正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
🚨عاجل | فتوى جهاد ⭕️المعمم الشيعي الارهابي هاشم الحيدري : 🔶️يفتي فتوى الجهاد باحراق المنطقة وضرب كل القواعد والمصالح الامريكية العسكرية والاقتصادية والدبلوماسية ويكمل في فتواه على الامريكيين ان يتحسسو رقبتهم ومن يعمل معهم. 🚨 BREAKING | Jihad Fatwa ⭕️ Shiite cleric Hashem al-Haidari has issued a statement calling... show more
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![CLAIM: Kamala HQ says Donald Trump called Neo-Nazis “very fine people.” REALITY: This claim has been debunked by left-wing Snopes and rated “false.” See Trump’s full quote below: “You had some very bad people in that group [the Neo-Nazi group], but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.” In his statement Donald Trump goes on to disavow and condemn the Neo-Nazi group and any other group inciting violence in Charlottesville. For full context, consider reading those quotes and Trump’s remarks in the full transcript below: Reporter: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?" Trump: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long." Reporter: "Forty-eight hours." Trump: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement. "So I don’t want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts. If you go back to -- Reporter: "So you had to (inaudible) white supremacists?" Trump: "I brought it. I brought it. I brought it." Reporter: "Was it terrorism, in your opinion, what happened?" Trump: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. And then it went on from there. Now, here’s the thing --" *inaudible* Trump: "Excuse me. Excuse me. Take it nice and easy. Here’s the thing: When I make a statement, I like to be correct. I want the facts. This event just happened. In fact, a lot of the event didn’t even happen yet, as we were speaking. This event just happened. "Before I make a statement, I need the facts. So I don’t want to rush into a statement. So making the statement when I made it was excellent. In fact, the young woman, who I hear was a fantastic young woman, and it was on NBC -- her mother wrote me and said through, I guess, Twitter, social media, the nicest things. And I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine -- really, actually, an incredible young woman. But her mother, on Twitter, thanked me for what I said. "And honestly, if the press were not fake, and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. But unlike you, and unlike -- excuse me, unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts." Reporter: "The CEO of Walmart said you missed a critical opportunity to help bring the country together. Did you?" Trump: "Not at all. I think the country -- look, you take a look. I’ve created over a million jobs since I’m President. The country is booming. The stock market is setting records. We have the highest employment numbers we’ve ever had in the history of our country. We’re doing record business. We have the highest levels of enthusiasm. So the head of Walmart, who I know -- who’s a very nice guy -- was making a political statement. I mean -- I’d do it the same way. And you know why? Because I want to make sure, when I make a statement, that the statement is correct. And there was no way -- there was no way of making a correct statement that early. I had to see the facts, unlike a lot of reporters. Unlike a lot of reporters -- Reporter: "Nazis were there." Reporter: "David Duke was there." Trump: "I didn’t know David Duke was there. I wanted to see the facts. And the facts, as they started coming out, were very well stated. In fact, everybody said, ‘His statement was beautiful. If he would have made it sooner, that would have been good.’ I couldn’t have made it sooner because I didn’t know all of the facts. Frankly, people still don’t know all of the facts. "It was very important -- excuse me, excuse me -- it was very important to me to get the facts out and correctly. Because if I would have made a fast statement -- and the first statement was made without knowing much, other than what we were seeing. The second statement was made after, with knowledge, with great knowledge. There are still things -- excuse me -- there are still things that people don’t know. I want to make a statement with knowledge. I wanted to know the facts." Reporter: "Two questions. Was this terrorism? And can you tell us how you’re feeling about your chief strategist, Stephen Bannon?" Trump: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. Because there is a question: Is it murder? Is it terrorism? And then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. Reporter: "Can you tell us broadly what your -- do you still have confidence in Steve?" Trump: "Well, we’ll see. Look, look -- I like Mr. Bannon. He’s a friend of mine. But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. And I like him, he’s a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He’s a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that regard. But we’ll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he’s a good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very unfairly." Reporter: "Sen. (John) McCain said that the alt-right is behind these attacks, and he linked that same group to those who perpetrated the attack in Charlottesville." Trump: "Well, I don’t know. I can’t tell you. I’m sure Senator McCain must know what he’s talking about. But when you say the alt-right, define alt-right to me. You define it. Go ahead." Reporter: "Well, I’m saying, as Senator --" Trump: "No, define it for me. Come on, let’s go. Define it for me." Reporter: "Senator McCain defined them as the same group --" Trump: "Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at -- excuse me, what about the alt-left that came charging at the, as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? "Let me ask you this: What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I’m concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day. Wait a minute. I’m not finished. I’m not finished, fake news. That was a horrible day -- " I will tell you something. I watched those very closely -- much more closely than you people watched it. And you have -- you had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but I’ll say it right now. You had a group -- you had a group on the other side that came charging in, without a permit, and they were very, very violent." Reporter: "Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?" Trump: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." Reporter: "Should that statue be taken down?" Trump: "Excuse me. If you take a look at some of the groups, and you see -- and you’d know it if you were honest reporters, which in many cases you’re not -- but many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. "So this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop? "But they were there to protest -- excuse me, if you take a look, the night before they were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. Infrastructure question. Go ahead." Reporter: "Should the statues of Robert E. Lee stay up?" Trump: "I would say that’s up to a local town, community, or the federal government, depending on where it is located." Reporter: "How concerned are you about race relations in America? And do you think things have gotten worse or better since you took office?" Trump: "I think they’ve gotten better or the same. Look, they’ve been frayed for a long time. And you can ask President Obama about that, because he’d make speeches about it. But I believe that the fact that I brought in -- it will be soon -- millions of jobs -- you see where companies are moving back into our country -- I think that’s going to have a tremendous, positive impact on race relations. "We have companies coming back into our country. We have two car companies that just announced. We have Foxconn in Wisconsin just announced. We have many companies, I say, pouring back into the country. I think that’s going to have a huge, positive impact on race relations. You know why? It’s jobs. What people want now, they want jobs. They want great jobs with good pay, and when they have that, you watch how race relations will be. "And I’ll tell you, we’re spending a lot of money on the inner cities. We’re fixing the inner cities. We’re doing far more than anybody has done with respect to the inner cities. It’s a priority for me, and it’s very important." Reporter: "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?" Trump: "I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs -- and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. "But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left -- you just called them the left -- that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is. Reporter: (Inaudible) "… both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the --" Trump: "Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides -- I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say." Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --" Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name." Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same." Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?" Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson." Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group." Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying." Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. "But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country. "Does anybody have a final -- Reporter: "What makes you think you can get an infrastructure bill? You didn’t get health care -- Trump: "Well, you know, I’ll tell you. We came very close with health care. Unfortunately, John McCain decided to vote against it at the last minute. You’ll have to ask John McCain why he did that. But we came very close to health care. We will end up getting health care. But we’ll get the infrastructure. And actually, infrastructure is something that I think we’ll have bipartisan support on. I actually think Democrats will go along with the infrastructure." Reporter: "Mr. President, have you spoken to the family of the victim of the car attack?" Trump: "No, I’ll be reaching out. I’ll be reaching out." Reporter: "When will you be reaching out?" Trump: "I thought that the statement put out -- the mother’s statement I thought was a beautiful statement. I will tell you, it was something that I really appreciated. I thought it was terrific. And, really, under the kind of stress that she’s under and the heartache that she’s under, I thought putting out that statement, to me, was really something. I won’t forget it. "Thank you, all, very much. Thank you. Thank you." -- END OF TRANSCRIPT --](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1823032682730946863/ext_tw_video_thumb/1823032443038994432/pu/img/9AYuKrCdHdMAI4Hx.jpg)
![Why Did Jack Smith ignore Biden family scandals when he was head of DOJs Public Integrity Section, tasked with investigating political corruption? In May 2014, the Obama/Biden White House was scrambling to deflect questions related to Hunter Biden’s new gig as a board member at Burisma, the compromised Ukrainian energy conglomerate; the news came just a few weeks after Vice President Joe Biden visited Kiev and promised Ukrainian leaders that the U.S. was “ready to assist” the country’s efforts to accelerate natural gas exploration. (At the time, Burisma was Ukraine's biggest natural gas producer.) The day after Burisma issued a public statement boasting about their latest hire, White House press secretary Jay Carney ducked questions about the younger Biden during a May 13, 2014 briefing: Reporter: On another subject, Hunter Biden has now taken a position with the largest oil and gas company--holding company in Ukraine. Is there any concern about at least the appearance of a conflict there--for the Vice President’s son to take a- Carney: I would refer you to the Vice President’s office. I saw those reports. Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family are obviously private citizens and where they work does not reflect an endorsement by the administration or by the Vice President or President. But I would refer you to the Vice President’s office. Kendra Barkoff, a Biden spokeswoman, offered the same talking points in a terse statement to the media. “Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer. The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company." During a State Department briefing later that day, Jen Psaki smirked away one question about the vice president's son, insisting it was of no concern to the agency. Nevertheless, major news outlets here and around the world continued to raise the improper, if not brazenly pay-to-play, nature of the arrangement. “Vice President Joe Biden's youngest son Hunter Biden has joined the board of directors of Ukraine's largest oil company at a time that the U.S. is urging Ukraine to develop energy independence from Russia and just days after the vice president visited Ukraine,” ABC News reported in May 2014, noting the fortuitous timing of the announcement. “The appointment of the vice president's son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst,” Adam Taylor, Washington Post foreign affairs reporter, surmised in a May 14, 2014 article. “No matter how qualified Biden is, it ties into the idea that U.S. foreign policy is self-interested. [You] have to wonder how big the salary has to be to put U.S. soft power at risk like this.” And despite Psaki’s spin, State Department officials soon after expressed concern about the “perception of a conflict of interest,” even taking those concerns to Vice President Joe Biden’s office in early 2015. But one person in official Washington seemed uninterested in the shady deal between a corrupt international gas company operating in a notoriously unstable country and America’s most troubled nepo-baby: Jack Smith. Smith—appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland last year to take over DOJs dual investigations into Donald Trump for alleged mishandling of classified documents and the events of January 6—was named chief of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section, or PIN, in August 2010. Operating within the criminal division, PIN maintains broad purview over public corruption investigations on the federal, state, and local level including cases tied to “a government official…or someone associated with such an official,” according to the office’s annual report. Smith held that powerful position until February 2015—meaning Hunter Biden’s years-long board position with Burisma ultimately resulting in a $4 million windfall for the vice president’s son began right under Jack Smith’s nose. This is certainly contrary to what the public has been told about Jack Smith. The news media, “legal experts” in particular, insist Jack Smith is a no-nonsense federal prosecutor with unmatched integrity and devotion to the rule of law. Smith, according to his former DOJ colleague Andrew Weissmann, is a “consummate professional” and a “skilled and fast prosecutor who does not let the grass grow under his feet." So, what happened? How did the keen-eyed, apolitical Smith and his 30-plus lawyers miss what was happening just blocks from their DOJ offices? Perhaps Smith truly bought Burisma’s spin that the company selected Hunter based on his “expertise” in foreign policy and the law. Or perhaps Smith believed Hunter Biden when he said he would consult Burisma on matters relating to “transparency, corporate governance, and responsibility.” 😂 Maybe Smith was too busy prosecuting Republican governor Bob McDonnell and his wife at the time—a case later overturned by the Supreme Court—that he missed the international headlines of how a British government agency had seized $23 million in assets belonging to Burisma’s owner amid suspicions of money laundering the very same month Hunter was appointed to the board. Maybe Smith was just a tender heart who thought Hunter quickly turned over a new leaf. After all, Hunter had been discharged from the Naval reserves just three months before the Burisma appointment was announced. Hunter’s misadventures were among the worst kept secrets in Washington but maybe Smith was still reeling from his unsuccessful prosecution of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards to pay attention to Biden family gossip. And it wasn’t just the Burisma gig that somehow evaded Smith’s attention; Hunter made his overseas business dealings well known. He, along with fellow nepo-baby Christopher Heinz, stepson of then-Senator John Kerry, launched Rosemont Seneca in 2009. “Over the next seven years, as both Joe Biden and John Kerry negotiated sensitive and high-stakes deals with foreign governments, Rosemont entities secured a series of exclusive deals often with those same foreign governments,” investigative reporter Peter Schweizer wrote in his 2018 book. (Schweizer also noted that the private-equity firm did not open an office in New York City, the financial capital of the world, but in Washington, D.C., “just two miles from both Joe Biden’s office in the White House and his residence at the Naval Observatory.”) Multiple deals were cut as Smith led the government’s most powerful “public corruption” unit. And some of the most lucrative arrangements were with Chinese businesses tied to the Chinese Communist Party, partnerships that just happened to coincide with Hunter’s trips to China with his father. “[The 2013 trip to China] was a triumph for Hunter, who walked away with his first big deal in China—the Bohai Harvest Rosemont investment partnership,” Miranda Devine wrote in her 2021 book, “Laptop From Hell.” Devine explained the deal was consummated on December 16, 2013, “twelve days after he flew into Beijing on Air Force Two. Hunter officially became a shareholder and member of the BHR board.” Smith probably missed the July 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal touting the private equity partnership with the vice president’s son aimed at enriching the CCP. “The funds are raising a combination of yuan and U.S. dollars. The effort is the latest example [of] private equity pushing boundaries in an area that China hopes will help drive the country's economic transformation.” Now, perhaps there was nothing untoward about Hunter Biden’s sudden interest and success at global private equity. But surely the use of Air Force Two to conduct personal business—Hunter accompanied his father on 70 overseas trips including six trips to China on Smith’s watch—should have caught someone’s attention at DOJs “public integrity” unit, no? The answer, of course, is no. Was Smith asleep at the switch or intentionally ignorant or once again doing the dirty work of the Democratic Party? Smith have put a stop to the Biden family international shakedown nearly a decade ago--why didn't he? At what risk did he put the country by turning a blind eye to this egregious level of influence peddling in nations hostile to American interests? As Smith eagerly prepares to sign his name to another criminal indictment against Donald Trump for the events of January 6, Hunter Biden’s plea deal with Smith’s employer is falling apart along with further confirmation of how the younger Biden hauled in millions from countries such as China and Ukraine by leveraging his last name to support himself, his addictions, and his family—including, quite possibly, his father as well. All of this could have been halted in its tracks long ago. And the person primarily responsible for letting it get to this point is none other than Jack Smith.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1684638849543098368/ext_tw_video_thumb/1684635684290646016/pu/img/I4qaa2S07VyMB48v.jpg)
![🚨🛸👽 Alien Craft and Bodies - How Confident? 👽🛸🚨 "Confidence is high. Repeat: confidence is high." ~The Sherminator Grusch/Kelly Part 1 - Video and Transcript "As somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that...the U.S. government has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of non-human crafts and recovering the biologics as well. I take that assessment very seriously" ~Grusch (I'll do my best to finish all three parts tonight) ~ Biggest Takeaway How did Grusch see evidence of alleged non-human craft and bodies and how confident is he that this is legit? Grusch: "I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "Eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio-visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." ~~~ Megyn Kelly: "It's the age-old question that has fascinated humans for centuries and continues to: are we alone in the universe, or even on our own planet? My next guest says, not only are UFOs - or now they're called UAPs - Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. That's hard to remember, but UAPs - real, but the government has allegedly been aware of them for decades and running a disinformation campaign to make you feel like an idiot if you believe reports about them. "David Grusch is a former US Air Force Intelligence Officer and senior intelligence official. He was his agency's co-lead in UAP investigation and quote 'transmedium object analysis' and was reporting to the Pentagon's UAP Task Force as well. In 2023, Grusch filed a whistleblower complaint asserting that the United States has been operating a quote, 'multi-decade UAP crash retrieval and reverse engineering program,' meaning we're taking what we find - vehicles - and trying to figure out how they operated. And that Congress has been kept in the dark about large portions of the program. He later testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee, drawing national attention when he made this claim here. Watch." ~Video from the 2023 Oversight Committee Hearing~ Rep. Nancy Mace: "If you believe we have crashed craft, stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?" David Grusch: "As I've stated publicly already in my NewsNation interview, biologics came with some of these recoveries, yeah." Mace: "Were they, I guess, human or non-human biologics?" Grusch: "Non-human, and that was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the program I talked to that are currently still on the program." ~ Kelly: "So, he's alleging that we have crafts and we have non-human biologics from those crafts, and that the American people are being kept in the dark about it. And he is not alone. He is not alone. Now, Pentagon officials have publicly denied that there's any verified evidence of non-human intelligence or secret programs of this kind. They've been denying it for 80 years. But now, a new documentary called 'The Age of Disclosure' is taking center stage. It's extraordinary, examining decades of this alleged secrecy, and they have everyone in this film. "The film features interviews with 34 former and current government officials, including Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who claim the U.S. has long been concealing evidence of non-human intelligence and UAPs. Here's a part of the trailer." Begin Excerpt from "The Age of Disclosure" Tim Gallaudet: "Humanity is not the only intelligence in the Universe." Dr. Eric Davis: "Humanity is not the only intelligent species." Brett Feddersen: "We are absolutely not alone." Karl Nell: "Non-human intelligence exists." Jim Semivan: "UAPs are real ,they're here, and they're not human." Jay Stratton: "I have seen with my own eyes, non-human craft and non-human beings." Senator Mike Rounds: "This is so secret, very, very few people in our entire government have been allowed access to it." Secretary Marco Rubio: "Even presidents have been operating on a need-to-know basis, but that begins to ramp out of control." Kirsten Gillibrand: "It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees." Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office: "You better be careful about a government that doesn't trust its people, because there's no telling what they'll pull on ya." ~End AoD Excerpt~ Kelly: "It's extraordinary. Let's get into it. David joins me now. David, thank you so much for your service and for being here." Grusch: "Thanks. Mellon. Um, excuse me (laughs). Thanks, Megan. Thank you for having me on." Kelly: "(laughs) No worries. This is like a crazy story and a stunning story and disturbing. And I have to tell you, I've always been sort of open minded to this issue, but more skeptical. And I my skepticism is gone, having watched 'The Age of Disclosure.'" (Until we hear from a firsthand witness who says they worked hands-on what they feel was a non-human craft, in the alleged Legacy crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, I think it's smart to retain some skepticism.) Kelly: "['The Age of Disclosure' is] incredibly well done, and they've got everybody. I mean, all of the like, astrophysicists and extremely-well-educated, and accomplished, scientists - who have been investigating this from the start. Well, not the start, because it was 80 years ago, but in recent decades - on camera, on the record, saying as much as they can. "And the director of the film (Dan Farah) has been making the rounds saying, the only reason he was able to get so many people to participate is because they felt there was safety in numbers and that they couldn't either fire everyone, or worse. Because a lot of these guys, these are distinguished guys, served in the Air Force like yourself, or served at the Pentagon, served all over the armed forces. A lot of these guys are actually worried not just about their careers getting killed, but about them themselves getting killed. I mean, set it up for us on the stakes of the number of people who went on camera and actually started saying as much as they could without violating classified restrictions." Grusch: "Certainly, that's a real fear, and we can certainly get into that. 'Age of Disclosure' was, you know, a project I didn't fully participate in, however, I do applaud the effort in these individuals for at least coming forward and speaking. And like you, I was a very skeptical person. I was certainly open to the topic. I was interested in space and science in a very precocious way, as a child. I ended up studying physics and the Air Force gave me a full-ride scholarship. And I was always, obviously, open to the topic, but I was in positions of high trust in the government at the most extreme levels, having walked the halls of the West Wing, personally handled the presidential daily intelligence brief and had some of the same broad accesses that the President and his cabinet has had over the years, even as a young man across multiple administrations "I figured - when I was eventually brought into this topic, working for the UAP Task Force - oh, I would know this exists. Somebody would have slipped and said something to me. At the time, I was briefed to over 90% out of all black programs in the Department of Defense and also the Intelligence Community, and I had an arrogant opinion of the topic. I was certainly open to the idea, but I figured I haven't seen any evidence and I would have been briefed into those kind of things, because I had a need-to-know at the time. So I came into it very similar to you, but open minded." Kelly: "And then, what specifically were you assigned to where you started to see actual evidence that we've been researching this for 80 years, that we do have crafts recovered, that we have, quote, 'biologics' recovered, which include some sort of other being. And what was your reaction when you started to learn this?" Grusch: "Yeah, I was very skeptical. I was in my military capacity, I had a parallel-civilian-intelligence career as well. But in my military-reserve capacity, I was the backup Intelligence Director for the National Reconnaissance Offices operation center. I briefed the NRO director. That's where I handled the PDB" Kelly: "Presidential Daily Brief." Grusch: "And I handled, essentially, all sensitive activities and all that stuff. And so, the UAP Task Force was looking for a representative from that organization. I came in as a skeptical eye, having briefed to a lot of U.S. programs. And I was thinking, oh, I'll figure out what this is. This might be some kind of U.S. program, some prosaic natural phenomenon, some kind of adversarial program, some strategic technical surprise. "But eventually, as I started pulsing my networks, digging into archives where, we'll just say, certain programs forgot to fully clean out safe drawers, and finding both audio visual documentation. And then interviewing over 40 people all the way up to, I'll just say, the cabinet level over the course of four years. So a combination of oral testimony, audio-visual evidence and documentation. I became convinced, at a high-confidence level that the U.S. has engaged in a crash retrieval and reverse engineering operation of - like the trailer you just played, said - non-human crafts and recovering, you know, the biologics as well. "And I say high-confidence, as somebody who's written assessments for the President of the United States. I take that assessment very seriously, and that confidence level very seriously. But as somebody who was in very high positions of trust over the years, I can assure you that that is an accurate statement. That the U.S. government, its private partners, allies and adversaries, do have programs, doing this exact thing." Kelly: "Many in our audience may know you, David, you've been kind of really celebrated [by] people for coming out as a whistleblower and calling attention the fact that our government's been hiding this from us. And even when told to disclose what they know to investigators and to the public or to the oversight seers they haven't. There's a deeper program called The Legacy program that has really...seems to have been trying to hide the most shocking pieces of what we know from even the UAP Task Force."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2009110796807360534/amplify_video_thumb/2009074481340534787/img/tP8VqixJms_G8IcI.jpg)
![The Worst 10 'Fact' Checks Of 2025 | Alex Christy, MRC Newsbusters For the fact-checking websites, 2025 marked the end of an era. Back in January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the company was ending their partnership with websites such as PolitiFact. However, one cannot be 100 percent certain Zuckerberg’s reversal is a purely principled one given President Trump’s return to the White House, so it can be good to remember the worst ten fact-checks of the year just in case Zuckerberg decides to reverse himself in a few years if a Democrat retakes the presidency. 10. Snopes on Jay Jones’s Violent Text Messages (November 11) Democratic Virginia Attorney General-elect Jay Jones was able to win in November despite a scandal where it was revealed he had sent text messages where he fantasized about killing the Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates, wished violence on his family, and discussed urinating on the graves of other GOP state lawmakers. Snopes managed to correctly give the scandal a “true” rating, but not until one week after the election, by which point it was too late. 9. PolitiFact’s Questionable Climate Science (January 21) When Donald Trump Jr. claimed the California wildfires had nothing to do with climate change, PolitiFact slapped him with a “false” rating. However, in the study PolitiFact itself cited, it was claimed that “Further research is needed to understand how the factors above combined to produce the observed behavior of the January 2025 fires, including the overall contribution of the factors’ climate-change components.” Additionally, back in 2021, Science Magazine wrote, “One hundred percent of [Santa Ana winds] fires were human caused, and in the past decade, powerline failures have been the dominant cause.” 8. PolitiFact Rates Energy Department ‘False’ For Agreeing With It (September 9) PolitiFact asserted that an Energy Department X post was “false” for claiming, “Wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and the wind is not blowing.” Deputy editor Louis Jacobson tried to rebut, “Once produced, energy generated from wind and solar can be stored in batteries or in larger pieces of infrastructure such as reservoirs.” The problem for Jacobson was that the X post linked to a Washington Examiner article where it was clear that the Energy Department agreed, “the secretary claimed that, without proper battery technology, wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially ‘worthless’ when it is dark and when the wind isn’t blowing [emphasis added].” 7. PolitiFact’s Mathematically-Challenged Government Spending Charts (February 25) When Washington Sen. Patty Murray claimed that GOP tax cuts were the primary driver of the national debt, PolitiFact gave her a “half-true” because she and Democrats voted to extend them. However, the reason why she was not given a full false was because PolitiFact’s pie chart claimed tax cuts were the biggest contributor despite it lumping “five tax cut bills enacted since 2001” together while separating recession responses, new discretionary spending, and Medicare expansions into three separate categories. If PolitiFact treated the two equally, it would have been $13.8 trillion in new spending (62 percent) versus $8.4 trillion in tax cuts (38 percent). 6. PolitiFact’s Double Standards on Political Labeling (June 26) One of PolitiFact’s most annoying features is its double standards when it comes to political labeling. This time, President Trump was given a “false” label for calling Zohran Mamdani a communist despite his inglorious social media history of praising communists and calling to seize the means of production. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for any liberal to be given a “false” label for calling any Republican a fascist or a Nazi. 5. Associated Press Quibbles with Trump’s True Statement About Crime (August 11) President Trump defended his decision to send the National Guard to D.C. by comparing the city’s crime rate to other cities, but the AP wasn’t happy, “It’s true, but Trump isn’t telling the whole story. Washington does have a higher homicide rate than many other global cities, including some that have historically been considered unsafe by many Americans. But Trump is leaving out important context: the U.S. in general sees higher violent crime rates than many other countries.” 4. Operation Midnight Hammer Dud (June 24) After the B-2 strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, claimed, “People familiar with the report told CNN the facilities’ centrifuges, which enrich uranium, remained largely ‘intact.’” It also cited “David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told NPR, ‘I think you have to assume that significant amounts of this enriched uranium still exist, so this is not over by any means.’” However, Albright also told NPR, “I think the purpose of the attack was to take out centrifuges and infrastructure and they feel they accomplished that." Albright also posted on X, “The time Iran would need to build even a non-missile deliverable nuclear weapon has increased significantly.” That makes sense considering the U.S. dropped 360,000 pounds of bombs on those centrifuges and they are extremely sensitive. 3. CNN’s Daniel Dale Tries To Defend CNN (June 26) In more bad judgment regarding Iranian centrifuges, CNN’s Natasha Bertrand falsely said that CNN had reported all along that the underwhelming Defense Intelligence Assessment was “low confidence,” which led to a rebuke from Secretary Pete Hegseth. Dale eventually came in to claim “The Secretary referred to Fake News CNN and then immediately proceeded to effectively confirm CNN's reporting." 2. Snopes Gives Cover to Rep. Tlaib Speaking At Pro-Hamas Conference (December 3) According to Snopes, it is false to say “that Tlaib had called on supporters of Hamas, a Palestinian militant group that the U.S. government has designated a terrorist organization, to 'mobilize and take over America.'" Except the People’s Conference for Palestine featured several pro-Hamas speakers and Tlaib musing about “seizing power.” 1. Sex and Gender (April 7) When Trump issued an executive order, objected, “The definition in the executive order ‘should not and cannot apply’ to people with a [Differences of Sex Development], according to a statement from the [Pediatric Endocrine Society]. That’s because some people with a DSD, which is also called intersex, don’t produce sperm or eggs, produce both of them, or produce a reproductive cell that doesn’t match their biological sex development.” Intersex is not a third sex. Reasonable people can understand that intersex people exist and are separate from the transgender debate, but this has nothing to do with the executive order. It also lamented the “erasure of gender and gender identity” and suggested the administration was making mountains out of molehills when it comes to so-called “gender-affirming care.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2006319540724961647/amplify_video_thumb/2006319393186193408/img/IRjzEKLrb84flmNK.jpg)