Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Whoopi Goes Full Hillary On Biden Cover-Up: What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make? | Virginia Kruta, The Daily Wire "Why is this important to know now?" In a moment that recalled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s frustrated exclamation during the Benghazi hearings, “The View” host Whoopi...

OwenGregorian's profile picture

Owen Gregorian

112,728 subscribers

153,931 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

ЮморНовости и политикаОбразование
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 11

Фото профиля .𝕩𝕏 SJV 𝕏𝕩.
.𝕩𝕏 SJV 𝕏𝕩.1 год назад

I will explain it so simply that Whoopi might even be able to understand it, maybe. If it is okay to hide that President Biden wasn't functional and his staff were actually making the decisions, it is perfectly okay to do the same if President Trump turns into a house plant. This isn't politically biased. This is about whether the American people get to choose who is leading the country.

Фото профиля GermanJP
GermanJP1 год назад

For all of her usual performative antics, I truly think Goldberg is so dense that she actually doesn’t grasp the ramifications - you had a demented, cancer-ridden old man being used as a puppet by other people (numbers and identities unknown) to control our country. That simple.

Фото профиля Elvis Knevil
Elvis Knevil1 год назад

Same script, different reader. They never change because their audience is retarded into lapdog obedience.

Фото профиля WhiskeyTexasFoxtrot
WhiskeyTexasFoxtrot1 год назад

ABC News’ midmorning propaganda show says what? There’s a reason the two loudest voices on The View are an actress and a comedienne

Фото профиля Tom Johnson🇺🇸
Tom Johnson🇺🇸1 год назад

What point does it make, whoopee? The point is to stop you sickos from doing it again.

Фото профиля Hope Otto
Hope Otto1 год назад

@TheView people died Whoopie. My neighbor Jocelyn was tied up , r@ped tortured and murdered. If he didn't let them in then who did. You know don't you??

Фото профиля Pete Helmus
Pete Helmus1 год назад

Why do people watch this nonsense; these unintelligent and uninformed women? It’s astounding that anyone watches but almost more astounding how many amplify their messaging by talking about them at all. The best technique to make them go away is to ignore, completely and fully.

Фото профиля cromagnonmanx
cromagnonmanx1 год назад

"Why is this important to know now?" Future trust depends on who previously lied. Not so surprising that a lefty like Whoopi would reject that principle.

Фото профиля Slingshot News
Slingshot News2 лет назад

🚨EXCLUSIVE: ‘One Of The Greatest Villains In American History’: Democrats Releases Scathing Statement On RFK Jr. What do YOU think about RFK's Campaign? Let us know in the comments ⬇️ Be sure to follow @NewsSlingshot for more exclusive reports!

Фото профиля Tslaaaaa
Tslaaaaa1 год назад

😲😲

Фото профиля TheTalentedHemsworth
TheTalentedHemsworth1 год назад

Triple yuk

Похожие видео

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is in charge of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, says "this is a moment of education" for young people about the challenges in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "I live on a college campus," Sec. Rice explained during a conversation today with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "And I would say to young people: Yes, I understand the passion, but also try to understand how hard this is. You know, one of my colleagues asked some of the young people who were yelling, 'From the river to the sea,' 'from what river to what sea?' And they did not know. So, this is a moment of education also of why this has been hard."
1:01

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is in charge of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, says "this is a moment of education" for young people about the challenges in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "I live on a college campus," Sec. Rice explained during a conversation today with CBS News' Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "And I would say to young people: Yes, I understand the passion, but also try to understand how hard this is. You know, one of my colleagues asked some of the young people who were yelling, 'From the river to the sea,' 'from what river to what sea?' And they did not know. So, this is a moment of education also of why this has been hard."

CBS News

141,774 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

This is important. Someone in the crowd confessed to the shooting immediately after it happened, despite not having a weapon? Why? Does this mean they were a decoy, and this was a joint operation? They have now apprehended multiple people, yet the shooter is still at large. An eyewitness claims that the shot was fired immediately after someone asked Charlie Kirk about trans violence and that he believes there were several people in on it. Did they wait for this specific question? The FBI and Kash Patel need to get to the bottom of this horrific crime as soon as possible. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.
1:01

This is important. Someone in the crowd confessed to the shooting immediately after it happened, despite not having a weapon? Why? Does this mean they were a decoy, and this was a joint operation? They have now apprehended multiple people, yet the shooter is still at large. An eyewitness claims that the shot was fired immediately after someone asked Charlie Kirk about trans violence and that he believes there were several people in on it. Did they wait for this specific question? The FBI and Kash Patel need to get to the bottom of this horrific crime as soon as possible. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.

Green Lives Matter

713,627 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

.John Roberts: “Why is Michael Wolff counseling Jeffrey Epstein on how to hang Donald Trump out to dry?” Mollie: “Yeah. That’s what I thought was so interesting in these emails there were many journalists who were coaching Jeffrey Epstein in how to handle things which is a weird thing to see anybody doing, much less a journalist. But back to the original point, like, that this is even a story today is something of a scandal, meaning Democrats — they went out of their way to obstruct the name of the individual in question, to make it seem like Donald Trump might have some secret here that needs to be exposed. And the reason why they obstructed the name is because Virginia Giuffre, the victim of Epstein, has had publicly and repeatedly said that Donald Trump had never witnessed or participated in any bad activity. So, this is just hard to take people seriously that they care about this. There are multiple people that have relationships with Epstein. Reid Hoffman, a Democrat super donor a very lengthy and sustained and intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein it would be interesting to learn more about that. Bill Clinton the former president of the United States had a relationship. We even had — Barack had a relationship. These are interesting things. But, when you make it just about Donald Trump, when we already know about it, and we already know that they had a falling out because of how Epstein was handling the situation at Mar-a-Lago, that he got kicked out, is just — I agree there is, like, stuff to know, but it’s not being handled in any way responsibly here.”
1:26

.John Roberts: “Why is Michael Wolff counseling Jeffrey Epstein on how to hang Donald Trump out to dry?” Mollie: “Yeah. That’s what I thought was so interesting in these emails there were many journalists who were coaching Jeffrey Epstein in how to handle things which is a weird thing to see anybody doing, much less a journalist. But back to the original point, like, that this is even a story today is something of a scandal, meaning Democrats — they went out of their way to obstruct the name of the individual in question, to make it seem like Donald Trump might have some secret here that needs to be exposed. And the reason why they obstructed the name is because Virginia Giuffre, the victim of Epstein, has had publicly and repeatedly said that Donald Trump had never witnessed or participated in any bad activity. So, this is just hard to take people seriously that they care about this. There are multiple people that have relationships with Epstein. Reid Hoffman, a Democrat super donor a very lengthy and sustained and intimate relationship with Jeffrey Epstein it would be interesting to learn more about that. Bill Clinton the former president of the United States had a relationship. We even had — Barack had a relationship. These are interesting things. But, when you make it just about Donald Trump, when we already know about it, and we already know that they had a falling out because of how Epstein was handling the situation at Mar-a-Lago, that he got kicked out, is just — I agree there is, like, stuff to know, but it’s not being handled in any way responsibly here.”

Curtis Houck

54,269 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”
1:48

Baier: I just got off the phone with the president…. I asked, “what you are saying is you know there is somebody on the ground in Iran that is going to rise up?” He said, “yeah, I feel there is. I feel that and some of them are no longer with us to be honest because it was 49 leaders that were taken out. That was going to take four weeks we thought to get rid of the Iranian leadership and it is always, you know, if they hide, it is a lot longer than four weeks. They would have been hiding. We were shocked when we heard what was going on. We knew exactly what was happening… they are talking about using people now that nobody ever heard of—even they don't know. They are using people, studying people to be the leader that even they don't know who they are. Can you believe that?” I said it's a tough succession plan in Iran. He said, “49 leaders is deep. It's very deep. When they met, they met for breakfast. They assumed it was good for a lot of reasons. Number one they didn't think we knew. You never attack in the morning having to do with wind and sun and a lot of things. It was amazing that we knew everything we knew.”

Acyn

1,065,464 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Satanic Rituals, NASA, and the U.S. Government. Why are so many military intelligence officers, NASA scientists, elites, and other government employees involved in Satanism? One of the most important pieces to the puzzle of the "phenomenon" and presence of these "beings" is the connection to sigils and alters. The most important people in the field know this but do not speak mainstream about it, why? Why aren't they communicating this aspect of the overall picture? Is it to hide the true nature of what these "beings" really are? Why didn't the U.S. government want the public to know they they were performing Satanic rituals to make contact with these "entities?" And, if there is nothing to it, and just a bunch of Satanic members performing sex Magick and other ritualistic practices, which involve children, then why is it still so important, and why are they still doing it and keeping it such a secret? These is a piece to the overall subject, even when it comes to MKULTRA, Epstein, and the ritualistic abuse of children. It's all connected.
25:25

Satanic Rituals, NASA, and the U.S. Government. Why are so many military intelligence officers, NASA scientists, elites, and other government employees involved in Satanism? One of the most important pieces to the puzzle of the "phenomenon" and presence of these "beings" is the connection to sigils and alters. The most important people in the field know this but do not speak mainstream about it, why? Why aren't they communicating this aspect of the overall picture? Is it to hide the true nature of what these "beings" really are? Why didn't the U.S. government want the public to know they they were performing Satanic rituals to make contact with these "entities?" And, if there is nothing to it, and just a bunch of Satanic members performing sex Magick and other ritualistic practices, which involve children, then why is it still so important, and why are they still doing it and keeping it such a secret? These is a piece to the overall subject, even when it comes to MKULTRA, Epstein, and the ritualistic abuse of children. It's all connected.

The SCIF

57,251 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Me: I discuss in the book—it refers to the state where I know something, you know something, I know that you know it, you know that I know it, I know that you know that I know it, and so on ad infinitum. So it differs a bit from the conventional usage, which just refers to something that everyone knows. Here, everyone has to know that everyone knows. Times Radio Interviewer (Daniel Finkelstein Daniel Finkelstein): Can I use this with reference to the interview that I did yesterday with my brother? My brother’s a professor at City University; he’s president of the university, and there’s a campaign at the moment going on against one of their professors who was in the Israeli Defense Forces in the 1980s. We were having a discussion about how the university was standing up for the free speech of its staff, and I’d begun to wonder, as I went home reading your book on the tube, whether I’d made a big mistake—because the protest against this professor is really just a coordination exercise, isn’t it? And maybe I’d aided it by talking about it. Me: Oh yes—protests are coordination exercises. They’re designed to make private knowledge common knowledge. So, in a repressive regime, everyone may know that they despise the government, but because criticism of the government is punished, people might keep their opinions to themselves, with a result that they really don’t know what their fellow citizens think. Each one might think that they’re the only ones that are disgruntled, and so they can’t fear standing up to—they fear standing up to oppose the regime, because they can be picked off one at a time. If everyone were to protest at once, no government has the firepower to intimidate all its citizens at once. In a public protest, people can see other people there, and they know that the people there see other people there, and that can give them the strength and numbers to oppose the regime—sometimes by literally storming the palace, or sometimes just bringing the machinery of the state to a halt through work stoppages. But the crucial thing is that they are coordinated. They can only be coordinated if everyone knows that everyone knows that they hate the regime. Daniel Finkelstein: I suppose that social media is making people—is increasing the stock of common knowledge. We’re all much more aware of what other people like us, in particular like us, know, and we also know that other people know it, and so on, as you put it, and that makes people have more common knowledge. It’s not making us happier though; maybe we’d be better with less common knowledge? Me: Social media are making us more connected within certain circles—that is, those who are receiving the same texts and feeds that we are. It reduces the pool of, or shrinks the largest pool of common knowledge, namely the whole country, which may have been accessible in a day in which, say, in the United States there were three networks, or in Britain everyone was listening to the BBC. And yes, it probably doesn’t make us as happy, because when everything is public, it means that your reputation is on the line for anything you say or do. It means that since social media allow us to generate common knowledge, not just receive it like in the old days, it means that attacks on people’s reputation can be common knowledge, which means that it’s all the more painful for people on the receiving end of the attack. It may have something to do with the fact that in certain demographics—especially young people whose lives increasingly are online—that there’s that much more social competition, opportunities for gossip and ostracism and demeaning comments, and so on. When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life:
3:39

Me: I discuss in the book—it refers to the state where I know something, you know something, I know that you know it, you know that I know it, I know that you know that I know it, and so on ad infinitum. So it differs a bit from the conventional usage, which just refers to something that everyone knows. Here, everyone has to know that everyone knows. Times Radio Interviewer (Daniel Finkelstein Daniel Finkelstein): Can I use this with reference to the interview that I did yesterday with my brother? My brother’s a professor at City University; he’s president of the university, and there’s a campaign at the moment going on against one of their professors who was in the Israeli Defense Forces in the 1980s. We were having a discussion about how the university was standing up for the free speech of its staff, and I’d begun to wonder, as I went home reading your book on the tube, whether I’d made a big mistake—because the protest against this professor is really just a coordination exercise, isn’t it? And maybe I’d aided it by talking about it. Me: Oh yes—protests are coordination exercises. They’re designed to make private knowledge common knowledge. So, in a repressive regime, everyone may know that they despise the government, but because criticism of the government is punished, people might keep their opinions to themselves, with a result that they really don’t know what their fellow citizens think. Each one might think that they’re the only ones that are disgruntled, and so they can’t fear standing up to—they fear standing up to oppose the regime, because they can be picked off one at a time. If everyone were to protest at once, no government has the firepower to intimidate all its citizens at once. In a public protest, people can see other people there, and they know that the people there see other people there, and that can give them the strength and numbers to oppose the regime—sometimes by literally storming the palace, or sometimes just bringing the machinery of the state to a halt through work stoppages. But the crucial thing is that they are coordinated. They can only be coordinated if everyone knows that everyone knows that they hate the regime. Daniel Finkelstein: I suppose that social media is making people—is increasing the stock of common knowledge. We’re all much more aware of what other people like us, in particular like us, know, and we also know that other people know it, and so on, as you put it, and that makes people have more common knowledge. It’s not making us happier though; maybe we’d be better with less common knowledge? Me: Social media are making us more connected within certain circles—that is, those who are receiving the same texts and feeds that we are. It reduces the pool of, or shrinks the largest pool of common knowledge, namely the whole country, which may have been accessible in a day in which, say, in the United States there were three networks, or in Britain everyone was listening to the BBC. And yes, it probably doesn’t make us as happy, because when everything is public, it means that your reputation is on the line for anything you say or do. It means that since social media allow us to generate common knowledge, not just receive it like in the old days, it means that attacks on people’s reputation can be common knowledge, which means that it’s all the more painful for people on the receiving end of the attack. It may have something to do with the fact that in certain demographics—especially young people whose lives increasingly are online—that there’s that much more social competition, opportunities for gossip and ostracism and demeaning comments, and so on. When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows . . .: Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power, and Everyday Life:

Steven Pinker

21,547 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🚨Candace Owens OPEN LETTER to the Deep State: How FAR Are You Willing to Take This? 👀 Everyone knows Tyler Robinson didn’t do it. At this point, trying to sell that story feels insulting. We all saw what happened that day, and no amount of scripted interviews or carefully placed narratives is going to change what people already know in their gut. Candace made a point that stuck with me. She said they might have controlled the actors, the stage, and even some of the people in Charlie’s life up until that moment. But the one thing they couldn’t control was the audience. And the audience isn’t buying it. The show flopped. People aren’t falling for the cover-up, and instead of backing off, it feels like they’re doubling down. What’s wild is how this has actually backfired on them. Charlie’s death didn’t divide people the way they probably hoped it would. If anything, it pulled a lot of us together in recognizing who the real enemy is. Candace mentioned that Charlie had dreams about dying young and that it would somehow save the world. Maybe this is what he meant. Maybe his death was always going to expose something much bigger than any of us realized. The question now is simple: how far are they going to take this? Because from where I’m standing, the more they try to bury the truth, the more obvious it becomes. CC: Candace Owens
1:47

🚨Candace Owens OPEN LETTER to the Deep State: How FAR Are You Willing to Take This? 👀 Everyone knows Tyler Robinson didn’t do it. At this point, trying to sell that story feels insulting. We all saw what happened that day, and no amount of scripted interviews or carefully placed narratives is going to change what people already know in their gut. Candace made a point that stuck with me. She said they might have controlled the actors, the stage, and even some of the people in Charlie’s life up until that moment. But the one thing they couldn’t control was the audience. And the audience isn’t buying it. The show flopped. People aren’t falling for the cover-up, and instead of backing off, it feels like they’re doubling down. What’s wild is how this has actually backfired on them. Charlie’s death didn’t divide people the way they probably hoped it would. If anything, it pulled a lot of us together in recognizing who the real enemy is. Candace mentioned that Charlie had dreams about dying young and that it would somehow save the world. Maybe this is what he meant. Maybe his death was always going to expose something much bigger than any of us realized. The question now is simple: how far are they going to take this? Because from where I’m standing, the more they try to bury the truth, the more obvious it becomes. CC: Candace Owens

Cartman Reacts

38,073 просмотров • 23 дней назад

CNN was just forced to read on air why the Georgia prosecutor dropped the entire election case against President Trump. And their viewers are not going to like what they heard...especially the part where he said: “contesting an election is not unlawful.” A direct hit to the narrative they have been peddling for years. “He is saying that they are not going to move forward with this case.” “And he summarized it in part by saying that he made this decision by examining the case file, examining what the jury had been presented, and also considerations of the law.” “You know, he says that, you know, contesting an election is not unlawful. But, you know, and that is part of the reasons for why he decided not to move forward with the charges at this point.”
0:48

CNN was just forced to read on air why the Georgia prosecutor dropped the entire election case against President Trump. And their viewers are not going to like what they heard...especially the part where he said: “contesting an election is not unlawful.” A direct hit to the narrative they have been peddling for years. “He is saying that they are not going to move forward with this case.” “And he summarized it in part by saying that he made this decision by examining the case file, examining what the jury had been presented, and also considerations of the law.” “You know, he says that, you know, contesting an election is not unlawful. But, you know, and that is part of the reasons for why he decided not to move forward with the charges at this point.”

Overton

1,057,581 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

They passed it in the middle of the night…and most of them didn’t even read it. Rep. Randy Fine RIPS THE MASK OFF the Senate bill after being asked why he opposes it. FINE: “Well, I don’t know how hard they did they work.” “They passed it at 3 o’clock in the morning, when there were 5 Senators there.” “We’ve been told many of the Senators didn’t even know about it because they started writing it after midnight.” “So I don’t know how hard it was.” “Now it’s clear that they wanted to get on vacation. I think that was the focus.” “But it didn’t do what you claim, that bill does not end the shutdown. The shutdown was going to continue for thousands and thousands of federal employees who work at ICE and Border Protection, including those who investigate child trafficking of little girls.” “So it wasn’t going to end. It was just going to be less.” “And we said, no, we either take care of the country or we keep on fighting.”
0:43

They passed it in the middle of the night…and most of them didn’t even read it. Rep. Randy Fine RIPS THE MASK OFF the Senate bill after being asked why he opposes it. FINE: “Well, I don’t know how hard they did they work.” “They passed it at 3 o’clock in the morning, when there were 5 Senators there.” “We’ve been told many of the Senators didn’t even know about it because they started writing it after midnight.” “So I don’t know how hard it was.” “Now it’s clear that they wanted to get on vacation. I think that was the focus.” “But it didn’t do what you claim, that bill does not end the shutdown. The shutdown was going to continue for thousands and thousands of federal employees who work at ICE and Border Protection, including those who investigate child trafficking of little girls.” “So it wasn’t going to end. It was just going to be less.” “And we said, no, we either take care of the country or we keep on fighting.”

Overton

41,874 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

President Trump getting Devin Nunes to come back is a big deal. After 1.5 years of no successful Russiagate prosecutions by the DoJ, perhaps he will be able to push through accountability, justice and transparency. This the last chance. Nunes in 2025: “It's a conspiracy, it goes back 10 years, everyone would be caught up in this. What do we know at the highest level now? You've seen recently with the the prosecution of Comey that's occurring in Virginia, that new documents arose that now we have clear evidence, direct evidence, that Comey knew that this was a cover-up for the Clinton email scandal. So if you go back to 2016, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, they're all worried about the emails coming out because they know if the emails come out that Trump is going to easily cruise to election in 2016. What happened at that time is Comey wanted to keep his job. We now know that through information that's been disclosed. But instead of actually taking that information in 2016 and saying, wait a second, we have the Clinton campaign and the DNC involved in a likely criminal activity hoax to dirty up the other campaign, they actually adopted that campaign and they used the weapon, the weaponization of the FBI to target Trump and the Trump campaign that then led into the Trump presidency. So instead of doing what the FBI and the Department of Justice and even President Obama at that time, when they all got briefed in August and September of 2016, instead of Comey and DOJ going and saying, where the hell are the Hillary Clinton emails they operated in that whole time, knowing that this was just a cover up and they weaponize the Justice Department against the Trump campaign. MARIA: In the meeting in the Oval Office back in 2016, these are the notes that John Brennan wrote, which were declassified by John Ratcliffe, and here's what John Brennan wrote in his notes: "Alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services." There you go! He wrote it all down, Devin. NUNES: Yes, what do we have here? For 10 years, we've had a conspiracy to do what? What's the law that they broke? What they broke is that they lied and misled Congress. Specifically, they concealed this information. They concealed the fact that they knew that this was a cover-up by the Clinton campaign. Instead of exposing the cover-up, they weaponized the Justice Department to go after their political opponents. All of this information was not only hid from the American public, it was hid from Congress over and over again. We know now that Brennan did it. We know now that Comey did it. We know now that likely Clapper did it. Now, what we don't know is, what did the subpoena say that was used to raid Mar-o-Lago? What did the subpoena say?
3:00

President Trump getting Devin Nunes to come back is a big deal. After 1.5 years of no successful Russiagate prosecutions by the DoJ, perhaps he will be able to push through accountability, justice and transparency. This the last chance. Nunes in 2025: “It's a conspiracy, it goes back 10 years, everyone would be caught up in this. What do we know at the highest level now? You've seen recently with the the prosecution of Comey that's occurring in Virginia, that new documents arose that now we have clear evidence, direct evidence, that Comey knew that this was a cover-up for the Clinton email scandal. So if you go back to 2016, the Clinton campaign, the DNC, they're all worried about the emails coming out because they know if the emails come out that Trump is going to easily cruise to election in 2016. What happened at that time is Comey wanted to keep his job. We now know that through information that's been disclosed. But instead of actually taking that information in 2016 and saying, wait a second, we have the Clinton campaign and the DNC involved in a likely criminal activity hoax to dirty up the other campaign, they actually adopted that campaign and they used the weapon, the weaponization of the FBI to target Trump and the Trump campaign that then led into the Trump presidency. So instead of doing what the FBI and the Department of Justice and even President Obama at that time, when they all got briefed in August and September of 2016, instead of Comey and DOJ going and saying, where the hell are the Hillary Clinton emails they operated in that whole time, knowing that this was just a cover up and they weaponize the Justice Department against the Trump campaign. MARIA: In the meeting in the Oval Office back in 2016, these are the notes that John Brennan wrote, which were declassified by John Ratcliffe, and here's what John Brennan wrote in his notes: "Alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services." There you go! He wrote it all down, Devin. NUNES: Yes, what do we have here? For 10 years, we've had a conspiracy to do what? What's the law that they broke? What they broke is that they lied and misled Congress. Specifically, they concealed this information. They concealed the fact that they knew that this was a cover-up by the Clinton campaign. Instead of exposing the cover-up, they weaponized the Justice Department to go after their political opponents. All of this information was not only hid from the American public, it was hid from Congress over and over again. We know now that Brennan did it. We know now that Comey did it. We know now that likely Clapper did it. Now, what we don't know is, what did the subpoena say that was used to raid Mar-o-Lago? What did the subpoena say?

Svetlana Lokhova

136,071 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨Dr. Jack Kruse on Sunlight, Spike Protein & The War On Your Frontal Lobes ‘I do want you to get into the COVID issue because we are seeing a lot of people with neurological issues, such as myself. But I’m seeing a lot of people that I am friendly with that are, you know, either my immediate family that are so lost, they’re still getting the jab. It’s, it’s horrendous and it’s really sad. Uh, they have serious like mental health issues. It’s almost like another person. Is this due to like the SV40 or what is going on with what’s the difference?’ Kruse: It’s a different mechanism. The SV40 link, the promoter link, we now know that it changes your DNA. So that’s the link to oncogenesis. That’s the cancer link. But this is what you have to understand about the jab. The jab was engineered to destroy the leptin-melanocortin pathway. Why? You know about spike protein. The spike protein has had the charge changed on it so that it immediately goes to the inner mitochondrial membrane. When it goes to the inner mitochondrial membrane, what does it effectively do for the non-scientists? It’s a short circuit. So if you understand what I just told you before about melanin, the engine, and the exhaust, imagine putting spike protein like in between the outside and the engine, in the engine, and then distally. They can knock it out anywhere because the goal is to stop the flow of electrons through this system. Well, the way it starts on the top, it starts with sunlight. Sunlight powers the electrons that go into your mitochondria. So, in the brain, you need to know about how the leptin-melanocortin pathway works. So, you know that I’m a brain surgeon, so I know a lot about this. In the brain, you have a master clock in your eye a master clock called the SCN. It is connected to the retina. So, where does the leptin-melanocortin pathway begin? It begins in the eye, okay? So, the retina sends this pathway directly to two places. One is the SCN, which is the master clock that controls all circadian biology. If that clock runs slower than all the other clocks distal, you get diseases in the distal organs. That’s really what the disease is. Here’s the key. There’s no synapses in that pathway from the retina to the SCN. There’s another pathway that also has no synapses that very few people talk about. That one goes to the habenular nucleus from the retina. What is the habenular nucleus in the hypothalamus, which is very close to where your pituitary is? It is the relay center to the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are what make you different than primates. And that’s the reason why they were a target of COVID. That is the reason why behavioral changes have showed up. Remember what I told you about the original story about chromosome 2 folding in on itself. The people that were behind designing all this, they know all this architectural work that was done in the human genome project. They know why these people were interested in. You guys are just finding this out now. But people like me have been warning you about this before it even happened. But you know what the problem is? Just as you said, people thought I was crazy when I was saying all this stuff. Then now, when it comes out, you know, everybody wants to talk to me on their podcast and I’m like, well, look, I’ve already done my job as a doctor. I warned you. I told you exactly what the mechanisms were and why it would happen. And these things are all coordinated to take a human apart from what makes them human. And what makes us human, what’s the ultimate output of chromosome 2? These two frontal lobes. That is the reason why you’re seeing so many behavioral changes and you also need to understand that this is also the target of everything else. Why? Because they know that if they can control the circuits in these frontal lobes, you become a slave. And that’s what they want. Credit to Radiosynthesis ☣️ Pleb Kruse = BTC foundationalist in exile 🟩🔆 and firebreathingrob
4:01

🚨Dr. Jack Kruse on Sunlight, Spike Protein & The War On Your Frontal Lobes ‘I do want you to get into the COVID issue because we are seeing a lot of people with neurological issues, such as myself. But I’m seeing a lot of people that I am friendly with that are, you know, either my immediate family that are so lost, they’re still getting the jab. It’s, it’s horrendous and it’s really sad. Uh, they have serious like mental health issues. It’s almost like another person. Is this due to like the SV40 or what is going on with what’s the difference?’ Kruse: It’s a different mechanism. The SV40 link, the promoter link, we now know that it changes your DNA. So that’s the link to oncogenesis. That’s the cancer link. But this is what you have to understand about the jab. The jab was engineered to destroy the leptin-melanocortin pathway. Why? You know about spike protein. The spike protein has had the charge changed on it so that it immediately goes to the inner mitochondrial membrane. When it goes to the inner mitochondrial membrane, what does it effectively do for the non-scientists? It’s a short circuit. So if you understand what I just told you before about melanin, the engine, and the exhaust, imagine putting spike protein like in between the outside and the engine, in the engine, and then distally. They can knock it out anywhere because the goal is to stop the flow of electrons through this system. Well, the way it starts on the top, it starts with sunlight. Sunlight powers the electrons that go into your mitochondria. So, in the brain, you need to know about how the leptin-melanocortin pathway works. So, you know that I’m a brain surgeon, so I know a lot about this. In the brain, you have a master clock in your eye a master clock called the SCN. It is connected to the retina. So, where does the leptin-melanocortin pathway begin? It begins in the eye, okay? So, the retina sends this pathway directly to two places. One is the SCN, which is the master clock that controls all circadian biology. If that clock runs slower than all the other clocks distal, you get diseases in the distal organs. That’s really what the disease is. Here’s the key. There’s no synapses in that pathway from the retina to the SCN. There’s another pathway that also has no synapses that very few people talk about. That one goes to the habenular nucleus from the retina. What is the habenular nucleus in the hypothalamus, which is very close to where your pituitary is? It is the relay center to the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes are what make you different than primates. And that’s the reason why they were a target of COVID. That is the reason why behavioral changes have showed up. Remember what I told you about the original story about chromosome 2 folding in on itself. The people that were behind designing all this, they know all this architectural work that was done in the human genome project. They know why these people were interested in. You guys are just finding this out now. But people like me have been warning you about this before it even happened. But you know what the problem is? Just as you said, people thought I was crazy when I was saying all this stuff. Then now, when it comes out, you know, everybody wants to talk to me on their podcast and I’m like, well, look, I’ve already done my job as a doctor. I warned you. I told you exactly what the mechanisms were and why it would happen. And these things are all coordinated to take a human apart from what makes them human. And what makes us human, what’s the ultimate output of chromosome 2? These two frontal lobes. That is the reason why you’re seeing so many behavioral changes and you also need to understand that this is also the target of everything else. Why? Because they know that if they can control the circuits in these frontal lobes, you become a slave. And that’s what they want. Credit to Radiosynthesis ☣️ Pleb Kruse = BTC foundationalist in exile 🟩🔆 and firebreathingrob

Kenny Carmody

11,656 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

💊 Sometimes, The Truth is a Hard Pill to Swallow 💊 "There's no indication that (firsthand whistleblowers who claim they worked hands-on an NHI craft) are, at this moment, willing to come forward. If people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." ~Corbell (This is not the sensational and misleading "stuff" that tends to go semi-viral in this community. But it's reality. It sucks, but I'd rather hear the truth than have smoke blown up our asses. That's why I asked. Will this post spread like wildfire? Probably not.) "What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen." ~Corbell (the "me" in that quote is not Corbell and is clarified in the full version below.) ~~~ Joe Murgia: "Have you, or do you know of anybody else, who has claimed to have, spoken to the witness I described earlier: Somebody who claims to have worked in a program for a decent amount of time, and who had hands-on a craft, and said, 'Yeah, I worked on it, and my conclusion was, after three years,' or whatever, 'this was a non-human craft'"? Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yes! I know people in an official capacity who have interviewed with people that exactly fit this description, and I have pushed on them, being like, 'What is it going to take for someone like that to come forward, publicly?' And by the way, that was part of an ICIG investigation where people of that level were communicated with, and I know exactly who is doing that back and forth." (I'd love to know more about that ICIG investigation. Is it related to what Grusch claimed?) Corbell: "And here's the deal, man. They said to me, 'What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen. It just not gonna happen.' (If those folks are sharing that information with Corbell, it appears that it's not classified. So those investigators should be able to tell us what they told Corbell. Will they? Probably not. On the flip side, those people who spoke to Corbell could get around the classified aspect by offering up a hypothetical: "Jeremy, if witnesses like that exist, and have spoken to me, why would they destroy their whole lives and go public? Just because they were told they needed to speak with me? Again, hypothetically speaking.") Corbell: "There has to be somebody who's so upset with something surrounding this, that they're just like, gonna try to burn it all down. And usually those people never make it to the starting point, you know? If they're coming from that attitude. People that work in those programs are so highly monitored with polygraphs, and, you know, their family lives, making sure they're stable. "If you remember, all the way back, looking to Lazar, why did he get not called back for The Program? It was because they found out his wife was cheating on him and he became a security risk. That's how security clearances work, is you have to have a stable family life. So people that would break from the fold, that are feeling all that type of pressure and just try to burn the whole house down? Dude, they're going to find out they're in that mental state way prior to them ever being able to get to the starting point. "So it's a long way to say, yeah, man, the Holy Grail? Yeah, I know about those conversations. I've talked to people on both sides of those conversations." (Both sides to me means that Corbell is saying he DID talk to the people who interviewed the whistleblowers and the actual whistleblowers themselves. That's not the biggest takeaway from what he said, but it would be nice to know if he or George Knapp have spoken directly to those firsthand folks and aren't just hearing it second hand.) Corbell: "The thing is, there's no indication that people like that are at this moment willing to come forward. And in fact - I can't go further than that - but in fact, if people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." (What's changed to where Corbell doesn't think it's possible any more? That's extremely important to know.) Murgia: "And just to be clear, you're talking about other people have had the conversations with those whistleblowers?" Corbell: "Yes." Murgia: "Not you?" Corbell: "Well, what I'm admitting to is that, in official capacity, there are people doing this investigation that have conveyed to me their direct, official debriefing with individuals in those programs. Like, working on the technology, currently. Non-human technology. So I know these people have had those investigatory roles and had those briefings and took the information because of the ICIG, you know, reports." (That makes it seem like it was more than just a hypothetical, which I mentioned earlier.) Murgia: "Cool." Corbell: "Yeah, I wish I could help more on that, guys, you know?" (If you've been waiting for those types of hands-on, firsthand folks to come forward, you need to adjust your expectations after seeing what Corbell said. I have. Some will decide they're tired of waiting and leave this field. Others, who are interested in the phenomenon and not just relying on what happens with witnesses, will always be here. And we still have a hearing coming in September where we will, hopefully, learn new and interesting information from firsthand witnesses who we have never heard from before.)
2:55

💊 Sometimes, The Truth is a Hard Pill to Swallow 💊 "There's no indication that (firsthand whistleblowers who claim they worked hands-on an NHI craft) are, at this moment, willing to come forward. If people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." ~Corbell (This is not the sensational and misleading "stuff" that tends to go semi-viral in this community. But it's reality. It sucks, but I'd rather hear the truth than have smoke blown up our asses. That's why I asked. Will this post spread like wildfire? Probably not.) "What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen." ~Corbell (the "me" in that quote is not Corbell and is clarified in the full version below.) ~~~ Joe Murgia: "Have you, or do you know of anybody else, who has claimed to have, spoken to the witness I described earlier: Somebody who claims to have worked in a program for a decent amount of time, and who had hands-on a craft, and said, 'Yeah, I worked on it, and my conclusion was, after three years,' or whatever, 'this was a non-human craft'"? Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Yes! I know people in an official capacity who have interviewed with people that exactly fit this description, and I have pushed on them, being like, 'What is it going to take for someone like that to come forward, publicly?' And by the way, that was part of an ICIG investigation where people of that level were communicated with, and I know exactly who is doing that back and forth." (I'd love to know more about that ICIG investigation. Is it related to what Grusch claimed?) Corbell: "And here's the deal, man. They said to me, 'What would be the motivation for someone like that to break from the fold and destroy their whole lives, just because they were called in to come talk with me? It's not gonna happen. It just not gonna happen.' (If those folks are sharing that information with Corbell, it appears that it's not classified. So those investigators should be able to tell us what they told Corbell. Will they? Probably not. On the flip side, those people who spoke to Corbell could get around the classified aspect by offering up a hypothetical: "Jeremy, if witnesses like that exist, and have spoken to me, why would they destroy their whole lives and go public? Just because they were told they needed to speak with me? Again, hypothetically speaking.") Corbell: "There has to be somebody who's so upset with something surrounding this, that they're just like, gonna try to burn it all down. And usually those people never make it to the starting point, you know? If they're coming from that attitude. People that work in those programs are so highly monitored with polygraphs, and, you know, their family lives, making sure they're stable. "If you remember, all the way back, looking to Lazar, why did he get not called back for The Program? It was because they found out his wife was cheating on him and he became a security risk. That's how security clearances work, is you have to have a stable family life. So people that would break from the fold, that are feeling all that type of pressure and just try to burn the whole house down? Dude, they're going to find out they're in that mental state way prior to them ever being able to get to the starting point. "So it's a long way to say, yeah, man, the Holy Grail? Yeah, I know about those conversations. I've talked to people on both sides of those conversations." (Both sides to me means that Corbell is saying he DID talk to the people who interviewed the whistleblowers and the actual whistleblowers themselves. That's not the biggest takeaway from what he said, but it would be nice to know if he or George Knapp have spoken directly to those firsthand folks and aren't just hearing it second hand.) Corbell: "The thing is, there's no indication that people like that are at this moment willing to come forward. And in fact - I can't go further than that - but in fact, if people were willing at one point, I don't think it's possible anymore for them." (What's changed to where Corbell doesn't think it's possible any more? That's extremely important to know.) Murgia: "And just to be clear, you're talking about other people have had the conversations with those whistleblowers?" Corbell: "Yes." Murgia: "Not you?" Corbell: "Well, what I'm admitting to is that, in official capacity, there are people doing this investigation that have conveyed to me their direct, official debriefing with individuals in those programs. Like, working on the technology, currently. Non-human technology. So I know these people have had those investigatory roles and had those briefings and took the information because of the ICIG, you know, reports." (That makes it seem like it was more than just a hypothetical, which I mentioned earlier.) Murgia: "Cool." Corbell: "Yeah, I wish I could help more on that, guys, you know?" (If you've been waiting for those types of hands-on, firsthand folks to come forward, you need to adjust your expectations after seeing what Corbell said. I have. Some will decide they're tired of waiting and leave this field. Others, who are interested in the phenomenon and not just relying on what happens with witnesses, will always be here. And we still have a hearing coming in September where we will, hopefully, learn new and interesting information from firsthand witnesses who we have never heard from before.)

Joe Murgia

53,949 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

This is an important piece of tape from Jason Chaffetz, former House Oversight chair, that helps explain why the Obama admin's manufactured intelligence hoax never saw the light of day until Tulsi Gabbard declassified the documents: "Remember you had an Obama administration and later a Biden Administration that did everything it could to bury that, and allow people like me, I was the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, they would NOT provide these documents, and that deep state continued on in perpetuity to hide that information that was clearly asked under subpeona, and it never happened." "They're a lying sack of ... I can't say it at this hour. But they lied to us. And they should pay the price. No more free passes."
3:34

This is an important piece of tape from Jason Chaffetz, former House Oversight chair, that helps explain why the Obama admin's manufactured intelligence hoax never saw the light of day until Tulsi Gabbard declassified the documents: "Remember you had an Obama administration and later a Biden Administration that did everything it could to bury that, and allow people like me, I was the Chairman of the Oversight Committee, they would NOT provide these documents, and that deep state continued on in perpetuity to hide that information that was clearly asked under subpeona, and it never happened." "They're a lying sack of ... I can't say it at this hour. But they lied to us. And they should pay the price. No more free passes."

Charlie Kirk

779,414 просмотров • 1 год назад

"The reason why people who are running companies or [are] in important government positions suddenly do an about-face [is] because...the people who control the National Security Law... inform them... they may not say anything [and] they basically have a muzzle over them." This clip of Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an episode of the Children's Health Defense (Children’s Health Defense) series Financial Rebellion posted to Rumble on July 10, 2025. ---------------Partial Transcription of clip---------------- "If you haven't watched the Story of the Red Button, I, strongly recommend you do. And it talks to our dependency as a society on organized crime and war and the fact that the general population really supports doing whatever we have to do to get their check. They just don't want to know about it. "And the reality is the people who run the financial system and the people who run the government have to know about it and have to deal with it. And that's why you get, you know, we get an overt part of the economy and we get a covert part of the economy. And at moments like this, National Security Law has to rise up and essentially assert control. "And I would point out, that Operation Warp Speed, as far as I know, Polly, I think is still going on. But under National Security Law, I have been told, and I cannot prove this, I cannot prove this in a court of law, but I've been told repeatedly that people like, you know, like a Pam Bondi are basically told this is an issue under National Security Law. And, if you disclose it, you will go to prison, you know, for 30 years. "So, you know, this is the reason why people who are running companies or people in important government positions suddenly do an about face because they've gotten the speech, the people who control the National Security Law, to inform them under the law, they may not say anything that they, they basically have a muzzle over them."
1:39

"The reason why people who are running companies or [are] in important government positions suddenly do an about-face [is] because...the people who control the National Security Law... inform them... they may not say anything [and] they basically have a muzzle over them." This clip of Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from an episode of the Children's Health Defense (Children’s Health Defense) series Financial Rebellion posted to Rumble on July 10, 2025. ---------------Partial Transcription of clip---------------- "If you haven't watched the Story of the Red Button, I, strongly recommend you do. And it talks to our dependency as a society on organized crime and war and the fact that the general population really supports doing whatever we have to do to get their check. They just don't want to know about it. "And the reality is the people who run the financial system and the people who run the government have to know about it and have to deal with it. And that's why you get, you know, we get an overt part of the economy and we get a covert part of the economy. And at moments like this, National Security Law has to rise up and essentially assert control. "And I would point out, that Operation Warp Speed, as far as I know, Polly, I think is still going on. But under National Security Law, I have been told, and I cannot prove this, I cannot prove this in a court of law, but I've been told repeatedly that people like, you know, like a Pam Bondi are basically told this is an issue under National Security Law. And, if you disclose it, you will go to prison, you know, for 30 years. "So, you know, this is the reason why people who are running companies or people in important government positions suddenly do an about face because they've gotten the speech, the people who control the National Security Law, to inform them under the law, they may not say anything that they, they basically have a muzzle over them."

Sense Receptor

23,379 просмотров • 1 год назад

NEW: Former CNN host Jim Acosta tells Jasmine Crockett that he thinks President Trump might arrest her. Crockett appeared to agree and said she has a big "target" on her back. "It is sad that people are fearful and that they are looking at people like me and really scared because they know that there is a target on my back ..." "You have the President of the United States who consistently drops my name and gets people all riled up," she continued. Why would Trump want to lock up one of the best gifts the Republican Party has received in years?
1:48

NEW: Former CNN host Jim Acosta tells Jasmine Crockett that he thinks President Trump might arrest her. Crockett appeared to agree and said she has a big "target" on her back. "It is sad that people are fearful and that they are looking at people like me and really scared because they know that there is a target on my back ..." "You have the President of the United States who consistently drops my name and gets people all riled up," she continued. Why would Trump want to lock up one of the best gifts the Republican Party has received in years?

Collin Rugg

570,416 просмотров • 1 год назад

“I don’t think it gets to or explains or reports that there was a cover up, and it also doesn't quite get into the inner, inner Biden circle,” says Semafor’s Ben Smith about the new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson about the cover-up of Joe Biden’s decline. Adds Mark Halperin, “It doesn’t name the co-conspirators. I'm not sure you can write a book saying you're exposing a cover-up, if you don't name the people who were involved with the cover-up.” The failure by journalists to report on Biden’s cognitive decline while he was in power may be “the biggest scandal in American journalism history,” Mark says. Ben Smith Rufus Gifford #Biden 2WAY
2:50

“I don’t think it gets to or explains or reports that there was a cover up, and it also doesn't quite get into the inner, inner Biden circle,” says Semafor’s Ben Smith about the new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson about the cover-up of Joe Biden’s decline. Adds Mark Halperin, “It doesn’t name the co-conspirators. I'm not sure you can write a book saying you're exposing a cover-up, if you don't name the people who were involved with the cover-up.” The failure by journalists to report on Biden’s cognitive decline while he was in power may be “the biggest scandal in American journalism history,” Mark says. Ben Smith Rufus Gifford #Biden 2WAY

2WAY

28,002 просмотров • 1 год назад