In this episode, Lisa welcomes back former Navy SEAL and FBI agent Jonathan T. Gilliam to reflect on the attempted assassination of President Trump in Butler, PA, exposing glaring security failures and a lack of accountability from federal agencies. They highlight political bias within the Secret Service and FBI, raising concerns about intentional negligence. The discussion also covers the opaque handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the rise in violence against ICE agents. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Jonathan HERE
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we cut
through the noise.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
To get to the heart of the issues that matter
to you.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Today, we're diving into some explosive topics with Jonathan Gilliam.
He's a former Navy seal and FBI agent. He's also
the host of the Experts podcast. We're going to unpack
the shocking security failures surrounding the attempted assassinations of former
President Trump, particularly one year after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania,
(00:27):
which almost took his life. Were these lapses intentional? You
just look at a bunch of collective data points and
it begs the question were they intentional? So I'll ask
him based off of his experience. We'll also dig into
the Epstein files controversy. Did Jeffrey Epstein really die by suicide?
And what's the truth behind the so called client list?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
What does he think the truth is.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Plus we'll tackle the seven hundred percent increase in attacks
on ICE agents and why Democrats seem to have painted
them is the enemy.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
So stay tuned, we'll.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Get the truth on all of this with Jonathan Gilliam. Well, Jonathan,
it's great to have you on the show we had
you on after the assassination attempt and kind of you know,
went through what we felt went wrong. But now it's
been a year, there's been some additional reporting. Ram Paul,
(01:20):
chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, issued a report
about some of the failures that took place. I guess,
what are your reflections, your thoughts a year later after
the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Well, I'll tell you it's I don't feel much different
than I did when it happened. I don't think that
we have the confidence. Nobody's built any confidence, and it's
from the Secret Service or the FBI. We don't have
any more confidence that the president is going to be secured,
(01:57):
or that if you go to an outdoor rally, that
they have the security handled.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
We don't know that.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
We haven't seen any examples of improvement in tactics. We
haven't seen anyone held to account for what occurred and
how the mismanagement and planning and threat assessments and all
that occurred. So I think overall, I still question how
(02:27):
in the world something like that could have happened to
the president when they're supposedly being protected or future president
at that point when they're supposed to be protected by
the Premiere Protection Agency. And the more we look into it,
I kind of look at this the same way you
look at Harley Davidson, or you look at American Airlines
(02:50):
or any of these other.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Companies that have gone woke.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
And then they said, well, we're going to do away
with our DEI, And then when you look at what
they're doing, all they did was just stop calling it
DEI and they stopped promoting that they used DEI. They'd
never really changed anything, and so those brands are still hurting.
Safety is still hurting, and I think the same thing
goes for the Secret Service. I don't know what they
(03:19):
actually changed. And for the deputy director to come out
this past week and talk about how they were focused
on new technologies and things like that, that has nothing
to do technology has nothing to do with that shooting
in Butler, Pennsylvania, are the one that followed a couple
(03:40):
months later in Florida. It was complete failure of threat assessments,
of forward thinking, of utilizing trained personnel on the ground,
and communication with local law enforcement, and local law enforcement
failures themselves. And I don't see where any of that's
been corrected or anybody's been held accountable.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
But I guess my thought process.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
I remember we talked about this, I guess so, you know,
basically a year ago, and you know, I guess what
I'm still trying to figure out is if the security
lapses were intentional, not in the sense of more so
just indifference, right, because at the time, you had Joe
Biden and the Biden administration actively trying to jail Donald Trump,
(04:23):
and you had Joe Biden saying that he should be
put in a bullseye. You had Benny Thompson, the ranking
member on Homeland Security at the House Homeland Security Committee,
trying to strip Donald Trump of his security detail. And then,
you know, so you had all these things happening against
President char you know, former President Trump at that point.
(04:45):
So it's like, were they just indifferent and not caring
about trying to keep him safe? Like it just he
didn't matter to them. They had already dehumanized him enough,
like they've already basically demonstrated they don't see him as
a human being. So were they just indifferent to protect
to him? Where the last is intentional?
Speaker 3 (05:04):
I think it's a well, I think it's a mix
of all those things, because you know, when you look
at these you have to look at the totality of
the circumstances, right, And as an investigator, you can't say
that that is not a possibility, Like I don't entertain
conspiracy theories, but I will take what people say and
put it on the wall of theories, and then if
(05:25):
there's evidence that shows that that's a possibility, then I
will entertain that. And so I try not to let
theories lead my search for evidence, but the evidence lead
which theory I believe is potentially a truth. And in
this case, you cannot rule out intentional intentional avenues of
(05:49):
approach being left open, because that's what occurred. It's what
occurred in both instances where they did not do the
proper threat assessment or they did not close off the
avenues of approaching an attacker could take when they locked
down the facility. Perhaps they did the right threat assessment
and they discovered that that's an avenue of approach and
(06:12):
they just left it wide open, so it could go
either way. They either didn't do the proper threat assessment,
which means they didn't account for the buildings that were
one hundred and thirty yards away, which is ridiculous, Or
they did the proper threat assessment, they determined where an
attacker could attack, and then they purposely left those points soft.
(06:35):
I think from an investigative standpoint, there's evidence to show
that there's motivation to do both of those things. Inexperience
in laziness that would act that would carry them through
doing a threat assessment that wasn't efficient, or there was
enough dissension in the high ranks of all these agencies
(06:58):
and hatred of President Trump that I could see them
doing something that just allowed somebody to take advantage of
an open area.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
So that's very.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Troubling for me, somebody who's taken an oath to support
and defend this nation in the Constitution with four different agencies,
and that bothers me when I see that that is
a possibility and I can't rule it out.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Sea.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
I'm not saying they collaborated with him type thing. I'm
just saying that they didn't care enough about him to
make sure that he had the protection he needed it'd
be safe.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
It's like this a prison guard that goes in and
doesn't like this prisoner, so he accidentally leaves both of
those sales open to sell that a guy could come
out of and go over and hurt or kill that
other prisoner that he doesn't like. He doesn't partake in it.
He just didn't lock those doors, right. So that is
(08:00):
the way I look at this is that if it
isn't intentionally these avenues approach are intentionally left open, eventually
somebody will take advantage of those. And that's what we
saw in both instances. In Florida, it was the same thing.
They did not secure a golf course, the perimeter of
golf course that Donald Trump goes to every week, and
(08:23):
so they made it sound as though that was just
a and.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
He was there for twelve hours undetected.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
Twelve hours and nobody detected.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
But here's the thing, Lisa, that really bothers me a lot,
and it got me in trouble a little bit with
some media because I said this and took a while
for them to get over it. But if they would
have looked at what I was saying, they would have said, well,
we can't rule that out. And that is that the
people at the top of all these agencies, as you
can see now, are extremely left, not just Democrats, they're
(08:58):
extremely left guy in Florida who was head of the
he was the sac of the FBI that started the
investigation after that attempt, that guy had had his entire
social media scrubbed because it was filled with hatred of
President Trump. Now that's unbelievable when you think about it,
(09:19):
and that goes across the board with all these different agencies.
We know there were people, high ranking officials in the
Secret Service to just flat out during the President's first
term said they would not protect him, that they would
not step in front of a bullet for him. And
so we have to assume looking at these judges that
are the way they act, Looking at the way FBI
(09:41):
has gone after in the past, christians President Trump by
creating false evidence. Who would have ever thought that that
would occur in the FBI against a president or somebody
running to be a president. And then when we look
at the Secret Service and we look at the vocal
(10:01):
hatred that's come out of some of those people, the
praise that the director that stepped in after Cheetle gave
Biden to me, this just shows that the motivation is
there and the hatred is there to leave these doors
wide open and allow people to walk in. You can
call that collusion, or you can just call that hopeful wishing.
(10:26):
I don't know what you would call it, but whatever
it is, the fact is that it happened twice where
people took advantage of it, so we don't know how
many times it happened before that.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Is it weird to you that we don't know more
about Thomas Matthew Crooks. I mean, you've got this twenty
year old that obviously outsmarted the Secret Service, that was
able to fly a drone when we did not, who
has these like encrypted foreign accounts, Like I don't know,
is it weird that we.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Don't know more about him? Or is that kind of.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Like standard off procedure and these types of investigations.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Well, we kind of went down this road in recent
history where if you look back at the Kennedy assassination,
right the last time a president was assassinating, We've had
a lot of attempts since then, and very quickly who
the person was and what their alleged or potential motivation
would be came out very quickly with I mean with Kennedy,
(11:26):
we knew within a day who this guy was, whether
or not that was true, and if it was just him.
We still don't know that, but we did see how
the thing's unfolded. And in the case of Butler Pennsylvania,
I think the fact that social media exists and mainstream
media that's on twenty four hours a day, the American
(11:48):
people are much more informed and they are a force
multiplier law enforcement doesn't use. And so I think when
we look at the past in history when people were targeted,
and we look at it now, the fact that we
don't know anything is troubling on several levels. One because
you would think that they would release this information, that
(12:11):
the media would be hungry, as they were in all
past circumstances where they got that information one way or another.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
We didn't see that this time. And then when you
look at.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Law enforcement, it seems as though when law enforcement messes up,
they almost overtly go down the road of it's an investigation.
We're not saying anything because it's still under investigation. So
they end up treating the American people very childlike, and
(12:45):
we're treated as though we don't know anything, and everybody
will run around like chickens with their head cut off,
freaking out if they get the truth. And that's not
the American psyche anymore. We are very informed. In fact,
we have too much information that overloads what we know
is reality. So it would actually be a benefit for
(13:05):
us to know more. But I think when it comes
to stuff like this, overall, whether or not we know
what has occurred is less of a concern because if
it was an investigation, then when we have a deputy
director tell us that the case is closed and we
don't know anything, that is very troubling for me because
(13:27):
if you don't know anything, why are you closing the case.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Yeah, it's also weird that no one's been fired. And
then also Chairman Paul alleges and asserts in his report
that the former director of Kimberly Cheatle lied to Congress
saying that no Secret Service asset requests were denied for
the Butler rally. In his report said that there actually
were multiple requests that were denied.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
So she lied there, or that's what he's alleging.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
So it's like, I wonder if there'll be any you know,
no one's been fired so far, I wonder if there'll
be any, you know, that would mean that she perjured herself.
So I wonder if they'll be any criminality.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Look, if you went on the news and you completely
lied with the purpose of getting somebody in trouble, or
because you did something wrong and you wanted to completely
cover it up, there will be ramifications for that. Right,
there's no ramifications for these people political appointees and agencies
(14:29):
where you see things happen that might or might not
have to do with the Democrat Party, nobody ever gets
in trouble. And I just I think if this was
the case of someone going in and getting a surgery
and they botched the surgery because they didn't wash their
hands and they left the door wide open, and a
(14:51):
homeless guy walked in and contaminated the whole scend the
guy died, they would be charged with malpractice and probably
criminally charged for involuntary manslaughter. So at the least, I
think that that investigators and prosecutors should be looking at
these individuals who were tasked with protecting the president and
(15:14):
the public. They're not just protecting the president, they're also
protecting the public.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
They completely failed.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
So why isn't there any type of criminal investigation. We
don't just need to know the background of how it failed,
We need to know who was responsible and what their
intent was and if their intent was criminal or if
they just did a lazy job that is also criminal.
And one guy did die, three people were four people
(15:44):
were shot. President Trump was shot in the head. They
could say the ear, but it's part of the head.
He could almost been killed. One guy did die and
two other people were injured. How can you not look
at this and say, was their mouth practice in this
at a minimum negligent homicide?
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
No query compared to word That's a great point. Got
to take a quick commercial break more with Jonathan on
the other side, you know, speaking of different avenues that
people go down. I wanted to get your take on
the Epstein files. So the Justice Department in the FBI
released a memo recently concluding that there's no evidence that
(16:25):
Epstein had a list of powerful men who participated in,
you know, all the stuff he was involved in, and
then also saying that he died by suicide, he was.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Not murdered and his New York jail cell. Do you
buy those conclusions?
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I think we have to look at this from possibilities, right,
Is it possible that and this is you'll see when
I get to this. The way my mind works right,
is it possible that this was an intelligence operation that
the US might have been involved with. It's possible it
(17:05):
was he given certain parameters to work in and then
potentially went outside those parameters, but at the same time
pulled in massive intelligence and jammed up tremendously powerful world leaders,
and so we were able to control those people or
puppet them, or maybe it was one of our allies
(17:27):
that did it. That is potentially the case, right. We
don't know, We don't have proof, But when you look
at the people who showed up, the people that we
know were there, all of those people are associated in
one way or another with government activity. The people again
(17:48):
that we know were associated with that island, we know
have some type of connection to the control or information
of who is controlling governments.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
And what decisions that they're making.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
So the fact that video was involved, that a billionaire
who we cannot really trace how he became so rich,
what his career was, his close proximity to not just
famous people but people of power, all of those things,
I have to step back and look at it and say, Okay,
(18:23):
that's a possibility. But on the other hand, from what
they're telling us, that this was just a Jeffrey Epstein
and just Laine Maxwell issue. Okay, so let's say that
was the case. Let's say that those two just went
out and prayed upon young girls, hung out with celebrities,
(18:44):
made their billions, and raped and video taped sexual acts
with all these different underage females. Okay, Why if that's
the case, did they just write a page and a
half memo that wasn't even signed, releasing it and saying, Okay,
that's what it was.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
Cases closed.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Why isn't the government giving us the American public, who
has been craving an answer, not just because young people
were trafficked, but because this has the potential for being
a real deep dive into who is evil and a
(19:26):
problem in positions of power in the world. And so
if it's just Jeffrey Epstein, then why didn't they just
show us that? Why didn't they not the videos? We
don't need this necessarily see any videos of him with people.
But why didn't they show us the evidence of the case,
tell us how it worked.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
They didn't do that.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
They did the same thing that they did with the
Butler investigation. They just came out and Dan Bongino said,
there's no no there, there's no there, there's what was
the term that he used, there's there's nothing there. Basically,
there's no here here. That's what he said, there's no
here here or there there. I don't remember what it was. So,
(20:08):
but that's the same thing that they said about the
Butler pa there's nothing there.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
Cases closed. You don't need to know anymore.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
And I think that both of these cases have way
more to do with the psyche of the citizenry, the
trust in government that's been completely demolished. It has a
tremendous amount to do with that, and the people deserve
to have their trust read instilled in them for the
(20:41):
federal government under President Trump. So, knowing that, I have
to say that they probably know more, but they won't
say it because if they do, they will be revealing
sources and methods and the very people that were jammed
up which give us tremendous amount of intelligence on other nations.
(21:05):
And if that's the case, they won't be able to
release it, which means their tap dancing has made this
into a bigger issue than it had to be. And
so now instead of explaining that the potential of this
could have been global and could have further implications than
(21:28):
just a criminal. We are not able to release this information.
I mean that would have been huge. People would have
freaked out. But now what you have is an administration
that has a trust problem. And it all reflects on
President Trump and it shouldn't because he is doing what
he said he would do and everything else.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
This reflects on.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Pambondi, cash matel and Dan Bongino and the way that
they handled this issue. You the way they put it in,
built their careers around this issue, made millions off of it,
and then went in and when they found out whatever
the reality is, they just tat danced and handed a
one and a half page memo saying it's closed, there's
(22:16):
nothing there.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Well, then, fairness, I absolutely thought that he was murdered,
and like obviously I fully admit that's not based on
any sort of ex facts that I had, just my
you know, gut instinct, right. But you know, it is
strange though, because you would Pam Bondie tell us back
in February that you know she had the Epstein client list,
(22:40):
it was sitting on her desk now at a review
I know. She later clarified that she was talking about
the case file. Not the specific client list.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
But let me let me say some about that.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Yeah, she's an attorney and you're a communications person, right,
that's right. Your especially is in communications. You know that
if she said, if she wanted to say that she
was talking about.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
The whole case, that's what she would have said.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
But I think she said what she said the first
time and then handed those binders out because to her,
this was a publicity stunt. It was something that they
had probably at that point had not even looked at.
I mean, the way they acted, I don't believe that
they had even had detailed information in that. But the
(23:30):
thing with the influencers holding up the binders and that
statement that she said, if she knew that there was
more there, and there was more on her desk, I
think her verbiage would have stated that, and it didn't.
It stated very specific stuff that the people were demanding,
and she made it sound as though she had that
list on her desk.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
So what do you you know?
Speaker 1 (23:53):
I laid to that out because it's important to provide
the full picture, right, Like, that's what she said, this
is what she's saying. So I'm laying out the context
for the listeners at home.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
What do you think the truth is and all of this.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Well, I think it's I don't think Jeffrey Epstein just
made billions and with little really very I know people
who are very rich and they spent a lot of
time in the same financial areas that he did, and
it took them a long time, hard hours to get
(24:35):
their wealth. And people know who they are. Everybody knows
that this person did that or that person. Nobody knew
what Jeffrey Epstein where he came from. And so I
think when I look from investigator standpoint at the totality
of who this individual was and the mystery of his
background and how he became so wrapped up in the
(24:56):
power world or the world of powerf people, I just
don't see. I see less proof that he was just
a creep doing creepy things, and I see more proof
of him associating with people that, if they were controlled,
(25:16):
could give a nation state access and control of a
lot of stuff.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
And so.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Well, there is proof that he was going and recruiting
young girls. The particular age of the girls that he
was recruiting and where he was recruiting them from made
them very susceptible to getting themselves jammed up in that situation, and.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
The fact that he used some of them.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
On this island and potentially other locations shows me that
it went beyond just his creepy fetish and it moved
into providing for people who are world leaders, who are
at least in proximity to world leaders. And so it
(26:11):
makes me lean towards the fact that he probably was
either an intel.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Agent of some kind.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
For a nation state, or he was running a criminal
enterprise that has never been unfolded, and because it couldn't be,
it was just a criminal enterprise, and he was providing
these things for rich and powerful, and those connections helped
him get more rich and powerful. And he videotaped people
(26:41):
so that if they ever turned on him, like happened
in Florida I think it was two thousand and five,
he could just say, don't forget I got those videos
of you, and all of a sudden, the case goes away.
So that could have also been the case. It may
not have been a nation state collecting intel on these people.
It may just been a Jeffrey Epstein way getting rich,
and so I think it's more likely one of those
(27:04):
two things rather than just a Jeffrey Epstein fetish.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Yeah, and you've got a lot of people, you know,
tied up in this. You know, for instance, like Bill
Clinton's documented of taking multiple trips on his private plane,
you according to flight.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Logs, and you know, a whole host of people.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew is a perfect example.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Yeah, this is a guy who was not a leader
in the royal family, but he had access and proximity
to those people. So if you jam him up, chances
are he can collect information for you. Or if you
jam him up and then something happens while you're over
in Europe, you're more likely going to get out of
(27:46):
trouble because you have stuff on him. So as one
of the two, either as a criminal enterprise or an
intel operation, do you think.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
I wanted to get your take before we go about
all these attacks on ICE agents. You know, you've got
this Axios article recently where House Democrats are you know,
on background telling the reporter that like they're base one's blood,
that they need to be willing to be shot, that
civility is no longer working. And then you've got these
(28:18):
figures of influence the Democrat Party, like Tim Wall saying
that ICE is at the Gestapo or Giapaul saying ICE
is a terrorist force? Like the list goes on. Do
they just want ICE agents deead?
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Is?
Speaker 4 (28:32):
That?
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Is?
Speaker 1 (28:32):
That sort of what they're trying to do here is
just get these people killed.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
See now you're thinking, you're thinking like I do when
it came to President Trump getting shot, right, Yeah, I
asked that question and it got me in a lot
of trouble in media.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
And I say the same thing here.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
The Democrat Party is a leftist criminal enterprise. And it
doesn't just consist of the Democrats. It consists of a
whole group of business people and people who really do
hate Christians or they hate Conservatism, they hate strong people,
and they hate strong societies that are free. And this
(29:14):
has been growing for many, many years. And I think
when you look at the Democrat Party, for instance, and
the verbiage that they use, you don't say things like
you have to be willing to get shot unless you
are wanting people to go out and get shot or
to shoot.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
And that's the other thing.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
You're not just going to go out and get shot
unless you have a couple people out there, as we've seen,
willing to shoot back. So I think when we look
at what's happening with ICE is it is an extension
of the same issues we've seen in Portland, in Wisconsin
and New York, Chicago, all these other areas. We see
(29:58):
the same tactics, the same communication, the same uniforms. Listen,
it may not they may be wearing jeans and T shirts,
but they have the same protech type of protective helmets.
Who shows up to a Trump rally right where people
are wanting to say how much they love the president
and they're out there because they choose to go out
(30:18):
there and.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Express their freedom.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
That's a rally, right, Who shows up to one of
those wearing a protective helmet.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
They're not.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
They're not showing up there with bricks laid out for
a rally for President Trump or anybody else for that matter.
Speaker 4 (30:32):
For on the conservative side.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
But the Democrat side, this seems to be an issue,
and it happens multiple places using the same types of
tactics to putting bricks out there, wearing the helmets, and
it's escalating slowly. The same altruistic speech, which that's violent speech.
Go out and be willing to take a bullet, but
(30:54):
that's also altruistic speech where you're telling people that you
are a hero and your heroic.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Act will change things.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
And so that's where you get people like in DC
where the individuals shot two individuals who worked for the
Israeli embassy, or in Colorado where a guy burns a
bunch of people who were out there rallying in support
of those still being held hostage by Hamas.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
So I think when we look at again.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
The total I love to say this phrase, the totality
of circumstances.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
I think what you see with.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Ice is they have latched onto this for a couple
of reasons. One is because it gives them room to flex,
and anytime they can flex in front of the cameras,
it adds slowly adds fear and intimidation into the rest
of public. Conservatives look at that and say, if I
did that, I'd go to jail, right, So they stop
(31:49):
doing stuff like that. But the other thing is this
is a voter base. If President Trump and Tom Holman
were able to go out and get rid of all
the twenty million or more people that came over, they
would rid the Democrat Party of twenty million potential voters.
And I really think that for them that's basically what
(32:10):
it is. But they hate they can do hateful things
because they're hateful people and they hate this country. But
ultimately ICE is a big deal for them because that's there,
that is a portion.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Of their voter base that they were wanting to.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Bring in quick breaks, stay with us before we go.
Do you think that these.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Attacks on ACE ICE agents, like we saw the one
in Novardo, Texas where you had like ten people who
was like very well orchestrated and like even doing fireworks
on the outside of lower ICE agents out and then
shooting I think of something like twenty to thirty rounds
at the ICE agents. Do you think are these just
like lone wolf kind of attacks or do you think
(32:52):
that they are like orchestrated and like financed.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Well, I think that's a great place to finish this
because and it's a great question because if you look
at the tactics, the techniques and procedures, the communication, the
movements that they use, what you're going to see is
that they are They are actually tactics that work and
(33:18):
have been tested. You don't just show up and work
that well for the first time. These are people who've
been trained and these tactics have been used all over
the country for over a decade. I had a friend
who was in Special Forces who was protecting Milo, remember Milo,
the alt right guy at Berkeley and there were riots there.
(33:42):
So they had Milo in a secure room and he
went up on the roof to look down to see
what was happening in one of the buildings. And this
guy who I knew that was in Special Forces said
that he was amazed at what he saw because the
tactics that they were using were so effective that they
were able to draw the law enforcement away from where
(34:05):
they were wanting to go. And it was using tactics
that he had never seen and were not from the
United States. He said, those tactics that he was seeing
never came from the United States military law enforcement. They
were a foreign some type of foreign training. And so
when that was many years ago, and when you flashed
(34:28):
forward to now, what you're seeing is that all these
protests you saw on Portland or in all across the
country now they're escalating to violence where they're actually shooting
and injuring and murdering. And so I think when you
look at the first and second antifada that happened in
(34:53):
Israel and around Israel and in Gaza. What you see
is the first Antifada was words and then it evolved
into violence and then killing, and it was very uniformed.
And I bet if we start looking at the tactics
that these people are using, not just the people, but
we start looking at the tactics that they're using, we're
(35:13):
going to see the same thing that we see with
their verbiage and what they wear. They're wearing Palestinian scarfs,
they're starting or Hamas scarfs, they're starting to wear or say,
you know, from the River to the Sea, which was
from the first Antifada and the second Antifada. And we're
starting to see that their causes match other nations and
(35:37):
their causes. And I bet if we look at the tactics,
we will probably see that somewhere those tactics are traceable
to these other nations that are problem for us. And
so I guess the answer to your question is, yes,
I think that these are coordinated. I think it goes
far beyond Texas. I think when you look at Antifa
(35:58):
and all these other leftist groups and how they have
milked themselves into Black Lives Matter or the gay activist
movement or transgender and all these things. It's all played
to benefit these actors who use these tactics, techniques and procedures,
the ability to move and communicate the increase in violence
(36:19):
to specific verbiage. I think it's it is very coordinated,
and I would even go as far to say potentially
both assassination attempts on Trump. The fact that they were
able to utilize open avenues of approach with absolute confidence
tells me that there was some coordination with somebody at
(36:40):
some point that they were able to take advantage of
as well.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Interesting, Jonathan, really interesting stuff. I really appreciate you making
the time to share all these insights with us.
Speaker 4 (36:50):
You got it.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Sorry I'm long winded, but this is a very interesting
and you can dive into this. But I don't think
Lisa to really know to understand and that there's more
to this.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
Than just what we see on the surface.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
If you just take a step back and you look
at the totality of all these things that have occurred,
you'll see exactly what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Like, if you were being boring, I would very kindly
kind of like cut you off and read.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
Well, you are communications experts, so I would expect that.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
The fact that I was listening intently meant that it
was very interesting, So we appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
Thanks so much. That was Jonathan Gilliam.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Appreciate him for making the time to come on the show.
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
But you can listen throughout the week until next time.
Welcome to the Truth with Lisa Booth, where we cut
through the noise.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
To get to the heart of the issues that matter
to you.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Today, we're diving into some explosive topics with Jonathan Gilliam.
He's a former Navy seal and FBI agent. He's also
the host of the Experts podcast. We're going to unpack
the shocking security failures surrounding the attempted assassinations of former
President Trump, particularly one year after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania,
(00:27):
which almost took his life. Were these lapses intentional? You
just look at a bunch of collective data points and
it begs the question were they intentional? So I'll ask
him based off of his experience. We'll also dig into
the Epstein files controversy. Did Jeffrey Epstein really die by suicide?
And what's the truth behind the so called client list?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
What does he think the truth is.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Plus we'll tackle the seven hundred percent increase in attacks
on ICE agents and why Democrats seem to have painted
them is the enemy.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
So stay tuned, we'll.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Get the truth on all of this with Jonathan Gilliam. Well, Jonathan,
it's great to have you on the show we had
you on after the assassination attempt and kind of you know,
went through what we felt went wrong. But now it's
been a year, there's been some additional reporting. Ram Paul,
(01:20):
chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, issued a report
about some of the failures that took place. I guess,
what are your reflections, your thoughts a year later after
the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Well, I'll tell you it's I don't feel much different
than I did when it happened. I don't think that
we have the confidence. Nobody's built any confidence, and it's
from the Secret Service or the FBI. We don't have
any more confidence that the president is going to be secured,
(01:57):
or that if you go to an outdoor rally, that
they have the security handled.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
We don't know that.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
We haven't seen any examples of improvement in tactics. We
haven't seen anyone held to account for what occurred and
how the mismanagement and planning and threat assessments and all
that occurred. So I think overall, I still question how
(02:27):
in the world something like that could have happened to
the president when they're supposedly being protected or future president
at that point when they're supposed to be protected by
the Premiere Protection Agency. And the more we look into it,
I kind of look at this the same way you
look at Harley Davidson, or you look at American Airlines
(02:50):
or any of these other.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Companies that have gone woke.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
And then they said, well, we're going to do away
with our DEI, And then when you look at what
they're doing, all they did was just stop calling it
DEI and they stopped promoting that they used DEI. They'd
never really changed anything, and so those brands are still hurting.
Safety is still hurting, and I think the same thing
goes for the Secret Service. I don't know what they
(03:19):
actually changed. And for the deputy director to come out
this past week and talk about how they were focused
on new technologies and things like that, that has nothing
to do technology has nothing to do with that shooting
in Butler, Pennsylvania, are the one that followed a couple
(03:40):
months later in Florida. It was complete failure of threat assessments,
of forward thinking, of utilizing trained personnel on the ground,
and communication with local law enforcement, and local law enforcement
failures themselves. And I don't see where any of that's
been corrected or anybody's been held accountable.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
But I guess my thought process.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
I remember we talked about this, I guess so, you know,
basically a year ago, and you know, I guess what
I'm still trying to figure out is if the security
lapses were intentional, not in the sense of more so
just indifference, right, because at the time, you had Joe
Biden and the Biden administration actively trying to jail Donald Trump,
(04:23):
and you had Joe Biden saying that he should be
put in a bullseye. You had Benny Thompson, the ranking
member on Homeland Security at the House Homeland Security Committee,
trying to strip Donald Trump of his security detail. And then,
you know, so you had all these things happening against
President char you know, former President Trump at that point.
(04:45):
So it's like, were they just indifferent and not caring
about trying to keep him safe? Like it just he
didn't matter to them. They had already dehumanized him enough,
like they've already basically demonstrated they don't see him as
a human being. So were they just indifferent to protect
to him? Where the last is intentional?
Speaker 3 (05:04):
I think it's a well, I think it's a mix
of all those things, because you know, when you look
at these you have to look at the totality of
the circumstances, right, And as an investigator, you can't say
that that is not a possibility, Like I don't entertain
conspiracy theories, but I will take what people say and
put it on the wall of theories, and then if
(05:25):
there's evidence that shows that that's a possibility, then I
will entertain that. And so I try not to let
theories lead my search for evidence, but the evidence lead
which theory I believe is potentially a truth. And in
this case, you cannot rule out intentional intentional avenues of
(05:49):
approach being left open, because that's what occurred. It's what
occurred in both instances where they did not do the
proper threat assessment or they did not close off the
avenues of approaching an attacker could take when they locked
down the facility. Perhaps they did the right threat assessment
and they discovered that that's an avenue of approach and
(06:12):
they just left it wide open, so it could go
either way. They either didn't do the proper threat assessment,
which means they didn't account for the buildings that were
one hundred and thirty yards away, which is ridiculous, Or
they did the proper threat assessment, they determined where an
attacker could attack, and then they purposely left those points soft.
(06:35):
I think from an investigative standpoint, there's evidence to show
that there's motivation to do both of those things. Inexperience
in laziness that would act that would carry them through
doing a threat assessment that wasn't efficient, or there was
enough dissension in the high ranks of all these agencies
(06:58):
and hatred of President Trump that I could see them
doing something that just allowed somebody to take advantage of
an open area.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
So that's very.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Troubling for me, somebody who's taken an oath to support
and defend this nation in the Constitution with four different agencies,
and that bothers me when I see that that is
a possibility and I can't rule it out.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Sea.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
I'm not saying they collaborated with him type thing. I'm
just saying that they didn't care enough about him to
make sure that he had the protection he needed it'd
be safe.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
It's like this a prison guard that goes in and
doesn't like this prisoner, so he accidentally leaves both of
those sales open to sell that a guy could come
out of and go over and hurt or kill that
other prisoner that he doesn't like. He doesn't partake in it.
He just didn't lock those doors, right. So that is
(08:00):
the way I look at this is that if it
isn't intentionally these avenues approach are intentionally left open, eventually
somebody will take advantage of those. And that's what we
saw in both instances. In Florida, it was the same thing.
They did not secure a golf course, the perimeter of
golf course that Donald Trump goes to every week, and
(08:23):
so they made it sound as though that was just
a and.
Speaker 2 (08:27):
He was there for twelve hours undetected.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
Twelve hours and nobody detected.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
But here's the thing, Lisa, that really bothers me a lot,
and it got me in trouble a little bit with
some media because I said this and took a while
for them to get over it. But if they would
have looked at what I was saying, they would have said, well,
we can't rule that out. And that is that the
people at the top of all these agencies, as you
can see now, are extremely left, not just Democrats, they're
(08:58):
extremely left guy in Florida who was head of the
he was the sac of the FBI that started the
investigation after that attempt, that guy had had his entire
social media scrubbed because it was filled with hatred of
President Trump. Now that's unbelievable when you think about it,
(09:19):
and that goes across the board with all these different agencies.
We know there were people, high ranking officials in the
Secret Service to just flat out during the President's first
term said they would not protect him, that they would
not step in front of a bullet for him. And
so we have to assume looking at these judges that
are the way they act, Looking at the way FBI
(09:41):
has gone after in the past, christians President Trump by
creating false evidence. Who would have ever thought that that
would occur in the FBI against a president or somebody
running to be a president. And then when we look
at the Secret Service and we look at the vocal
(10:01):
hatred that's come out of some of those people, the
praise that the director that stepped in after Cheetle gave
Biden to me, this just shows that the motivation is
there and the hatred is there to leave these doors
wide open and allow people to walk in. You can
call that collusion, or you can just call that hopeful wishing.
(10:26):
I don't know what you would call it, but whatever
it is, the fact is that it happened twice where
people took advantage of it, so we don't know how
many times it happened before that.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Is it weird to you that we don't know more
about Thomas Matthew Crooks. I mean, you've got this twenty
year old that obviously outsmarted the Secret Service, that was
able to fly a drone when we did not, who
has these like encrypted foreign accounts, Like I don't know,
is it weird that we.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
Don't know more about him? Or is that kind of.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
Like standard off procedure and these types of investigations.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Well, we kind of went down this road in recent
history where if you look back at the Kennedy assassination,
right the last time a president was assassinating, We've had
a lot of attempts since then, and very quickly who
the person was and what their alleged or potential motivation
would be came out very quickly with I mean with Kennedy,
(11:26):
we knew within a day who this guy was, whether
or not that was true, and if it was just him.
We still don't know that, but we did see how
the thing's unfolded. And in the case of Butler Pennsylvania,
I think the fact that social media exists and mainstream
media that's on twenty four hours a day, the American
(11:48):
people are much more informed and they are a force
multiplier law enforcement doesn't use. And so I think when
we look at the past in history when people were targeted,
and we look at it now, the fact that we
don't know anything is troubling on several levels. One because
you would think that they would release this information, that
(12:11):
the media would be hungry, as they were in all
past circumstances where they got that information one way or another.
Speaker 4 (12:18):
We didn't see that this time. And then when you
look at.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Law enforcement, it seems as though when law enforcement messes up,
they almost overtly go down the road of it's an investigation.
We're not saying anything because it's still under investigation. So
they end up treating the American people very childlike, and
(12:45):
we're treated as though we don't know anything, and everybody
will run around like chickens with their head cut off,
freaking out if they get the truth. And that's not
the American psyche anymore. We are very informed. In fact,
we have too much information that overloads what we know
is reality. So it would actually be a benefit for
(13:05):
us to know more. But I think when it comes
to stuff like this, overall, whether or not we know
what has occurred is less of a concern because if
it was an investigation, then when we have a deputy
director tell us that the case is closed and we
don't know anything, that is very troubling for me because
(13:27):
if you don't know anything, why are you closing the case.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
Yeah, it's also weird that no one's been fired. And
then also Chairman Paul alleges and asserts in his report
that the former director of Kimberly Cheatle lied to Congress
saying that no Secret Service asset requests were denied for
the Butler rally. In his report said that there actually
were multiple requests that were denied.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
So she lied there, or that's what he's alleging.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
So it's like, I wonder if there'll be any you know,
no one's been fired so far, I wonder if there'll
be any, you know, that would mean that she perjured herself.
So I wonder if they'll be any criminality.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
Look, if you went on the news and you completely
lied with the purpose of getting somebody in trouble, or
because you did something wrong and you wanted to completely
cover it up, there will be ramifications for that. Right,
there's no ramifications for these people political appointees and agencies
(14:29):
where you see things happen that might or might not
have to do with the Democrat Party, nobody ever gets
in trouble. And I just I think if this was
the case of someone going in and getting a surgery
and they botched the surgery because they didn't wash their
hands and they left the door wide open, and a
(14:51):
homeless guy walked in and contaminated the whole scend the
guy died, they would be charged with malpractice and probably
criminally charged for involuntary manslaughter. So at the least, I
think that that investigators and prosecutors should be looking at
these individuals who were tasked with protecting the president and
(15:14):
the public. They're not just protecting the president, they're also
protecting the public.
Speaker 4 (15:20):
They completely failed.
Speaker 3 (15:21):
So why isn't there any type of criminal investigation. We
don't just need to know the background of how it failed,
We need to know who was responsible and what their
intent was and if their intent was criminal or if
they just did a lazy job that is also criminal.
And one guy did die, three people were four people
(15:44):
were shot. President Trump was shot in the head. They
could say the ear, but it's part of the head.
He could almost been killed. One guy did die and
two other people were injured. How can you not look
at this and say, was their mouth practice in this
at a minimum negligent homicide?
Speaker 4 (16:05):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (16:05):
No query compared to word That's a great point. Got
to take a quick commercial break more with Jonathan on
the other side, you know, speaking of different avenues that
people go down. I wanted to get your take on
the Epstein files. So the Justice Department in the FBI
released a memo recently concluding that there's no evidence that
(16:25):
Epstein had a list of powerful men who participated in,
you know, all the stuff he was involved in, and
then also saying that he died by suicide, he was.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Not murdered and his New York jail cell. Do you
buy those conclusions?
Speaker 3 (16:43):
I think we have to look at this from possibilities, right,
Is it possible that and this is you'll see when
I get to this. The way my mind works right,
is it possible that this was an intelligence operation that
the US might have been involved with. It's possible it
(17:05):
was he given certain parameters to work in and then
potentially went outside those parameters, but at the same time
pulled in massive intelligence and jammed up tremendously powerful world leaders,
and so we were able to control those people or
puppet them, or maybe it was one of our allies
(17:27):
that did it. That is potentially the case, right. We
don't know, We don't have proof, But when you look
at the people who showed up, the people that we
know were there, all of those people are associated in
one way or another with government activity. The people again
(17:48):
that we know were associated with that island, we know
have some type of connection to the control or information
of who is controlling governments.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
And what decisions that they're making.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
So the fact that video was involved, that a billionaire
who we cannot really trace how he became so rich,
what his career was, his close proximity to not just
famous people but people of power, all of those things,
I have to step back and look at it and say, Okay,
(18:23):
that's a possibility. But on the other hand, from what
they're telling us, that this was just a Jeffrey Epstein
and just Laine Maxwell issue. Okay, so let's say that
was the case. Let's say that those two just went
out and prayed upon young girls, hung out with celebrities,
(18:44):
made their billions, and raped and video taped sexual acts
with all these different underage females. Okay, Why if that's
the case, did they just write a page and a
half memo that wasn't even signed, releasing it and saying, Okay,
that's what it was.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
Cases closed.
Speaker 3 (19:04):
Why isn't the government giving us the American public, who
has been craving an answer, not just because young people
were trafficked, but because this has the potential for being
a real deep dive into who is evil and a
(19:26):
problem in positions of power in the world. And so
if it's just Jeffrey Epstein, then why didn't they just
show us that? Why didn't they not the videos? We
don't need this necessarily see any videos of him with people.
But why didn't they show us the evidence of the case,
tell us how it worked.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
They didn't do that.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
They did the same thing that they did with the
Butler investigation. They just came out and Dan Bongino said,
there's no no there, there's no there, there's what was
the term that he used, there's there's nothing there. Basically,
there's no here here. That's what he said, there's no
here here or there there. I don't remember what it was. So,
(20:08):
but that's the same thing that they said about the
Butler pa there's nothing there.
Speaker 4 (20:14):
Cases closed. You don't need to know anymore.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
And I think that both of these cases have way
more to do with the psyche of the citizenry, the
trust in government that's been completely demolished. It has a
tremendous amount to do with that, and the people deserve
to have their trust read instilled in them for the
(20:41):
federal government under President Trump. So, knowing that, I have
to say that they probably know more, but they won't
say it because if they do, they will be revealing
sources and methods and the very people that were jammed
up which give us tremendous amount of intelligence on other nations.
(21:05):
And if that's the case, they won't be able to
release it, which means their tap dancing has made this
into a bigger issue than it had to be. And
so now instead of explaining that the potential of this
could have been global and could have further implications than
(21:28):
just a criminal. We are not able to release this information.
I mean that would have been huge. People would have
freaked out. But now what you have is an administration
that has a trust problem. And it all reflects on
President Trump and it shouldn't because he is doing what
he said he would do and everything else.
Speaker 4 (21:50):
This reflects on.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Pambondi, cash matel and Dan Bongino and the way that
they handled this issue. You the way they put it in,
built their careers around this issue, made millions off of it,
and then went in and when they found out whatever
the reality is, they just tat danced and handed a
one and a half page memo saying it's closed, there's
(22:16):
nothing there.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Well, then, fairness, I absolutely thought that he was murdered,
and like obviously I fully admit that's not based on
any sort of ex facts that I had, just my
you know, gut instinct, right. But you know, it is
strange though, because you would Pam Bondie tell us back
in February that you know she had the Epstein client list,
(22:40):
it was sitting on her desk now at a review
I know. She later clarified that she was talking about
the case file. Not the specific client list.
Speaker 4 (22:49):
But let me let me say some about that.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Yeah, she's an attorney and you're a communications person, right,
that's right. Your especially is in communications. You know that
if she said, if she wanted to say that she
was talking about.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
The whole case, that's what she would have said.
Speaker 3 (23:06):
But I think she said what she said the first
time and then handed those binders out because to her,
this was a publicity stunt. It was something that they
had probably at that point had not even looked at.
I mean, the way they acted, I don't believe that
they had even had detailed information in that. But the
(23:30):
thing with the influencers holding up the binders and that
statement that she said, if she knew that there was
more there, and there was more on her desk, I
think her verbiage would have stated that, and it didn't.
It stated very specific stuff that the people were demanding,
and she made it sound as though she had that
list on her desk.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
So what do you you know?
Speaker 1 (23:53):
I laid to that out because it's important to provide
the full picture, right, Like, that's what she said, this
is what she's saying. So I'm laying out the context
for the listeners at home.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
What do you think the truth is and all of this.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Well, I think it's I don't think Jeffrey Epstein just
made billions and with little really very I know people
who are very rich and they spent a lot of
time in the same financial areas that he did, and
it took them a long time, hard hours to get
(24:35):
their wealth. And people know who they are. Everybody knows
that this person did that or that person. Nobody knew
what Jeffrey Epstein where he came from. And so I
think when I look from investigator standpoint at the totality
of who this individual was and the mystery of his
background and how he became so wrapped up in the
(24:56):
power world or the world of powerf people, I just
don't see. I see less proof that he was just
a creep doing creepy things, and I see more proof
of him associating with people that, if they were controlled,
(25:16):
could give a nation state access and control of a
lot of stuff.
Speaker 4 (25:23):
And so.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Well, there is proof that he was going and recruiting
young girls. The particular age of the girls that he
was recruiting and where he was recruiting them from made
them very susceptible to getting themselves jammed up in that situation, and.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
The fact that he used some of them.
Speaker 3 (25:49):
On this island and potentially other locations shows me that
it went beyond just his creepy fetish and it moved
into providing for people who are world leaders, who are
at least in proximity to world leaders. And so it
(26:11):
makes me lean towards the fact that he probably was
either an intel.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
Agent of some kind.
Speaker 3 (26:21):
For a nation state, or he was running a criminal
enterprise that has never been unfolded, and because it couldn't be,
it was just a criminal enterprise, and he was providing
these things for rich and powerful, and those connections helped
him get more rich and powerful. And he videotaped people
(26:41):
so that if they ever turned on him, like happened
in Florida I think it was two thousand and five,
he could just say, don't forget I got those videos
of you, and all of a sudden, the case goes away.
So that could have also been the case. It may
not have been a nation state collecting intel on these people.
It may just been a Jeffrey Epstein way getting rich,
and so I think it's more likely one of those
(27:04):
two things rather than just a Jeffrey Epstein fetish.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Yeah, and you've got a lot of people, you know,
tied up in this. You know, for instance, like Bill
Clinton's documented of taking multiple trips on his private plane,
you according to flight.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Logs, and you know, a whole host of people.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew is a perfect example.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Yeah, this is a guy who was not a leader
in the royal family, but he had access and proximity
to those people. So if you jam him up, chances
are he can collect information for you. Or if you
jam him up and then something happens while you're over
in Europe, you're more likely going to get out of
(27:46):
trouble because you have stuff on him. So as one
of the two, either as a criminal enterprise or an
intel operation, do you think.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
I wanted to get your take before we go about
all these attacks on ICE agents. You know, you've got
this Axios article recently where House Democrats are you know,
on background telling the reporter that like they're base one's blood,
that they need to be willing to be shot, that
civility is no longer working. And then you've got these
(28:18):
figures of influence the Democrat Party, like Tim Wall saying
that ICE is at the Gestapo or Giapaul saying ICE
is a terrorist force? Like the list goes on. Do
they just want ICE agents deead?
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Is?
Speaker 4 (28:32):
That?
Speaker 2 (28:32):
Is?
Speaker 1 (28:32):
That sort of what they're trying to do here is
just get these people killed.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
See now you're thinking, you're thinking like I do when
it came to President Trump getting shot, right, Yeah, I
asked that question and it got me in a lot
of trouble in media.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
And I say the same thing here.
Speaker 3 (28:50):
The Democrat Party is a leftist criminal enterprise. And it
doesn't just consist of the Democrats. It consists of a
whole group of business people and people who really do
hate Christians or they hate Conservatism, they hate strong people,
and they hate strong societies that are free. And this
(29:14):
has been growing for many, many years. And I think
when you look at the Democrat Party, for instance, and
the verbiage that they use, you don't say things like
you have to be willing to get shot unless you
are wanting people to go out and get shot or
to shoot.
Speaker 4 (29:33):
And that's the other thing.
Speaker 3 (29:34):
You're not just going to go out and get shot
unless you have a couple people out there, as we've seen,
willing to shoot back. So I think when we look
at what's happening with ICE is it is an extension
of the same issues we've seen in Portland, in Wisconsin
and New York, Chicago, all these other areas. We see
(29:58):
the same tactics, the same communication, the same uniforms. Listen,
it may not they may be wearing jeans and T shirts,
but they have the same protech type of protective helmets.
Who shows up to a Trump rally right where people
are wanting to say how much they love the president
and they're out there because they choose to go out
(30:18):
there and.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
Express their freedom.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
That's a rally, right, Who shows up to one of
those wearing a protective helmet.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
They're not.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
They're not showing up there with bricks laid out for
a rally for President Trump or anybody else for that matter.
Speaker 4 (30:32):
For on the conservative side.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
But the Democrat side, this seems to be an issue,
and it happens multiple places using the same types of
tactics to putting bricks out there, wearing the helmets, and
it's escalating slowly. The same altruistic speech, which that's violent speech.
Go out and be willing to take a bullet, but
(30:54):
that's also altruistic speech where you're telling people that you
are a hero and your heroic.
Speaker 4 (31:01):
Act will change things.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
And so that's where you get people like in DC
where the individuals shot two individuals who worked for the
Israeli embassy, or in Colorado where a guy burns a
bunch of people who were out there rallying in support
of those still being held hostage by Hamas.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
So I think when we look at again.
Speaker 3 (31:24):
The total I love to say this phrase, the totality
of circumstances.
Speaker 4 (31:27):
I think what you see with.
Speaker 3 (31:28):
Ice is they have latched onto this for a couple
of reasons. One is because it gives them room to flex,
and anytime they can flex in front of the cameras,
it adds slowly adds fear and intimidation into the rest
of public. Conservatives look at that and say, if I
did that, I'd go to jail, right, So they stop
(31:49):
doing stuff like that. But the other thing is this
is a voter base. If President Trump and Tom Holman
were able to go out and get rid of all
the twenty million or more people that came over, they
would rid the Democrat Party of twenty million potential voters.
And I really think that for them that's basically what
(32:10):
it is. But they hate they can do hateful things
because they're hateful people and they hate this country. But
ultimately ICE is a big deal for them because that's there,
that is a portion.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Of their voter base that they were wanting to.
Speaker 2 (32:24):
Bring in quick breaks, stay with us before we go.
Do you think that these.
Speaker 1 (32:31):
Attacks on ACE ICE agents, like we saw the one
in Novardo, Texas where you had like ten people who
was like very well orchestrated and like even doing fireworks
on the outside of lower ICE agents out and then
shooting I think of something like twenty to thirty rounds
at the ICE agents. Do you think are these just
like lone wolf kind of attacks or do you think
(32:52):
that they are like orchestrated and like financed.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Well, I think that's a great place to finish this
because and it's a great question because if you look
at the tactics, the techniques and procedures, the communication, the
movements that they use, what you're going to see is
that they are They are actually tactics that work and
(33:18):
have been tested. You don't just show up and work
that well for the first time. These are people who've
been trained and these tactics have been used all over
the country for over a decade. I had a friend
who was in Special Forces who was protecting Milo, remember Milo,
the alt right guy at Berkeley and there were riots there.
(33:42):
So they had Milo in a secure room and he
went up on the roof to look down to see
what was happening in one of the buildings. And this
guy who I knew that was in Special Forces said
that he was amazed at what he saw because the
tactics that they were using were so effective that they
were able to draw the law enforcement away from where
(34:05):
they were wanting to go. And it was using tactics
that he had never seen and were not from the
United States. He said, those tactics that he was seeing
never came from the United States military law enforcement. They
were a foreign some type of foreign training. And so
when that was many years ago, and when you flashed
(34:28):
forward to now, what you're seeing is that all these
protests you saw on Portland or in all across the
country now they're escalating to violence where they're actually shooting
and injuring and murdering. And so I think when you
look at the first and second antifada that happened in
(34:53):
Israel and around Israel and in Gaza. What you see
is the first Antifada was words and then it evolved
into violence and then killing, and it was very uniformed.
And I bet if we start looking at the tactics
that these people are using, not just the people, but
we start looking at the tactics that they're using, we're
(35:13):
going to see the same thing that we see with
their verbiage and what they wear. They're wearing Palestinian scarfs,
they're starting or Hamas scarfs, they're starting to wear or say,
you know, from the River to the Sea, which was
from the first Antifada and the second Antifada. And we're
starting to see that their causes match other nations and
(35:37):
their causes. And I bet if we look at the tactics,
we will probably see that somewhere those tactics are traceable
to these other nations that are problem for us. And
so I guess the answer to your question is, yes,
I think that these are coordinated. I think it goes
far beyond Texas. I think when you look at Antifa
(35:58):
and all these other leftist groups and how they have
milked themselves into Black Lives Matter or the gay activist
movement or transgender and all these things. It's all played
to benefit these actors who use these tactics, techniques and procedures,
the ability to move and communicate the increase in violence
(36:19):
to specific verbiage. I think it's it is very coordinated,
and I would even go as far to say potentially
both assassination attempts on Trump. The fact that they were
able to utilize open avenues of approach with absolute confidence
tells me that there was some coordination with somebody at
(36:40):
some point that they were able to take advantage of
as well.
Speaker 1 (36:44):
Interesting, Jonathan, really interesting stuff. I really appreciate you making
the time to share all these insights with us.
Speaker 4 (36:50):
You got it.
Speaker 3 (36:51):
Sorry I'm long winded, but this is a very interesting
and you can dive into this. But I don't think
Lisa to really know to understand and that there's more
to this.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
Than just what we see on the surface.
Speaker 3 (37:06):
If you just take a step back and you look
at the totality of all these things that have occurred,
you'll see exactly what I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Like, if you were being boring, I would very kindly
kind of like cut you off and read.
Speaker 4 (37:19):
Well, you are communications experts, so I would expect that.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
The fact that I was listening intently meant that it
was very interesting, So we appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
Thanks so much. That was Jonathan Gilliam.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Appreciate him for making the time to come on the show.
Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
But you can listen throughout the week until next time.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.