MAGAMind Podcast Episode 17 Scott Presler, Turning Point, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer and Joe Oltmann beef, Data Republican rise, Money Laundering

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Fence. You can follow me on Exit Brian Farrence one.
This is the magamind podcast. You can see our previous
episodes on Magamine podcast dot com or search for Magamine
Podcast wherever you get your podcast episodes. Today with me
is Ian McDonald. He's a rabble rouser from Media Right News.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Say hello, Ian, Hi, how y'all doing today?

Speaker 1 (00:22):
Thanks for joining us on the show. I'm just gonna
play our intro just real quick, and then we'll be
right back.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
I'm being real.

Speaker 3 (00:30):
I spent my whole life escaping the pills.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
If I'm being real, I think I was happy that
when I couldn't pay the bills of fambing veil. I'm
searching for purpose. I feel realpy, but I bevel, I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
All right, and we're back so again, this is Brian
Farrence with Magamine Podcast. You can follow me on Exit
Brian Farrens one or Magamine podcast dot com. I'm joined
today with Ian McDonald from Media Right News. So Ian,
we're gonna be talking about a couple different topics today.
I know one of them is the now infamous Scott Presler.

(01:04):
If anyone hasn't heard the facts about Scott Presler, please
check out real Scottpresler dot com. I guess I should
put that up in the in the banner here. Let
me do that if I had one of them, now
I got to edit it. Yeah, I'm gonna put up
this website just just real Scottpresler dot com. It also
includes the three hour x spaces that I hosted on Friday.

(01:30):
We had a number of guest speakers. It's a great
space talks about the evidence and really just exposing Scott
Presler and some of his fraudulent claims. So there it
is Real Scottpresler dot com. Make sure to check that out.
That should be on the bottom of the screen. And Ian,
I mean, can you give us a little bit of

(01:50):
a background about you and you know Scott Presler? I
guess you you did you work with him before or
tell us a little bit about that.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Yeah, I did a couple of door knocking sessions back
when the Trump campaign first began. This was in Virginia,
back when Scott Presler used to live in Virginia and
back when I used to live in Virginia. Neither one
of us are in Virginia now. One of the times

(02:25):
when I door knocked with Scott was in Cape Charles, Virginia,
in a tiny town and on the eastern shore in
Northampton County.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
And it was graphic. I sorry, I didn't mean to
terrupt you, but I put it up on the screen there.
I don't know if you can see that.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Yeah, that's me. Four people from the left.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
One two three four. So you you have the hat.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, in the in the sunglasses.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
And is that Scott press on the far left.

Speaker 2 (02:55):
Yeah, you can't miss him with that yellow He wore
that to a lot of different things, that yellow infamous
shirt for a while there. He was kind of supporting
that back then.

Speaker 1 (03:07):
Back then, what does it say, it's.

Speaker 2 (03:10):
Gay for Trump?

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (03:12):
Yeah, And back back then it was very kind of
rare and and and and niche for there to be
like a gay person to support Donald Trump. So Milo
was pretty new to the scene, Scott Pressler was new
to the scene. It was very rare for for that

(03:34):
sort of thing to exist. So it was it was
really even even even if you weren't pro homosexual or
whatever the case may be, it was it was unique
and cool to see people that you wouldn't normally expect
to participate.

Speaker 1 (03:54):
And what was this You might have said sorry, I
might have.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
I just know it was right before the twoenty sixteen
campaign election. It was probably a few months before the
twenty sixteen election.

Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, And you were mentioning something about who Pressler supported
in the primary.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, people who knew him personally before he became massively
well known knew that. You know, he admitted. And if
you were to if you're not blocked by him on X.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
I don't know who falls under that category where he
blocks like everywhere on it blocked.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Right, If you were able to nail him down and
ask him, he wouldn't deny it. If you were to say,
did you support Marco Rubio in the primary over Donald Trump?
He wouldn't deny that. If you're from Virginia. It's pretty
well known among the Virginia circles if you talk to

(05:03):
people that have been in Virginia politics for a while.
So that's where he kind of kicked off his He's
he says he's from Houston, Texas, but he kind of
kicked off his political start in Virginia. Right, and then
you know about the little trouble he got into with

(05:24):
the Republican Party. I'm not going to get into the detail.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
Yes, I have heard about that. I think that's covered
at the bottom of real Scott Prestler. Yeah, you've got
to go through all the evidence and data first, and
then if you want to get.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
That that may be why he went to other states.
I don't know for sure that's why he left Virginia.
That's the only reason I brought that up, not to
get into it, you know that part.

Speaker 1 (05:47):
But I do know. Also at one point he posted
publicly that he was moving to Texas to get Governor
Abbott elected. So this is kind of came like a
pattern where he is announcing that he's you know, moving
to or being sent by someone to a certain state.

(06:08):
I did that for Governor Abbott. I probably have the
screenshot of that somewhere. We could show that. But anyways,
I interrupted your story. Keep going.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
I wasn't really following a specific thing. So whatever your
next question is, okay, I could keep Yeah. So I
just did some do That's kind of how I got
a little bit of my experience, like directly confronting and

(06:37):
volunteering things like that. That's but I didn't do much
with him, even though it was kind of in the
infancy of my political volunteering I didn't do a whole lot.
I just got to know him a little bit. He's
a pretty confident person, almost to the point of being smug.
If you ask him the wrong questions, it's almost like

(07:02):
he doesn't have to answer you, like I'm just going
to change the subject kind of thing. Like he's pretty
smug almost, but definitely a very confident to the point
of being smug type of personality if you work with him.

Speaker 1 (07:20):
Okay, and let's this was for the in Virginia was
the US Senate race unless.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
We door knocked for President Trump, and then later on
there was first there was a governor's race, then there
was a Senate race. In both cases he campaigned against

(07:47):
a guy who myself at and a bunch of people
who I was friends with politically were four named Corey Stewart,
and Stuart was very controversial because of the Charlottesville stuff
that was happening with the Roberty Lee statue, and because

(08:08):
he supported a lot of the people that were in
Confederate supporting organizations and things like that, and press are
being high and mighty clean and polished guy that he
is wanted to stay as far away as possible from
anything to do with a Confederate flag. God forbid. You know,

(08:33):
somebody support their Southern heritage, you know, even if you
know there are actual racists whatever, then there's hey, this
is my Southern heritage. And I think most conservatives agree
there's nothing wrong with supporting a Confederate flag if as
long as it's just, hey, I'm proud of my Southern heritage.

(08:57):
I think most conservatives agree with that. But he was
above that even that was too far right for him,
that he didn't want to touch that, because it was
almost like he got orders from the top that no, no,
that that's too much, that's too controversial. And unfortunately Charlottesville
did spiral, and that had nothing to do with Stuart's campaigns,

(09:23):
either with the governor one or the Senate one. Unfortunately,
dirty people tried to tie him into it anyway. And
when you're running a campaign and you're in a picture
with the wrong person, even if somebody shows up to
your campaign event and takes a selfie with you, you might

(09:45):
not even know who they are. Right well, now, now
you're going to get slandered because look at him with
this guy, and he helped organize this event, so he
must be a really bad guy, and and so there
was a lot of that. I'd been to the Charlotte's.
You know all about Charlottesville already, so we don't have

(10:07):
to get into the details of that.

Speaker 1 (10:10):
I think I do have a screenshot that's let's let
me show. I'm not sure if this is the first
one you want to show, but this is Scott Presler.
He's being questioned, are you voting for Nick? This is yeah,
this is I think I have another one here. This
is Scott Presler saying he's asking his friends in Virginia

(10:31):
to vote for Nick Freytaz right.

Speaker 2 (10:34):
This I believe was Bury the US Senate primary for Virginia.

Speaker 1 (10:38):
Uh huh. And then this one he's mentioning it. And
then he's being questioned, and I guess someone called Josh
is saying, you know, Nick is the candidate of the establishment. Yeah,
you're already leaning appears twice now towards the establishment choice.

Speaker 2 (10:57):
Yeah. Mitch McConnell was pouring tons of money into this
next guy. Most people actually know who Nick Fribus is now.
He's a popular podcaster and a Virginia delegate. He just
announced that he's retiring. Most people don't know about his
Senate race because he lost the primary.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
Though, right, And then here's another screenshot. Let's see he's
asking someone named Matt Is asking Scott will you support
a vote for any Republican candidate, and Pressler says, I'll
vote for the nominee. And then Josh is asking is
he mago or establishment? You can't have your cake and

(11:37):
eat it too, So I'm in comment about this graphic
just a little bit.

Speaker 2 (11:43):
If you would, Scott, I will vote for the nominee.
You know, Scott, me and Scott, you would expect him
to say something like, of course, I'll support anybody over
a Democrat like Tim Kaine, who ran alongside Hillary Clinton

(12:10):
for the vice president. I will do anything it takes
to try to beat somebody like that, even if it
wasn't my preferred candidate. Of course I will. That's you know,
I got your back. We'll do what it takes. You know,
we'll all come together. And you know, this is a
very fag answer, and it just shows the contempt that

(12:33):
he has for the guy that Mitch McConnell didn't want.
And I don't have the screenshot, unfortunately, but I can
tell you that Mitch McConnell hated this guy so much
that he during the camp pain, even when he was
the nominee, all the way up until election day against

(12:55):
Tim Kaine. On the NRC website, this is for the
Senate where they raised money and things like that, they
refused to put Corey Stewart's face and name again next
to Tim Kaine's face and name. They put a blank

(13:17):
face and it just said Republican candidate underneath. That's how
much Mitch McConnell hated that candidate. So it just shows
you that he was just towing the line for Mitch
McConnell during that race. And so he's kind of doing

(13:41):
the bidding of the McConnell camp there, and in many
other instances and races he's done the bidding of Mitch McConnell.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
Here's another screenshot. This one says that Scott Presser announced
in twenty eighteen, Corey Stewart won the Virginia Republican primary
and will face Tim Kane this November.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
Right, there's no let's all, you know, hey, this wasn't
my guy, but let's all get together and and defeat
the Democrat. You know, let's come together and door knock
and let's do what we gotta know know nothing like that.
This was like the very bare minimum he could possibly

(14:26):
have said, because he was so disappointed and at that
point he checked out of the entire campaign, did absolutely nothing.

Speaker 1 (14:35):
Wow, that's that's really interesting. So so you're saying when
his you know, Mitch McConnell backed establishment candidate didn't win,
Scott Presler checked out of the entire campaign, didn't help
at all.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Ye.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
Well, it's it's very interesting because that's very counter to
the message that you know, he's been putting out more recently,
he's been putting out you know, this big tent and
you know, everyone's welcome and come together and this and that.
But but really what you're seeing is the influence of you know,
hardcore rhinos like Mitch McConnell, who are really Democrats and

(15:12):
traders to America, and they're actually seeking to subvert the
MAGA movement and get in their establishment rhino basically Democrat
candidates like Mitch McConnell that will then continue to you know,
support the system and the establishment and undermine Trump at
every turn, which is what mich mcconnald's done. So it's

(15:37):
that's really the danger in allowing someone like Scott Presler
to get this kind of influence and hero worship and
heaven forbid run for office. Because what you see in
some of his who he supports for his candidates, you
see what he's really going to do if he got
in office, and or if his candidates really got into power,

(15:58):
they would just continue you to support the UTI Party,
the Mitch McConnell's the Democrats vote Democrat. Uh, you know,
except for like, oh yeah, we support Trump, but everything
else we're going to vote Democrat. And by the way,
we're going to block Trump at every turn. That's really
the danger in what's really going on.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
It looks like, yeah, even Donald Trump tweeted the day
after the primary then support of Corey Stewart and said
Tim Kaine is a real stiff, and you know, let's
all go vote for this guy. And and not not

(16:36):
only that, if you were to talk to so so again,
Pressler always tries to be all polished and and professional
on his posts, so he may not bad mouth somebody,
he may just stay quiet on his posts, but if
he talked to him in person, he had a lot

(16:58):
of bad things to about that particular candidate. Almost to
the point of, we need to cancel this guy. We
need him out of the party, we need him not
not participating in politics at all. Just just like I
can't think of the name now. There's a guy on
the radio in Virginia that's really famous, and he said

(17:23):
something real nasty about him too, like we need to
have an exorcism to get rid of this guy out
of the party.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 2 (17:32):
And I can't think of his name right now. But anyway,
just to prove how wrong he was, Donald Trump and
did end up hiring him in his administration to be
one of his cabinet officials, and so he was wrong
about canceling him from politics, and that he was such

(17:54):
a horrible boy because he was hired under the Trump
administration towards the end of his first term to be
part of the I forget what the specific job was,
I could look it up. So so he was wrong
about that about him not being somebody worthy of helping

(18:16):
Donald Trump, you know, mission and so on and so forth.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Right, And this was before you know, Presler was really
as popular as he is now. This is, you know,
twenty eighteen. You know now in twenty twenty five, you know,
Presler has two point two million followers on his account. Now,
I mean most of them are blocked, but you know,
two point two million followers, and I almost wonder, you know,

(18:45):
if Presler even really post on his account anymore. I
mean typically some of these larger accounts they have managers,
social media managers. So it'd be very I wouldn't be
surprised if he has a team of people that you know,
are in the orsna of Scott Presler and they know
how he posts, you know, and they're really just posting

(19:06):
for him. Now, certainly, certainly he has some kind of
department of defense like intelligence auto block script. I want
to show this one graphic, so it's really interesting. This
is a This is a person who's saying that not
only are they a supporter of Scott Presler, but they've
given money as a donation to him before they were

(19:28):
even a subscriber to him. I think they said in
another another comment, and they were blocked by Scott Presler
and they didn't like anything or repost anything or question him,
but they were simply following an account that did. And
I've had just dozens and dozens of people contact me

(19:49):
and say that that you know, they were all auto
blocked by Scott Presler just for liking or retweeting a post,
or they were, you know, just a listener on our space,
which had I think it had like twenty three thousand
listeners or something like that. I don't know what the
stats are now. So this autoscript, this like DOO Department
of Defense, like intelligence AI bought, is going through aggressively

(20:13):
scouring the Internet for anyone who dares question Scott Presler
likes or reposted, or even follows someone who does, and
they auto block him. I mean that sounds a lot
like what's going on in the UK. This, I mean,
just total suppression of free speech, and it really adds
a lot of credibility to all these allegations against him

(20:35):
and his intelligence gathering. Father. Robert Presler, what do you
think about that?

Speaker 2 (20:42):
Yeah, I mean, obviously it's hard to prove one hundred percent,
but the data that you and people like Emerald Robins
Robinson have been putting up is certainly alarming. And the
testimonials from people that are like, Hey, I was a
fan and I got blocked. I'm not even one of

(21:02):
your haters, and I'm oh, I'm heartbroken that I got
I don't even understand why I'm blocked. Yeah, what's the
deal with that? And so you know, like like I said,
it's hard to approve for one hundred percent something like that,
but the data is alarming, and the evidence continues to
pile up. Yeah, yeah, uh, I don't know if it's

(21:26):
Emerald Robinson for sure. I think it was who was
showing dozens and dozens of screenshots of a bunch of
different people saying the same exact thing about, oh, you're
a national treasure something like that, and that's.

Speaker 1 (21:39):
On real Scott Pressler dot com. Yeah, it's nine pages
of almost the identical phrase Scott Presler's a national treasure.
Which that's an exact tactic mentioned in actual Department of
Defense one hundred page report that his father, Robert Presler
sponsored in his role as director of you know, Information

(21:59):
and Eligence in the Pentagon. And it's an exact technique,
and it's it's just astounding to me. And you know
Elon's talk Elon must talking about, oh, we've got to
crack down on all these bots on X. Well, you
better take a look at Scott Presler's account or whoever's
running it for him or whoever's running his you know
auto block script scouring the internet, blocking everyone. It just

(22:22):
just really hilarious. Now, since we're on this topic, I
got to bring this up. I don't know if you've
seen this. There's like a you know, these influencers that
always come with these trends online. So there's an X
influencer trend and it shows someone as like a little
action figure, right, there's an action figure of them, and
it says, oh, you know, let's just say it's like

(22:43):
Donald Trump, like, oh, here's an action figure of Donald
Trump and you know extra you know, hair or you
know now with you know, comes with extra tariff power,
you know, something like that. Something funny, right, I don't
know if you've seen that at all. Yeah, you have
a Okay, And then I guess someone made one of

(23:05):
Scott Presler and I don't know if this is the
original one, but this is this is an edded version.
It was. It was pretty hilarious and also accurate. So
I'm going to show it. I don't know if you
have you seen this yet.

Speaker 2 (23:18):
I might have seen it.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
I'm going to show it. You tell me if you've
seen it or not.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, I think I might witness.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
So, I mean, it's it's pretty hilarious. I mean, it's interesting.
It has an X over the Republican vote, so you
can see just the Democrat blue vote, which that might
be calling out, you know, in the losses in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
the you know, there's been allegations that Scott Presler and
Turning Points actions registering low propensity voters their ballots were

(23:49):
then cast for Democrats seventeen percent. That's what caused the
loss in those states. So they're directly responsible for those.
And then it says your first just one million x
account blocks free with Daddy Pressler d O d Ai botnet.
That's pretty funny. There Again, there's a lot of evidence

(24:10):
that that's what's going on. We just covered some evidence
right before this. And then it has unlimited stolen mail
in ballots. Uh, you know, mail in ballots is widely
acknowledged as the source of fraud. President Trump has said
the same thing, We need to move away from that.
You know. The Elon Musk determined there was two million

(24:31):
illegal aliens with social Security numbers registered and voting. So
a lot of them sometimes not even them, but it's
these uh, you know, these what are they called the
ng os. The NGOs are voting their ballots for them.
And then there's another caption here. It says, now with
gas lighting about the stolen election. I think that's referencing

(24:53):
he he told. I think it was MJ. Truth Ultra,
who's a large X account. You know, there's no evidence
of fraud. There's no evidence of fraud. And then you
know he's he was questioned, you know a little bit more,
you know, very polite questioning by MJ. Truth Alter, so
he blocked him. And then it's got this free one
hundred thousand dollars car, which, of course mister Pressler was

(25:14):
the recipient of a three hundred thousand dollar car, A
big pile of cash at his feet, he's got a
that's probably a reference. You know, there was an article
written that he's estimated to make seven hundred thousand a year,
four million dollar net worth. His pack has received almost
seven million dollars. He's got a stack of hundreds in
his hand. And then I don't know, that looks like

(25:36):
a rainbow dildo. On the other hand, by that pretty ridiculous,
pretty funny. So anyways, we'll take that off the screen now.

Speaker 2 (25:44):
Yeah, and it's important to say that it's alleged, but
the evidence is alarming. Yeah, you know, because you don't
want somebody to try to sue you or something. But again,
I mean.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
We know his pack is received almost seven million dollars.
That's the sc Just.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
Like you always say, bring the evidence, bring the receipts.
That's why, That's why I would really like to try
to get Laura Lumor's attention on some of this stuff,
because that's her whole stick, is receipts and evidence, And
lately he's been really trying to cozy up to her,

(26:24):
where historically she's been somebody that's too controversial for him,
and so I wonder what he's up to with that.
Maybe he's preemptively trying to cozy up to Lumor now
that she's kind of broke the ice with getting into
the Trump influential sphere, so that he doesn't get lumored.

(26:50):
So making a preemptive move a Lumer is no longer
considered a whack job. She's really causing Donald Trump to
make firing decisions and make She's really in there like swimwear,
as they say. I need to make sure I'm cool
with her because if this data, this evidence that people

(27:13):
like Brian are putting out, get out, gets out out
of this small We're in a relatively small bubble now
because he blocks everybody. If that gets out big enough
and somebody like Laura Lumor starts to look at it,

(27:34):
I want to get out in front of that and
be buddies with Laura Lumor. So she comes to me
first before just saying, Hey, what's going on with all this?
You know, I got a breaking story that because Lumer
loves breaking scoops when it comes to juicy gossip like this,
and there's evidence that receipts to back it up. So

(27:56):
maybe he's really trying to get in good with her
in advances of this new information coming out, as normally
she doesn't really care who it is. Her whole thing
is about putting the truth out there, even if it
means making enemies. So I don't know if she sees

(28:20):
everything eye tweet, but I've been trying to tell her, hey,
be careful, you may have a snake in the grass
for a new buddy there, because.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
Well, that's a good point, and that's very disturbing. And
since you brought that up, there's something else I'm going
to show on Laura Lumer. I just uploaded these two graphics.
Did it on the fly? I like doing it on
the fly. All right, So this first one, this is
Laura Lumer and she's posting I'm sure everyone remembers when
former AZGOP chairman was recorded bribing on video Carrie Lake

(28:53):
to stay stay out of the race. And you've got
some people back east that you know they don't want
you in the race. Well, anyways, interesting backstory on AZYGP
chairman former Jeff DeWitt. He was previously the CEO of
a company nick called super Feed Technologies Incorporated. Superfeed Technologies
Incorporated was created by Turning Point and several of their

(29:18):
employees are on the board and the founding documents and
all that stuff. So this was a post from Laura
Lumer and she says, just because AGGP Chairman Jeff DeWitt
has resigned doesn't mean things are okay in Arizona. I
have uncovered a major crisis in Arizona that nobody is
talking about. And she goes on and she says, uh,

(29:42):
let's see Trump's trying to you know, get out the vote,
blah blah blah, and then he talks about. TPUSA is
currently contacting voters by using an app as the super
Feed Technologies app that was built and maintained by Jeff
DeWitt AZ. Yes, the same guy who resigned as the
of AZGOP this week after who's exposed on audio for

(30:03):
trying to bribe Kerry Lake. There is a video I'm
told to to stay out of politics and not run
for the US Senate. The app was designed is called
Early Vote Action. Huh, that's Scott Presler's app and Scott
Presler's pack Early Vote Action. It was designed by a

(30:23):
company called super Feed Technologies Incorporated, and the CEO of
super Feed Technologies is Jeff DeWitt. Early Vote Action is
collecting voter data that will be key in helping Republicans
get out the vote. If it's not leaked sold, she says, sold,
or compromise or composed composed by the highest bidder. Leak

(30:45):
of that data could jeopardize Republican wins down ballot over
the county. If it gets to the wrong person like
David Becker Mark ilis, they could literally destroy President Trump.
All right, So that's that one pretty sure?

Speaker 2 (30:58):
What Dave is that post from.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Let Me Go over here. So that is January twenty seventh,
twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (31:06):
Fourth, Okay, so not too long, not too long.

Speaker 1 (31:09):
Not too long ago, any other comments on that, because
I got a second follow up one to show you
no go ahead. All right, here's the second one. So
this is Laura Lumer again this and this is uh,
let''s the date on this January twenty eight so next day,
So Laura Lumer breaks his story. Mentioned super Feed, mentioned
Turning Point, mentioned Scott Presler and early Vote Action. Well

(31:32):
she didn't say Scott Presler, but early Vote Action is
the name was app, the name was Pack. And then
she says, so, Laura Lumber, I had a nice chat
with Tyler Boyer. Tyler Boyer is the chief operating officer
of Turning Point Action. That's the five oh one Steve
four of Turning Point USA. And just a side note
before I go on here, guess who's the acting CEO

(31:56):
of super Feed Technologies. It's Tyler Boyer. He's also the
chairman of the board of super Feed Technologies. Hmm. Interesting. Anyways,
I had a nice chat with Tyler Boyer. He assured
me that my concerns. She says, we're valid, but I
think she I think she means to say we're invalid. Anyways,
he assured me my concern for valid and that luckily
they were addressed over a year ago, they've been addressed,

(32:19):
and that he is he's right, says right there, he's
now the CEO of super Feed after Jeff do what
was demoted not Jeff resigned but whatever. However, Yeah, However,
for some odd reason, DeWitt's social media presence still suggests
that he's the current CEO. He resigned from that. Now
that this has been clarified, I see no problem with

(32:41):
people using early vote action. The folks at super Feed
Technologies were very open and transparent with me, very professional.
Let's see. I'd like to thank you Tyler for clarifying
and addressing my concerns. Don't delete the app. Well, there's
a lot of evidence, and I've written some articles. There's

(33:03):
a lot of corruption going on in Turning Point. A
lot of it's on real Scott Presler dot com. There's
videos of Tyler Boyer just gas lighting an entire auditorium
of a thousand state elected committeemen in Arizona, just openly

(33:23):
lying to people caught in lies. There's screenshots in some
of those articles about how Tyler himself and his Turning
Point employees led basically a coup attempt against the current
AZGOP chairwoman, Genus Waboda, running like a smear campaign using
some of these coordinated micro influencer flaming attack strategies that

(33:45):
are described in Robert Presler's report. And then you know,
it's just ridiculous because Tyler Boyer sponsored that chairwoman just
a year before. But what she did is she cut
off the Superfeed app. She canceled a contract for Jake Hoffman,

(34:07):
allegedly canceled the contract for Jake Hoffman in his company's
value at eighty thousand dollars. Jake Hoffin has been paid
millions of dollars by Turning Point. And then allegedly there
was you know, Tyler had some other requests that he
was denied, So what did he do? They didn't get
the data, They flipped on her, tried to oust her.
They have a product, a page on their website on

(34:28):
Turningpoint Actions website called the Mount Vernon Project. This is
all referenced in screenshot where they say they will capture
and take control of all the leadership positions all the
state GOP houses all the national delegates, and that's what
they're doing, and that's what they're running with. So I
think Laura Lumer was fooled by more gas lighting by

(34:52):
Tyler Boyer. So she had a story to break real quick,
got a call no, no, no, no, everything's fine, La
la la, and then she dropped the story. A lot
of people have tagged during that story and said, no,
you still need to look in this. There's still a
lot going on, and I mean it's just apparent with
what's going on with Scott Prester, and again it's literally
mentioned Early Vote Action, it's his app also made by

(35:13):
super Feet Technologies. There's a big story there, but Laura
Lumer has been told not to cover it.

Speaker 2 (35:19):
I think that when you're a large account on X,
it helps you to interact with other large accounts, and
when you're convinced that your other large account friends are
good people, you can't and you have invested a lot

(35:40):
of time into that relationship, you may have sort of
a sunk cost fallacy in the back of your head
where you start to see a little few cracks in
that person's integrity and a little bit of evidence in
data starts to seep out about people that are your friends.

(36:00):
You may just tend to look the other way because
one you're somebody like her is extremely busy with all
the different investigations he has going on every single day,
and an entire staff handling fielding investigations on a daily basis.
And the thing that I already mentioned just the whole

(36:22):
big accounts pinging off other big accounts. That's part of
how they make there. And I'm not accusing I'm not
accusing her of being not having integrity, but that's part
of how the big X accounts make their big payouts
is large accounts with blue checks interacting with other large

(36:43):
accounts with blue checks pinging off each other. That's why
it's so hard for a little account like you or
me to comment something, even if it's got very valuable
information under a Laura Lumer post and get her to
take it in and respond and even if she sees it,
because I know she sees my comments, because once in

(37:05):
a while she actually likes and responds to them, but
she might not really see the value in it because
I'm not a mega large account. And that's my theory
is that maybe there's a sunk cost fallacy there if
if you are familiar with the term, which I'm sure
you are, that I have invested so much time into

(37:28):
that relationship that there's a little bit of a denial
with I'm not even going to look at that evidence.
It's probably bs. I don't have time for that, and
I just sort of a little bit of denial. And
even though she is a good faith actor, just kind
of I don't have time for that. You know, he's
good people. I'm I'm you know, because we have all

(37:51):
been there where we have a really good friend and
then bad news comes out and it's like, oh my gosh,
I didn't think that person was capable of doing that,
you know, because I'm so good friends with that person,
and you don't want to believe it. And then come
to find out that good friend of yours did do

(38:13):
that bad thing, and you have to rethink the way
that you think about that good friend. Sadly, we've all
experienced those situations and it sometimes takes us time to
process when that happens. And so that's just a theory
I have about that, and I'll leave it at that.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
No, that's a that's a great theory. And and you
you you brought up something. I want to show something else.
Now you're you're really teeing off these topics. For me,
it's great. So this is a graphic. You're talking about
large accounts, so it's influence of large accounts. This is
a This is a screenshot of a post I made
just just the other day, and it's talking about it's

(38:55):
kind of a well known count now it's a data
republican data Republican, and you know, it's been heavily promoted
by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point. I believe Elon Musk,
you know, retweeted her or whatever. But it's interesting because
there's two screenshots here and it shows just February ninth,
just two months ago, her account had you know, three
hundred and thirty nine thousand followers, and that was a

(39:19):
big increase in of itself. I don't I don't have
ones earlier, but that even that was a really big
increase for her. She had like much fewer before that,
like thirty thousand or something, and then just two months
later now she has seven hundred and thirty two thousand followers.
So this is saying, how is it possible for an
account to have this like meteoric rise from three hundred

(39:39):
and thirty nine thousand to seven hundred and thirty two
thousand and just two months. Typically would take years. I
mean even Scott Pressler took him, you know, seven or
eight years, you know, and here she's done it in
like two months. Spam almost as if she was selected
to become a right wing influencer. You know, she talks
about all this data, but let's just allegedly, let's talk allegedly,

(40:01):
like what if there was a mechanism like let's make
someone ex famous and let's give them, you know, seven
hundred thousand followers, and then in exchange, they're going to
make sure they're going to talk about the data. Yeah,
but they're going to steer it away from places we
don't want to talk about. We don't really want to
talk about election fraud that much. Let's not really do that.
Let's focus on USAID. Let's do that, but let's not

(40:23):
talk about the connections to USAID to any conservatives like
Turning Point or Charlie Kirk. Let's not do that. Let's
just you know, expose the obvious stuff, the little hangar fruit,
and then you know, pretend you don't know anything. Else
about that other stuff. Let's see. So, I mean, it's
just asking, it's how many of these followers of Data
Republican Charlie Kirk, turning Point influencers like Scott Pressler, how

(40:45):
many of those followers are legitimate? How many of the
part of a vast farms of accounts or bought DoD
intelligence networks that can create famous overnight. So what do
you think about that? And I'll show another graphic.

Speaker 3 (40:59):
After that, So I'll say allegedly there a couple of
times to me, it looks extremely fishy. And whether it's
some sort of paid bought operation by a foreign hacker
group or or or the DOV theory, whichever one it is,

(41:26):
it's an extremely powerful mechanism and extremely.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
Shady because to have the ability to do that and
fly under the radar of the xt ules that Musk
has tried really hard to implement to prevent things like
that from happening, you're either you're either with the government

(41:55):
or somebody's getting paid an extremely large sum of money.
Had that type of ability to do something like that.

Speaker 1 (42:05):
Yeah, and we didn't even talk about like the paid influencers,
Like if you were did you see that whole thing
with SNAP soda. Yeah, so, babe, did you want to
tell the view that was?

Speaker 2 (42:17):
In fact, I don't know if we were the first,
but one of the main legislators chores that did that
was here in my state of Idaho.

Speaker 1 (42:34):
Really so, so you had a a state elected legislator
posting I mean just just for a viewers. So the
background was the SNAP program is government assistants and you
can buy all kinds of different things with that. I
think think like food stamps kind of. So, yeah, you
could buy soda. And even though you know RFK Junior

(42:57):
is doing this, well, this is very unhealthy. We needed
not have of you know, this high fruittose corn syrup
in our soda. But you could be on government assistance
and just buy as much soda as you want. You
could be seven hundred pounds just drinking soda all day long.
So I believe RFK Junior suggested it. He said, let's

(43:18):
for the government assistance. You can be on the government assistance,
but you're not going to be able to use it
to buy soda or these other high bruptose corn syrup
drinks because it's not healthy for you. It's government assistance.
We don't have to do that. And my understanding is
that the lobbyist groups for the big soda companies like
Coca Cola and and all the other ones, they went

(43:39):
through a specific influencer management company.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
I think you were a Tour did a great expose
on all that.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
Do you know what the company name was? Do you
remember what it was?

Speaker 2 (43:51):
It was called Influenceable.

Speaker 1 (43:53):
Influenceable, Influenceable. Yeah, so you you you just correct me
or jump in with anything, but Influenceable was allegedly paying
some of these large right wing MAGA accounts like one
thousand dollars just to post a little message saying.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
Well, and I'm gonna just if I can interrupt sure,
just based on and this was public you might have
seen it too. You know. I wasn't directly involved or anything.
I just filed along like anyone else. But according to
the posts, because of Nick sore Tour's intervention and reporting, allegedly,

(44:32):
none of the people that got bushed got their thousand bucks.
Really because they got embarrassed in the campaign, they all
pulled down their posts and didn't get their thousand bucks,
or even if they didn't pull down the post, I
guess it was supposed to be a secret and because

(44:54):
it got put out there, supposedly nobody got paid.

Speaker 1 (45:00):
Wow, what a scam that was, accord.

Speaker 2 (45:03):
There's some posts I can't remember exactly who claimed that
that even the people that left theirs up didn't get
their thousand bucks. But that's what I saw somewhere.

Speaker 1 (45:13):
Wow, that's not a lot of money to sell your
soul for. But but just for our viewers that aren't
familiar with it, you know, there was like a thousand
dollars and we want you to post something saying, well,
it's not right to tell people what they can or
can't buy, and it it interferes with their freedoms and
you know, their right to choose whatever. So it was
a very like, you know, on brand message for right

(45:37):
wing people to say, like, okay, well don't tell us
what to do. But the reality of it is is
it was literally the soda lobbyist paying them to keep
pushing their poison corn syrup, hyperbos corn syrup drinks so
it and and they posted it like verbatim, like it
was almost the same phrase. And that's exactly what we

(46:00):
saw with the Scott Presler bought networks, Scott Presler's or
National Treasure like verbatim. So okay, so let's bring it back.
So we have you know, there could be some type
of automation or farming accounts, and then you have a
couple the ability to make new influencers. So let's think
about Laura Lumor for a second. So here's Laura Lumer

(46:20):
and she's like, no, I can't do this story on
super feed technologies and turning point because these these other
mega influencer accounts that I know and trust and that
helped me, they're telling me it's a fake story, it's
not real. But how many of those mega influencer accounts
were created, how many of them are paid to push

(46:41):
whatever propaganda is needed to push, including for Scott Presler,
which we saw a lot a lot of showing for
Scott Presler. Comment about that, and then I'm gonna show
that other graphic that I mentioned earlier.

Speaker 2 (46:53):
Yeah, I'm just going to defer back to my a
legend of what I said that I believe. Yeah, I
occasionally I said, I know Lumer sees my comments. I
occasionally give her some constructive criticism, but I also I

(47:13):
always say, hey, but I still like you and I
still support you. I believe you're a good faith actor.
I'm sticking with that. You know that she's not purposefully
trying to cover anything up, and that you know, maybe
she just doesn't have the time to look into it,

(47:34):
or is two vested in in the friendship, or at
some point, at some point, maybe she'll she'll take a
crack at at the data and say, hey, wait a minute,
or maybe there is something funky going on here. I
could be wrong, but that's just my stance at this time,

(47:55):
because because I've never seen anybody more loyal to Donald
Trump than the and Laura Lumer, and I think more
genuine than just, you know, somebody like Presler getting out
the generic vote, whereas with Lumer, I think she's more
loyal to specifically to Donald Trump, not just getting out

(48:20):
the Republican vote. And that's why I take that stance.
I do believe she's a good faith actor, even she
doesn't want to take on this story at this point.

Speaker 1 (48:34):
And I don't disagree with you, but I'm going to
compare it to let's compare it to let's compare Lumer
to Trump himself. So the plan for a lot of
the establishment in Rhinos was, Okay, Trump's going to win
this election. We need to surround him with our people.
We need to make sure all his advisors, all his campaign,
all his biggest people have the most influence on him.

(48:55):
Those are our guys, so that if we need to
push Trump off of something, we can do it. And
it's not and it's not that Trump is the bad actor.
He's not. He's trying to do what's right. He's right,
what's right for America. But on certain things, there's enough
of his trusted advisors and campaign advisors that are trying
to push him off it and it just might work.
And the same thing could happen with Lumer if there's

(49:17):
enough mega influencers and I don't know, maybe even her
people that are around her whatever, they could possibly push
her off a story.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
One other thing I can add about that when you're
when somebody big is on the same page as you
about something that you're very adamant about, that adds to
the mix. And I'm not going to try to change
the subject about this, but because it's not a subject

(49:52):
I want to get into deeply, but I will say
that Scott Kressler is very anti jihad Muslim things like that,
and so is Laura Lumer, whereas there are a lot
of other right wing influencers who are more maybe pro

(50:18):
Palestine or maybe just maybe kind of in the middle
or more nuanced, for example. And so the fact that
he's in the past, Scott Preusseler has talked about, you know,
if I were in this country, these these Muslims would
throw me off a building for being gay. Well, Laura

(50:41):
Lumor is very much in agreement with with that sort
of rhetoric. She's definitely, she definitely loves railing against jihadists
and and anti Israel Muslim things like that. And so
the fact that they're both on the same page when
it comes to that just adds one of the reasons

(51:03):
why she might not want to.

Speaker 1 (51:05):
Yeah him, that is that is a very interesting observation
and very eloquently put, because we won't go down the
rabbit hole that you're talking about what you're talking about.
But yeah, I think that's well put, and I agree
with that and that there could be some of that
and uh, certainly with turning point also. So okay, so

(51:28):
let me show this other graphic. All right, This is
data Republican, right, all right, So this is before she
got big or what made her big was this, you know,
allegedly this us AID tool that she built that shows,
you know, where are these funds going? And several people,
including myself, called her out and said, wait a minute,

(51:51):
your own tool shows basically money passing through, so in fairness,
not directly to turning Point USA, but really really close
passing through. And when she was confronted on this data,
Republican all of a sudden seemed to forget about how
how money laundering works and how you can you know,

(52:12):
give money to you know, group or company A and
then say, look, I only gave it to group of
Company A, and then group of grouper Company A gives
a bunch of that money to straight to be and
and then you know, the donor's like, well I didn't
give to b it went you know, that money seemed
to pass through something else. It was almost like it

(52:34):
was laundered. I don't know, I didn't have anything to
do with that. And so she seems to have forgotten
about that. But this chart shows is I'm gonna I'm
gonna read it from my notes because I haven't you know,
it's it's maybe a little bit hard to see. This
is on my ex profile at Brian Farren's one. But
it's I'm calling out Data republic I'm saying hold on
a second. We're told via Data Republicans tool. Oh no,

(52:57):
Turning Point USA didn't receive any funds, any public funds.
But please confirm that four hundred and sixty five five
hundred dollars, which definitely have its sources from organizations that
did directly receive taxpayer funds, are just one hop away.
So isn't it possible that one of these organizations directly

(53:21):
use taxpayer funds to pay employee A, which allowed for
an offset donation amount B to be donated directly to
Turning Point USA. Follow the money.

Speaker 2 (53:34):
And when you say she, you're referring to that mystery
account that got all the followers very quickly correct.

Speaker 1 (53:40):
Yeah, Data Republican. And she also has a Data Republican's
mom account and they both have a Japanese you know, anime?

Speaker 2 (53:47):
And have you said the name of that? Would it
be doxing to say the name of who who?

Speaker 1 (53:52):
I don't think so, because allegedly she was on TV, right,
didn't she have a TV appearance? So I don't think
I don't want.

Speaker 2 (53:59):
To dox anybody if that would be is doxing.

Speaker 1 (54:03):
My understanding is that in the terms of service for doxing,
its identifiable like address, phone number, so a name.

Speaker 2 (54:13):
I think that the person who originally said that Shia
Rachi was libs of TikTok might have gotten into some
trouble and then once she but but then it was
like once she finally came out as her names, she
loved it and got even.

Speaker 1 (54:32):
More famous, right exactly.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
But I still think that the person who put her
name out may have gotten in a little bit of
trouble I remember, But I'm not one hundred percent sure
on that one.

Speaker 1 (54:42):
But well, yeah we're we're on video here, not writing it.
But uh, I you know, I'm pretty sure her name's
out there. But uh but this is so you could
say it if you want. If not, that's fine.

Speaker 2 (54:52):
But this I was just curious.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
Okay, Yeah, I'm not sure, but this is showing and
you can see how it circled, how the money goes
directly there. But it's saying Center for the American Experiment,
and I have their EION number, which is all publicly available.
They received two hundred and fifty six thousand, eight hundred
nine dollars in taxpayer funds from USAID, and they donated

(55:17):
one hundred and five thousand directly to Turning Point USA.
So let's say you get two hundred and fifty six thousand,
you donate one hundred thousand. If you didn't have that
two hundred and fifty six thousand, would you have been
able to donate that hundred thousand, I don't know. And
then Impact Assets Incorporated received four hundred and sixty five thousand,
So these are some big numbers. Four and sixty five

(55:38):
thousand from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. And they received three
hundred and fifty nine thousand from the Aspen Institute. So
they're coming in here. This is the eight hundred thousand now.
But for some reason, even though they directly received those,
data Republicans tool shows that they they got zero taxpayer funds.

(56:02):
Well that's not true. I just read you the numbers.
I got the EI in numbers and everything. It wasn't zero.
So now I have to question the accuracy of Data
Republicans tool. If she's saying eight hundred thousand is zero,
that doesn't make sense. And then they donated that company.
Impact Assets Incorporated donated directly to Turningpoint USA sixty five
hundred dollars, so they got almost eight hundred thousand dollars.

(56:25):
If they hadn't got that, could they have donated that
sixty thousand dollars to Turning Point? I don't know. And
there's a there's one more example, which is the University
of Notre Dame. Okay, this is big. University of Notre
Dame received one hundred and thirty five million dollars. Okay,
they donated two hundred thousand of that to the Bessemer

(56:48):
giving fund. Okay, and again again even though they got
two hundred thousand directly. This is directly like taxpayer funds.
It's showing zero taxpayer funds to Bestmer on her tool.
But Besmer donated three hundred thousand directly to Turning Point.
So if Bessemer didn't receive that two hundred thousand, could

(57:11):
they have donated three hundred thousand? Would have only been
one hundred thousand. Anyways, these are just my questions. And
as soon as Danny Republican was questioned on this, he
was like, oh, no, you know, I don't know anything
about that, and you know I worked for Charlie Point.
Charlie Kirk in the past, and you know, my my
profile image says you know, Charlie Kirk said here, let
me put this up again. It says right here in

(57:33):
her profile Charlie Kirk. This is from this is current one.
You're a must follow, So she says, Charlie Kirk says,
everyone must follow me. Over here, she says, Charlie Kirk.
And she's also said that she's worked with Charlie Kirk before,
which means he paid her. Who's paying her money? So
I don't know. I just find it a little bit
strange that her tool to expose where are these USAID

(57:57):
money is flowing?

Speaker 2 (57:58):
It?

Speaker 1 (57:59):
Closed ever, But don't look over here, don't look at Turningpoint. No,
it didn't go directly to them, but three companies that
directly received it and then all directly to donated Turningpoint.
None that money could ever make it there. No, that's impossible.

Speaker 2 (58:13):
Sounds sort of like how Planned Parenthood explains their their model.
But then once you take away abortion, they seem to
go out of business really fast, even though they claim
the majority of what we do is is pap smears
and all this other stuff. Abortion is just a small

(58:35):
fraction of what we do as soon as you take
away or make abortion illegal in a state. So surprisingly,
all the planned parenthoods go out of business really fast.
How that, because that's exactly what happened in Idaho. Their

(58:58):
doors just close immediately as soon as you take away abortion.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
Well, and it's it's not only the abortion, but it's
the selling of the body parts.

Speaker 2 (59:09):
Yeah. So it's yeah, and and so it's because they
talk about the federal funding and and what do they
do with it? And it's the same explanation. It's like, well,

(59:30):
we don't use the federal funding for the abortions.

Speaker 1 (59:33):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (59:35):
Well, I don't know anybody's buying that.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Yeah, it's it's just it's just an opportunity cost, it's
just an offset. It's I mean, it's it's how money
laundering works. No one's buying that. Who is the guy
that donated all of those crypto millions, you know, famously
not only to the Democrats, but you know, to Republicans.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
To FTX guy.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Yeah, the FTX guy.

Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
Let's see, I can't I know exactly talking about the
guy with the curly hair. Mm hmmm.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
It was like Sam Friedman or something.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
I think you're right, and there was a pick too,
that weird looking goofy woman that was working with him.

Speaker 1 (01:00:27):
Right, and so so let's I think it's Sam like
Bankman Freeman or something like that. But let's talk about
that for a second, because so if you look at
their finances, that cryptocurrency company received a huge amount of
money from Ukraine, which of course the United States sent
a huge money aunt of money to Ukraine, so US

(01:00:49):
money probably through USAI, and then that Ukraine money to
this crypto, to this crypto company, and then it went
directly to the campaigns of you know, those Democrats and
several Republicans, including so. I mean, that's literally the exact
same thing happening.

Speaker 2 (01:01:08):
And there was no accountability on all those none of
them because the ft X money too. It was almost
like it was almost like the same way that they're
covering up the Epstein stuff is the way that they're
covered covering up the FTX cash. I don't want to

(01:01:29):
start on Pam Bondi because maybe she has more happening
than we know what's going on.

Speaker 1 (01:01:35):
She's got nail appointments and Fox Fox and Friends appearances.
That's right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
People want to know what's happening with the Nepstein files.
Same with the FDx cash. What happened?

Speaker 1 (01:01:47):
Mm hmmm, oh, I've got it. Hold on, I was
looking for it. I was like, where is that chart?
Let me find that. So we're gonna we're gonna look
at this now. So uh, let's see FTX. I love
being on the fly. I don't know if you've ever
done a show with anyone who's as on the fly
as I am. Just it's all on the fly.

Speaker 2 (01:02:09):
No, that's great, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
So I'm gonna show this and keep.

Speaker 2 (01:02:13):
On the track of whatever because I will wander off subjects.

Speaker 1 (01:02:18):
That's okay, don't keep me off. I'll keep you on track. Now,
this is great, all right. So this is a chart
and it's it's hard to see, but I'll read for
our viewers. So this is the source. The sources, the
Federal Election Commission, okay, And it's donations in thousands of
US dollars from FTX. And where did that money go?

(01:02:43):
And of course the hugest one is the DSCC, and
then the number two one is the Biden Victory Fund
Biden Victory Fund, and then the next two were Heartland Resurgence,
which I think it's read because it's like a specifically
a conservative group, and then the NRCC, and then there

(01:03:04):
was a bunch of them like Activate America, stave Now
Victory Fund, Maggie Hanson victory Fund, New Hampshire Democrat Party,
Collins for Senator, which I think is a Republican, Joe
Brand victory fund, Arizona Democratic Party, and we know those
elections in Arizona were stolen Texas Democratic Party. And then

(01:03:27):
it just goes on and on and so it's a
bunch of the Democrats, a bunch of their candidates. But
who else is in here? You got Lisa Murkowski for
US Senate, the Republican from was it Alaska who always
votes with the rhinos. And then you got Richard Burr
committee Hoven for Senate. These are Republicans, Boozeman for Arkansas,

(01:03:50):
Bill Cassidy for US Senate Heartland Values Pack. And I'm
pretty sure that Mitch McConnell is in there summer, but
he may not have made it like in the top.
Let me just see. Yeah, I mean there's another chart
that's not on here that showed it shows like a
breakdown of how much did he donate to Republicans? How

(01:04:13):
much he don't you know, Most of it was the Democrats,
but there was some money to Republicans, including the Alabama
Conservative Fund.

Speaker 2 (01:04:20):
How about the n r s C.

Speaker 1 (01:04:22):
N r c C. Isn't that Mitch McConnell's pack.

Speaker 2 (01:04:25):
I know, and I know n r s C n
r c C.

Speaker 1 (01:04:30):
I'm McConnell runs a huge pack, and it's like it's
something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
You might run more than one.

Speaker 1 (01:04:39):
Yeah, I could get lit up with that, right, So
I'm pretty sure that people looked at it. What's that again?

Speaker 2 (01:04:48):
Can you still see me?

Speaker 1 (01:04:49):
Okay, yeah, I can see it. I can see n
r c C.

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
That's the that's the Congressional Committee. So that would be
whoever was the Speaker of the House at.

Speaker 1 (01:04:59):
The I guess, oh, man, well that's yeah. I mean
whoever at the it wasn't.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
Good whoever it was the Republican leader at the time.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
What I'm so a bunch of rhinos.

Speaker 2 (01:05:13):
So that's the House and n r SC that's center.

Speaker 1 (01:05:17):
Yep. So so that's just so those are two examples.
You have, you know, ft X money, which is being
money laundered through Ukraine, stolen from the American people, mostly Democrats,
but to some Republicans, and then US a i D.
Same thing. But you know, data Republican, don't look at
this money coming to turning point, don't look at it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:39):
So I wonder if as as time passes, there'll be
some interesting findings on who's funding some of these anti
TESLA protests as well.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
Mm hmm, what do you have to say. I mean
they kind of died down a little bit, or or
the media is not just not covering them all.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
There's not a lot of people showing up, maybe, but
they're the vandalism continues, for sure, and you never know
if people are getting paid to do that sort of stuff.
There's certainly people out there who would take money to
commit acts of vandalism. I'm sure, I'm sure, but I'm

(01:06:22):
sure people who would.

Speaker 1 (01:06:25):
Everyone in Antifa, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
Yeah, that type of people. I mean, Antifa murdered a
proud boy on the streets of Portland. They're they're they're
nasty people.

Speaker 1 (01:06:39):
Well, I think they've also exposed that a lot of
the USA I D money was flowing directly to Antifa
in the past. I'm pretty sure I saw that as well.
Let we'll say allegedly, we'll throw that up by yeah,
I'm out too. Worried about the you know, the money
laundering criminals that run Antifa with their you know, six

(01:07:00):
houses each, never to help any black child or give
any scholarships. Ever, not too worried about that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:09):
I guess a lot of the people too. They're starting
to corral them into these Bernie rallies, but a bunch
of them are it's phony numbers. So, for example, Bernie
Sanders is going around saying he had thirty six thousand
people show up to see himself and AOC it was Coachella.

(01:07:31):
He literally showed up to a Coachella and then now
is claiming that those people were there for him. What
a lion sack of shit. The Democrats are to make
claims like that, to show up to a pre established
event and then claim And that's exactly the same thing
that Kamala Harris was doing with her rallies. It was

(01:07:53):
literally she had to get Beyonce and car b to
show up and shake our ass on stage and things
like that, and then oh, look how many people showed
up for Kamal No, it was a Beyonce concert. And
then not only that, remember that the people were mad

(01:08:13):
because Beyonce didn't sing enough songs and so people were
leaving early because they didn't get the concert they expected
or whatever. And then you have the those fricking morons,
the Crassenstein douchebags posting look at all these people showing
up for Kamala, and then that one account this is huge,

(01:08:37):
the Kamala's Winds account that was on there, and this
is huge, look at all these people. It's it's typical
Democrat gas lighting. But I guess that's sad and fortunate
to bring it back to the point of the what
we're talking about. The sad fact is that we've got
our people on our side doing similar, similar gas lighting.

Speaker 1 (01:09:01):
Yeah, and you know there's two there's so much drama
and beef with some of these influencers. Uh man, my uh,
my comment threads are just blown up with the uh
jov On uh Pulitzer supporters because I you know, I
went on Joe Altman's show to to to get the

(01:09:23):
word out about Scott Pressler. You know I did. I
did ask you know, jove on the same thing come
on my show for me to be on his show.
But I guess I guess people forgetting about that.

Speaker 2 (01:09:32):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:09:33):
And then you know, in this uh this space I invited.
I did invite both David Clements and uh Joe Oltman
and Jovon Pulitzer to attend, just to get the word out.
And I guess they're they're big time enemies. Well so
since then, Jovan has blocked me and I had a lot,
a lot of nasty messages and I was like, guys, like,

(01:09:55):
I don't have any beef with jove On, you know,
I mean, I want to get the truth that out
about Scott. I understand there's some big beef. You know, people,
everyone's made mistakes in the past. The importance is repenting
from them, seeking the truth and doing what's right. So,
you know, I'm sure that both jove On and Joe

(01:10:15):
Altman and David Clements have done some things in the
past that you know, maybe one wasn't the right thing,
or maybe wasn't the best thing. You know, probably some
of them have owned up to it. Probably some of
them have repented from it. You know, when I was on,
Joe Altman David Clements showed, you know, they were very
you know, respectful, prayerful, reasonable, logical. I mean, you know,

(01:10:39):
Joe's a little bit you know, unhinged to guess sometimes
he gets he's got some helpful comments, but uh, you know,
and then I guess, I guess I committed a cardinal
sin with the jovon supporters. So so I must be
I must be the bad guy and evil now because
I did that. But that's that's not that's not how
really how things work. It's it's more about you know

(01:11:01):
the truth and doing what's right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:03):
So yeah, and to this point, most people don't know
me by my face and name, just just media write
news and and I kind of I kind of, like
I said, I ravel roused a lot. So I'm blocked
by a handful of people that, oh I've been blocked

(01:11:25):
by him for years, But I expose rhinos. I have
fun doing it when when I get information from people
that makes you hate the.

Speaker 1 (01:11:40):
Man they had rhinos hate that.

Speaker 2 (01:11:42):
Oh yeah, yeah. I was one of the first on
the scene to put out data about Dan Crenshaw back
when everybody thought he was the next best, the next
best thing since slice spread or whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:11:58):
Oh you're talking about the patch pirate. Yeah I was.

Speaker 2 (01:12:02):
But unfortunately there was little websites I was writing for
that just we had no Twitter presence, mostly just kind
of putting stuff out on Boom or Facebook pages and whatnot,
and so it was getting out there, but people on
the x exosphere still don't know who I am, which

(01:12:24):
to me, I think I'm okay with that actually, because
I'm not out for fame. I just kind of like
keeping up with things and being in the know. But
it does suck though, when I have some pertinent information
that nobody else has and I'm not able to get
it out just because I don't have that platform, and

(01:12:47):
so I kind of have to like push it, and
if I do get it out, somebody big steals it
because hm, like what recourse do I have?

Speaker 1 (01:12:59):
Well, I'm looking at your account, your media right account.
I mean you've got twenty thousand followers, which is you know,
that's more than me. You know, so you're you're doing
all right, but you're no data Republican with you know,
seven hundred and thirty nine thousand followers in two months. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
And I actually have a lot a lot of big,
big accounts who follow me quietly and they don't retweet
me or but they follow me quietly because they know
that once in a while I have some some information
that nobody else has because I have an interesting rolodex,

(01:13:35):
and sometimes people give me stuff to break that is
quite interesting. And it's funny when I do, because people go,
I've never heard of this account, this might be fake news.
And I'm always vindicated and it's like, well, by the
time the vindication comes around, sometimes it's already sort of

(01:13:59):
fizzled out and I don't get that that vindication feeling.
But nobody's really able to fact check me. So I've
got my website. It's separate from X now because everybody
wants to write directly on x is. The is the
model everybody's going towards now instead of blogging. But I

(01:14:22):
have had news I don't know if you've ever heard
of NewsGuard. It's a left leaning fact checking website ranking
group run by some old former CNN employees, and they
are not friendly to right wingers. So if they can
get you on anything, they will, and they've they've filtered

(01:14:45):
through my website and over like at the time, I
had over five thousand articles, and they were were not
able to fact check me on one article. They only
dinged me on not having a corrections policy that they
deemed appropriate to their standard or something something along those lines,

(01:15:07):
and like a C grade or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:11):
Oh, that's passing. That's you know. I just put on
your website and your ex handle on the bottom of
the screen there.

Speaker 2 (01:15:18):
Yeah, well, I put out things early. I always say
I'm often early and rarely wrong. I should say never wrong,
because I have a pretty good trick. But I don't
want to be too cocky, because people do make mistakes
once in a while.

Speaker 1 (01:15:33):
I saw on your website you have this article about
former Utah Congresswoman me A Love passing away from brain cancer.
That was pretty well covered. I think it was documented
that she was a big proponent of the COVID nineteen vaccine.
Is that right?

Speaker 2 (01:15:50):
Yeah, and she was kind of anti Trump too. But
you know, when somebody dies, I don't want to try
to make it kind of a hip piece or anything.
But yeah, before she got she was kind of one
of those Kinsinger types.

Speaker 1 (01:16:05):
Mm hmmm.

Speaker 2 (01:16:06):
But you know, like I said, when somebody's dead, there's
no need to inspect the football at that point. It's
it's just, hey, that's too bad. At that point, it's
a tragedy. What I try not to unless it's like
I don't know, I mean, really, there's just no I

(01:16:27):
guess there's no example I would use even when even
when RGB died, you know, you got Donald Trump. Oh wow,
really I didn't know the famous clip with the Elton
John song playing in the background. Oh, that's the first
time I heard that she lived a great life, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:16:46):
Oh wow? Yeah, No, I mean that makes sense. That's
a good approach, But I kind of cut you off
a little bit there with that would tell us to
give a shout out to anything else that you want
to And you know, closing thoughts, what do you think?

Speaker 2 (01:16:58):
Oh, I don't know really, Like I said, just transferring
from that blog model to the X model, I guess
is kind of a tough, tough transition. So that that's
kind of where we're at right now, just trying to

(01:17:21):
figure out the direction from here. And and and Mark
Zuckerberg did kind of turn the traffic back on for
a lot of people who used to have a lot
of their traffic from Facebook or Meta or whatnot. But
but before he did that, he essentially killed the ad

(01:17:43):
business for a lot of the ad companies. And so
Google's really the last man standing for a lot of
these ad companies. Now, if you have a blog.

Speaker 1 (01:17:54):
Site and that's not good because I'm not a fan
of Google at all.

Speaker 2 (01:17:59):
Right, they will, they'll ding you if they see something
on your website they don't like.

Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
Hm hmmm.

Speaker 2 (01:18:07):
So just that's really it, unless you had any other questions.

Speaker 1 (01:18:12):
For me or or oh, you know what, we were
going to talk about Wendy Rogers. What why don't you
talk about Wendy Rogers.

Speaker 2 (01:18:26):
I'll keep it kind of light on that topic. It's
it's a it's a little bit a little bit sensitive.
I guess we could say.

Speaker 1 (01:18:41):
I used to.

Speaker 2 (01:18:43):
Be more friendly with her than I am now, I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:18:47):
But well, Wendy Rogers blocks me on x as well,
which is highly illegal. The Supreme Court has ruled that
any government elected official or their staff would being in
the with the authority of the US government. It's a
violation of the free speech the first Amendment in the

(01:19:08):
Constitution to do so. And she blocks many many voters
in Arizona, which is highly illegal. And I highly recommend
when do you stop doing that? Because someone's going to
take you to court and you're going to lose.

Speaker 2 (01:19:19):
Yeah, I have a a few things I'd probably say
off off live and yeah, I'd probably just leave it
at that for now. Okay, it's kind of complicated.

Speaker 1 (01:19:37):
No, I understand, I understand. It doesn't have to do
with her, you know, living and Chandler and claiming residents
and flag staff at the same time, does it.

Speaker 2 (01:19:47):
No, it just it goes back to more. It's has
to do with the people running her campaign and her, oh,
the actual person and herself and what you think you
see versus what might actually be happening.

Speaker 1 (01:20:07):
Are you talking about her potential allegedly I'll throw allegedly
in there, raising three million dollars in a stop to
steal campaign and then paying the majority of that to
a consulting company that her cousin owns and runs.

Speaker 2 (01:20:20):
I won't comment on that, but let's just say that
one of the people that helps with her campaign kind
of jumped ship to help with Ron DeSantis during the primary. Ooh,
and that caused a lot of chaos with people that

(01:20:44):
we're kind of in a group that we're all kind
of supportive and helpful with each other at that time,
and it sort of just blew up that whole support
circle and caused just extreme chaos just so somebody could
make a buck. And it was just really sad to
see it happen. Wow, and especially since Ron DeSantis not

(01:21:09):
only lost but lost to Nicky Haley and Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:21:15):
And I think, wait, let me think about this. Didn't
he also lose in his home state of Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:21:24):
To Donald Trump? I believe.

Speaker 1 (01:21:25):
So I don't know if he came did he come
in third in Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:21:30):
I'm not sure if Nicky Haley won in Florida or not.
We'd have to look that up.

Speaker 1 (01:21:35):
But be fair to Santas, the people in Florida speak
very highly of him.

Speaker 2 (01:21:40):
Yeah, for as far as governor, and you know a
lot of them still want to see him run again
as president. But I don't think he's going to be
able to now. I think it's going to be Vance
or somebody else because he he just really screwed the pooch.

Speaker 1 (01:21:56):
Well yeah, that's a good point. And you know the
thing about DeSantis and the thing about him being a
great Florida governor, Well, yeah, I mean, the governor can
do some good things, but they kind of signed the
bills into law that the legislature gives them. So the
Florida legislatures, that's right. The Florida gave him some great

(01:22:19):
bills and his credit. He signed it, but then he
kind of took credit for It's like, well, you didn't
really do that, You kind of just signed it, and
that's what happened.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
DeSantis used to be kind of squishy, almost more of
a bushy type. I hope I'm not interrupting you, but
it's almost like the governor here in Idaho. I don't
know if you a lot of times you see headlines.
I know, governor signs bill doing such and such amazing,
awesome thing bull crap. It was never his idea. I

(01:22:53):
can guarantee you that it was. It was one of
our awesome legislators that came up with it, and he
he was pressured into signing it because we either had
a veto proof amount of legislators anyway or close to
it that he just went ahead and just did it.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
He's not.

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
That great of a governor, I can tell you that.
And so yeah, like just to add and that that
does circle me back back to I do have a
final thought now, okay, the ties it all in. Since
we're talking about the Santas, my final thought is I

(01:23:34):
believe somebody mentioned in your space, maybe it was you
or somebody else. How even in the last primary. Uh
was it that Scott Pressler was kind of quiet on
on endorsing Trump until the Santus dropped out? Is that

(01:23:54):
is that what I thought I heard?

Speaker 1 (01:23:56):
So I have been given first and accounts and some
you know, potential evidence that that was the case and
that Scott Presler did not endorse Trump until DeSantis dropped out.
And if you remember what happened to DeSantis, I don't

(01:24:19):
know if you remember. Charlie Kirk and Turning Point were
all in on DeSantis. They were like raw raw raw DeSantis.
But then DeSantis, I guess didn't get that message because
they had a Turning Point rally. I think he was
in Florida one of their Amfest rallies there and DeSantis
was invited and it was like, yeah, you know, you know,

(01:24:42):
we're gonna we're gonna vote and see who is the
you know, the candidate. Well, I guess DeSantis didn't get
the wink wink message that hey, Charlie Kirk and Turning
Point are backing you and so is Scott Pressler. And
he was like, no, I'm not going to come to that,
like I declined to attend like very publicly or something.
And so what happened is like, well, we got Trump coming,

(01:25:03):
so I guess screw you, DeSantis. And then the vote
went like you know, the poll that they did went,
you know, all for Trump. But all Desanders would have
had to do was show up and Charlie Kirk, I guarantee,
would have brought him on stadium and be like, this
is our next president. It's Ron DeSantis. And I don't
know that was dumb of DeSantis because I totally saw

(01:25:26):
that that Charlie Kirk and turning point, we're all in
for DeSantis. They were like, yeah, he's coming to Amfest.
He's coming to Amfest. And then last minute he's like, no,
I'm not coming to that. Yeah, and then they turned
on him.

Speaker 2 (01:25:36):
Yeah, and a lot of consultants took jobs just for
the money. But what's funny to me, I have a
really large Facebook group and I can do polls and
it's unscientific, of course, but when you have almost half
a million people, it does give you a little bit
of a taste of the political wins. And I did

(01:25:59):
a poll when at the high point of the Santa's campaign,
when I don't know if it was when the hurricane
happened or there was a high point where everybody was
praising DeSantis, maybe for like his response of a hurricane,
or it was something at some point where he was
just everybody was DeSantis and I and I think for

(01:26:25):
about a week, Uh, he hit like fifty four percent
in my DeSantis Versus Trump polling in my big Facebook
pro Trump group, where people actually thought, oh wow, de
Santis actually has a shot at this. And even though

(01:26:46):
it's an unscientific poll, I'm sure there were other polls
around the country being done showing similar information and consultants saying, hey, wow,
we this might he me actually be able to pull
this up. And it was only like one to two
weeks and then I did another one and it completely
collapsed back down and Trump was back on top again.

(01:27:08):
And I was like, yeah, it's funny how quickly sentiment
can change. And it was really just a Lincoln time
that just tiny a period of time that it gave
all these DeSantis people, this the Jenna Ellis and Christina

(01:27:33):
Trushaw and all these people, they really thought, this, this
is our time, this is our time to shine.

Speaker 1 (01:27:42):
And no, I don't, Yeah, I'm not a fan. I'm
you know, I'll due respect to the you know, Florida Republicans,
and I understand they have a different framework, but for president,
I am I'm a DeSantis.

Speaker 2 (01:27:57):
Never yeah me to that list.

Speaker 1 (01:28:01):
Yeah yeah, I think I think jd. Vance has been doing.

Speaker 2 (01:28:08):
It. I think I think he's as long as he
doesn't get jealous of the whole musk being in the
limelight thing, I think that then that'll show maturity, because
that's because I don't really know what he's been to

(01:28:29):
be honest, because elon.

Speaker 1 (01:28:31):
Greenland, Yeah Greenland. Now he went to you know, Europe
and said they don't have free speech over there. They
didn't like that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:39):
He told Zielenski to say thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:28:44):
Yeah, I remember that one. He's been casting some good
votes because he has a vote in the Senate right
as the vice president.

Speaker 2 (01:28:51):
Yeah, the tiebreaker deal.

Speaker 1 (01:28:54):
On that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:54):
I think if he could just you know, not do
anything contrab virtual and do what's right when it counts,
that's all that. I think that's the job of the
vice president.

Speaker 1 (01:29:07):
Is unlike Pence that does what's wrong when it counts.
In America's back.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
Loyalty, Just just share loyalty when you're needed, and don't
try to make yourself the headline when I asked to
be for me.

Speaker 1 (01:29:24):
Vance's I've been. He's been doing pretty good for me.
What Vance needs to do if he wants to be
president is distance himself from Turning Point. He's way too
close to Charlie Kirk and Turning Point. They have a
lot of influence over him. And if he did that,
then he probably have my vote for president.

Speaker 2 (01:29:41):
That's a very interesting opinion, and it makes me really
wonder because Trump is so successful, but he embraces Turning Point.
Of course, Trump is his own beast though.

Speaker 1 (01:29:54):
Well. The reason that Trump embraces Turning Point is allegedly
they fill a stadium for him, pay for his jet
fuel to fly him over, have this whole event with
a fundraiser for him, and pay for the whole thing.
So yeah, I'd if I've run for president, I'd probably
be for that group too. But in exchange, what did

(01:30:14):
they do? You know, they get these Turning Point influencers
in the White House, there was like fifteen of them.
They got these you know, Epstein binder Epstein binders, you know,
and then they pushed that on social media. That was
all a scam, a hoax, and the Common Denominator did
a show on this is Turning Point. One or two
of them are like direct Turning Point employees that like

(01:30:37):
run their you know, social media commentary and appearances. And
then the other ones are listed on their either Turning
Point USA or Turning Point Action influencer page, including d C. Dreno,
Jack Postobic and of course Scott Pressler was there for
some reason. Why is Scott Pressler there? Leah Hoops called
that out, like what qualifications did Scott Pressler have for anything?

Speaker 2 (01:31:00):
Yeah? But agree with you, I just I don't know
how do you strip them of so much influence?

Speaker 1 (01:31:10):
Well, and you know they don't have to, but you
know what Charlie Kirk and Turningpoint needs to do is
they need to drop this grifting early vote ballot chasing
bullshit and they need to repent, and they need to
be America first and not other countries. And they need
to do what's right and they need to be like
hand count no machines, you know, with ID you know,

(01:31:31):
one day voting, you know, no mail in ballots unless
it's you know, you have to apply for it, only
special conditions, no early voting, and then everything would be fine,
Everything would be good. But that's where all their money
is and as soon as the elections are fixed, all
that money drives up.

Speaker 2 (01:31:47):
So I'll say this, I think voting early when Trump
was on the ballot may have been the right play,
But any other election it's different because having Trump on
the ballot is always a unique election. And I think
Republicans lose the message every single time they think that

(01:32:15):
because Trump flipped seven swing states, that the GOP flipped
seven swing states. That's not the case. He gets votes
from people that are never going to vote for regular Republicans.
They the Republican establishment can't accept that. They don't know

(01:32:40):
how to grapple with that fact because they don't know
what to do with it because there's no way to
replicate Donald Trump. So there's no answer to that problem.
What do you do with people who will vote for
Donald Trump? Oh, other Republicans?

Speaker 1 (01:33:01):
And there are a lot of them, I agree, And
there's there's Democrats that will vote for Donald Trump, but
they'll Republican.

Speaker 2 (01:33:08):
And you get tricked every time and you think, oh,
we flipped this state. Oh, we're gonna flip New Jersey next,
We're gonna do this, We're gonna do that next thing.
You know, you get creamed in Wisconsin, you get creamed
in Pennsylvania. What happened? Where are all the Republicans at? Well? What?

Speaker 3 (01:33:27):
Well?

Speaker 1 (01:33:27):
You know what fixes that is if you if you
truly fix our elections and go to hand counting, no machines,
no mail, and no early voting. If you truly do that.
That applies to the Republican primaries too, because guess what,
some of these slimeball establishment Republicans have been stealing elections too.
And as soon as you fix that problem, you're gonna

(01:33:49):
get a lot better quality grassroots Republican candidates that other
states are and other people are going to vote for,
and then those elections aren't going to be stolen by
the Democrats. So it goes down to the Republican primary too,
and that's going to fix the problem and save this country.
My turning point is ignoring that and distracting everyone away.

(01:34:12):
I mean, that's getting more and more and more suspicious.

Speaker 2 (01:34:16):
I agree. My question is how do you fix How
does Donald Trump fix the voting problems without federalizing the elections.

Speaker 1 (01:34:27):
Well, that's a good question. And you know one thing
that Trump said was that if you steal elections, you're
going to jail. Well, if you would just arrest some people,
Pam Bondy, you might get some confessions with the plea deal,
and then you might get some more arrests. And then
these these thieves, they would say, oh, wait a minute,

(01:34:49):
I'm going to get arrested if I steal elections that
never happened before. They might back off a little bit
and you're going to have real good punishments for him. Two,
that's treason against you United States to steal an election.
So what's the penalty for treason?

Speaker 2 (01:35:03):
Again, hasn't been done in decades.

Speaker 1 (01:35:09):
Doesn't mean it can't be done. But you know, you
could send him to the megaprison. If you steal elections,
you're going to the megaprison.

Speaker 2 (01:35:17):
My friend, my friend, I know, I know we have
free speech on Rumble. Are we on X too? I
think we still have free speech there limited.

Speaker 1 (01:35:24):
There's there's two or three topics you can't talk about,
but everything else.

Speaker 2 (01:35:28):
Yeah, my friend who ran for Congress in Virginia but
now he lives here, he had a pretty sizable Twitter
account and he posted arrest all the traders and hang
them all, and he got permanently booted off Twitter. One

(01:35:50):
point zero.

Speaker 1 (01:35:50):
I think, well, I think it's a call to violence.

Speaker 2 (01:35:54):
He was calling for legal he was saying, under the
under the under the pretense of if basically what you're saying.
He's not saying let's just go randomly hang people. He's saying,
if you're found guilty of high trees, and this is
the penalty, it is.

Speaker 1 (01:36:16):
And I was just asking what is the penalty for
a treason? Right?

Speaker 2 (01:36:19):
But he still wasn't allowed to say it. You know,
I wouldn't have said it.

Speaker 1 (01:36:24):
But yeah, no, I agree, and and and I mean,
that's it's gonna work because when you have consequences, people respond.
I've seen it. We did that locally in our local
legislative district here in Maricopa County, you know, not Maericopa County,
but in the smaller legislative district. When you have consequences,

(01:36:44):
people respond immediately. That's how that's how society is conditioned.
It when when the laws are enforced, people follow the laws.
Were not enforced, they don't follow the laws.

Speaker 2 (01:36:55):
I'm not I'm not sure if Blondie is going to
be the one m hm.

Speaker 1 (01:37:00):
So Trump should fire Pam Bondy. She's doing a terrible
job in.

Speaker 2 (01:37:04):
The in the in them, like, who would be a replace?
It's not going to dig you, Matt Gates, He's not
going to get no.

Speaker 1 (01:37:15):
I don't think Matt g is gonnat approved. How about
some people were saying Tina Peters because she's been on
the receiving side of some justice for for a while,
so she might be motivated to make arrest.

Speaker 2 (01:37:27):
I don't know enough about her to know if Congress
would would.

Speaker 1 (01:37:32):
She's in prison still for for retaining, as I guess,
I don't know the whole story. It's retaining as an
election official the data or the drives that prove election fraud.
So they include accuse her of some crime, you know,
and she's a Trump should pardon her, fire Bondy and
then put Tina Peters there as the age. And I

(01:37:55):
bet you Tina Peters would be motivated to uh, you know,
make some election real election fraud arrest. I bet you.

Speaker 2 (01:38:02):
I guess The question is would Senate would Congress even
approve anybody who knowingly that that would actually do anything.

Speaker 1 (01:38:13):
It's a good question. But if if dose were to,
you know, let's let's get a special Doge cash Betel
FBI Investigation unit on fraud, and let's start investigating not
only election fraud, but some of this bribery that's going
on with Congress. Uh. You know, as soon as some
evidence and maybe some arrests start happening, I think you'd

(01:38:35):
see people change their tune real quick.

Speaker 2 (01:38:38):
I'm not a professional on on how these things work,
but I heard some talk about bypassing the normal congressional
nomination process to get people approved in a recess appointment. Yes,

(01:39:00):
I don't know how that works. What the backlash would
be if Donald Trump were to do something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:39:08):
The presidents have done that, and I understand he's even
Obama has done.

Speaker 2 (01:39:11):
That, but that might be what he would have to
do to get somebody in there who's a real heavy
hitter that's gonna go and start making some real moves.

Speaker 1 (01:39:23):
So my understanding is the problem right now with Trump
being able to do that is, oh, I should have
just done it like that. H hmm. Well, Mitch McConnell

(01:39:44):
or you know, Mitch McConnell needs to be completely gone
first of all. But let's see, Mike Johnson's really weak,
So it's it's going to be difficult to do that
with Mike Johnson in there.

Speaker 2 (01:39:57):
And then.

Speaker 1 (01:39:59):
I I think you have problems with the current majority leader.
One or two of them had said that they weren't
going to support these recess appointments. I have to go
back and look at it, but there's some Republican leadership
that said they weren't going to support the recess appointments.
And if if Johnson was stronger, and if I don't

(01:40:22):
know which, which of the other you know, Republican leadership
is saying no, but if they were saying yes, it
could be done. It has been done. Obama did it
absolutely could and should be done. And they should just
start investigating these these congressmen. I mean a lot of
them have bribes, you know, their family members all, you know,
get these mysterious windfalls of money. You know, they're all

(01:40:46):
all of them are multi millionaires. Some of them weren't
before entering Congress. Uh, you know, let's start investigate. Let's
doge the congressional bank accounts. Yeah, I don't know. I
don't know if they'll ever do that.

Speaker 2 (01:41:01):
But I think we're in agreement on pretty much everything
that's been said.

Speaker 1 (01:41:09):
Sorry, some of my opinions come out a little hot, but.

Speaker 2 (01:41:12):
Uh, all right, yeah, I mean I don't don't see.
I don't take any issue with any of anythink that's
been said.

Speaker 1 (01:41:21):
That's fine, all right, Well we've been going for a
little while. Uh we got we had your socials up
there again, but it's at Media Right News one and
the website. I'll show it again here. Let's see. Let
me stop this one. Yeah, Mediawrightnews dot com at Media
Right News one, Ian McDonald, I really appreciate you coming

(01:41:45):
on the show again. My name is Brian Farrence. Yeah,
make sure to visit Real Scott Presler dot com. You
can follow me on ex at Brian Farrens one or
magamine podcast dot com or wherever you get your podcasters
search for magamind and then podcast. Just really great talking
to you though, any anything else you want to say, Ian.

Speaker 2 (01:42:05):
No, that's thanks for having me and keep up the
good work. And I appreciate your professionalism and your your
evidence based approach. I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:42:16):
Thank you, Thank you. I appreciate that I try to
always bring the receipts, So thank you again, and to
all our viewers. God bless have good day, all right,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Male Room with Dr. Jesse Mills

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}MAGAMind Podcast Episode 17 Scott Presler, Turning Point, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer and Joe Oltmann beef, Data Republican rise, Money Laundering

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

The Male Room with Dr. Jesse Mills

All Episodes

MAGAMind Podcast Episode 17 Scott Presler, Turning Point, Jovan Hutton Pulitzer and Joe Oltmann beef, Data Republican rise, Money Laundering

Stuff You Should Know