Not sure why Richard is not calling the 2009-ish, 2010-era, AAWSAP. I wonder if he knows that Stratton says he created AATIP in 2015? Could be relevant to this controversy.) Dolan: "Like, I look back at the situation at that time, and again, I was very, very on top of the scene at that time during those years, and I just was not aware of any public pressure, whatsoever, that would cause someone to say, 'We have to initiate a controlled disclosure of this, in order to protect crash retrievals.' "There's no logic there, it seems to me. It's, in fact, the exact opposite. "Also, the the current hypothesis, I think, really understates Elizondo's 2019 acknowledgement of recovered UFO material. That really has got to be understood. And it leaves the whole Pentagon campaign against Elizondo, in my view, anyway, largely unresolved and unexplained, and really not making sense. "And, I would just add, now that I'm thinking of it, this current hypothesis about Lue Elizondo, I think, actually reverses the the genuine historical sequence. In other words, I am suggesting that Elizondo probably helped to create the opening that allowed Grusch to go even further. "So, these are just logical questions that I have. You may have different questions. You may have rebuttals to what I have to say here. By all means, put them in a comment, I will read them. And again, I'm not here to defend Lue Elizondo, I am just questioning an account that does not yet, in my view, explain its own logic, or match the full chronology. "It is entirely possible that some of this story is well-known to researchers, including Gerb. I think, however, what has been presented so far does not show how all the pieces actually fit together, and I would like to see that. "And again, I say this with total respect to UAP Gerb and to Ross Coulthart, and in fairness to Lue Elizondo, who I think, if nothing else, this aspect of the history really needs to be understood by the broader community. So that is my statement. "And that doesn't mean that I'm right here, but I do think from time-to-time, it's okay to take a stand on a topic where I can see many people are going to disagree with this, but certain things I think need to be understood on this, and I hope that we can have a reasoned dialogue and discussion about this as we move forward with it, because it is a topic that we do need to understand. "My hypothesis has, pretty much, from the beginning, always been that what we are seeing and what we have been seeing since 2017 is, essentially, the result of a factional battle." (I believe Lue spoke about factions early on when he first went public.) "You go back through the history of this phenomenon, and if you read the old books going back to the 1950s, you see it then, too. You see that there were always factions within the Pentagon who did actually support some level of openness on the UFO subject. "You read the books of Donald Keyhoe, read the book by Edward Ruppelt from 1956: 'Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.' A lot of this is in there. And I think that's really never gone away. And so to somehow assume that there are no more factions in a massive labyrinthian structure as large as the U.S. military industrial complex, I think that's kind of ridiculous. There's always going to be factions. And I think that what we are seeing has always struck me as the result of a factional war that is taking place. "And that doesn't mean, by the way, that, you know, the two sides are just white hats and black hats. Everyone's got their own angle, everyone's got their own motivations. But I, nevertheless, tend to think that that is what we are looking at."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2084538028572430772/amplify_video_thumb/2084536612109860864/img/9DvVsfAYTKl5EUNt.jpg)
![🫣 Near-Naked Alien Breasts 🫣 New Davis: It's Possible Someone in Our Government is Taking Orders from Non-Humans Agreements? Alan Steinfeld: "Is there anyone you feel is in direct contact with [NHI] and taking orders from them?" Dr. Eric Davis: "It's possible. I don't know for a fact, but it's possible. It could be somebody in the government level, maybe coordinating with a contractor or two that are doing that. I just don't have evidence of it. "But I don't want to dismiss it because that could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by mistake. It's very possible. It's very possible. Because there's a long story behind things where there was government contractors, defense-industry contractors who knew the UAP would would arrive before they were observed." Steinfeld: "Holloman, right? Holloman's all about that. They were waiting for the..." Davis: "That was one. There was another one by the remote viewing program where they had an episode of that with Ingo Swann." (Davis is referring to two stories in Swann's book, "Penetration," where he writes about being taken to Alaska and seeing a craft "appear" over lake, and a story about a buxom blonde Ingo encountered in an LA supermarket. Ingo, psychically, felt she was a non-human intelligence masquerading as a human. Here are parts of those two stories from "Penetration," in Ingo's words... During August and September 1976, I traveled several times between SRI and Los Angeles. I went to La-La Land to pursue yet another of the many kinds of studies I had undertaken hopefully to increase my understanding of higher human fuctions. Conrad drove us to a very large Hollywood supermarket filled with, among other things, the lush produce of the San Fernando Valley farms and orchards. [Conrad] went in the direction of meats, and I went in the direction of the veggies. The supermarket had huge tables loaded with artichokes. At one of the artichoke tables was standing a ravishing woman. She was notable not so much for her excessive female physical endowments, but by the fact that they were barely covered. I thought: “Good Heavens!!!" So I worked my way covertly and nonchalantly into her proximity so I could closer appreciate her near-naked breasts. And then! For absolutely no reason at all I experienced an electrifying wave of goosebumps throughout my whole body. The hair on my arms practically stood at attention, and the hair on my neck definitely did. Without rhyme or reason or forethinking or anything at all I suddenly “knew” she was an alien, an extraterrestrial. Conrad and I got our groceries checked out. On the way to the car, I explained that we would not attempt the orange aspic after all. Once in his car in the parking lot I asked him to wait a few moments. He asked what was wrong. I said, “just wait.” Shortly, the female came out pushing a loaded grocery cart. “Study that one and tell me what you think.” Conrad looked briefly at the woman—and then said the most remarkable thing. “Well, if you mean do I think she’s an extraterrestrial, yes,” said Conrad in a bored way. “We’ve got a lot of them here in La-La Land. ~ Viola: “There are a lot of THEM, you know, and many are bio-androids.” Shafica: “They’re dangerous, you know, and they realize that Earth psychics are their only enemies. Be careful, Ingo, be (The rest of the story features a Men-In-Black (the movie)-type scenario where certain folks are allegedly keeping an eye on any non-humans who may be roaming our planet and interacting with the population. This convinced Ingo that his opinion about the woman being an NHI was not just his imagination. Read the book.) Alaska “It’s begun,” Axel whispered. “Please, please! DO NOT make any noise, and do not move unless we tell you to.” My eyeballs rolled around trying to perceive what had begun. I couldn’t see anything unusual at all, save for what appeared to be some gray fog forming up in the direction of the lake. I thought it was just morning fog coming up. This fog continued forming for about five minutes, and suddenly I saw what had “begun.” A network of purple, red, and yellow lightning bolts shot in all crazy directions through the “cloud,” and I would have jumped up if not held down. And then, there it was. Somewhat transparent at first, but in the next second, as if fading-up (like the movie term) out of nowhere, there IT WAS!—solidly visible over the lake whose reflecting waters I could now clearly see. And IT was GETTING BIGGER! IT was triangular, and its top angle sort of inverted in pulses, so that overall it appeared to be diamond shaped. At the same time, the “thing” had now increased its size to what may have been about ninety feet wide. ...but in that last moment I could see the WATER OF THE LAKE SURGING UPWARD—like a waterfall going upward, as if being sucked into the "machine!" “Well, for chrissakes! It was THIRSTY! Taking on water, obviously. Someone, somewhere needs water...so I suppose they just come and get Yeah! That’s it, supply ‘ship’ Earth! Let’s drive over to Earth, go shopping and pick up what we need, that kind of thing. (Davis shares a few more details but I suggest you read the book, which I'll link to in the replies.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2097719938240872916/amplify_video_thumb/2097708553662550016/img/xRkHBM_hST36qfc4.jpg)
![Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1916273688736940311/amplify_video_thumb/1916261346590515200/img/hUvZMgeSmwtcpp9Y.jpg)
