Jordan Trishton Walker, if that’s how you even spell his name, is allegedly, Pfizer’s Director of Research & Development, Strategic Operations and mRNA Scientific Planning. In this viral and now banned video, Walker lets it casually slip out over margaritas and a slice of pizza pie that his bosses at Pfizer are manipulating the Covid virus in an attempt to create a new vaccine before the virus naturally mutates.
He calls it a potential “cash cow.” And he says Covid probably came from a laboratory in Wuhan. He doesn’t know he’s being secretly filmed by Project Veritas.
Is that true? Does Walker even work for Pfizer? Has his identity been verified, or was he just trying to impress his date who was actually an undercover operative surreptitiously filming for Project Veritas?
In fact, where is Walker now?
Dan Strack, executive director of Project Veritas, joins us to explain his outfit’s methods of information gathering, which include, but are not limited to, trolling on dating apps and randomly bumping into their targets.
Not one for softball interviews, we challenge Strack on why they don’t do more research before airing their interviews.
Pfizer, for its part, has not commented directly on the viral video, or whether Walker was actually an employee. The pharma giant only saying that it does not engage in gain-of-function experimentation or directed evolution.
Curiously however, in the same statement, Pfizer does acknowledge the following: “In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells.”
What does that mean?
It is a question worth asking, but Big Tech smothers social discourse. The videos have been banned on Facebook and YouTube.
Not here. No BS.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Look, I’m a Detroit as well. I’m a native Detroiter as well. Brother Charlie. A legend there.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Live downtown Detroit
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Sister breaking the Dobo bullshit. Dobo bullshit.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Speaker 5 (00:53):
Ain’t no toilet paper in the bathroom, bro.
Speaker 6 (00:56):
Speaker 5 (00:57):
You didn’t want to know that, didn’t you? What should we
Speaker 6 (00:58):
Use instead? No, I did not.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Don’t use it. Oh, okay. I should had your wife bring some up. All right. Well anyway, welcome to the No BS lunch hour. This microphone here paid for by Hall Financial reminds you that over 40% of Americans don’t have $500 in an emergency fund. And a lot of people don’t realize they can use the equity in their home to put themselves in a better financial position. Karen, as you know, a cash out refi from Hall Financial can help relieve financial stress and keep you and your family prepared for the future and keep your family fed in the short term. So whether you’re looking to purchase a new home or refinance Corn home, you need to call Hall Financial first at eight sixty six. Call Hall or get started by going to call Hall first.com. The other side of this microphone, the cord to this microphone, <laugh>, is paid by Legacy Partners, and I encourage you to take advantage of what I’m telling you. So when you’re watching TV and you bombarded by insurance ad promising to save you money, and they never really do. So I’ve been telling you Mark’s been, Karen’s been doing it. Yep. Hippie hippies doing it. How you doing it with your auto?
Speaker 4 (02:14):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I’m calling this
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Wednesday. He’s calling this Wednesday.
Speaker 6 (02:18):
Why not today?
Speaker 5 (02:19):
Why not today?
Speaker 6 (02:20):
The show Don’t do the show. Don’t procrastinate
Speaker 5 (02:23):
After the show. What about Tuesday? Yeah,
Speaker 6 (02:25):
Speaker 5 (02:26):
To work at the Coney. He’s got to work at the Coney. So
Speaker 6 (02:28):
Does what you do occupy 24 hours every day? You don’t. You need high management assistance,
Speaker 5 (02:33):
Dude. All, all you got to do is call. Alls you got to do is call 5 8 6 2 0 9 4 1 0 6. Say, okay, I got five minutes, bro. This is what I’m paying for my car insurance. This is what I need. What can you do? That’s it.
Speaker 6 (02:44):
Yeah, it was easy.
Speaker 5 (02:46):
And then they’ll call you back at the end of your shift. Yep. I’m telling you. I’m telling Save thousands. Get more insurance.
Speaker 6 (02:53):
Yep. Or do it by email. They were very, very email. Very thorough, very helpful. Very
Speaker 5 (02:58):
Responsive. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, they were. Well, I don’t have an email for ’em. Oh, I got an email. I feel special. Oh, you got an email? Yeah. Should get there. Okay. You want to share with the rest of us? No, I’ll, I’ll get that e email. Right. Listen, they’re independent. They shop carriers for you and you’re going to find out, you’re going to get the best deal around that you didn’t know you could get because you don’t shop for yourself. 5 8 6 2 0 9 4 1 0 6 Legacy Partners. And the man, Luke Noack, he paid for the base head, had a long talk with him last night. He’s very interested in our guest. I’m sure coming. Should I tell him is time to tease? Yeah. Dan Strat, the executive director of Project Veritas with us. Yeah, that’s a get right there. There you go. YouTube, start blocking. Go on Facebook, start blocking.
We can’t talk to each other anymore. Just go, fuck you. Anyway. I mean the money I made these people. That’s true. I got over a hundred million clicks on YouTube. Yeah. And how do they repay me for making ’em wealthy? Shadow ban. That’s shadow. Ban by hurting themselves, by hurting them, by hurting the country. Well, we’re no pushes over here. Right? But if everybody else gets to talk about what’s going on, yeah, we in life too. Then we are going to talk too. That’s why we got Dan STR coming up. So Luke Nakia, I know he’s listening, but Luke wants to remind you, the market’s done very well in January. Nice little bounce, right? Did you panic? Did you overreact? You probably did because you didn’t have financial advice. Nobody likes to move mu lose money and sometimes trying to avoid losing money loses you money. It’s true. So get some rational focus, sound, personal and or professional financial advice, whether you’re a small business owner, a trustee on a pension or run of the mill investor trying to get the kid through college. You call Luke Noack yet Pinnacle Wealth, 24 86 6 3 4 7 4 8. Sound, financial advice. All right, good. Yeah. Now Dan, how you doing, baby? Can you hear us?
Speaker 7 (05:07):
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Doing well, Charlie. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 5 (05:09):
What are you in the, are you in the New York Harbor there floating around on the ferry
Speaker 7 (05:15):
<laugh>? I am afloat. It’s true. It’s true. Waiting for snow to come get me.
Speaker 5 (05:21):
Okay, now look man you guys, when was it? Last week put out the Pfizer video. Was it last week? Spec?
Speaker 7 (05:32):
Yeah. Yeah. What’s going on? Two weeks now? Yeah,
Speaker 5 (05:35):
Yeah. Okay. So basically this is the biggest video in the history of Project Veritas. They got booted off of u2, but it’s still available on Twitter, over 30 million views on Twitter alone. It features the character named Jordan, Tristan Walker, apparently. I’m going to ask Dan about this. The Pfizer director of research and development, strategic operations and Mr. N a scientific planning. Now, this is one of the Veritas undercover videos. There’s a Veritas reporter posing his a date with this guy. Finds him on. Where do you find him on man? Grindr. Where do you find him?
Speaker 7 (06:21):
We don’t really talk about sources and tactics, but we find our subjects anywhere from conferences to walking down the street in a variety of different ways.
Speaker 5 (06:35):
So you can’t see exactly how, okay, so anyhow they’re having a drink, maybe some pizza, and this dude starts going off and he implies that Pfizer’s manipulating the Covid virus in an attempt to create a new vaccine before the virus naturally mutates itself. So now we have questions of directed evolution, ver versus gain of function, repercussions, accusations of the global public health apparatus being in the pocket of big pharma. This has created a really big stir brother. And let’s just begin with this. You got, and you got all the the lefties. There’s the radis, and it is the lefties, and it’s like it’s patently false. There’s an allegation that Mr. Walker worked for Pfizer, but we don’t even know that. Does this guy, or did this guy have this title and work for Pfizer? And how do we know it
Speaker 7 (07:38):
As we understand it? Through corroboration, both from inside sources as well as publicly available data, which has been quite quickly scrubbed from the internet almost in semi realtime. As we launched the story. He was working for the Boston Consulting Group as a consultant to Pfizer. Moved to Pfizer looks like full-time, I believe May of 2021. We had met with the subject, did a number of interviews. He did not know he was being interviewed, but he knew what he was saying. We don’t allege anything. We don’t endorse people. We don’t advocate for things. We show you the subject with their mouth moving words, their words, not ours. We don’t editorialize. So he said what he said. I think if you notice in with my Wall Street background, we all know that news late on Friday night is meant to be completely ignored. And Pfizer, of course, put out an 8:00 PM response to our story without mentioning Project Veritas, without mentioning these interviews, without mentioning anything other than sort of saying, we don’t do gain of function research. We don’t do directed evolution research, except in these rare cases where we kind of do
Speaker 5 (08:55):
So before, maybe some people listening here or watching here haven’t seen the video. So why don’t we just play, you guys got a clip, play a little Jermaine clip here, right about cash cow if you have it. How these vaccines are a cash cow visor.
Speaker 8 (09:12):
Go ahead. In the clear, what’s the goal for advisor of doing that? So probably what they want to do is to try to figure out, to some extent, try to figure out, there’s all these new strains of variants that just pop up. Why don’t we try to catch them before they pop up in nature and we can develop a vaccine pro. Of course, like new variants. Yeah. So that’s why they’re thinking if you do it, control the lab, then say, oh, this is an epi. And so then if they comes out later on in the public, we already have a vaccine kind of working on it. Oh my God, that’s perfect. Isn’t that the best business model? Well just control nature before nature even happens itself, right? Oh yeah. If it works. What do you mean? If it works? Because some of the times they’re just mutations that pop up, right? We’re not prepared for it with Delta or Omicron and things like that. So who knows? I mean, either way it’s going to be a cash cow. Covid would probably be a cash cow for us for a while going. What? Yeah. Obviously <laugh>,
Speaker 5 (10:09):
You got a question for him?
Speaker 9 (10:12):
Well, sure. I mean, I can ask a question off of that. What
Speaker 5 (10:15):
I thought you were giving me the
Speaker 9 (10:17):
No, no, no, no, no, I wasn’t. I was just, how much time was left? I guess the first question is, I mean, I just assumed they did this anyway. What is the worry, worry here with that clip in particular, that big pharma might be genetically modifying microorganisms to create vaccines or treatments for a disease in the future?
Speaker 7 (10:43):
Well, I think the issue is that we keep, in many of our stories, we keep hearing the different terms being used for different, we don’t call it C R T in critical race theory in one of our past reports. As long as we don’t call it C R T, we can actually teach it the same thing here. As long as we don’t call it gain of function research, we can do it. So hence the directed evolution. Again, we’re not editorializing, we’re not even saying this is important, but obviously the general public thinks it’s important because it is our most viewed video ever. And no mainstream media has covered it. And we’ve obviously been taken down on YouTube. The first video has the second video, and some follow ups have not. Well,
Speaker 9 (11:24):
Dan, that’s, that’s awful. But
Speaker 6 (11:26):
Dan, you obviously think there was some degree of importance in the content of the video because you posted it. I mean, you’ve shared it and now, so what relevance did you find in that exchange?
Speaker 7 (11:39):
I think the two biggest components were that directed. Evolution sounds a heck of a lot, like gain a function. Now, I’m not an mRNA scientist I’m not a doctor but I think common sense tells you when you’re modifying these things, this to, in order to gain function and direct evolution, it sounds kind of like the same thing. And there are a lot of unanswered questions about the origins of covid. We’re not allowed to do directed evolution research here or gain a function research here in the United States. That’s why we outsource it to Wuhan is a very lot of folks say. And I think that’s important for the public to know that it looks like there’s definitely something going on that they don’t want the general public to know. This doc Dr. Walker said, don’t tell anybody what I’m about to tell you. That in and of itself, I think the public has a right to know. The other component I think, which might be confirmational for some that was important, is the rotating sort of wheel of employment between pharmaceutical companies and their regulators which I think is important for people to understand as well.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
Well, I would say, man, okay, let’s get to this thing. Number one, when if you’re doing journalism, number one, you got to verify that this guy actually works with Pfizer before you kick out any video whatsoever. Two, he’s in there parsing, talking about he’s giggling. We’re going to mess with the proteins that cause the spikes and the virus, et cetera, et cetera. And they’re arguing your undercover reporter and the doctor about gain of function versus directed evolution. If I was doing it, that would be in my piece. Now I did it. We know each other. Thank you for being on here. Gain of function research is defined as research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, improve the ability of it to cause disease directed. Evolution is defined as the labor laboratory process by which biological entities with desired traits are creative through rounds of genetic diversification. So one is to make a virus more virulent, and the other one is to manipulate it for whatever purpose you might need, health vaccines, whatever. So the thing is, we don’t know,
Speaker 6 (14:17):
But isn’t this all under research and development anyway? And I’m not saying,
Speaker 5 (14:21):
Well, it should be. It’s the question big. I think the big reason this thing is going crazy is should big pharma be fucking with the virus at all? Now, one last thing here, Dan. I know it’s a big roundabout. I looked at what Pfizer sent out. Pfizer never confirmed nor denied that this walker guy worked for him three days later. Right? Okay. It’s still not today. And I went through it and I called a couple scientists, friends of mine. Interesting. Pfizer, in the first paragraph of its Friday night press release, Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or direct evolution research period. Mark. That’s what they say. Now they go on to say it’s buried in here. In a limited number of cases, when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity itself. So they
Speaker 9 (15:19):
Counter their earlier statement, well, gain of function can come from genetic modification, but like he was saying, it’s kind of a vernacular or word based puzzle that they’re, a lot of legal people do this, a lot of medical people, because it goes over our heads
Speaker 5 (15:31):
Now just saying two different things. Now, Dan, it was your organization that lit this up. Are you guys doing some more journalism to get straight what it exactly they do and what exactly is in industry standard?
Speaker 7 (15:45):
Absolutely. We have follow up investigations going on right now, and I don’t have anything more to say on that yet. And certainly when we do we’ll releasing that a couple things I’ll say is we do extensive research on all of our subjects to make sure they are who they say they are. We understand that good journalism can hurt people, so we make sure that the people we’re interviewing aren’t just having a bad day, that there’s actually something there that they’re trying to hide from the general public. They say the thing in private that they will never say in public. We deceive our subject in order to tell the truth to our audience. And I think the other thing that people aren’t talking about a lot is the research is happening on monkeys here in the United States at some level. I would expect to hear from Peter, no. So I think we also had a number of insiders come forward with organizational charts, internal documents that had Jordan Walker on the org charts. We know who his manager is. We publish those things.
Speaker 5 (16:44):
Well see, the reason I’m asking, man, is because, look me, first of all, I never trick anybody when I do my journalism, do your, and there’s room for everybody to do what they do in life. But what if this guy was lying? Because I’m looking at the mainstream ignoring this, and obviously a lot of people have questions about what’s going on in the labs if this is happening. It’s a bit disturbing, but how it’s so easy for people to dismiss it by saying, well, there’s no record of this guy, or nobody will confirm or deny that he worked at Pfizer. Did you guys follow him going into the Pfizer work building? Because it’s stupid that the credibility of this thing is he’s still being fact checked by mainstream news organization as the alleged employee. You get, I’m where I’m going with this.
Speaker 7 (17:35):
I do. I, like I said, we’ve had internal documents that we did corroborate. We had insiders send us screenshots. We had multiple organizational charts that showed Jordan Walker on that chart for Pfizer as an employee. I think the fact that Pfizer hasn’t denied any of it is telling speaks
Speaker 5 (17:56):
Volumes, man. That’s true.
Speaker 6 (17:57):
Speaker 7 (17:58):
We always confront our subjects after these type of interviews and ask them for their comment. The first thing that Dr. Walker had to say was that he’s a liar. The very first thing out of his mouth, he’s a liar which I thought was really interesting, really telling. But then he proceeded to literally accost both James and some of our other staff that was there filming the episode trying to destroy the evidence as it were, by taking our iPad and destroying it. By the way, we’re going to frame that and hang it on our headquarter walls
Speaker 6 (18:32):
But this guy thought he was on a date. So I mean, all you know said you deceive your yourself. I mean, think about this. I mean, that’s a personal and probably very damaging thing. I mean, I don’t know if in fact he’s out does that compromise him personally? So there’s a personal component that’s probably emotionally damaging for him as well.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Yeah. Plus he’s, if he is who he says he is, and he knows what he knows, he’s like, fuck
Speaker 6 (18:57):
Yeah, now he’s a child. But even beside that, this guy thought he was on a date.
Speaker 9 (19:01):
Well, to that point, for the second video did you try to reach out to him after the first video to get his comment on it? Or was it just a surprise thing? I mean, it’s entertaining. I’ll give you that.
Speaker 5 (19:11):
I just what? The pizza parlor. The pizza parlor. We’re getting ahead of ourselves. So there, there’s the original video, and then there’s the confrontation where James Oe, we broke the iPad. Yeah. Comes out and with the microphone, it’s was Chris Hanson to catch a, to catch a and like, hi, Ella, can I sit down with you? Was this all shot on one night?
Speaker 7 (19:36):
There were multiple meetings, but obviously the meeting with James was one night.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Okay, so you had a couple of dates, a couple of tape sessions, and then they got together for another date, and that’s when you did the big reveal.
Speaker 7 (19:50):
Right? Right. And I’ll say, Karen, I understand, and this is uncomfortable. I remember when I first joined Project Veritas about a year ago coming from Wall Street where transparency is a very profound thing.
This is uncomfortable. We really good journalism. Like I said, it hurts people, but there’s no other way to do it. The media now literally is standing in front of the Meg in front of the podium with a megaphone shouting out the message from behind. And what we are doing is we’re running towards that podium with a microphone in their face. And that’s really what real investigative journalism is about. It can hurt people. We know that. That’s what we’re very careful. We go through great lengths to make sure we do things ethically as possible. Now, there’s no other way to do this. I can’t walk up and say, Hey, I’m Dan Strat from Project Veritas. Can you tell me all the fraud perpetuating?
Speaker 5 (20:46):
Right, right. You understand? Well, I mean, but Dan, it’s like, look, I can help you guys if you want to know the steps, you get the video, and then before you do the release, the video number one, how big is this guy in this gigantic global firm,
Speaker 7 (21:03):
Charlie? We did that. We did that, and we did.
Speaker 5 (21:05):
How big is he? Where is he on the flow chart?
Speaker 7 (21:08):
Organizational charts of a place like Pfizer are very, very deep, but he’s a little bit higher than I think you would expect him to be. And he’s certainly not reporting directly to the CEO O, but on certain org charts, we see him as high up as three people below him, the CEO e. So see,
Speaker 5 (21:22):
That would be helpful that see again,
Speaker 7 (21:25):
We published that Charlie that’s
Speaker 5 (21:26):
Out there. I know, but I need that in the video, ma’am, because I need that in the video because it’s all one thing for me. But again, you run Veritas. I run no bullshit news hour. Oh, you know what I’m saying?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
One of the things that we do, and part of our sort of creative and innovative journalism that we do is we like to hit with multiple pieces. It’s not just one video. We don’t do a lot of really long form stuff. The attention span of most audiences is not that long. So we need to get the most salient points up front, get there. When people want to dig, we give them more. And that’s how we,
Speaker 5 (22:02):
Okay, there’s a good explanation. Now here, let’s play. Let’s play a little clip here. How about which one do you want to do the outbreaks if they fuck with this and it gets loose? Yeah. Hit me with that.
Speaker 8 (22:12):
It sounds like gain of function today. I don’t know. It’s a little bit different. I think it’s different. It’s like there’s definitely not gain of function with Sounds like it is. I mean, it’s okay. No, no direction. Evolution is very different. Well, you’re not supposed to do gain function research with the viruses. Yeah. They recommend not, but you do these selected directional mutations to try to see if you make more potent. Yeah. So there is research. I’m talking about that. I don’t know how that’s going to worry. We’re not being more outbreaks. Cause Jesus
Speaker 7 (22:46):
Is that I think that’s telling Charlie.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
Yeah, if this guy is who you think he is, more than telling bro, that’s so flippant, first of all. And two, what the world’s just been through. Even if he, he’s at the pizza parlor freaking out trying to break your shit. I was lying. That’s nothing. That is sophisticated human being playing with genetic codes and this epic that we’re living in. That’s fucking insane. I
Speaker 9 (23:18):
Mean that you guys are very, very smart in how you present it. And even here because you’ve made some really good points about the incestuous nature between regulation and big pharma and transparency. But my fear is what people see is the three big boogeyman of government, big pharma and media. And the reaction is normally a feeling reaction of this is bad. We’re being lied to being hidden. But I feel like your really good points are getting buried by the sensationalism of it. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 7 (23:55):
I don’t think I do. I mean, think the mainstream media is censoring things because they’re all brought to you by Pfizer. We’re not brought to you by Pfizer. So I think that that’s really what’s burying the story.
Speaker 6 (24:08):
But can we look at the bigger picture here? I mean, ever since the virus was introduced, I mean, everybody’s been suspect about it, where it came from, how it originated, how it was transmitted and turned into a pandemic. Then the quickness with which there were three different vaccines and the inconsistencies in their effectiveness. So all of these questions, and then anytime anybody questioned any of this, it was always misinformation, which is what now your videos.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
And we still don’t have an answer. The president of the United States said, I’m going to get to the bottom. I’m going to take the United States security apparatus and figure out where it came from. And we don’t have an answer. And if you don’t mind, Dan mark and Jesus, he mentioned something about Wuhan, this guy who’s up on the flow chart, apparently this what? What said about that
Speaker 8 (25:02):
Pfizer ultimately is thinking about mutating. Well, that is not what we say to the public. No, don’t tell anyone those covid. You probably don’t tell t tell about we’re exploring. No. You know how the virus keeps mutating. Yeah. Well, one of the things we’re exploring is why don’t we just mutate ourselves so we could create development vaccines. So we have to do that. If we’re going to do that though, there’s a risk of, as you could imagine, no one wants to be having a pharma company mutating virus, be very controlled to make sure that this virus that you mutate doesn’t create something that it goes everywhere. Something crazy is the way that the virus target and moving on, to be honest, it makes no sense if this virus popped out of nowhere.
Speaker 5 (25:45):
Speaker 9 (25:46):
Speaker 7 (25:48):
Speaker 5 (25:49):
That’s telling. Again, I mean, I think this, bro, if you’re asking me and you’re not, thank you for being here. I would buckle down and get this shit lockstep that this guy indeed was a very high up executive at Pfizer, whether he was in charge of business or not, strategy or not, he does. He’s privy to stuff, whether he is in the laboratory or not. You lay that out and it has to be taken seriously. It absolutely has to be. But
Speaker 6 (26:20):
Dan made a good point Charlie, and it’s the same point that we talk about here locally in terms of the media not disclosing, discussing or sharing certain things because they’re in bed with the people that you would be disclosing that information about. And when we watch television every five minutes, it’s a pharmaceutical that’s being promoted, so they’re not going to undermine their revenue stream. To bring you the truth.
Speaker 5 (26:45):
Now, in this video, Dan if we could pull this up, you brought this up earlier about the nexus between government regulators and the private pharma companies and how it’s just a revolving door. Play that one, if you will. So
Speaker 8 (27:02):
All government officials, wow. For any industry though. So in the pharma industry, all the government officials who hear review our drugs, mostly they come work for farming companies and the military, all the army and defense government officials eventually go work for the defense company afterwards. How do you feel about that revolving door? It’s pretty good for the industry, to be honest. Yeah. <laugh> bad for everyone else in America. Why is it bad for everybody else? Because if the regulators or for prove our drugs, know that once they stop being a regulator, they want to go work for the company, they’re not going to be as hard company. They’re getting their job. Right?
Speaker 6 (27:35):
The American way.
Speaker 5 (27:37):
Speaker 7 (27:38):
Many ways, Charlie, this stories, this story particular are it’s follow ups from some of our past stories. We did a story around an f d A executive who talked about just that the industry is who pays them. The majority of the fees that go to the F D A are from people like Pfizer, from companies like Pfizer. And there is that rotating door, that revolving door. There’s no doubt there’s conflict of interest there all over the place.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
See? Agreed. And we all know it. It happens in Lansing, it happens in DC in the Pentagon. What I’m asking for is more from you. I’m give me some names like, who’s working for Pfizer that used to work for the fda? I want to know that because I’ll be on his fucking door. You know what I’m saying? That’s where Google, Veritas, and look at the fucking Wikipedia page. You know what I mean?
Speaker 6 (28:32):
Peel back the next layer,
Speaker 5 (28:33):
Peel back. Because then I will actually start following your journalism and adding on to it, if you know what I mean. You’re talking about how mainstream median guilty is charged. I used to be, but I agree with you. There’s things they don’t want to do. Mm-hmm. Local corruption and whatnot. But if you would give me that, then I would pick up a piece and then we would start a ball. Rolling. Do you have a name? Anybody that worked at the F D A that now works at Pfizer?
Speaker 7 (29:03):
I don’t have that right now, Charlie.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
Okay. But when you get one, you’ll let me know or put out the video because we’ll air it.
Speaker 7 (29:10):
We need brave people to be brave and do something. We’re a nonprofit organization. We rely on tips. We rely on our journalists to come up with ideas and go after those stories. Really, our innovative journalism is getting that person speaking those words that they say in private, that they will not say in public. That’s what we do. We don’t editorialize and we don’t really just regurgitate public information for the sake of releasing a story. We need to have something that actually has impact and will hopefully change things. This is also a follow on story from Dr. Fauci. When we had a FBI whistleblower come forward and give us inside documentation around from DARPA that talks specifically completely contradicting what Dr. Fauci said in the public. It was brought before Congress. Dr. Fauci on the floor mentioned Project Veritas and this document. So a lot of this stuff is absolutely just follow ups to our past stories and we really try to focus on stories.
You’ve seen a lot of our education stories now we’re talking about big pharma and big tech. We really try to have stories that can unite people, not divide people. I don’t know what the right versus left divide really is anymore. I don’t understand what Republicans are versus Democrats. We’re not pol political here. I know we get painted that way, but we really like to believe that we transcend politics. We we’re looking for things that unify we’re everybody can understand. Let’s not screw, let’s not try to play God, don’t screw with my kids. These are things that we should all be able to sit down and say we all agree with.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
So where does this leave the American public? I mean, you’ve got people that have been pushed to get vaccines to push, to get boosters the whole, every week there’s a new variant of this and people are still uncertain, but they were almost coerced into doing it whether they thought it was something they should do or not. So where does this leave the American public?
Speaker 7 (31:10):
It’s great. It’s a great question, Karen. I don’t have the answer. I really don’t. I think transparency needs to prevail and people need to be honest. And I think that unfortunately and I know this firsthand, when you put humanity and money together, agreed. Is there I think the pharmaceutical, this is my opinion, Dan Trac not Project Veritas, but when you put pharmaceutical companies are in constant search for regular recurring revenue, that’s what Wall Street wants to see. Our, our FDA investigation actually yielded information around what we just found out that the FDA has in inclination to make COVID shots an annual event. These videos were taken off social media. You were banned off Twitter if you were suggesting that, and we caught the F FDA executives saying that out loud in private and now they’re saying it publicly. Well,
Speaker 9 (32:04):
To me, there’s two different issues here. There’s the aspect of YouTube or Google, whoever bearing stuff, which in a way only helps you. I mean, it only gets that name out there, gets that story out there. But the other aspect is what happened in the story and what Pfizer may or may not be doing. And your opinion is the answer more government regulation to oversee this, to oversee if they are doing gain of function because Yeah,
Speaker 5 (32:31):
I’ll just answer it. Yeah. Okay. I want government regulation when you’re fucking
Speaker 9 (32:35):
With, you want more of it,
Speaker 5 (32:36):
The genetic code. Yes, but I do. But does that work? Yes, I do. Okay.
Speaker 6 (32:39):
But does that work?
Speaker 5 (32:40):
Well, again, it doesn’t matter if it works, if it doesn’t exist, it’s got to exist at least, and then it must be enforced, but it’s got to be there.
Speaker 6 (32:49):
But that’s the same issue that we keep talking about in terms of lack of oversight. Well,
Speaker 5 (32:53):
I’m just going to answer the question again. If it’s not illegal to fuck with the genetic code, then no, nothing nefarious is being done. I do believe gain of function research. Tell me, Dan, your piece, is that illegal in the United States?
Speaker 7 (33:11):
I believe it is. No,
Speaker 5 (33:12):
It’s not. And Mark says it’s not.
Speaker 7 (33:13):
Well in certain areas it is.
Speaker 9 (33:15):
What do you mean by that? If it’s publicly funded, because they removed that in about 2017. There’s talk about putting it in there, which is fine, but you still have private money that can go into researching things, which is totally legal.
Speaker 7 (33:29):
Ye yes. Yes. And I think that that’s where they can do these studies where they’re doing it internally. No one has oversight. The government indeed doesn’t need to know it until they pop out and say, Hey, look what I found in the meantime, who knows what can go wrong?
Speaker 5 (33:41):
See? So at minimum, at minimum, no, no, no, no. You’re not arguing with a guy. He’s the knowall about all this. I’m not arguing, but
Speaker 6 (33:52):
This is conversation
Speaker 5 (33:53):
Speaker 9 (33:53):
Speaker 7 (33:54):
Speaker 5 (33:55):
I need smarter conversation
Speaker 9 (33:56):
Adding to what was said, right about whether or not gain a function is or is not legal. Well, as far as I understand it
Speaker 7 (34:05):
I think Mark has less to do. It has less to do with it being legal or illegal. It has more to do that. People like Dr. Fauci said they weren’t doing it and they were, NIH was not funding it. Let me
Speaker 5 (34:14):
Correct it all. Let me correct it all before you start doing this, you guys, because you’re not experts. So we’re not going to get into pretending we’re experts, right? Yeah. What’s valuable here is that the people don’t even know and agreed. Then it starts a conversation about what we want and how we want to leave a world to our kids, what the hazards might be and what the benefits might be. And we all agreed on that. That’s the point of doing journalism
Speaker 9 (34:43):
In limiting the speech. That’s why I said there was two issues here. Going to all agree on that
Speaker 5 (34:47):
Aspect. Now, there’s another video which watch this one. This is project I don’t know if we have it, A project Veritas reporter goes defined, but what was his title? The IT Global Director of Community standards or whatever, you know what I mean? Basically the sensor. So they pulled this stuff off of YouTube, and then the reporter finds him on his midnight constitutional to give him the zing zing zing with to questions. And that gets pulled off the web off of Facebook, off Instagram a staple of fucking local TV news. Mm-hmm. Rob Wk here in Detroit has won 30 Emmys doing that. How is that not industry standard?
Speaker 6 (35:36):
That’s a good question,
Speaker 5 (35:38):
Speaker 7 (35:40):
I don’t have an answer, Charlie. I don’t have an answer. It’s rules for the and not for me.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
So then we can have a discussion.
Speaker 6 (35:47):
Yeah, you, you’re right, Charlie. But all of those things should send red flags to people to understand why is this information being withheld? Why can’t we see this interview, whether it’s in its entirety or has been checked out 200% or not, why is this a threat to, to the narrative that we’ve been told?
Speaker 5 (36:06):
That’s a great question. That is a great question. Why is it a threat to simply ask?
Speaker 6 (36:13):
Right? But they don’t want us to ask Charlie. It’s been like that since the beginning. You’re not supposed to ask. You’re not supposed to question People were ridiculed and ostracized if they did not buy into the whole vaccine thing. They called Donald Trump cra. I mean, just all of this stuff because it did not politicized here. Because it didn’t, well, it did get politicized. But even today, I mean, you can’t have a conversation with someone if someone is a vaxxer and someone’s not a vaxxer, then between the two, because one believes they’re right and the other believes that the other one is
Speaker 5 (36:44):
Wrong. And it’s all, look, I’m a smart person. You are a smart person. Mark’s a smart person. Dan’s a smart person. Zack
Speaker 6 (36:53):
Speaker 5 (36:54):
Smart focus issues, but he’s
Speaker 6 (36:56):
Cute. He can
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Get away. It and I, I’m been living through dueling reports. I I’m, can I just give one here that didn’t get a lot of attention came out recently posted by the C D C itself, the cdc? Mm-hmm. <affirmative> about a natural immunity study. Here’s the deal. Between May and November, 2021, case in hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated or did not have covid before. So those that didn’t have covid or didn’t get vaccine, they’re the ones that got nailed. Right? When Delta’s coming through before Delta became the predominant variant in June of 2021, case rates were higher among persons who were previously infected, but didn’t have the vaccination and the people who were vaccinated, but never had the infection. But by early October, this is fact, you take it down if you want to. This is by early October of 20 20, 1 persons who survived a previous infection but didn’t get the vaccine had a lower case rate than people who were vaccinated alone and never had it before. So, mm-hmm. What’s going on there? We have a vaccine that was effective, and then when it mutates, it wasn’t as effective. And then you got, who was it? You got Dr. Walker in here having a margarita and pizza telling you, Hey, we figured that out too. But
Speaker 6 (38:26):
That’s the thing. Or was it Charlie or was it, I mean, Dr. Fauci doesn’t come with the cleanest background record. The CDC has backtracked even on the simplest of things like masks. Remember they started and they says, oh, you got to wear a mask. And they came back and says, oh, that doesn’t work. You need an N 95. I mean, I understand it’s an evolutionary, it’s a process and things are, but who do you believe?
Speaker 5 (38:47):
No pun intended. Well, again, who do you believe do believe Veritas.
Speaker 6 (38:54):
I believe that there’s value in what that guy said. I really do. I, and I told you guys this. I think back to early on, there was an interview on CSPAN with the CEO O of Pfizer, and he was there with Bill Gates, and every time before he’d answer a question, he’d look over at Bill Gates, and I’m thinking, okay, somebody explained this relationship to me while we’re talking about the introduction of the vaccine. And Bill Gates is sitting here answering questions.
Speaker 5 (39:20):
Well, Dan, where you going with this, Dan? Okay. You uncork this. What’s the future move for Verta?
Speaker 7 (39:28):
We want to inspire more whistleblowers. We want insiders to come forward with important information. We’ll continue to do our journalism. We stand by journalism. We think there’s way more to come with this story but this story didn’t just start. We’ve been reporting on this trend, for instance, the FDA since DARPA documents, and we’ll continue
Speaker 5 (39:48):
Now. If I might last final bits of questions. So this was a supposed date. I mean, it’s sort of like the Black Widow and enticing this guy into your web one who picks up the drink tab. And two, how far are your reporters willing to go? I mean, to get a guy to come back for a couple of dates, you going to kind of dick tease a little bit. Where’s the ceiling? Who picks up the bills, and how far will your undercover reporters go?
Speaker 7 (40:22):
Our undercover reporters, there’s never any physical activity at all, ever. There are usually multiple meetings but we have very high standards. They’re never by themselves. We have always had supporters support with all of our journalists, and absolutely, we have very high standards. We’ve got a code of ethics that we all really believe in. I’m an Eagle Scout. James is an Eagle Scout. His dad’s an Eagle Scout. We really believe this stuff. And while I understand optically, people might assume that something’s happening. We have very high standards, and while we do deceive our subject, we absolutely, there’s no touching any at all.
Speaker 5 (41:07):
What about the drink tab?
Speaker 7 (41:10):
I think sometimes we probably pick up the tab and sometimes they pick up the tab.
Speaker 5 (41:13):
I always pick up the tab. No free drinks for this guy. But
Speaker 6 (41:18):
C, can I ask, and this may be inappropriate, is your reporter gay or was he pretending to be gay to entice this gentleman on a date? Maybe he’s curious. I’m just, because you’re saying how far would he go? Was it a natural of who he was or was he pretending?
Speaker 7 (41:37):
I’m not going to get into the sexual orientation of any of my employees so I’ll leave it at that.
Speaker 6 (41:45):
Okay, fair enough. All righty. That’s fair enough. I was just, because I still think about this guy. He’s probably, you
Speaker 5 (41:50):
Watched this video. You watch the
Speaker 6 (41:52):
I don’t wa No, I don’t watch the View. Charlie, you
Speaker 5 (41:54):
Watch The View.
Speaker 6 (41:55):
No, I do not watch The View, but
Speaker 9 (41:57):
I think about this. No one watches the
Speaker 6 (41:58):
View. This guy was probably heartbroken and devastated. In addition to being outed about something about his job, he probably thought this guy was really interested in him, so
Speaker 9 (42:09):
He looks thirsty as hell. I’ll tell you that much.
Speaker 6 (42:11):
Well, how do you know that?
Speaker 5 (42:13):
Speaker 6 (42:13):
Look, you sound like Tom Brady now. What are you talking about?
Speaker 9 (42:16):
Tom Brady is thirsty.
Speaker 5 (42:20):
Yes. What was your question? Sorry,
Speaker 9 (42:21):
My question? Yeah. Oh, there was a question rolling about how much has Project Veritas made off of this story regarding donations? Because you talk about things being for the money. Some people might say, oh, this sensational expose is for more money. Have your donations increased?
Speaker 7 (42:40):
We definitely see response from our stories in the form of donations. We’ve got a hundred thousand unique donors. We’re, by the way, project veritas.com/donate for anyone who wants to help us continue this journalism. But when our stories are impactful, we absolutely see donations come in. For sure. We track a lot of this sort of stuff to be, see what’s impactful to people, but we certainly are not here to do it for the money. We’re a 5 0 1. Our journalists care about uncovering truth. I worked on Wall Street for 22 years, mostly at Goldman Sachs with Wonderful
Speaker 5 (43:17):
You do there.
Speaker 7 (43:19):
I ran a number of teams in the securities trading division. Why
Speaker 9 (43:22):
Aren’t you with the government now?
Speaker 6 (43:28):
But I don’t think that the sensationalism component of it would attract it. It’s just the awareness. Sure. Well, but I just think that people are saying like, wow, this is something, and they want to support it. So I don’t think it would necessarily be for the purpose of sensationalism. I don’t see that.
Speaker 7 (43:43):
Yeah. Right, Karen, we get a lot of really positive feedback from all of our supporters online via social media, some of our other private channels. And people, these stories speak to them, and we try not to do things sensationally. We’re a creative group of people, and we like to tell stories that are entertaining and put a different spin on it. And sometimes it’s fun, sometimes it’s uncomfortable. But that’s what we do. And the group of people here, I was saying before are absolutely mission driven. They want the truth to come out. Our mission really here is to build an army of gorillas, journalists, and that’s what we’re doing. And we want to inspire others to do the same.
Speaker 5 (44:23):
Well, like you said earlier though, if it’s not sensational, you’re not going to do 60 minutes because it’s boring. So you’re picking the Jermaine stuff. You’re selling clickable, and Well, please, now, please, please, please. You mind you mind.
Speaker 6 (44:41):
No, I don’t mind. Go right, go right ahead.
Speaker 5 (44:43):
Well, that’s what they are doing. Otherwise, that’s why we’re not getting the 60 minutes treatment. We’re not getting 15 minutes to expound on this whole thing. That’s just a fact. That’s just a,
Speaker 9 (44:57):
And all media has to be
Speaker 5 (44:58):
Sensation. That’s why the video is, that’s all I was going to say. That’s why that video is so heavily edited,
Speaker 6 (45:03):
And especially because, so it is so much competition. You got to have something that’s going to incite, and I’m not talking about that. Well,
Speaker 5 (45:08):
Then there we go. In general, we just answered that. But because yes, everybody knows that.
Speaker 9 (45:13):
And Charlie, you bring up another interesting point that I wanted to ask Dan about. If somebody wanted to see the whole unedited version, is that posted up on your website? I mean, is that a thing that you guys would put out there? Because that just seems to be the critique.
Speaker 5 (45:25):
Yeah. Well, where do you get it? Where it’s not shadow banned
Speaker 9 (45:29):
Speaker 7 (45:31):
So I think, first of all, I have to answer the question with a question. What news media organization and pick any of ’em gives their complete unedited raw, I’ll tell you how many, zero number one ever. You have to edit things. There’s hours upon hours of interview, potentially some of these things. My wife was an actress for a long time. I know there’s hours and hours that go into five minutes worth of film. So that’s the same thing here. We need to make sure the salient moments are up top, make sure the audience sees what’s so important. And that’s what we edit. We do not take things out of context. We do not editorialize. I’m not, well, you’ve
Speaker 5 (46:08):
Been accused about that a lot. I’ll leave. I’ll leave that for people to go to the internet. But
Speaker 7 (46:14):
Speaker 5 (46:15):
Been there every year,
Speaker 7 (46:16):
But you can’t, give me an example. Give me an example of where, Hey
Speaker 5 (46:20):
We’re taking out of context.
Speaker 9 (46:23):
Yeah, but if you’re going to,
Speaker 5 (46:24):
You’re talking to NPR people, PO posing as Muslim financiers. They want good coverage. And when the films edited, the person’s laughing, put in laughing at a point where it wasn’t in chronological order.
Speaker 7 (46:43):
I’d have to look at that again. I think that that was actually as Project Veritas started, and I think James funded that on his credit card, if I remember correctly. So I’d have to look exactly what you’re talking about. But I, I’m was not here 12 years ago when
Speaker 5 (46:56):
That happened. But what you’re saying is what you’re growing, you got sta because James used to say, we’re, we’re not journalism. He used to say that.
Speaker 7 (47:03):
I don’t, you’ll have to show me when he said that because I think he’s considered himself a journalist since
Speaker 5 (47:08):
The beginning. Right. Mark?
Speaker 9 (47:10):
I can, I’ll look for it. I thought I did read that. And I agree with what you’re saying about editing, but why not be different than these other media outlets and say, here’s the most salient important points up out front. But you know what? If you want to see the whole confrontation, because some people will just to shut them up and put it up on your
Speaker 5 (47:27):
No, no, no. Again, I think he explained correctly. No fucking way. Am I putting my But Charlie, my entire rock. But
Speaker 6 (47:34):
Remember when there was an issue with Tudor Dixon? Yeah. But you did go back and you showed the unedited version just for
Speaker 5 (47:39):
Clarity. Yeah, but I didn’t give all look, didn’t let me. Let’s make this clear. All right. You misunderstand how media works. So now I’m going to, me and this guy are going to tell you how you guys are, right? When there’s a question about our standards or what we did or did not do. I’m an open book. I’m going to show you the unedited version. But again, just for that segment, we go live. This whole thing here is mm-hmm. <affirmative> Live. That interview was not live. That was pre-recorded. Remember? So no, we’re not. Okay.
Speaker 6 (48:15):
I was just going back to what Mark asked. That’s
Speaker 5 (48:17):
All. But I got to agree with, okay, strike over.
Speaker 7 (48:22):
Two things I would say on that. First we believe that we’re the most transparent news organization on the planet in the sense that we don’t quote sources familiar with the matter or anonymous sources. We actually show the person’s lips moving. No one does that.
Speaker 5 (48:40):
I do that. No, I do that. All right. Not all the time. But that’s because they’re going to get, that’s a fair point. It’s a whistleblower and they’re going to slaughtered. But when I do that, that’s not the lynch pin. People’s mouth moving is not the lynchpin of what I’m going to give the public. What I’m going to give the public is not only what’s coming out of their mouth, but all the ancillary information that bolsters it, not just going to, you know what I mean? This could be somebody says they know me and they talk shit about me, and it’s like, do you know they didn’t even know me or I met ’em one fucking time. How could you put that out there? That’s the difference. Now I want to say this. Watch this. This is what happens when James O’Keefe, the main man over there at Project Veritas, walks into the pizza parlor, confronts the guy like it’s candid camera and Dr. Walker, allegedly, Dr. Walker goes berserk, we have it.
Speaker 10 (49:41):
Please unlock. Please unlock the door. Please unlock the door. Unlock the door. We’re trying to get you. Unlock the door. Unlock the door.
Speaker 5 (49:55):
Now, that doesn’t look like a guy who’s pretending to be an employee somewhere in that. No,
Speaker 6 (50:01):
He looks afraid. Oh, yeah. He looks afraid he was busted. Oh, yeah, he does. He looks afraid because now he’s trusted someone to tell them that. And something that he asked them to promise never to disclose, and now he realizes that it’s on a platform larger than he ever imagined. That was fear.
Speaker 5 (50:19):
So the question becomes, he’s breaking stuff. It’s being physical with people, Dan, that that’s not, I was going to say construed as assault. It looks like battery to me. You can’t find this guy. Why don’t you press charges and have the police go find this guy?
Speaker 7 (50:40):
The police did ask us if we wanted to press charges. We said, no, I think he’s got enough going on in his own life now that we don’t need to necessarily put more undue pressure on him. So no one was injured outside of our iPad, which is beyond repair. So we definitely did not press charges.
Speaker 6 (50:58):
But what were you looking to do when he went in to confront him? What did you expect? What were you hoping for?
Speaker 7 (51:06):
We hope he could, we could provide answers to what if he thought that this was right, and why would we be hiding this to the public? Why did you tell our journalists that you can’t repeat this? Those are the questions we want to know.
Speaker 5 (51:20):
See, and I would say this is because you guys are under the microscope. I just try to be a little more transparent than what you just did. I’m like, because that’ll be good fucking video because I grew up on can. He’s laughing because he knows. Oh, that’s true. I grew up on can camera. I learned from Rob wk. Hey guys, you work at an airplane building factory and you’re out here smoking the weed and drinking the beers. I wouldn’t want anybody like you building my airplane and then watch ’em all run away. I mean, I’ve just seen
Speaker 6 (51:53):
Speaker 5 (51:54):
Yes. Well, plus I need to confront you. I have this, and if you want to answer something terrific. And if you want to start breaking iPads and throw the pizza around, sure. We’ll post that too. <laugh>.
Speaker 6 (52:07):
Poor thing. He looks so quiet
Speaker 7 (52:08):
Though. I think it goes without saying but in case it doesn’t we did not expect that at all. That has got to be the most the craziest reaction we’ve ever really seen here at Project Veritas. And I think that video alone has gotten 15 million views. Yeah, so it’s It’s pretty.
Speaker 6 (52:26):
Yeah. But now he’s an enemy of Pfizer. So I mean, imagine that regardless of whether he was in it, how deep he was. He’s called out Pfizer and
Speaker 5 (52:36):
What a job Dan here has, the executive director. It’s like, all, I’ve got to keep some journalistic standards here. He’s counting cliques. He’s talking about don’t international profit margins. And it’s like, that’s a lot to fucking juggle. I mean, congratulations on your new and exciting job. I know you made billions on Wall Street, but now you know why we like doing journalism. There’s no other job in the world. Journalism’s different every day, right, Dan?
Speaker 7 (53:06):
That’s absolutely right. Absolutely right. Proud to be here with this team.
Speaker 5 (53:09):
Oh, you’re welcome. We’ll have you on any, anytime. I think he meant his team, but Oh, they’re,
Speaker 6 (53:17):
So now you’ve got Chris, and now you’ve got Tucker. Now you’ve got Te
Speaker 5 (53:22):
<laugh> all white guys. I
Speaker 6 (53:23):
Know. Is that a pattern there, Charlie? I
Speaker 5 (53:26):
Like weight guys.
Speaker 6 (53:28):
Speaker 5 (53:29):
Yeah. Nice people. All right, man. Thanks, Dan. Good luck with everything. Do appreciate it. Let me know when you got something coming on, brother. Thanks, Charlie. Appreciate it. Talk soon. All right. Thank you. You, Dan, care. All right. We’re now close. Let’s do it. That was interesting.
Speaker 6 (53:43):
I enjoyed that. I, but I really hope it makes people just to think everything that you see and hear deserves to be questioned, deserves,
Speaker 5 (53:54):
And serious. And you know what? Seriously, maybe sometimes it doesn’t, but maybe I don’t have anything off the top of my head, but this is kind of innocuous. All right. Listen, I got video of a guy who apparently we checked him out, works at Pfizer, and this is a shitty saying. Mm-hmm. That’s not devastating.
Speaker 9 (54:13):
Speaker 5 (54:14):
That’s no reason to pull that down. I mean, no. Did he or didn’t he? Are they, aren’t they? But
Speaker 6 (54:19):
It’s Charlie, the thing about it is we always say it goes against the narrative. That’s not what they want you to hear. That’s not what they want you to think about. Just go with what we told you.
Speaker 5 (54:29):
That’s conspiratorial because they, well, yeah, that’s what
Speaker 6 (54:32):
Speaker 5 (54:32):
Telling you. They is half of them, it’s us.
Speaker 6 (54:36):
Okay. Fair enough. You know what I mean? I’m just tell, like I always say, I will never tell anybody what to think. I will just encourage you to do so. Think
Speaker 5 (54:45):
I say, you got to be accurate. You ought to ought wind people up like that. I’m not saying that’s inaccurate, but that’s raw.
Speaker 9 (54:53):
Well, I felt bad originally for that guy because he didn’t know what was going on. But I got to tell you, my problem with a lot of things is how people react to stuff. People just don’t know how to react to anything. And his reaction was fucking ridiculous to push the guy and break the iPad. Well, I mean, if he sat there calmly and maybe answered questions, he would’ve done himself and his company a lot, lot more good than what he did. And
Speaker 5 (55:18):
Again, the last thing here, last point. If God could, yeah,
Speaker 9 (55:21):
Of course. Sure. Show <laugh>.
Speaker 5 (55:25):
Get it locked down that this guy is actually a person of some stature who would be in the know. Because that’s basically,
Speaker 6 (55:34):
And that validates
Speaker 5 (55:34):
Speaker 6 (55:35):
Point is exactly. That would validate it all. You’re right.
Speaker 5 (55:37):
You know what I mean? And that’s too easy where this thing just pooped. Again, I think people know, man, I don’t got to give caveats about myself. Hunter’s, ta, hunter, laptop’s a real thing. Does it matter to me? Not particularly. Only if the money went to his father. Sure. That’s worth pursuing, not just dropping it and call it Russian disinformation. Right? Yeah. It was worthwhile to see if Trump was involved in collusion with the Russians. It absolutely was. Did we, did half the population get the answer they wanted? No. No.
Speaker 9 (56:12):
Well, that goes to the whole point of, it’s great to ask questions, but at some point you have to accept some answers.
Speaker 5 (56:18):
And sometimes it’s great to ask questions. And if you’re the one asking the questions, you got to the rest of us the answer. Yeah. And not good enough just to raise a question. That’s true. Yeah. In solutions. All right. Okay. Well done. See, did you know the earth is flat? How do you know that, Charlie? I don’t. But tune in Thursday. <laugh>, because the world’s expert on a flat earthy will be joining us. Can’t wait. Me either. Oh boy. And if anybody sees that gigantic ice wall <laugh>, let us know surrounding the, I don’t need. It’s not even a globe, is it? <laugh> the pancake. <laugh>. Watch out for those white walkers too. <laugh> Game of Thrones. Wait. Is the Game of Thrones or Game of Funk tonight? <laugh> Game of function.