Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
WATCH: CNN’s Shermichael Singleton Singleton goes postal on the Hunter Biden pardon, saying this “facade” President Biden and Democrats created as “this great arbiter of morality and truth...protecting norms and institutions of our country” has proven to be utter “trash”... “Democrats portrayed the President as this great arbiter of... show more
745,585 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)
10 Yorum
@MrShermichael Doocy drops the 🎤...
@MrShermichael Who is the dude in the hat? Doesn't he know the rules of the cowboys? Take your hat off inside. He must have never been taught manners
@MrShermichael My guy!
@MrShermichael What guts and eloquence! That is simply on point. I only pray that God continues to protect and guide his imperfect vessel, Trump, to do his best for all Americans.
@MrShermichael Don’t you love it when they eat their own!!
@MrShermichael Arrogant democrats don’t seem to understand that we’ve seen through their B.S. the whole time.
DNC leadership has had one mission since the Obama administration: controlling power at all costs and destroying those who oppose them. To that end they will (i) weaponize government against their opponents and opposing political party, and (ii) screw their own voters by determining who gets chosen for elected office. They drank their own neo-Marxist Kool-Aid and are only in it for power, not principle.
@MrShermichael This guy is 100% correct. 🔥🔥🔥
@MrShermichael Go back to the 2020 debate. Biden denial of the laptop as lies and Russian disinformation. Msm pretending
@MrShermichael As @edhenry would say, it's DELICIOUS to see the corrupt @Democrats not only lose BILLIONS of donors' $$$, but also suffer continuously from @JoeBiden, the liar supreme. How I love correlative conjunctions! Best thing I ever taught my students...
![CNN’s Dana Bash: “Are you saying that you think that [Marco Rubio] is somebody who the party should seriously consider over the sitting vice president?” Scott Jennings: “No, as far as I know, Marco Rubio has said that he's supporting J.D. Vance, if J.D. Vance runs for president, that's my expectation is that the vice president will run. And if he wants to be the nominee, he will likely be the nominee. Rubio says he's for him. The president himself has said he thinks they would be a great ticket.” “And J.D. Vance tweeted out Marco Rubio's speech this weekend and said, everybody needs to watch this. Look, I think between Vance and Rubio, you have two clear thinkers. And yes, they do approach, I think their views and how they came to be Republican leaders in different ways, but they both have one thing in mind, and that's defending the future of western civilization.” “And I think that's why they would work well together. But no, right now it is pretty obvious to me and most Republicans, that J.D. Vance is highly likely to be the nominee in '28.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2023746313788240192/amplify_video_thumb/2023746115334795268/img/0nzYP2qelSMfXhzK.jpg)
!["It's not a congressional program. Only the president can say anything about this." ~Semivan Semivan: Congress Doesn't Have the Right or Need-To-Know About a Crash Retrieval Program Thoughts? Grusch decided Congress had a need-to-know, and Congress hadn't been told. "Which I don't think was true." ~Semivan ~~~ Semivan: "Some of the congressmen now that are being briefed (laughs) on it are not very happy because they think they have a right to know this. And I like to point out, I spoke to a couple of the committees and I told them, 'Look, it's not a congressional program. It's an executive program, and it's run by the president and only the president can say anything about this. I can't say anything about it, the president has to come out.'" (Note: Semivan was careful to cover his azz and say these were answers about a, hypothetical, crash retrieval program. Although, from his past comments, I'm pretty sure he knows (or at least believes) it exists. See here: Semivan Blockbuster I know where the legacy programs are located. You should take [Grusch] and everything he says to the bank. It's our inalienable right to know about this. ) ~ Semivan: "It's what Dave Grusch said. Dave Grusch...worked for AARO (He meant the UAPTF) and he went to various intelligence agencies and questioned the people that were actually working on these programs. And they all told them the same thing, the same story. So he takes this back, and he decides Congress has a need-to-know, and Congress hasn't been told. Which I don't think was true. He didn't know that, but he thought the public also had a right to know. And I'm perfectly fine... He did the exact right thing you're supposed to do if you're a government employee if you think there's something going on that's not legal. And he did it the right way. So, I give him a load of credit for that. And then he explains what it was, and then he's briefing some of the congressmen on this. Now the congressmen are upset, saying, 'Well, wait a minute, we're in charge of spending for the government and what have you. We should have the ability to know this.' But what Congress doesn't realize is these programs, you know, they exist at a very, very high classified level. They're Special Access Programs, and I would say, maybe the Gang of Eight, if them, have the clearances to basically know of these programs. And even if they were to be told of the programs, they could never discuss it, nor could they ever debate it, publicly. It's not theirs to do. They would be told, officially, but just, you know, as a professional courtesy that these things are going on. "Don't forget, the CIA works directly for the President of the United States, all right? So if the CIA would be running this program (AFAIK, they are. ~Joe), they just, basically, talk to the president and the president talks to them. And those conversations are not subject to congressional notification, approval or anything else. And when CIA goes to the oversight committees and briefs their programs, the committees can't tell them, 'We don't like what you're doing.' Well, they can say that. But the only thing they can do, they can't stop the programs. All they can do is stop the funding. "So, you know, the intelligence agencies that work directly for the president answer to him and him only, really. They do tell Congress, because Congress does give them money and there is...that's been going on since 1975 now, and it's a great thing to do. And they've been very, very open and honest with Congress, and Congress, I think, has been wonderful about it. As a matter of fact, you know, Congress has, basically, said in some of these programs, 'Holy cow, this is great! Give a round of applause, you need more money, because what you guys are doing [is] great.' The relationship has always been very good. I thought, you know, between them." (But the folks in the intelligence agencies who are aware of the alleged Legacy UAP-related programs, do NOT tell Congress about them. Except, as Semivan said, MAYBE some members of the Gang of Eight. Certainly NOT members of Congress like Rep. Anna Paulina Luna or Rep. Eric Burlison. I think they have zero chance of being read in right now.) Semivan: "But that doesn't mean if the president, like Truman or Eisenhower, issued a presidential executive-action document or something along those lines, where he said, 'This is an extraordinary circumstance. I'm creating this super-secret thing that nobody gets to know about, not even Congress.' That's, basically, his...he can do that. That's in the power, that's in the Constitution. He has that right to do that without acknowledging." (THAT is how these alleged Legacy UAP programs are protected.) Semivan: "Now, has he (a president) done that without telling somebody? Probably there's one or two people in Congress that know about it at any given time. Maybe one or two people in the National Security Council know about it. Most presidents probably got a very generalized briefing on it, you know, saying, 'Yeah, this is real. If you wanna know more, we can tell you more. But, if you know more then you don't have plausible deniability anymore. And/or, you can't do anything about it anyway, because we don't understand it. But if something happens [and] we discover something that's groundbreaking or earth shattering, we'll come back and tell ya.' "So, imagine if you're a President of the United States. Do you really want to know this? Do you really want to have that hanging on your shoulders? I think not. Particularly when you have somebody else doing the job for you."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1964791704948703671/amplify_video_thumb/1964765866677141504/img/Oc6iqDE9eLvsulqq.jpg)
!["If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world." ~EB Did Burlison See a Craft at the Location He Visited? Umm, No. (Long one here with a transcript and my comments in ( ). Work today so I was a little limited with this stuff. Looking forward to the Davis interview tomorrow!) In 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison spent "almost the entire day" with the White House staff as they negotiated various aspects of the Big Beautiful Bill. While he was there, he requested help with the UFO topic because the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets kept getting blocked and struggled to get access to certain information and locations. So, he asked for a White House-level briefing, "the same briefing the President... If you're taking the request, that's my highest request." (He didn't say if he ever received that briefing.) Burlison: "Furthermore, I would like to be able to have a green light to go visit some of these locations. And the gentleman that I was asking kind of smirked. And I said, 'Is this comical to you? I mean, do you think that I'm not a serious person?'" (I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? 😀 ) Burlison: "He said, 'No.' he goes. 'I just want to go with you.' And so, it turns out he did. He was able to go with me. He had to follow the proper channels as well. And we visited the first of many sites, hopefully. I'm gonna be cautious in talking about that because I don't want to jeopardize the ability to go to the remaining locations, if you will. I truly think that, for them, this was a test of whether or not this would become a circus for them. And so, I think that I'm just treading cautiously before I release too much information about what I've learned and where I went." (I understand not giving out the location to avoid a "circus" of UFO people trying to visit, but I don't see why he can't tell us what he learned right now. Hopefully, when all the visits are done, he can share the details with us.) James Fox: "Congressman, when you say you went to visit the site, are you implying that the alleged site that could, potentially, be housing non-human technology? Is that kind of what one is alleging here?" Burlison: "Yeah. Or, once did house non-human technology, right? Now, from my insights from Grusch and others, they had...it was pretty obvious that that first site that we were going to did not have active material, but, potentially, could have in the past. So what was important was to see the facilities and the structures, and to try to ascertain for A), first and foremost, did those facilities exist? And then were they designed in such a way that would have been, you know, one could easily see that that could have been utilized for reverse engineering." (Saying that a location/facility could have been utilized for reverse engineering craft not made by humans is not enough to make the waves we need to force the tidal wave of Disclosure. We need for Burlison (or someone else) to be able to visit a facility that has a craft there now, and folks working on it who are willing to speak about their experiences there. I don't see that happening any time soon.) Leslie Kean: "May I ask If the people at the site were cooperative and helpful for you?" Burlison: "Yes." Leslie Kean: "Or were they resistant to having you visit?" Burlison: "No, they were very cooperative. What I kind of interpreted from this is that a lot of what's happening today is that you have things that have happened in the past, and the people today, you know, you're talking about personnel that have changed over many times. And so, a lot of times they're not aware of the history of some of the things that you're talking about because that's not something that they're working on, currently. But they certainly were extremely helpful." (They were either not aware of the history or, they were, and lied about it. Can't rule that out. And the fact that they were helpful/cooperative doesn't really mean much. If you want to avoid unwanted attention, you put your best face on. Or, maybe they really were ignorant and wanted to do their best to help Burlison and the other folks? No way to know.) Burlison: "I had specifically wanted to meet with a particular individual that works at that location, and I actually expected them to turn me down, but was surprised that they actually arranged a meeting in a SCIF with the person that I requested. So, I do think that they're being cooperative." (Hopefully, when all of these locations have been visited, we get to learn this person's name. Full transparency, right?) Burlison: "And now that the President has [posted on Truth Social about UFOs], I think it gives everyone all the way down the line an understanding that this is to be taken seriously and to follow through." (We shall see.) Burlison: "On the way back after the visit, the White House staffer and the other person that had made it happen both said to me that they loved doing this. This was one of the funnest things they've ever done in their job, and that these other future site locations are not at all gonna be a burden to them. If anything, they're excited and looking forward to it." (Are we going to learn who those people are? Transparency? If not, why not? We pay their salaries.) James Fox: "I had a really quick follow-up question, Congressman. If you did find what you're looking for, is there a particular protocol, or what's the directive if you find what you're looking for?" Burlison: "If I find what I'm looking for, I'm gonna be very careful to protect any kind of national-security interest. But at the same time, I've been very clear that it is not the right of this country to withhold basic, fundamental evidence that we may or may not be alone. And so, if we have any kind of evidence of that, we should be telling the world and not holding back. And give as many details as possible, and release...be as transparent as possible without jeopardizing our secrets and national security. Or secrets that pertain...that our national security is dependent upon." (For now, keep the method of propulsion (energy source) secret and away from our adversaries and tell us everything else!) Burlison: "Well, I'm just gonna speculate, okay? If we have a type of technology that we have reverse engineered, that gives us a strategic advantage that our adversaries have not? I think that, for example, letting the world know that we have this craft, here it is, here's a photo of it, but you don't have to tell the world how exactly the...what you've reverse engineered, or how that operates." (Photos aren't going to cut it. If they exist, we need to see these craft (and bodies?) in person, with our own eyes. Put them in the Smithsonian and let us see all of it. And allow independent scientists to do their own analysis so we can verify that it's non-human or anomalous.) Burlison: "In the same way that when the nuclear bomb first was invented and utilized, the world knew, we revealed to the world that we have this capability, but we certainly are not gonna tell people how to make one and the specifics behind that. So, I think that for me, that's how I would answer that question. If you were asking me, 'What would you be willing to protect as far as national security?' That would be the nature of it. "Now, I think if the technology that's derived has nothing to do with changing our threat dynamic with an adversary, and it might benefit society and the world, by all means, let's release it. Let's let the world scientific minds utilize anything that we might have discovered. And so, that's where I personally stand." (But we all that it's not going to be that simple. Most likely (if this is all legit), we'll have craft and bodies, and the tech from the craft can give us an advantage over our adversaries, while at the same time, potentially, be used to change and improve the world and human condition. So what do we do? Keep it secret? Tell the world and take our chances?) Burlison: "I don't know, I couldn't tell you what Hillary meant by that." (EB was referring to the recent interview/deposition about Epstein where Hillary Clinton said that she would release UFO files but they would be "subject to any national security implications" and it should be done so that "no national security information is disclosed." She didn't get specific.) Burlison: "If we have evidence or if we have bodies, we should release that to the world. If we, you know, if what Eric Davis said to me - and now that was not in a hearing in which he had been sworn in, and I'm not saying that he was telling me a falsehood - when he said that there are four alien species - and that kind of went viral - I mean, if we, if we do have evidence of that, I want the world to know. I don't see why that would be of national security interest to withhold that from the world." (Unless, the people who have seen the bodies say something like, "Their skin is something that can be used as armor and we can't allow our adversaries to learn about that. Just trying to think of reasons why the gatekeepers will tell us that information needs to be kept secret.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2030480027666747596/amplify_video_thumb/2030373285926694913/img/_-25iW0LmiKeRcjI.jpg)