MAGAMind Podcast Episode 21 May 12, 2025 Discussing Data Republican with Jason Goodman Founder of Crowdsource the Truth

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ference with Magamine Podcast. You can follow me at Magamine
podcast dot com, on x at Brian Farrens one, or
at True Social at Brian Ference with me as a
special guest. Jason Goodman, founder of Crowdsource the Truth, Say
hello Jason.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Hello Jason, I.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
Get that more than you, more than you'd believe. No, Jason,
tell us just a little bit at what is Crowdsource
the Truth.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Well, Crowdsource the Truth is my show on social media platforms,
and it's a concept that I came up with about
eight years ago. Obviously, I don't think I invented crowdsourcing,
but you know it just I used to be a
visual effects cinematographer and most of my career was spent
in Hollywood making stereoscopic cameras and movies. And if people

(00:48):
have seen the amazing Spider Man and X Men Days
of Future Past, I contributed to those films and the
visual effects departments, and with the three D effects and
all that and the and that sort of ended. People
might not see that many three D movies around anymore.
So I went from making tons of money to being
broke almost instantly and had to reinvent myself. And I

(01:12):
was becoming very interested in the controversial nature of politics
around the time of the first Donald Trump candidacy, and
I just, you know, I started getting into YouTube and
watching YouTube, and I got sucked into social engineering campaigns
that were pointed at me. I guess because of the

(01:36):
topics that I was covering and the nature of the
way that I did it. But the concept behind crowdsource
the truth was, you know, I've always been interested in
what people who you know might call conspiracy theories. Obviously
that's a pejorative government conspiracies, unsolved crimes, and inadequately investigated

(01:57):
nine to eleven. I mean, people know what I'm talking about.
And I like to approach it from the standpoint of
just really scrutinizing evidence very carefully, not jumping to conclusions
or just believing the Earth is flat because somebody says that,
but you know, really delving into an a fend half

(02:17):
the audience there talking about the Earth being flat, but
really getting into the evidence. And I think I have
a unique approach, and I think that it triggered some
of these social engineers. And what I mean by that
are people who enter the social media sphere to control
narratives and when you start talking about things that maybe

(02:40):
are disfavored by whether it's the government or a corporate
entity or a wealthy individual. It's I think not going
to be crazy for people to contemplate that if someone is,
let's say, doing a multi billion dollar crime like stealing
money from USAID or something like that, having a couple

(03:02):
hundred thousand or a couple million to pay some social
media influencer to start a channel that says, oh, well,
Jason Goodman is crazy and you shouldn't listen to him,
or he's in the massade, or any of Russian or
any of the crazy things that they've said about me
that are of course untrue, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

(03:23):
I really have gotten caught up in that, and there
are some particular adversaries that I've had. I've been sued
something like twenty five times by the brother of a
guy named George Webb, who maybe people have seen on
social media. George was one of my first associates on
Crowdsource the Truth, and he and other people tried to

(03:47):
frame me for creating a bomb hoax in the Port
of Charleston. That was about eight years ago June. Oh,
we're coming up on the Yeah, the eighth anniversary of
that June fourteenth, Donald Trump's birthday, Flag Day twenty seventeen.
George was a regular guest on my show, called in
and said, Oh, there's radiological material on this mayrisk Memphis

(04:10):
cargo vessel. Somebody better call the coastguard and tell them
there's going to be a dirty bomb. And somewhere in
my very skeptical New York brain, I was probably thinking,
why the hell is George spending two and a half
hours convincing me to call the coastguard rather than just
calling the coastguard himself. So luckily I'd never told the
coastguard anything about a dirty bomb. I called the coast

(04:33):
Guard and said, Hey, I'm calling about the and the
coast Guard said dirty bomb. And what I've come to
realize since then, Brian, is when they do these social
engineering campaigns, whether it's Adam Dean Fox being framed for
trying to mastermind a plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer or
Mohammed Mohammed being framed to mastermind a plot to bomb

(04:57):
the Portland Christmas Tree lighting Sarah, the FBI, or whoever
it is that's doing these things, they have a target,
and then there's a certain key element of evidence that
they want to plant on that target. This goes for
Donald Trump as well, by the way, and in my case,
in that dirty bomb scenario, I believe the key evidence

(05:17):
would have been an audio recording of me telling the
Coastguard there is a dirty bomb on the Mayrisk Memphis.
Once they had that, that element of the mission would
have been complete. That audio recording would have been played
ad nauseum on CNN at my trial, et cetera, and
I would have been either stuck in jail for ten

(05:38):
or fifteen years or killed in jail or put on
trial for five years, draining all my money, dragging my
family through a psychological torture, and whether I prevailed or
lost at the end, this would all be used in
twenty seventeen, eighteen, nineteen twenty to demonstrate to the public
that we can't have idiots like Goodman making his own

(05:59):
news program. We need the FCC to give out journalism licenses,
and we need a Disinformation Governance Board, and we need
to censor information on the Internet. But because I never
said dirty bomb, that plan sort of failed, and George Webb,
being an irresponsible, drunk was arrested in his car at

(06:20):
the side of the road that night, interrogated by the FBI,
and nothing ever really happened. An article came out of
the New York Times, CNN, all the regulars covered my
YouTube show. But the weird thing is the FBI. Even
though this was happening on a YouTube channel called Jason Goodman,

(06:40):
featuring a guy named Jason Goodman, the FBI never called
Jason Goodman. They never came to my apartment and said, hey,
what the hell was going on on your YouTube channel yesterday?
And it took me about five years to put that together.
Why didn't they do that? And I called the Columbia,
South Carolina FBI Field office, spoke to this guy, Donald Wood,
who is the special agent who had announced in the

(07:02):
New York Times that the FBI had opened an investigation.
And I said I had spoken to him a few times,
maybe three or four times, and the first time I said, hey,
mister Wood, you know I'm Jason Goodman, the guy this
whole controversy happened, et cetera. I have some new information
about individuals who clearly had fore knowledge years after the fact.

(07:24):
I discovered YouTube videos on channels of individuals that were
known to me to be associates of George and his brother.
And I told the FBI about this and Donald Wood said, well,
I'll give this information to the investigating agent. And I said, ooh,
can I speak to the investigating agent? And he said, well,
I can't really confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

(07:47):
And I said, okay, well you just said there's an
investigating agent, so it seems like there's an investigation. And
that was, you know, the end of the phone call.
But he was very tough, stern FBI agent on the phone,
and the call that I had with him where I
had put it together that it just didn't make sense
that the FBI hadn't questioned me at all about this.

(08:07):
I called him and I said, you know, mister Wood,
it occurs to me. Why didn't the FBI call me
and ask me what was going on on June fourteenth,
one my channel? Why didn't anybody come here and knock
on the door. And he turned into Ralph Crampton. He
was like, ohmamana, hung up the phone, had nothing to say.
And I think the obvious answer is the FBI knew
I had nothing to do with it, because it was

(08:28):
a failed FBI plot to frame me. That's my assertion.
I can't prove that. That hasn't been determined in court,
but there's a lot of evidence that supports that allegation.
And I think that's what was going on, and the
reason I've been sued twenty five times over eight years,
which is a lot. It's expensive, it's a lot of time,

(08:48):
it's a lot of work. People might say, oh, you
know Georgia's brother, he's a crazy guy. He doesn't like you. You've
made fun of him. I mean, Brian, you're a social
media personality. You have this podcasts to you get into
controversial topics. I'm sure there's trolls in the comic comments
sections here. You get into internet beefs. I mean a
rough one might last a day or two, but you

(09:10):
get over it. People have stuff happening in their lives.
There's other things happening. If somebody on the other end
is crazy, another person will raise their crazy ire. You know,
it doesn't make sense that somebody would be on you
for eight years. And over the course of the eight years,
I have sought out attorneys and trying to charge this

(09:31):
person with stalking, etc. And I don't have these exact statistics,
but I recall from looking at these websites. First of all,
most of the stalker lawyers were saying, no, no, we
can't sue somebody for stalking. We're going to defend you
if you get accused of stalking. But the statistics that
they gave were that the overwhelming majority of stalking victims

(09:53):
are females being stalked by a male who they have
had some sort of romantic relationship with, and most commonly
it's the baby daddy or you know, something like that.
Then there's same sex relationships where they're stalking. But my
case would essentially fall into the category of a celebrity
stalking because a lawyer considers that this is a crazy

(10:15):
person watching my show on YouTube and x and doesn't
like the show, so they're stalking me. But the average
duration of these incidents, even when people have children together,
is one point eight years, not eight years. Sorry, one
point five years, not eight years. And the number of
mail on male stalking incidents, it's so low. This is

(10:36):
such an outlier. And I'm talking about three lawsuits at
a time, you know, five emails a day harassing my
octagenarian parents, threatening them with lawsuits, really outrageous stuff that
I think is a coordinated campaign to stop me from

(10:56):
doing what I've been doing. And it brings us to
our topic today. Forgive me for dominating the conversation, but.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
Well, before you go into the specific topic, let me
just comment on a couple of things. Well, first of all,
I'm sorry that you know you're going through that. You know,
law fair certainly is the punishment, The punishment is the process,
so that that seems to be what's going on with you.
But you mentioned, you know, the the Whitmer plot, and
I actually on the show, I've had Thomas Leeger, who

(11:24):
is an unindicted co conspirator. We've discussed that on the show.
So it's interesting that you bring that up. And then
you talk about, you know, social engineering. We've talked about
that extensively, and we've talked about some of the uses
with you know, a lot of the MAGA right wing influencers,

(11:45):
a lot of them appear to be using potentially some
AI bought or script technology. Some of it's referenced in
Department of Defense papers on influencing political outcomes using social
media and automation. We've talked a lot about so that
sort of brings us to the topic at hand, and
let me let me just kick off and share a

(12:07):
couple things. So one of the things we're talking about
is the account data Republican. Let me share my screen
real quickly here. Let me go to the solo screen
on this, all right, So let's let me reposition this.
Let we can see a little bit better, all right.
So one of the things I noticed Data Republican a

(12:29):
little while ago when she was doing a lot of
posts on USAID USAID, and there was some really interesting
things that came up just from my point of view.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
There.

Speaker 1 (12:41):
One was that she was mentioning, Okay, all these companies
are exposed, you know, here's how the money flows. And
some people were questioning, well, wait a minute, some of
this money flows two companies that then directly donated to
A five oh one C three Running Point USA.

Speaker 3 (13:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
Of course, she she she used to work for Charlie Kirk.
In her profile she mentioned that she worked with him
on election stuff. So she really quickly steered the conversation.
Just to be clear, it wasn't going directly to Turning
Point USA, but three companies received USA I D money
directly from from the US government and then made large

(13:25):
donations directly to Turning Point USA, and so you know,
she was, oh, don't look at this, this doesn't apply.
She forgot how money laundering works, you know how it works.
So so I started questionings like why is she directing
people from certain data?

Speaker 3 (13:43):
And then what I'm sharing on.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
This screen is it's it's a post that I made.
It's talking about let me scroll down a little bit.
She originally had, you know, I don't know, some some
amount of viewer accounts. But then you can see the
date there, February ninth.

Speaker 3 (13:56):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
There she mentioned Charlie Kirk in her profile. Okay, while
but she had three hundred and thirty nine thousand followers
on February ninth. And then this other screenshot. Let's see
if I have.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
I don't know if it shows the date, I think
I have to maybe click on it.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
Let's see what happens if it gets bigger. Okay, yeah,
this is October. No, no, no, that's when she joined.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
Her rise has been meteoric. I mean, it seems unnatural.

Speaker 1 (14:21):
That's exactly right, That's what I was getting at it.
It was a two month period of time. Sorry, let
me close this down. It was a two month period
of time where she went from three hundred and thirty
nine thousand to seven hundred and thirty two thousand followers,
which is unheard of. I mean, it takes some people
ten years to yeah growth, and she did it in
two months. And then there's another post that she this

(14:46):
is Data Republican and she is i mean shilling basically
for the early vote action, which is Scott Pressler's pack.
She's meant, you know, this is a fabulous app. It
does all these things, use it all the time, almost
like a like a paid post or some type of advertisement.
And you know, we've talked a lot about on the

(15:08):
show that mister Presler's father, Robert Presler, of course, was
a director of Intelligence and the Pentagon.

Speaker 2 (15:14):
Oh my god, I didn't know that. You know, I'm
so disappointed to hear this because I met Scott Presler
outside Madison Square Garden. It's really the one and only
time I interacted with him, and he was a friendly guy.
But I'm hearing a lot of troubling things about him.

Speaker 1 (15:27):
Yes, he's a friendly guy. Well let me show this again.
This is some coverage of Data Republican from the New
York Post. You know, here's her actual photo and how
she sunglasses on anytime that mainstream media is now doing
favorable articles of someone, I also have to question that

(15:48):
to say why why is Data Republican getting favorable mainstream
media coverage? And then the last thing I'll show is
your post where you kind of got into a discussion.
Her mother has an account here. Mom, yeah, runs cover
for her a lot of times. Right, I'm kind of
just showing that, But why don't you talk about, you know,

(16:11):
what exactly happened with that post and how how the
two of you got into that.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
But you've just brought up. Before we do that, I
want to go back to what you just brought up.
It's very interesting because it's not just mainstream media. It's
the New York Post and you just showed Elon Musk there,
and so what else did the New York Post do?
Weren't they the ones that were all involved in the
Hunter Biden laptop thing?

Speaker 3 (16:34):
That's that is true.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
And didn't Elon Musk buy Twitter?

Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yes, he did and then sold it to his own company.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
Well, I don't know about that particular detail, but my
interest in Elon Musk buying Twitter is that during the
course of the eight years that I've been sued by
George Webb's brother. This is stay with me because you're
going to like this. So that whole thing happened with
the Port of Charleston, and it actually was Robert David
Steele who first sued me. Do you know who that is?

Speaker 1 (17:05):
It sounds familiar, but give me the context.

Speaker 2 (17:08):
He's been run out of town, I guess by me
a while ago, but about eight to ten years ago.
He was a pretty well known all media social media guy.
I first saw him on Info Wars with Alex Jones,
and he claimed to be an ex CIA agent who
was doing all kinds of things. He had lunch with

(17:30):
George Webb and appeared on my show one day before
the Port of Charleston incident happened. That's a coincidence, and
he was the first one to bring a lawsuit against me.
I won't go into all the details of that, but
his brother, George Webb's brother, tried to intervene in that lawsuit,
and then George Webb's brother one year after the Robert

(17:51):
David Steele to the day. By the way, So Robert
David Steele, forgive me Robert David Steel sued me September
twenty seventeen. George's brother brought a lawsuit June fourteenth, twenty
eighteen by his own admission to commemorate this Port of
Charleston incident, which, frankly, you know, doing novelty lawsuits on

(18:14):
commemorative dates is technically probably violative of the federal rules
of civil procedure. Although I'm not an attorney, and nothing
I am saying here today is legal advice or representative
of any of your opinions. This is all my pure opinion.
But the point is Robert David Steele was suing me,
then George's brother sued me, and this is sort of
a law fair pincer attack, because as difficult as it

(18:36):
is to defend one lawsuit, two lawsuits is maybe even
more than twice as difficult. And so this was happening,
and there were multiple lawsuits stacked on top of me.
And what was happening was partially because I didn't have
enough money to hire an attorney, and partially because I
don't really trust attorneys. I was defending myself pro se.

(18:58):
And the side effect there was I believe I was
far too difficult of an adversary for them to defeat.
So they I alleged, devised a plan to sue a
corporation because as a non attorney, I cannot defend a corporation.
I can only defend myself. A corporation is a separate

(19:19):
legal entity from the owner. That's the whole reason for
having the corporation. But one caveat of that is that
you need to be an attorney to represent the corporation.
So this forced me to hire an attorney by the
name of Jonathan Snyder, who I later learned had one
other client by the name of Felix Sator. Do you

(19:41):
know who that is?

Speaker 1 (19:43):
That sounds familiar to me too, but I'm drawing blank
right now.

Speaker 2 (19:46):
Felix Sator is the Russian real estate developer who was
trying to get Donald Trump to create Trump Tower Moscow
and was emailing Michael Cohen saying, Hey, we got to
get our boy to Russia on an introduce him to putin.
This is all evidence that came out in the Stormy
Daniels trial Felix Saterer. So what a coincidence my attorney's

(20:08):
only other client. Okay, So what they did there was
when I was doing all my three D movies and
everything I did. Own a corporation. I had started it
in college and it was called Multimedia System Design, Inc. Now,
when I advanced through my years and through my career
from going around New York City and fixing people's computers

(20:30):
into designing and developing my own three D cameras and
stereoscopic productions, I registered with the New York Secretary of
State an assumed name for the corporation, doing business as
twenty first Century three D. And this is a legal
process that allowed me to open a bank account create
a new corporate entity under the same umbrella. So now

(20:52):
we had Multimedia System Design doing business as twenty first
Century three D. And when I started Proudsource to Truth,
I did not create a similar DBA Crowdsource the Truth
was not a corporation. It was just the name of
a YouTube show. But I had this sort of vestigial
corporation hanging around. And because George Webb's brother is a

(21:13):
psychopath and a stalker, he learned everything that he could
possibly learn about me so that he could effectively try
to destroy my life. So he found out that I
owned this corporation. And when the multiple lawsuits they had
against Jason Goodman were failing because Jason Goodman has proven
to be maybe one of the most effective pro sae
litigants in the history of jurisprudence in the United States.

(21:35):
And we could talk about that later or in a
future show if you want. Told me to toot my
own horn, but people have told me that when they
decided that I was too effective of an adversary as
a pro say defendant, they determined that they needed to
sue a corporation so that I had to hire an attorney. Now,
the uninitiated will say, oh, that's because they wanted you
to waste all your money paying an attorney, and that

(21:56):
is true. But what I later learned it was because
they really wanted to shift the lawfare into high gear.
And the most effective strategy, or I should say the
most potent tactic in lawfare, is to control both sides
of the caption. And what I mean by that is
they don't just control a corrupt prosecution, they control the

(22:19):
defense council as well, so that you are being sabotaged
from the inside and your attorney throws the case and
you definitely lose. So these are allegations by the way,
these haven't been proven in court. In case Jonathan Snyder
is watching, you will be sued. But the point is

(22:39):
Snyder took my money later defended Felix SAT in a
case that involves we won't get into that, but this
concocted lawsuit against the corporation. First of all, it wasn't
even a real corporation. Magically, the company that sued me,
which was the National Academy of Television, Arts and Science
is the Emmys, sued me. My YouTube channel sued me.

(23:03):
They sued Multimedia System Design, Inc. Doing business as crowd
Source the truth, not a legitimate corporate entity. If they
were really investigating me and wanting to sue a corporation.
First of all, why would they do that. If you
want to punish Jason Goodman for something Jason Goodman, did
you sue a corporation that he's not even using. It's

(23:24):
going to go into bankruptcy and you're not going to
get any money from it. And frankly, if I had
a competent attorney, he would have said, well, have you
been served with the lawsuit? No, don't do anything, don't
answer this lawsuit until they serve you, because they would
never have been able to serve Multimedia System Design Inc.
Doing businesses crowdsource the truth because it doesn't exist. So

(23:45):
when they come to my home to serve that, the
apartment building would say, well, what the hell are you
talking about that? We don't you have to ask for
Jason Goodman if you want to sue somebody in this building.
This whole fake corporation. We've never even heard of that.
So my attorney, I didn't know this at the time.
I was quite naive and I trusted this attorney. My
attorney walked me into the Lions, then into this lawsuit

(24:07):
that basically destroyed me financially, ended the YouTube channel. And
there's no way that the Emmys had any idea that
I even owned this corporation, unless, of course, George Webb's
brother told them about this magical fake corporate entity that
he invented. How did they come up with the same

(24:28):
fake corporate name. It's a remarkable coincidence. But that was
the lawfair there. Now, I had a whole, big, long
story that we were getting in this, Okay, so.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
They were going to I think right right.

Speaker 2 (24:40):
What I learned from all of this controversy was that
the CEO of the Emmys is a guy named Adam Sharp,
and the judge in this case, this concocted bullshit case.
Forgive me, I hope I didn't just do something bad
by cursing, but this concocted case. The judge was a
woman named Valerie Caproni, US District Court judge for the

(25:01):
Southern District of New York. Previously, Caproni was the General
Counsel of the FBI from two thousand and three to
twenty eleven. Adam Sharp, the CEO of the Emmy's the
plaintiff in this case, previously was a very high powered
executive at Twitter. He was Twitter's US government liaison. And

(25:23):
I allege people can read this report if they follow
me on X at JG Underscore, CSTT. I've written a
report called a Twitter coup. I wrote this before Matt
Taibi's bogus Twitter files. And this explains how at the
behesta Barack Obama, Valerie Caproni and Adam Sharp installed the

(25:44):
FBI into Twitter, and when Elon Musk bought Twitter, I
went to Twitter's New York office on seventeenth Street and
Seventh Avenue. It's just five blocks eight blocks away from
where I live, and I went there to tell Elon
Musk about this, five weeks before Matt Tayibi ever said
anything about the Twitter files. And do you know who

(26:06):
was the executive excuse me? The Deputy General Council of
Twitter at that time was a guy named Jim Baker.
He was fired by Elon Musk for his role in
suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop, but he was the Deputy
General Council of Twitter on November one, twenty twenty two
when I went there. Curiously, he also had previously been

(26:30):
the FBI General Counsel. I know this is all very
coincidental and hard to follow, but I didn't invent any
of this. I discovered this because these people were trying
to ruin my life. So when I went there to
tell Elon Musk, it was approximately ten days after I
had gone to SpaceX in Texas, and I had announced
this on my YouTube channel, which George Webb's brother watched

(26:54):
every day and responded to virtually everything I did by
sending emails around, and he sent emails to legal at
Twitter dot com, which I surmise were received by Jim Baker,
and they were saying, Hey, it's October twenty first, and
Goodman is here trying to tell Elon Musk about how

(27:15):
the FBI has taken over Twitter. Then ten days later,
November one, twenty twenty two, I'm there outside Twitter and
I get attacked and choked by a group of four
people who I allege were working security for Twitter, and
an individual who acknowledged that he was Elon Musk's personal

(27:35):
bodyguard because I asked him. He was guarding a Tesla
with New Jersey dealer plates, which I found odd because
Tesla didn't really have dealerships, or they didn't at the time.
But this guy looked like he had stepped out of
the UFC Octagon, and he was wearing a bespoke dress
shirt printing a concealed Carrie weapon in the small of
his back, which is totally illegal in New York City.

(27:57):
And he's guarding this Tesla and I said to him, Hey,
I see that you're armed, and I don't want to
alarm you, but can I sit over here on this
fire hydrant and hand this letter to Elon Musk when
he walks out of the building. And he said, you
can do that, and I said, I just wanted to
let you know my purpose here, and he said, I
appreciate that. So then I sat down, and this twenty
year old, maybe six foot tall, one hundred and seventy

(28:19):
five pound black kid comes over to the bodyguard and says, hey,
you don't have to worry. We're going to block all
these cars for you, okay, And the bodyguard says, okay,
I have this.

Speaker 3 (28:29):
All on video, Well you do interesting.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
Ten minutes later, this black kid chokes me. I call
the cops, and he hangs around waiting for the cops.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
Why would he do that?

Speaker 2 (28:40):
When's the last time you saw a twenty year old
kid choke out a fifty year old guy wait around
for the cops. Why didn't he run away? Why do
he walk away? I have no idea who this kid is.
So the idiot cops write me as summons for disorderly conduct,
where they admit that an individual known to the department
told the undersign, the police officer riding the ticket, that

(29:02):
the defendant me created a public disturbance. That's why I
got the disorderly conduct ticket. But I also have on
video the police interviewing Elon Musk's bodyguard, the only other
guy who was in public, who says he didn't see
her hear anything. So first of all, he lied to
the police because I looked right in his face as
I was getting choked, and he looked at me with

(29:24):
a look of shock that I didn't understand at the time,
because first of all, this guy could kick anybody's ass
right there. Second of all, he wasn't in the fight,
and third of all, he had a gun. What is
he afraid of. I believe he knew that this kid
was private security hired by Twitter through the NYPD, and
he couldn't believe that the kid was choking me. So

(29:48):
the disorderly conduct ticket got dismissed in court for being
facially defective, and I sued the City of New York, Twitter,
Elon Musk, this bodyguard, the four unknown chokers, and the
case was totally dismissed. And the judge in that case,
Jessica Clark, worked for Letitia James for four years, who

(30:09):
now stands accused of mortgage fraud. Everybody knows she was
doing lawfair against Donald Trump. I hope I'm not making
people people's head spin. And I know this sounds very
convoluted and crazy, but I didn't set these circumstances up
I've just been showing up and these things happen, So
I don't know. Do you have any questions, Bryan? Should
I stop and take a breath?

Speaker 3 (30:30):
Well, so let's bring it back to date.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
Let me bring it back. So New York Post is
pivotal in the Hunter Biden laptop story because they are
the ones who get into this whole row with Twitter.
Now they're positioned as an adversary to Twitter, but I
would argue that that's another lawfair tactic is to have
false adversaries and false allies. I think my attorney is

(30:53):
my ally, but he's actually working for my adversary. I
think the New York Post and Twitter are adversaries, but
they're actually allies. And I think that Elon Musk is
the savior of Twitter, but he might in fact just
be a reset to get people to trust Twitter again,
so we can continue to control narratives in social media

(31:15):
through people like Data Republican, who we just saw there
visually juxtaposed with Elon Musk, which I find very interesting
and immediately triggered this memory and thought process in my mind.
So now let's carry on with Data Republican. Please ask
what you were about to ask.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Yes, well there's a couple things. So Elon Musk has
frequently reposted Data Republican of course, you know, Charlie Kirk
has as well. She was on a couple mainstream media
shows like TV shows, which arguably is that explanation of
how did she, you know, gain three hundred thousand follows,
which still doesn't make sense because people do that all

(31:59):
the time and they don't gain three hundred thousand followers
in two days two months. So it's interesting if you've
been following her account for a while, some people will
say that there's been a change in the way she's
been posting, you know, the frequency, the type of messaging
she's doing, even the voice, like the author's voice that

(32:22):
she's using. And then this prominence of her mother's account
as well is fairly interesting. So tell me a little bit,
you know, what are your thoughts on that, and also
what is the disagreement that you and data Republican got into.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
So Data Republican first came to my attention when Charles
Ortel mentioned her to me. Charles Ortel is a very
experienced financial expert and complex fraud investigator who really was
one of the first guests on my show and was
introduced to me when George Webb suggested that we should

(32:56):
interview him. Charles was really the lead researcher who had
exposed the Clinton Foundation as a financial fraud, and George said, okay,
we should interview him. And I said, yeah, I've seen
Charles Ortel on YouTube. He's an interesting guy I'd like
to talk to. So George and an associate of his

(33:16):
set up our first interview with Charles Ortel. And during
that interview, Charles was contacted by the Wall Street Journal.
Do you know who owns the Wall Street.

Speaker 3 (33:25):
Journal right now?

Speaker 2 (33:29):
Rupert Murdoch? Do you know who owns the New York Post?
Rupert Murdoch?

Speaker 3 (33:35):
Interesting they're calling a bunch of the media.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
Well, but those two specifically, so journalists from the Wall
Street Journal contacts Charles and tries to get Charles embroiled
in this whole thing that we can do a series
of podcasts about. So I won't bore you with right
now having to do with this guy Peter Smith, who
at the time had been in pursuit of the thirty
three thousand missing Hillary Clinton emails. Now, I always had

(34:00):
a problem with that number, thirty three thousand emails, because
I would think there are many, many more emails that
the Secretary of State would have during her tenure than
thirty three thousand, and I would also encourage people to
take note of the occurrence of the number thirty three.
Now I'm not into magic or jamatria or anything like that,

(34:24):
but there is a technique called steganographic messaging steganography. It
is the hiding of messages in plain sight. Now, digital
staganography involves actually encoding data into a JPEG or some
sort of digital image, but steganography can be also. If

(34:45):
you've ever seen the artist Salvador Dali, obvious or arguably
I should say, he engages in steganography in that depending
on how you look at the image or how you know.
If you stand very far away you might see one thing,
get close up you see another. But the concept of
hiding a message within a message, hiding it in plain sight,

(35:06):
that is steganography. And if people moving forward pay attention
to the occurrence of the number thirty three, I allege
it is a steganographic marker, so that the people who
are aware of it will say, ah, thirty three thousand emails.
This is one of our stories. We now know that
this is under control. Okay, so that always bothered me.

(35:29):
How many years, by the way, does General Michael Flynn
always tell us he was in the army.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
Oh, that's a good question. I'm not thirty three.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
He doesn't say more than three decades. He doesn't say
almost thirty five years.

Speaker 3 (35:42):
Thirty three, Which, let.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
Me interrupt you just for a moment, since you mentioned
General mica or Flynn. We were talking about Scott Presler
and the Early Vote Action Pack. Guess who's one of
the early donators to the Early Vote Action Pack?

Speaker 2 (35:56):
Probably Flynn.

Speaker 1 (35:57):
Yeah, the fight like a Flynn pack specifically. Yeah, just
a little nugging for you. But anyways, continue going on.

Speaker 2 (36:05):
Yeah, so yeah, so Charles Ortel. Right, so basically we
got out of that. They failed to nail Charles Ortel
because see shortly after that, the FBI came and interviewed
Charles Ortel. And again, see this is another one of
these key elements of evidence. Like with me, how I

(36:26):
alleged they wanted this recorded phone call of me speaking
to the Coastguard. I believe what they were trying to
do with this guy Peter Smith was to convey thirty
three thousand fake emails to Charles Peter Smith. I have
seen emails from Peter Smith to Charles prior to Smith's
death where he's saying, Hey, Charles, I'm going to get

(36:46):
these thirty three thousand emails from these Russian hackers. I
don't think they're associated with the Russian government, but they're
going to be rich with information about the Clinton Foundation.
I want to give them to you. And Charles is
an incredibly guy. He is the straightest arrow I have
ever known. And he was saying, no, Peter Smith, I
am not at all interested in stolen emails from hackers.

(37:10):
I only want public domain evidence, IRS, filings, you websites
that these people have published. He doesn't want any kind
of secret, clandestine information provided by somebody who stole it.
He's not interested in any of that. And I believe
that the failure of Peter Smith to transmit this illicit

(37:31):
material to Charles resulted in the FBI having nothing to
nail Charles with. You see, because remember during Crossfire Hurricane,
I guess they jammed up a guy named Jerome Corsi.
Do you know him?

Speaker 3 (37:48):
I've heard the name before.

Speaker 2 (37:49):
But doctor Jerome Corsi. Roger Stone and Charles Ortel were
involved in an email exchange where Charles was just watching
the news and he emailed one or the other of
those guys saying, Hey, Julian Assange was just on the
news saying he's got evidence that's going to put Hillary
Clinton in jail. Don't one of you guys know Ted Mallick,

(38:10):
who's a American economics professor at Oxford. Maybe you could
send him to go talk to Julian Assange. And the
FBI seized on this email because what happened was Corsi
calls Ted Mallick and he called him from an iPhone
using FaceTime. Now Corsi explains that he did that because

(38:33):
and I believe this, Corsi is like seventy five or something,
and I don't know, you look younger than me, but
I can still remember the days of hey, take it easy.
That's a long distance call, and they're charging you by
them minute, and you still, if you don't have a
plan on your phone, you can get charged a lot
for calling London. Calling from FaceTime to FaceTime anywhere in

(38:54):
the world is free. So Corsi calls his and maybe
he's calling Ted Mallick on FaceTime all the time. I
don't know. You know you got FaceTime, use it. Nothing
suspicious about using FaceTime. But remember the San Bernardino shooter.
How the FBI wanted to penetrate his iPhone because the
end to end decryption of the iPhone at the time
was allegedly unbreakable by the FBI. So the FBI seized

(39:17):
on this FaceTime phone call from Corsi to Malik. They
arrested Corsi and questioned him. He described a torturous questioning period,
and he's an older gentleman at the time. He doesn't
like being in a room without food and without his
wife and without the bathroom. I think you could be
forty and not like that. But same thing with Roger Stone.

(39:39):
They raided his home. Rogerstone's wife, I believe is deaf
or hearing impaired, and she was very frightened by the
whole incident. Stone was frog marched out of the place.
He's also in his sixties at the time. Never a
violent crime in his history. Why do they need guns
in the FBI? They could have called his attorneys and
said you need to surrender by Monday or we're going
to arrest you. In a reason, person who's not a

(40:01):
criminal would come right into the FBI office. But they're
putting tons of pressure on these guys because I allege
they wanted to say something like, hey, Charles Ortel, we
have all these stolen emails transmitted to you by Russian hackers.
We could put you in jail for fifteen years, or
you could say Donald Trump told me to get these

(40:21):
and then we're going to use that to nail Donald Trump.
But because the FBI and these idiots I'm describing are
so incompetent, and Charles Ortel is extremely sharp, just like
with me and the no phone call to the Coastguard,
they lacked that key piece of evidence. So the case
against these guys fell apart. So the take us back

(40:43):
to data Republicans. So Charles flash forward eight years later.
Charles and I have become very close associates, very close friends.
We do two shows a week Sunday with Charles, and
now Charles has moved to Malaysia, so on Wednesdays we
do Charles Ortel as overseas. And he's a brillianlliant man,
you know, a mentor of mine in many ways, and
certainly a financial expert, a complex fraud analysis expert, and

(41:08):
a funny, great guy. We have a lot of good conversations.
And Charles says to me a few months ago, Hey,
there's this account Data Republican that's publishing all this information
about NGOs, and Charles is enthusiastic because, Hey, here's this
large and growing account that's publicizing all this information that's

(41:29):
very important to me that I've been spending eight years
trying to get out into the public. So this is
appealing to me. And by the way, if you read
the writings and listen to the recorded public presentations of
Valerie Caproni when she's the FBI General Counsel, she's talking
about these kind of things. In the early two thousands,

(41:49):
the FBI is very concerned about something they describe as
going dark, And what this is is the FBI's concern
about the proliferation of digital technology that allows things like
end to end encryption, FaceTime and even you know, Minecraft
or whatever video game you're playing, where you can communicate
with people. It wasn't that long ago that if you

(42:11):
wanted to communicate with someone in a distant city, you
had one choice. It was a wired telephone, and if
the FBI didn't like what you were doing, they could
get up on that wire and listen to every single
thing that you say. Well, now we have cell phones, okay,
we got to get on that, and now you have FaceTime,
we got to get on that, and now you have signal,
and you have all these different ways of communicating. The

(42:33):
FBI is saying, hey, wait a minute, we're losing control
over here. We're going dark. So Caproni is the first
person in the FBI who I hear talking about this.
Maybe there was somebody before that, but I don't think so.
And her time in the FBI coincides with the rise
of this technology and the infiltration of Twitter coincides with

(42:54):
the FBI's success in having a little GPS device with
a microphone that when you consent to the user agreement
of sure, I want to send out tweets, you're allowing
them to listen to the microphone and track your GPS
location and do all this kind of stuff. So it's
a perfect place for FBI to stick their chocolate into
Twitter's peanut butter and monitor what you know, Saudi Arabian

(43:18):
dissidence and whoever the hell they want to track you
me whoever. This is what the FBI wants to do
with Twitter. I allege. And I think Elon Musk has
done that again because when I brought this lawsuit Goodman
versus the City of New York, and I sued Elon Musk,
I contacted his attorney. Elon Musk's attorney is famously known

(43:40):
to be a guy named Alex Spiro, who is a
partner at a law firm called Quinn Emmanuel and somebody
else but Quinn Emmanuel. It's a very fancy law firm.
Alex Spiro charges three thousand dollars an hour. And you know, again,
I'm not an attorney, but I've learned a lot by
going to the law school of hard knots and being

(44:00):
put through the ringer in the district court system. And
I am now aware that when you want to serve
somebody with a lawsuit and you know that they are
represented by counsel and they are a prominent, upstanding business
entity rather than a scumbag living in an RV like
George's brother, you can do what's called seek a waiver
of service by contacting that person's attorney and saying, hey,

(44:23):
your client is being sued, and rather than chase him
around like a filthy animal, why don't you just accept
this waiver of service, give him the lawsuit, and let's
get into a settlement agreement, because I'm not interested in
creating a problem for Elon Musk. I want to know
who the hell choked me and why. But Quinn Emmanuel
told me we've read this lawsuit and we're declining to

(44:44):
represent mister Musk in this case, which, of course, at
the time I presumed would be because I'm a schmuck
and they are very important people who have better things
to do. But what's interesting is subsequent to that, Alex
Spiro and Quinn Emmanuel have represented Elon Musk in a
man or in Texas State Court where only a million
dollars is in dispute, and Alex Spiro represented his clients

(45:08):
so zealously he was sanctioned in that case, So it
didn't make any sense to me that they wouldn't represent
him in this case where I'm accusing him of having
some sort of illicit deal with the NYPD, where his
personal security is allowed to conceal carry weapons in New
York City where that is extremely illegal, and the police
know the people who attacked me, and he's avoiding service

(45:29):
like crazy until I locate his personal home and serve
him at home with a process server. That was hard
to do, but eventually I did get Elon Musk into
the case.

Speaker 3 (45:39):
How did you get it served? How did you get ki?

Speaker 2 (45:42):
That's the colonel's secret recipe. The point is he showed
up represented by council and then they refused to have
a settlement. Why Why? That seems irresponsible of the attorney.
I didn't understand any of this until New York City
mary Mayor Eric Adams was indicted first time in history.

(46:02):
Do you know who represented him?

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Alex Spiro? Interesting?

Speaker 2 (46:07):
How does an individual who earns two hundred and thirty
thousand dollars a year as the mayor of New York
City afford a three thousand dollars an hour lawyer?

Speaker 1 (46:16):
He wasn't paying the legal bill, that's how Well, I.

Speaker 2 (46:18):
Don't think that's it. Well, yes, you're right, you're absolutely right.
But I think the answer to the earlier question is
that Quinn Emmanuel did not want to represent Elon Musk
in this case because they knew they were going to
represent Eric Adams, and they knew. I allege, I allege this.
I haven't proven this. I alleged that they knew that

(46:40):
there was an illicit relationship between Elon Musk and the
NYPD and Eric Adams, and they wanted to suppress my
case and all of the information in it because it's
radio active. And no matter how much money you have,
if you break the law, you're supposed to go to jail,
which I could guess is a place that Elon Musk
does not want to go.

Speaker 1 (47:01):
Yeah, I mean, I would argue that if you have
enough money, you can get two tiered justice. I mean,
that's what we've been seeing.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
It says sometimes roundabout route, but he is getting it here,
I allege. And by the way, if I got on
the phone or in a settlement conference with Elon Musk,
there's a lot to admire about the guy. If what
is presented to us about him is true. I'm not
so sure if it is. But the point is, I
think any reasonable person wants to go about their business
in New York City or elsewhere without getting choked. And

(47:30):
if this guy has billions of dollars in personal security,
it's going to lie to the cops so that his
other personal security can choke me and so that the
police can deny my First Amendment right to make a
police report including video and photo evidence of how I
got choked. That's weird to me. That's a little strange.
So now we get back to this Data Republican, who

(47:51):
I agree seems to be somehow motivated by, or at
least promoted by Elon Musk and things that are interesting
to Elon Musk. So how did I get involved with?
So Charles tells me about her, and Charles says, here's
somebody who's promoting a lot of stuff that I'm interested in.
This is a cool account. And I say, okay, Charles

(48:12):
likes this account. Let me send her some information about
the Twitter coup. Now wait a minute, let me let
me look at my messages here with this Data Republican,
because yeah, I don't want to share my dms here,
but let me just read them to you and give
you a sense of what I was talking to her.

Speaker 1 (48:31):
While you're looking for that, let me just drop a
little nugget. You might be aware of this, but Data
Republican who's she's We're not doxing her. She's heard, she's
released her names. There have been several articles about her.
Her real name is Jenica Pounds.

Speaker 3 (48:46):
She's a married name.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
Yeah, her married name she's worked at Snapchat. Were you
aware that she worked at Snapchat?

Speaker 2 (48:52):
Yes, snap Amazon. She's a very accomplished software developer, and
she's deaf. I don't deny any of these things.

Speaker 3 (49:01):
Right right.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
Apparently she developed an augmented reality tool for American sign language.

Speaker 2 (49:07):
Yes, and that's brilliant. It can trans transcribed sign language.
I believe that's brilliant.

Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yes, she has a number of other patents on various
items as well. But anyways, get continue with your So it.

Speaker 2 (49:23):
Looks here like February eleventh, twenty twenty five. I sent
her a message that said, you are doing excellent work.
Are you aware of these details? Brian? You can share
this with people. Could you go to at JG, Underscore,
CSTT and share the screen if you will.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
Any people here and I'll share myself.

Speaker 2 (49:44):
I'm glad we're doing this because this is taking me
through stuff that I haven't even thought about in a while.
That's going to help us understand this even better.

Speaker 3 (49:52):
All right, thank you for inviting me on the show.

Speaker 2 (49:54):
By the way, Brian, thank you.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
Let's see Yeah, give to me against at JG, Underscore,
s c STC.

Speaker 2 (50:06):
Yes, crowdsource the truth.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
So that's my main t let me share my screen
and then you just tell me where to go.

Speaker 3 (50:12):
So let me do this. I'm gonna have to move
it around. Oh, let me lets go back to AI
cartoon of me. It does. Let me move this around
so we can see it a little bit better. All right?
Is there? Good of the articles?

Speaker 2 (50:30):
Tab right there? Articles and then scroll all the way
down to the first.

Speaker 3 (50:36):
Article, the first article ever.

Speaker 2 (50:38):
All right, okay, so this is right there. You got
it right there. That is the Twitter coup part one.
And there you see circle Barack Obama and Adam Sharp.
And so this is the first message that I sent
to Data Republican, and I said, you are doing excellent work.
Are you aware of these details? So she was probably
talking about something to do with censorship in Twitter, and

(51:00):
I sent her that. And then I also said, after
Trump won in twenty sixteen, Adam Sharp left Twitter to
become the CEO of the five oh one c six
National Academy of Television, Arts and Sciences that's the Emmys.
And although things like that may not receive direct government grants,
they're still tax exempt and still funded by taxpayers. Sharp

(51:22):
did this to use tax exempt money to sue me
and prevent this evidence from coming to light. So I
was sending her this to let her know you're talking
about tax exempt problems, etc. Then I sent her my
most viral tweet, which was me yelling at a guy
named Norm Eisen. People might have seen that. I went
to the Stormy Daniels trial and I said, Norm, you

(51:43):
lied to create this whole trial, and you coerced Michael
Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels with his own money in
a lawfair operation intended to entrap Trump. What did I
say about controlling both sides of the caption? Who was
Michael Cohen? He was Trump's attorney. He was communicating with
Felix satur who was my attorney's only other client. And

(52:06):
she doesn't respond to any of this. I told her,
I can share a lot of details with you about
these guys. They're at the top of the pyramid at
the ongoing Get Trump schemes. So she's tweeting about all
this as if she's interested in it, but yet she's
not responding to any of this. You can I believe.
I don't want to speak for anyone, but Brian, you're
listening to me share this. Do I seem to have

(52:28):
more and more specific information about some of these things
than anybody you've spoken to about it before.

Speaker 1 (52:33):
It would seem if I tweeted about something and then
you said or you know, had a viral tweet because
you were there, you were physically there, I probably would
look at that and respond.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
I want to hear something about it. So then then
this was April. Now I send her a big expose
I did. Let's see go back to the to the
Twitter the X page there the highlights tab.

Speaker 1 (53:01):
Please to this, okay, and go up to back up
to the top of highlights highlights.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
Yeah, we'll leave the article section. We'll go to highlights
and we'll scroll down a little bit in the highlights
until you see Andrew Weisman. Keep scrolling down down, down, down, down, down,
down down. We'll come back to that one down down down, down,
down down a little more, a little more, a little more,
he's coming up here. We go two or three more down,
just passed, Adam Schiff, Weisman, keep going, keep going, No, no,

(53:28):
just down a little more, a little more.

Speaker 3 (53:32):
A little more.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Sorry, one more down, one more down from this, one
more down from this. But this is Andrew Weisman. So
this I sent her breaking former Muller prosecutor and criminal
lawfair practitioner Andrew Weisman bought seven point five million dollars
in New York City real estate from a long time
Jeffrey Epstein co investor just days before the bank funding

(53:54):
the deal collapsed and went into FDIC receivership. Now this
got a lot of attention, and just from what I've
just described to you there, this is huge crimes. I
broke all of this and I sent it to Data
Republican and I said, oh no, sorry, I just sent
her that and she said nothing. She said nothing. So

(54:15):
since February I've been sending her all this interesting stuff
and she doesn't respond. And you, I believe saw me
the other day because up in the highlight section, further
to the top, I did an expose of Senator Tom Tillis,
and again I found a lot of information that I

(54:35):
don't believe anybody had ever found before. That's closer to
the very top that Tom Tillis won. There it is there,
it is down, down, down, sorry, with him standing in
front of the Capitol with his wife down one more.

Speaker 3 (54:47):
Oh yeah, there it is right.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
So in here I talk about the hidden empire of
Tom Tillis undisclosed deeds, rental income, and massive felonies.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
In their views right there in two days.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
So that's my most viral tweet ever. Now let's click
on that and start looking through some of the comments.
How can we find data Republicans' comments on that quickly?
Maybe you want to do a Twitter search, maybe do
a Twitter Advanced search looking for her mentioning me. So
if you just do that, we'll get right to it.
But I can give you the upshot. Basically what she

(55:23):
said was, and she was one of the first people
on this well before it had two point three million.
She said, oh, you know Jason or you know JG
Underscore CSTT is focused on this quit claim deed. There
she is. I reviewed it again. Yeah, I don't think
I'm mistaken. Quit claim deeds are normal in real estate transactions.

(55:46):
I used to invest. So she's saying, you know, there's
nothing to this, nothing to see here. The quit claim deed,
you know, not a big deal. But if you look
through that tweet, the quit claim deed is like the
stub toe on the cancer patient. This guy has got
an LLC where the four members are him. His name

(56:09):
is Tom Tillis, Tom Roland Tillis. So he's a member
listed in the LLC as Tom R Tillis, and his
brother is also a member in the LLC, Brian, do
you know what his brother's name.

Speaker 3 (56:23):
Is, also Tom R Tillis.

Speaker 2 (56:27):
So now we've got this built in identity duplexing within
the members of the LLC. And the brother Tom is
Richard Tillis goes by Rick with his friends, but he's
signing documents in this LLC on behalf of the LLC,
sometimes as Tom Richard Tillis, sometimes as Tom R Tillis,

(56:50):
such that you don't necessarily know which Tom R Tillis
is doing what and what's happening with this quit claim
deed is there's a property the addresses escape me right now,
fifty five oh eight something, which is this pretty crappy,
run down small home but sort of badly maintained. You know,

(57:11):
comparable homes in the area are one hundred and twenty
to one hundred and fifty five thousand. It's a one bedroom,
one bathroom home with central air. So I mean it's
not worthless, but it gets sold. We'd have to look
at the tweet, but it's there's some screwy business going
on where it's going from the Senator to the LLC

(57:32):
with a quit claim deed which absolves the buying party
from any claims to the property, and it seems like
a way for the Senator to divest himself of this thing.
Then the LLC sells it to a woman named Teresa
Baker that I didn't know at the time that I
first posted this, and at the time that Data Republican

(57:52):
was making her criticism. That is transferred through a different
kind of deed, a warranty deed, which is a third
party arms length type of transaction that appears normal, but
it's done for only fifty five thousand, which is about
a third of the value of the home. And what's

(58:12):
also interesting is within a month of the disillusion of
the LLC TRT Holdings with all this identity duplexing, another
woman named Teresa Baker, not the apparent buyer of the house.
Another woman named Teresa Baker dies of cancer at a

(58:33):
specialized cancer hospital that's only fifteen minutes away from this house.
The other thing that happens within that one month period
is that the senator's wife establishes a five oh one
C three nonprofit at the same two million dollar luxury
home that's the main operating address of this screwy LLC.

(58:54):
And the other thing that happens is a third thing
that happens that I'm forgetting right now. There is still
someone living in that home by the name of Teresa Baker. Now, granted,
Teresa Baker is a pretty common name, but this is
a really large number of coincidences. And these guys love
identity duplexing. We've got too, Teresa Baker's. We've got these

(59:17):
weird deeds going all around. We've got what appears to
be the Senator trying to conceal beneficial ownership of an
LLC and various properties. Ah, this is the third thing.
The Senator has introduced legislation that is positioned as expanding
investment opportunities for rets. Reats are real estate investment trusts,

(59:44):
and what this thing aims to do is to bundle
lots of shitty little real estate investments into more valuable,
larger I guess, collateralized investments. It sounds a lot like
what caused the subprime mortgage crisis. To me, what's interesting is.

Speaker 3 (01:00:01):
The life bundling bundling.

Speaker 2 (01:00:04):
The wife starts a nonprofit called the Susan M. Tillis Foundation,
and the headquarters is at they're luxury home. That's a
red flag. You're not supposed to have a public, nonprofit
charity at your two million dollar home. But that's fine.
The other thing that she does is she changes the
name of it without properly registering that with the IRS.

(01:00:26):
As far as I can tell from public domain evidence
that's filed with the IRS, I can't find any letters,
determination letters or whatever. And the name that she changes
it to is red, white and bundled. What is she
bundling campaign donors, shitty real estate investments? I don't know.
But it's interesting to observe that Data Republican gets in

(01:00:49):
there right away and says, oh, this Tom tillis information.
There's nothing to it because everybody knows Data Republican is
there in Utah and she's a software developer and she's
deaf and she's a genius. But a lot of people
don't know that her maiden name. And I'm not trying
to dox her. This is very relevant.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Let me interject one thing on the doxing. So Data
Republican posted just on and on about you know, the swatting.
There was a lot of this claims of swanting, and
I do believe a lot of those claims were real claims.

Speaker 3 (01:01:20):
They posted video and photos of the officers.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
But there's other social media influencers that didn't really have
any evidence and they just said, oh, I was swatted too,
I was swatted too. And some people made allegations that, well,
are you were you really swatted? Are you claiming that
you were swatted to get some you know, street credit,
more followers and some attention. And I noticed that Data
Republican she wasn't swatted, but she said, oh, all these

(01:01:46):
pizzas are being delivered to my house. She did several
posts about my husband is just getting all these pizzas.
Oh my gosh, we're and she compared it to swatting.
She said, this is this swatting is out of control.
Like she was swatted. Now, getting pizzas deliver is a
little bit different than swatting. I mean, we used to
call that a prank.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Wait a second, because you're hitting on something extremely important, Brian,
and this is your show. I respect that, I respect
you for inviting me on here, and I don't want
to do anything to harm you or this show. So
you need to decide if we're going to talk about
this right now. But she's not doing what you've just
described to necessarily just get sympathy or clicks or whatever.
I've been swatted. I have an idea of who it

(01:02:26):
was that called the police. And see, I think I
can't prove this, but I think she's talking about these
pizzas and this swatting so that when people like you
and I talk about what we may be about to
talk about, she can allege, oh, these guys are creating
a danger to my family by saying that. Take it

(01:02:49):
off the internet. Because what I learned is let me
drip this out and you tell me if you want
me to receive it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
Well, we talked about it, and I think it's fine
because I've just prefaced this that what we're going to
discuss that Data Republican does not live at this address anymore.
We're not even gonna give the address, but you know,
the home that we're talking about does not live there anymore.
So it's clearly not dosing.

Speaker 2 (01:03:14):
And furthermore, no one should do anything. Do not call anyone,
do not threaten anyone, do not take any action based
on anything that I say. That is my explicit instruction
to anyone who is listening, because it will be used
against me, it will be used against Brian, and it
could be used against you. But Data Republican, whose maiden

(01:03:37):
name is Humphrey, grew up in North Carolina. And what's
interesting is, as you said, her family has sold this home,
and I believe her father is a house. I believe
her father is deceased, but his name was James Humphrey.
And this house is on James Humphrey Place. Now that

(01:03:59):
could be a co incidents, but my mind immediately goes
to that looks like a brand new or a pretty
new house, and it's on James Humphrey Place, and it's
originally owned by James Humphrey. I wonder if he doesn't
have something to do with real estate development in North Carolina,
which is the same thing that Senator Tillis seems to
be involved in. And Data Republican doesn't give a shit

(01:04:22):
about what I say until the second I mentioned Tillis.
It's interesting, isn't it?

Speaker 3 (01:04:28):
That is interesting?

Speaker 1 (01:04:29):
And there's not that many homes that I know of
that are, you know, extremely wealthy for the area where
the street is also named after the owner of the home.

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
I mean it's coincidental for sure. I have no proof
that this means anything other than what we are saying,
but I find it extremely coincidental. Now, Brian, tell me,
am I a conspiracy theorist.

Speaker 1 (01:04:56):
Well, I like conspiracy theorists because conspiracy the theorists are
basically undefeated. I mean, where are we, like ninety nine
out of one hundred percent for conspiracy theories. I mean
I have a list, actually I've posted before. Here's all
the conspiracy theories that were proven true, and it goes
on and on and on and on and on and
on and on. I mean you could name one hundred
you know, just recently that we're proven true. So I'm

(01:05:19):
a big fan of conspiracy theories personally.

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
Yeah. Well, I just say it so that people can
understand what we're talking about. I think it's intended to
be a pejorative. I think we are looking at a
vast conspiracy and I am certainly presenting my theory. As
I said, these things haven't been proven in court. These
are allegations. I welcome Jenica Pounds to refute anything that

(01:05:44):
I'm saying. Let's talk about the mother. I'm not going
to reveal her real name, although I do know it,
and I have about three hundred and sixty one days
left on the statute of limitations where I'm going to
decide if I sue them or not, because this account
that purports to be her mother that I suspect is
probably a socc account operated by Jenica, because what could

(01:06:04):
be more sympathetic than the mother of a deaf girl
defending her, you know, talking about Jesus tells her to
do this and that, and Jason is the devil. You know,
I'm a terrible guy. According to them, the mother went
on her fifty thousand strong Twitter account x account and said, oh,

(01:06:25):
Jason's a terrible guy, and he was making fun of
Jenica being deaf or claiming that she's not deaf, something
I would never ever do. And I'll reveal something that
I haven't ever discussed before. I've had multiple deaf friends
in my life. In high school in the eighties, I
had a tty machine in my house, nobody deaf in

(01:06:47):
my family. I was communicating with a deaf friend, and
when I had my career in Hollywood, a close associate
of min. I don't want to say too much about
this because people might be able to figure out who
it is. But there was a deaf person there and
I I'm very sympathetic to the deaf. I would never
make fun of someone for any handicap, let alone this
person for being deaf. So when the mother said, oh,

(01:07:10):
Jason made fun of her for being deaf or denied
the youth or whatever it was, I said, that is
an outright lie. And the comments were like, Oh, he's
a scumbag, unfollowing him and they're spreading this lie deliberately
to generate public hatred against me. And I said, listen,
this is a litigation warning. You need to retract this

(01:07:31):
and apologize to me in this specific way from your
seven hundred and fifty thousand follower account, not from this
little bullshit account where you put this defamation out there
and have it hanging out there, and you have all
by the way, the small account. I don't know if
you can go to the mother's account where she's pounding
on me, but a fifty thousand follower account has all
this engagement from a negative tweet about me. How does

(01:07:53):
that happen? That doesn't seem organic? Is enon musk or
someone boosting these different things to shit on Jason and
elevate Jeneica Pounds. I don't know, but it sure seems
like it.

Speaker 3 (01:08:07):
Let me share this one.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
And this is something I just want to mention because
we talked about So a good Eagle TV is commenting
on this post and he's saying the Data Republican is
a Flynn Network member. In my estimation, New York Rise
from Nowhere, pushed by the Flynn Network, pushed by local
Flint operators, attempted to downplay the USAID money that was
funneled into Flynn Network hands I remember. And then here's

(01:08:31):
he's quoting, you know this interaction between you and mom
of Data Republican, which is interesting. It's data underscore. Republicans
talk about dual identities, right, it is interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:08:45):
And then and see there's her apology. See so that
is getting very little engagement. But I believe they expect
to walk into court with that and say, oh, we apologize.
So it's been retracted. That is not adequate because they're
doing something very specific here that is designed to have
the maximum impact to harm me and mitigate their downside risk.

(01:09:07):
That is not going to work as far as preventing
me from suing them. It might prevent them from, you know,
losing a substantial money award to me, but that will
be up to a judge.

Speaker 3 (01:09:20):
And let me show one other post.

Speaker 1 (01:09:22):
This is something that TP at TPC one two three
is saying, is saying about Deata Republican's account. Something is
a bit off about her. She blamed an overheating hard
drive the last time she falsely claimed something. Here's the post.
It says, myn initial run, which produced sixty thousand rows,
you didn't find these awards. My hard drive overheated before

(01:09:44):
I could do the full pass, So that that is that.

Speaker 2 (01:09:47):
Is idiot something to say, that's Idioty's she's using a
Winchester drive or what is that? You're trying to tell
me she doesn't have envme E memory. This is ridiculous nonsense.

Speaker 1 (01:09:58):
I mean I would expect that she she has this
relatively recently. I mean it's probably is a solid state drive.
It's probably liquid nitrogen cooled or something crazy like that.

Speaker 2 (01:10:08):
I mean, this is ridiculous stupidity. Yeah, she's a fake opinion.

Speaker 3 (01:10:15):
Mm hmmm.

Speaker 1 (01:10:16):
Well, and you know you bring up the interesting point
about her steering people away from certain topics and that
that's kind of been mine and other observations of the account.
There's other evidence that I could show. You know, it
seems like she's there to push certain narratives, and as
she setting herself up as a data expert so that

(01:10:38):
when she gets tapped on the shoulder she can say,
oh no, as the data expert, look at this, but
put your attention over here on these things only, and
thank you for those you know, seven hundred thousand followers,
mister Elon Musk or whatever Department of Defense you know,
AI botnet automatically makes you famous on Internet Twitter, you know,

(01:11:01):
at the drop of a hat.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
So anything like that, you and I are on the
same page with this, Brian, I.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
Think, yeah, yeah, there's a bunch of just other really
strange things about the account. You know, she mentions all
the time that you know, she she has a sub
stack where she's once paid subscribers, and she has quite
a few apparently allegedly she's making a lot of money,
you know, as an ex creator account, if you have

(01:11:29):
you know, seven hundred thousand followers as an ex creator,
you know, when they don't demonetize you like what they
did to me, because they didn't like what I was saying,
but if you have that many followers, you're making a
lot of money, arguably like one hundred thousand dollars a
year just from that. They've supposedly, by her own claims,
she's she's working for Doze or with Doze and being
compensated or something like that, so you know she's got

(01:11:51):
that money coming in.

Speaker 3 (01:11:54):
There's another thing that I found, Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:11:57):
There's a house that I believe either she or her
husband or she and her husband. I haven't proven this,
this is an allegation, but I believe they own this
house in Utah, and the county registrar in their county
there in Utah has no record of the deeds of
this house. But there are other databases that use crawlers

(01:12:20):
and spiders and various things to aggregate this information when
it was on the internet, and I have seen information
that would seem to indicate that over three million dollars
in loans were given against this house that's worth something
like one point four million. So I don't understand how

(01:12:41):
you get almost three times the loan from one item
of collateral. Seems weird to me, But there's a lot
of screwy business going on that can't be explained. And meanwhile,
she thinks what I'm saying about Senator Tillis is going
to go nowhere and shouldn't be listened to. But all
this incredible stuff about Andrew Weissman, about who was the

(01:13:04):
FBI General Counsel as well, by the way, and his
Valerie Caproni's mentor, by his own explanation, and he Andrew
Weissman had a twenty five year long relationship with Felix Satyer,
who is a self admitted FBI CIA d I a

(01:13:26):
asset now who ran the DA Oh yeah, Flynn, Well.

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
Wait a minute, let me since you mentioned the FBI
again that we talked about this quote before. So here's
FBI Director Dan Bongino. He's talking about swatting is deadly serious.
You know, I've asked our team to, you know, double
down in their efforts to prevent this, this swanning. I'm
gonna have to scroll up because it's not a scrollable image.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
Let's see, they don't care when they do it at
my house. NYPD doesn't care, FBI doesn't care. I can't
get them to do anything.

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Oh, I guess I'm not going to be able to
show part well what Data Republican. I can't show it. Unfortunately,
she responds to this, and she says, thank you, mister Bongino.
She says, we've been getting pizzas all day. We're not
going to sleep well tonight. I hope the FBI treats
this with the same urgency as it did when identifying

(01:14:20):
all the j six trespassers so quickly. So, I mean,
that's just insane. Not only is she equating her pizza
deliveries to swatting, but also the January sixth persecution, which
is a bit of a threat in.

Speaker 2 (01:14:37):
My opinion, absolutely terrible.

Speaker 1 (01:14:40):
Anyways, keep going with what you're saying. Sorry, I just
had to interject that since we were I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
That's that's pretty much all I have to say about
Data Republican. That takes us up to, you know, from
how this started to how it's going. But I mean,
you know, you obviously had identified a lot of the
anomalies that I had, and you know, it's just a
it's a very dangerous profession, you know, and it's really

(01:15:05):
easy to get kind of knocked out of the box.
Through the years, I've spoken to a lot of people
who I had observed that George's brother or various other
people were harassing, and you know, most of them would say, oh,
you know, they were harassing my wife at work and
put a lot of pressure on my marriage. So I
just stopped the YouTube show, or I went back to

(01:15:26):
talking about Bible versus instead of government controversies, or you know,
people had different explanations. But you know, if you were
doing something from let's say an apartment building, they would
threaten the landlord. If you were living in your parents' house,
they would threaten your parents. If you had a wife,
they would threaten your wife. If you you know, it's
literally if people go and look up the East German Stazi,

(01:15:50):
they had a tactic called zerzuzzone, which loosely translates to decomposition,
where they study the target like I just told you,
which his brother did. He learned I had a corporation.
He learned the name of the corporation, and they devised
a very specific strategy to dismantle my financial, professional, and

(01:16:11):
personal life. Because when you do it like that, I'm
sure there's a lot of people listening to what I'm saying, saying, Oh,
this guy's crazy, it's too complicated. I can't even follow it.
But that's what they want to do. They want to
overly complicate this so they can go into court and
they can say, oh, something with this hooker getting a
payment and Donald Trump had loans that he overvalued. You

(01:16:32):
can't even follow what the hell it's about, and that's
what they want. It's so complic caause then people say, well,
Occham's Razor, he must have done it, because the simplest answer,
that's the answer, right. No, Occham's Razor actually says the
simplest answer that addresses all of the evidence must be
the answer, and that means you cannot dismiss a single

(01:16:55):
element of evidence. Like in the police photo in the
would Tell room where Peter Smith died, there are two
helium canisters, but in a Walmart security video that I obtained,
Peter Smith is seen buying only one helium canister. Where

(01:17:15):
did the other helium canister come from? Well, the simplest
answer would be the guy just killed himself, forget it.
But that doesn't address the second helium canister. And that
Walmart somebody who worked there contacted me and said, hey,
don't tell anybody I told you, but we only had
one helium canister. And stopped that day. So who brought

(01:17:36):
the other helium canister? That would tell us a lot
about what happened. So anyway, this is I'm getting into
so many details about so many things. Brian. I'm happy
to do this with you, but I don't want to
overwhelm your audience.

Speaker 1 (01:17:48):
Which it's interesting and if you want some interesting reading,
because I don't think you've read this before. But I
mentioned before that Pentagon paper by Robert Pressler, who's Scott
press Or his father was the sponsor of it. He's
he's thanked in the in the forward and the acknowledgement
by name. But it's it's one hundred page paper. It's

(01:18:09):
pretty interesting actually, and it's it's linked on on real
Scott Presler dot com. There's a website, Real Scott Pressler
dot com. And at the bottom of that website or
it's it's about the middle is bottom, it links to
that paper. You know, it talks about Robert Presler's well,
you know what, let me show it for our viewers
so they know where to find it. Let me let

(01:18:30):
me just do this all right, So let me share
my screen. Uh, let's go to real Scott Presler dot com.
I like I like doing things live. Sometimes it's like,
let's do it live.

Speaker 3 (01:18:41):
Let's do that.

Speaker 1 (01:18:43):
So there's a couple of links at the top. One
is take me right to the evidence, and then there's
a specific link about false registration claim. But we're going
to go right to the evidence. And there's a lot
of things that are covered here, but this is let
me scroll down. Uh, you know, there's quite a few
stuff about elections and early voting and just proving a
lot of mister Presler claims. But then if as you

(01:19:06):
continue to scroll down, you'll see an area where talks
about Robert Presler.

Speaker 3 (01:19:12):
I think it's just under this let me go. So
it's pretty far down.

Speaker 1 (01:19:16):
Uh is r e A L s c O T
T p R E s l E R.

Speaker 3 (01:19:21):
Dot com t s it's there's not.

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
Two s's in it. I'll send you the link afterwards.

Speaker 3 (01:19:31):
That's all right, Pressler, Okay, Yeah, one is there.

Speaker 2 (01:19:35):
It is, got it? Yeah? Oh yeah, see I saw
this video with Brandon Straka saying all kinds of things
about now I've met Brandon.

Speaker 1 (01:19:42):
Here's some wait, sorry, let me these are the donations
from the fight like a Flynn pack.

Speaker 3 (01:19:46):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:19:47):
Therefore, oh so this is not a website produced by
Scott Presler.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
This is this is bum yeah, and it's uh. You
can see there it's a fifty thousand and forty five
thousand donation from the Flynn work to Scott Pressler's. Wow,
there were pretty much his early supporters. There's there's the
free three hundred thousand car that Scott Presler got and
that was kind of nice. Here it is. This is
Scott Presler's father. You can see his LinkedIn profile. There's

(01:20:14):
the photo of mister Robert Presler Scott Pressler saying, you know,
you know, happy Father's Day, all this stuff. Of course,
Robert Pressler's been on Sebastian Gorka's show talking about his
position at the Pentagon and that he's Scott Bress. So
this is all. These are some screenshots of this automatic

(01:20:35):
phrase regeneration and like ai body of the same phrase,
Scott Presler's a national treasure. There's nine screen shots of that,
so it's it's kind of a reputation management technique. This
is just evidence that this is what they're using. But
I'm almost to the paper, so let's see here it is.
Let me try to let me try to move this
window around. Let's see, let's see scroll down.

Speaker 3 (01:21:00):
A little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
Okay, it's called improving C two and situational awareness for
operations in and through the information environment. So that's the
link there. I'll just copy that and send it to
you directly. But I feel like you would be interested
to read some of that paper. It's basically like fifth

(01:21:22):
generation war techniques through social media again influencing political outcomes.
But I'll send you that link directly next. But you
may find that, I mean some people would find that,
you know, if they need to fall fall asleep, let
me read this hundred page paper.

Speaker 3 (01:21:39):
Yeah. Anyways, I'll just put it in the in the
XT message to you, but yeah, take and read it.

Speaker 1 (01:21:45):
That And because I believe that, you know, these MAGA influencers, Uh,
some people like to call them con inc. You know,
Conservative Inc. But really con man Inc Is kind of
the inf That's how I interpret it. You know, they're
there as a controlled opposition, and you know they're given

(01:22:05):
this prominence, they're suddenly made Internet famous, and it's under
these conditions, like you have to run with these narratives.
You know, anytime we call distract against from these things,
don't ever say these things and you know it'd be
I can imagine how useful it would be. And then
if you deployed these MAGA influencers along with some kind

(01:22:27):
of AI bought army, it's extremely powerful and influencing public opinion.
You have social engineering, and that's where we are.

Speaker 2 (01:22:36):
Yeah, and I think that's who is responding to the
mom of Data Republican about you know, Jason getting the
Devil excited or whatever kind of nonsense they were talking about. Now, Brian,
I think I could talk to you all night, but
I am a little bit losing my voice from running over.

Speaker 1 (01:22:49):
I understand about an hour and a half, so it's
it's good. But I really appreciate you coming on the show, Jason,
really fascinating topics. So you know, some are viewers are
going to have to go back and listen to some
of the sections if if they joined late. But I
really appreciate having you on shout out you know, your
Twitter handle on your website one more time.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
Absolutely, People can follow me on x at JG Underscore
cst T like Jason Goodman Underscore Crowdsource the Truth. People
can also go to Crowdsourcedtruth dot org. I'm on substack
I'm on Subscribe Star Patreon. I really appreciate you inviting
me on, Brian. It's the first time we've ever spoken

(01:23:31):
and I really enjoyed the conversation. I hope we'll have
another in the future, and please feel free to contact
me anytime.

Speaker 1 (01:23:38):
Yes, I will, thank you very much and I did
send you that link, so thanks again for coming on
the show. For my viewers, this is the Magamine podcast.
Magamine podcast dot com or wherever you get your podcast,
just search for magamind one word and then podcast. You
can follow me on x at Brian Farnce, one, on
Truth Social Truth Social at Brian Farrens, and on gab

(01:23:59):
at Brian Fee and of course Brian Farance dot com.
So thank you again to all our viewers and God
bless

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 21 May 12, 2025 Discussing Data Republican with Jason Goodman Founder of Crowdsource the Truth

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 21 May 12, 2025 Discussing Data Republican with Jason Goodman Founder of Crowdsource the Truth

Stuff You Should Know