正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
🚨 Utah Valley University stonewalling and refusing to answer if the complete transformation of the landscape right where Charlie Kirk was sitting was scheduled prior to the assassination (it clearly wasn’t) Patrick Bet David show called and spoke to multiple departments at UVU about the secret campus construction “I... show more
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
相关视频
2:12
Sensitive content
Jelly Hoshiumi has made a short statement at the beginning of her stream. "So I just want to take this moment to, um, say that... Okay, it's really no big deal but I am sorry to-to my friends and my company for making it- I wrote this all on my own by the way- for, you know, making it kind of, you know, suck on twitter. com. (...) I-I'm sorry for inconveniencing you and stressing you out most importantly. (...) I feel kind of bad for, you know, stressing you out with everything and also not streaming and I feel bad for that. That is what I feel bad for. Also just to clarify, I'm not a racist, I'm not a bigot. And most importantly I would like to thank you for the support" "I feel like I have to elaborate a bit because I was a bit nervous when I was making the statement (...) Right, so I feel like now that everything's calmed down a little bit, I feel like I can kind of say that, everything is actually cool between me and the company. (...) Sakana did personally send me an apology, so we're actually pretty good. We've been talking, I sent- I took a picture of a book and I sent it to him, I asked if he wanted it. He said yeah. So everything is actually fine, So don't worry about it, okay? It's good. I don't want you guys to be angry, I don't want you guys to be upset on behalf of me if anything, I just want you guys to be chill. Just like me and just let it go."
Rima Evenstar
42,650 次观看 • 4 个月前
!["Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." 🤬 What The F**k, Chuck? 🤬 (Make sure you read my comments in ( ). After Dylan Borland testified last month, I wrote this: ) "The most troubling thing is his visit to the ICIG. Seems the whole system is f**king corrupt." (Today, he shared more details, and it's much worse than I thought. When he told the ICIG he wanted to testify to Congress under oath, the reply was: ) "You already did that, and you're not doing it again." 🖕🖕🖕 (And the advice from the attorney who urged Borland to go to the ICIG?) "Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything." (This is very troubling. Especially if the person who said that was Charles "Chuck" McCullough.) ~ Borland: "So I get a phone call after Dave [Grusch] testifies, and they notify me, 'Hey, Dylan, we want you to go the IG.' And I said, 'All right. What about?' They're like, 'You know, this stuff.'" George Knapp: "They, meaning who? Congress?" Borland: "Uh, a staffer, and Dave. and an attorney, that you guys are aware of. I don't know if I can say their name. But an attorney you guys are aware of." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "I think, just yeah, that's good." (The only attorney that I'm aware of who fits the bill is: Charles McCullough, who was the first ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) and also the attorney for David Grusch. If it's him, that's very concerning. As you watch the clip, or read my transcript, you'll see why. And the ICIG was Thomas Monheim, who was also in that position when Grusch filed his whistleblower complaint, which he deemed, "urgent and credible." Monheim resigned in January of 2025.) ~ Borland: "All right. Um, and they're like, 'Go to the IG.' And I said, 'Am I safe? Is it what the country needs?' [And they said,] 'Yes, yes.' And I said, 'All right, let's make it happen.' And I go the IG. That was in, I wanna say September or October. I actually have the date for you guys if you need it. But I went there in 2023, late summer, early fall of 2023 and I go through the IG process. "And to be honest with you, out of everything, I really feel like the IG process was the worst. I think the people at AARO genuinely cared. But, my opinion, going through the IG and the questions they asked me, the things that were said to me made me feel like that was a fishing expedition. And the only thing they cared about was finding out how much I actually knew." Corbell: "Wow. That is highly disappointing." Borland: "It was very disappointing being in that room with the conversation and statements that were being made to me. Like, when somebody's asking you a question and the IG government employee cuts them off and says, 'You don't ask him that question' and then looks at me and tells me, 'You don't answer that question.' Yeah. "When they ask you, 'What do you want out of this?' And verbatim, direct-quote, on film. By all means, go get the recording, because they said they recorded it. But they said, 'What do you want out of this?' And I said, 'I want to look Congress in the eyes, tell them the truth under oath, so when I die I can answer for this and know I did my job.' And the response was, 'As far as we're concerned, you already did that, and you're not doing it again.' So..." Knapp: "So is this the actual Inspector General or..." Borland: "The ICIG, yes. I have his card at my house." (Again, Monheim.) Knapp: "You went through the whole thing." Borland: "I went through the whole thing." Knapp: "Who else is there?" Borland: "So, ICIG, assistant director, director, [government] attorney on my right." Corbell: "So you try to do this right. You go to ICIG, and you literally feel like that they are just trying to pump you to figure out how much you know, how dangerous you are to the Legacy program." Borland: "In my opinion, looking back on this, yes. Because, the way they ask[ed] questions, the statements they made to each other, the statements they made to me, 100% seemed like they wanted to find out how much I knew. And at the end of this, which you're aware of the conversation I had with the attorney, it was. 'You are credible, not urgent. Go disappear in the winds. Leave this all behind. Shut up. Do not do anything. Your entire...everything you said,' which goes back to what we talked...I mean, I talked about my childhood in there. I was told, everything I talked about in that room, now is up for executive review. And I brought up to the attorney, 'I talked about my childhood, is that now up for it? I talked about unclassified information, readily available on the internet.' And they said, 'Dylan, every single thing you talked about is now subject to executive review. Do not go outside of those bounds.'" Knapp: "Your whole life." Borland: "Pretty damn much." (If this is McCullough being referred to here, I have a problem with it. Borland took the advice of McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer by going to ICIG and it turned out to be a 💩 show. Now he's telling Borland to disappear and leave it all behind? WTF?) Corbell: "It's like a great way to lock somebody down if you want to kind of intake their whole whistleblower story, what they know, and then say, 'Now that you've testified to ICIG, you have to walk away.'" Knapp: "Well you realize they say that, and that this has been, in essence, a waste of time, that you walked into sort of a trap. I mean, I can imagine how depressing it would be." Borland: "Depressing. It pissed me off, because I was already blacklisted from the IC. And I told the attorney that, I told the IG that. Like, I already know that there are things that are in place for me, getting jobs, working in this field, that, years back, are in play. And it's happened to me since I've gone to the IG, which goes back to retaliation. Like, technically, I'm still being retaliated against." Knapp: "The Inspector General's office is there to hear about wrongdoing and things that shouldn't be happening in the agencies that it oversees." Borland: "I...you would think, but this is now me being black pilled, and there's a joke amongst all the military guys, which is: The JAG isn't for you, the JAG is for the DOD. The IG isn't for us, the IG is for the government. And that's the way I feel now." (The Air Force JAG (Judge Advocate General) corps provides comprehensive legal services to the U.S. Air Force and Space Force. ~AI) Knapp: "Did you share this with the attorney who had been advising you about seeing these guys? We're not saying who it is." Corbell: "I think with the client, I just think you're not supposed to do that. It's not like a big secret, I'm just trying to be respectful." Borland: "I made it aware to them that the statement that he had made to me was of grave concern. It made no sense. And I had asked, 'How do I do DOPSR? Because I do not trust this process at all anymore.' And, basically, from that point, I was completely shut out for over a year, a year and a half.' Corbell: "I think lawyers are...try to protect their clients. You know, I don't think it's nefarious. I think that they're just trying to do...or guide their client in what's best for their well being." Knapp: "Yeah, well, especially somebody who has been around and knows what could happen." Corbell: "Knows his stuff. That's unfortunate. Borland: "Don't disagree." (I would like to know why McCullough, Grusch and a congressional staffer sent Borland to the ICIG? Did they have any idea this would happen? And was it McCullough who shut out Borland for a year and a half? If so, why? Nefarious shouldn't be ruled out.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1973935627893961111/amplify_video_thumb/1973889002613977089/img/Z8O4p1WawqPzlGDj.jpg)
![Hero–Doctor Kirk Moore, who's now facing 35 years in prison, defends his decision to give saline injections instead of COVID death jabs: "What law did I break?.... [there was] no ingredient list... no toxicity studies... [the jabs were] studied for a total of two months." This clip of board-certified plastic surgeon Dr. Kirk Moore (@Moore22K) is taken from an interview with Shannon Joy (Shannon Joy) posted to Rumble on June 10, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So my one position that I've said all along is, what law did I break? There is no law. There was no Covid law passed. There was no. Nothing that said that I had to do whatever the government says that I need to do. There's no law that says that. And the government is trying to kind of put me into this fraud side, like you said, you know, saying I. That I absconded or I misused or I purloined, you know, $28,000, $28,800 worth of product that they gave me for free and that, you know, that I had a contract with them to give it in such a way. So, I think that's, you know, that That's That's the law side of it. "The ethical side of it wasn't that hard for me. I'm doing what my patients wanted me to do. After a full discussion of what it is. I, have no ingredient list. I don't know what this product is. There are no toxicity studies. There are no carcinogenic, you know, carcinogenic studies. There are no mutagenic studies. There's nothing out there. This is something that was studied for a total of two months. "And the control group was. Was terminated, because they found that it had 95% effectiveness. Once the numbers came out and it showed that that actual effectiveness was less than 1%, by an absolute risk reduction, then that in and of itself should prove, you know, should show that, hey, this is just ridiculous. There was no benefit. There's nothing out there. "You know, you look at Brook Jackson's study and what it was that she was, you know, that she's tried to present in Texas. That's been thrown out, at least twice now. And you just look at all of the. Everything that's behind it. You know, you mentioned, you know, the ethical side of it. You know, the AMA code of ethics says that a physician is supposed to take care of the patient that's in front of them. Okay? That's your oath. My oath is if you were my patient, I would take care of you. You tell me what your concerns are, you tell me, you know, what your symptoms are, and we come up with a plan. I explain to you what the pros and cons of that are, and then you and I come up with a plan on how to treat you. "And I'm not treating you for your husband or your kids or your neighbors or anybody else. I'm treating you that's in front of you. Okay, that's in front of me. And we come up with a plan. So that's the code of ethics. "There's also a known issue with medicine and the legal system. And the, again, the AMA code of ethics says two things. We know that there is going to be a conflict between ethical and moral medical treatment of people and the law at times. And so as a physician, your duty is to try to do what you can, to do both to take care of your patient and to kind of reconcile the law. "So I did. I went to the state of Utah, I went to the House, I went to some of the Senate subcommittees, I, I was, I testified in some of these committee hearings, to try to get laws changed, mandate laws, mask mandates, Covid mandates, shot mandates. And we were successful. In the state of Utah, we were able to pass laws, that reversed the mask mandates. That made it actually, to some degree, a fineable offense for businesses to require Covid vaccines in order to go to work and to go to school. "And so that was my first step. The second step out of this is that if you cannot change that during the time that you're doing, you are, by ethics and moral values, you are required to take care of your patient in front of you, not to abide by, like you said, to abide by the law. So where is the AMA and all this? That's their code of ethics. I don't see them standing behind me and, you know, and trying to support the medical values and ethics that they, that, you know, that they claim on their website is one of, you know, one of their, you know, bastions of health and what physicians need to do."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1932910733140111732/amplify_video_thumb/1932907167931088896/img/iZ_xepSyv5UUHCM_.jpg)
