Ep. #126 – Matt Laslo on Talking to Congress about, and Reporting on, UAP/UFOs

incredibly busy. But thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. And the reason why I'm looking forward to this, and I told you this off the air, but I want to tell you on as well, is I have a lot of respect for those that actually get out into the field. They talk to people, they do their own journalism, which is actually pretty rare nowadays, simply because most people they sit in a chair, I call it copy

and paste journalism, they take somebody else's work. They fumble around the words a little bit and they call it their own. But you're in the field, you are talking to Congressman senators, talking about the UA period, UAP hearing and beyond. But before we get into that, I want to back up a little bit. It's your first time on the show, hopefully, you'll come back. But give everybody a little bit of background about your, your work, and what is it exactly that you cover?

Yeah, then I've been teaching at Johns Hopkins for since 2016. I teach on history, the media history of rhetoric, but with an eye towards how politicians rhetoric has kind of adapted with new mediums over time. So yeah, I kind of love covering Congress, because I get a study lawmaker lawmakers and all that in real time. But I guess, take a few steps back. I come at Congress when I say I interview liars for a living. So even though I know congress, I kind of see through them. And I think

they many of them kind of know it. So that's where I started this new venture, ask a poll.com. And especially knowing you know, because I'm a media prof and studying just the gross numbers. When I think trust in the media now, according to Gallup, it's, like 50% of Americans don't even distrust the media, they think reporters are actually actively lying to them. Which is where I came up with the idea of basketball, because I want to put the people in the driver's seat. So we call

it the people power press corps. So you all send your questions in become a part of our community dialogue. And then I take those questions directly to lawmakers. Which I'm hoping we'll read some of you all the deep rooted cynicism that's in me, because I work with the press corps, and I can't say many of them have impressed me over the years. Some have, but yeah, I think I've avoided becoming a swamp creature, but

always with your help. And then with the help of the bands I hang out with, I used to cover entertainment in the past life.

they've been briefed on it. But so That's where the press corps me included, you know, started looking into this book very broadly, just that UAPs. But then David Gresh, hit like symbol, and seeing lawmakers react to him, What especially one of our first interviews was Marco Rubio, the Vice Chair of

the Senate Intelligence Committee. And what he said is, you know, we get a ton of these whistleblowers, you know, and have over the years since he's been here in Washington, but he said this was the first one that was vetted by the Inspector General, deemed important and deemed parts verifiable, or

verified. And so seeing Rubio and others reactions to his claims, and especially what woke up Congress, while David gross claims there's recovered craft, that the US government has, you know, that one will be able to hopefully either see the graph or not, you know, that one should be fairly easy to verify if we get through all these layers of classification and government secrecy, but the second claim of grush, that the government had all these saps or Special Access Programs, that it

kept hidden from Congress, well, that me as a congressional junkie that made my hair stand up. And I knew that was something that I could take to every single lawmaker and say, Hey, this whistleblower who the inspector general, that it didn't says and threw on Congress's lap, he says the federal government is lying to you, you know about these saps. And so many lawmakers still haven't looked into David grudge. But I'm still confronting all of them with

that claim. You know, so part of it is coming from that congressional Institutionalists angle. And knowing that this Congress, like the past Congress, and the one before it, Congress these days, just seeds, most all of their power to the executive branch. And, again, professor and a congressional

junkie. And so this issue for one, like, what, the year two years ago, even like predating the first congressional hearing, 50 years on this, even after that hearing, if you would ask lawmakers about UFOs or UAPs, you know, they'd laughing You know, they make a joke out of it. Not so in this Congress. And so, there's this interesting window that opened, and yeah, I

was there. And I had asked a poll.com lined up. So especially once I did a Wired magazine piece on, you know, kind of putting grush in what we call a conspiratorial Congress, you know, some people, you know, the conspiracies in this Congress run the gamut. Who would we see testify last week in the house?

RFK, Jr. etc. And so, after that, you know, I got a lot of pushback from the UFO community, because of the piece was a little more snarky, but that's because it was, you know, putting a mirror up to this congress and kind of asking a question, Will this Congress be taken seriously, even if they do uncover craft or something like that? And so, yeah, got a front row seat and seeing you all your energy, your knowledge, saying,

hey, ask these questions. You didn't ask this. But then also seeing the reaction to, you know, Laszlo snark aside, were like, I think I interviewed six or eight lawmakers. Usually for a feature, I'll interview 15 to 20 lawmakers, only eight or 10 make the piece. Sometimes that's been 50. Senators every once in a while. And so yeah, seeing the energy from the community, and seeing some members of Congress really take it seriously. But

others just brush it off. That just left me with more questions.

there beyond us. And I think part of that stems from, you know, us being in this new technological era with smartphones or seeing a lot more things that aren't easily explained away. And so yeah, Congress in the last one started looking into this. And I'm curious, and I want to circle back with those lawmakers. But I'm curious if that was because

of increased pressure from their constituents. But you definitely have more lawmakers in this Congress, who are open to the idea of extraterrestrial beings out there, and it and then even you couple that with what we're seeing right now come in from the James Webb Space Telescope. And so like, our very limited finite understanding of things just got a lot bigger, if still very limited. And, you know, every week, it seems we're learning new things about the solar system from the James Webb

Space Telescope. So as our smartphones are collecting more here on Earth, James Webb is collecting more out there in the nether regions. And I think it's kind of this perfect combo. Well, and then you throw grush, into the mix, boom, that's the perfect combo. For that's three, so not a

that. But just straight out calling it a cover up. I was surprised by that, because not every day were sitting Congress, congressman or Congresswoman tweet stuff like that. And again, now it's becoming more frequent. So let's start with him. What is your experience been with him? And as somebody who has covered Congress for so long? What are you What is your reaction to his feelings about UAP and the importance of this, this cover up that he wants to highlight

think it was. Congressman, Jesse Jackson, who I didn't even know was a congressman, I'm from Illinois, but it's Reverend Reverend Jesse Jackson, son, perchance, a Republican from Tennessee. And so to hear Jackson like, stopped him and for chat said, Hey, thank you so much for checking on me when I was sick, and then said, hey, when you're down, you better come down into the south, I want to treat you to some good old southern barbecue. I was just like, why? You just don't see

that kind of bipartisanship in this Congress. And I think a big part of that is just the jovial, genteel nature of Bridgette, you know, he's always cracking jokes. He's got this light side to him, that is really appreciated in the building where, you know, where, historically there was a caning in the building. Now there's, you know, digital death threats flying between the parties. And so he stands out for that. Who

had a alone with his thoughts on UAPs and UFOs. And so, it's interesting now to see, you know, as the hearing day approaches, and last week after their big press conference, you know, you started hearing a lot more of the mainstream reporters hop on the issue, kind of looking for looking for something to embarrass them with? I forget the questions they were asking. But one reporter was, Well, I think they were just asking straight up, you know, about aliens or

whatever. And not asking about David grush. You know, and you can kind of tell I'm curious about grush And what he knows when I hate the term gotcha journalism or whatever, but the questions felt leading in a dishonest way. And so it's going to be interesting to see how her chat and Congresswoman and appalling Aluna how they handle this. There's also a couple of Democrats who were going to be at the hearing who are, you know, fully on board with this. And so it's it'll be

interesting. You know, the interview I, we dropped last night on ask a poll was with oversight chair James Comer. And I can't tell like he told me, yeah, I haven't even looked into David grosses claims at all. And he said, I can't tell if he's trying to wash his hands of this and say, Hey, this is all on for

Chet and Luna. Or if he thinks there's a there there, you can tell that, you know, Burrtec complained last week, about different staffers from the intelligence community, whether that staffers from Congress from the Intel Committee, I don't know. But he was complaining that there's just been all this pressure on this hearing, and that people were getting cold feet. And so when the lights click on tomorrow, with, you

know, the media from around the globe. In attendance, it'll, it'll be interesting to see for Warren, the case for Chet moon and make, and that the witnesses obviously make. And it's gonna be interesting to see how the media responds to that. Now, it seems like the dynamics here, like with many dynamics in Congress, or that the Senate investigations are currently a

little more trusted. Even what Comey himself told me, because, you know, I asked him about these charges that, you know, go these far right, Freedom Caucus people are running this hearing. You know, they're loonies, that that that comer is like, hey, Chuck Schumer just moved a UAP bill. So even comer himself was saying, hey, it's not just us. It's not just the friends, right members. And so Bridgette, says, take it back to him. He's

interesting, because he's not. I wouldn't say he's intellectually respected or maybe any illogically respected by the other side of the aisle. You know, this is a hyper, hyper partisan Congress. But collegially, you know, they love him. And so there is an innate trust they have with him because he's been genuine, you know. And so it'll be really interesting to see how he threads that needle. And this does make me

want to talk to him talking to him. Later today, before we go live tonight, with dropping some more of our exclusive interviews, I'm now curious how bro chat first got into this issue, you know, with Congresswoman Lena, or Luna, she was Air Force, you know. And so I haven't talked to her about now she got into it. But you know, you can see what a lot of the videos coming out are the newer ones that the government has been releasing, even in the last hearing couple of years

ago, who that's Air Force footage. And so yeah, thanks for the question for Mr. Burchett. I'll circle back once the answers.

witnesses that they did show did choose. But that being said, the pushback that the ramp up to this, especially in the last week has been fascinating for somebody like me to watch, because I've been in and around this field for a long time. I deal with all government secrets. But UFOs has always had kind of a special place in my heart just for a personal fascination, reason, no experience of my own, but it's

just a curiosity. And the ramp up to this has seen Burchett have these push backs from NASA when he said NASA backed out of tomorrow's hearing. And then NASA to my surprise, which I don't see often anyway, with this topic responded to a friend of mine, Dan Warren, so props to him who was the question, why did you back out? And NASA completely said no, we didn't.

That I think it was David Spergel, who was invited, but declined, which is kind of understandable if they don't want to get entwined with the the whistleblower talk, I mean, I can understand that from from their perspective. They're also not dealing with classified information much in NASA anyway. So it's, to me it's a faulty scientific study anyway. But

that's a different show. But pushback from NASA, and then push back from Eglin to where Eglin put out the statement that said, Well, they're just not cleared to, to hear the information. So when you hear Burchett, and Congresswoman Luna, say, we were denied access and got in a fight with the general, that base fires back and says, Hey, wait a minute, you guys aren't even cleared. So I'm not saying who's right or

wrong. All I'm saying is it's so fascinating to see play out. And I want to know, what the congressmen and Congresswoman are, are essentially going to do with that, because that's challenging their credibility in an open forum. What are your thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on the pushback? Do you think it's all just part of the cover up? Do you think it's political grandstanding? Is it both?

guess I don't have a good answer to that. Because I do not see, you know, in my 17 years, I can't remember an agency like NASA, really stepping in it, you know, and calling a congressman a liar. Publicly like that. So even, I did a triple take last week, and I'm still in the midst of that triple take it, and especially with NASA coming out so strong there. Well, now just per chat, or Luna, say, hey, we want to follow up hearing. Because it seems like you guys want to talk, you know, you

know, maybe they don't have much to say maybe they do. And so that's that one was curious. To me. I'm seeing like when Bridgette told me last week, that the staffers were getting more involved and that they were, you know, you started to hear more of the Whisper campaigns, you know, trying to discredit the investigation in the house, not so much discrediting the lawmakers, but you'll probably hear it more will well know. There'll be couched in the terms of AVS to

Freedom Caucus, folks. Whereas these issues don't really have much to do with that, you know, Freedom Caucus is supposed to be focused on fiscal issues and stuff like that. And then seeing some of those other Democrats up there and including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She's been really pushing forward with the investigation in the Senate. And same with Rubio over there. And so this one doesn't cut across those normal political lines.

But in the lead up to this hearing, it kind of in the past week, it's felt like it's the normal partisanship, you know, Biden administration, you know, Pooh poohing anything coming from these two fringe rate. Lawmakers. When you take a step back and in reality, no, it's not to fringe lawmakers. A lot of lawmakers in this Congress have a lot of questions and the Pentagon, NASA had not been forthcoming with them in the past, at least in a satisfactory way to many lawmakers. So I get

the pushback from those agencies. But show us your cards.

FOIA, especially with that military branch. What I consider this massive cover up about the topic, but at the top of the show, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember your exact quote, you said that you had that you essentially interview professional liars. That's how you said it right. So with That's a journalist. What's that?

look, NASA fired back at you to show us how they backed out? Did they confirm? And then say, you know, what, never mind or did somebody intervene? The one that I'm stuck on is is Bridget's claim about the Pentagon giving pushback on witnesses that and correct me if I'm wrong, I took away from that, that he had other people that he wanted to appear, the Pentagon pushed back, they they essentially lost those one or two, or however many people but have graves forever. And Grusha at this

point. So again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm most intrigued by that. Who do you as a journalist push back on the hardest to try and show their cards and kind of prove what's being said?

out last night with comer. He kind of again, washed his hands of it and said, Oh, I think projets now gotten everyone he wanted, when, like a month ago, comer told me that two witnesses who per chat wanted, didn't pass his committee's, you know, more political background check. And so I'm still a little confused on this one as to whether Burchett has everything he

wants? Because it doesn't seem like he does, but then you have chair comer saying, you know, head of the whole Oversight Committee, saying, Yeah, you know, we gave him every one he wanted it one interesting thing when I was first getting into this, just like a month ago, I heard her chat on. Steve Bannon is the war room, talking about oh, and what he said then stood out to me, because he said, his feeling was that him and Luna only have one shot on this. And so he made it seem like, at

least initially, they were just granted one hearing on this. And so that's, you know, all your marbles. We'll see how tomorrow goes. Because just knowing how the public is hungry for answers. And even what playing this tonight on our live listening session, but Adam Schiff, you know, he got booted off the Senate and her party got booted off the House Intelligence Committee. But so he hasn't really been able to look into grush. But he's still got big questions about these

phenomenon. And you know, he was just the head of the House Intelligence Committee. So the fact that he's curious, he had all this classified information, but still has questions and not answers. That makes me think that Pentagon people in those communities aren't being forthcoming. Now, whether that's a National Security claim, or whatever, or whether it's actually them, covering this stuff up and keeping it secret from Congress. It seems like this Congress is really set on

putting a period of putting a fine point on that debate. So that at least by the end of this, we'll know, it seems we'll know where the secrets are. And hopefully, they'll be public by then. You know, because it seems like right now in Congress, there's a couple of different full court presses are going on. Senate side House side, but then also Intelligence Committee and armed services committees exploring it and so intelligence committee is going to be different than Armed Services

Committee. Armed Services is more focused on war and the Pentagon On an machinery of war, all that stuff. And so, Intelligence Committee, they have a broader portfolio, they also know a lot more secrets, and are also held to a higher standard. They know a lot of stuff that they're not allowed to tell us. And so that's again why Senator Gillibrand is an interesting one to watch, because she's on both the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

So she's kind of got a foot in both worlds.

I mean, the implications are absolutely staggering. So does it surprise you that more aren't leading the charge?

the press corps. Because you have a lot of lawmakers who it almost feels like, they put blinders on just so they don't have to talk to us, you know, whether it's about what former President Trump is doing over here, or, you know, whether it's what Hunter Biden's doing over here, you know, so they, some

lawmakers really stay in their lanes. But again, that's why this issue stood out to me, because hey, I think it's Rubio who says, you know, either he's got either grush was given bad information, or pardon my French, but Wake the fuck up. Like, these are seismic claims. And the fact that the Inspector General, vetted them, sent them to Congress, that puts them at another level, where?

Yeah, maybe it has surprised me a little bit to see I mean, cuz you were going to talk about it. But Congress is about to be gone after this week, for the whole month of August. So one thing I've been doing is trying to interview every United States

senator on UAPs. who oppose and David grush, in particular, so I've now talked over 60% of senators, and the vast majority of them seem totally unaware, it seems like I'm kind of the first person to mention it to them, or they had heard about it, but hadn't really looked into it. Now, the people, hopefully by the end of this week, I'll have well, hopefully, I'll have all the senators, but I only have two members left on the Senate Intelligence Committee, still the interviewer looking for you,

Michael Bennett, and Dianne Feinstein. But

it's interesting. And with some of the Senate Intel members, you kind of get the feeling that they know some things that they're not allowed to tell us. So I'm curious if pressure builds on them on the broader intelligence community, where, you know, if pressure builds on Congress from the public, Congress is going to keep demanding more and more answers. And so there might be things that are classified now, that may become unclassified in the near future. And I'm curious how

this one plays out. Because even though you have many lawmakers playing ostrich, you know, tossing their head in the sand. You got some of the most powerful lawmakers, especially in the Senate, investigating this and so we'll see there's definitely a clash going on here. Between the intel community and your congress.

And there's tons of of articles here to read. And the one thing I haven't mentioned is a lot of these are exclusive just to your reporting, you're not parroting from the the other news agencies, you are the one getting these recordings, you're putting them online. So again, kudos to you for that. So back to the witnesses for tomorrow, if it is that one shot? Do you feel with everything that you've done and writing the articles that are on your website? And so many exclusives, you're

obviously doing your homework? Is this a setup for a potential home run? Or do you feel there should have been other people in the hot seat, even those currently in government that may have given them more of that home run versus a base hit?

house their investigation is much broader. And Congresswoman Luna, she tells me that, you know, she hopes this hearing presents to the American people prove that there is life out there beyond Earth. Now, you wouldn't hear any senators say that. You might have some senators kind of thinking that. And so it's interesting that the house, their case is going to be broader. Your team, it seems like they're going to give a little more history into past government programs, exploring

UFOs and whatnot. And some people are asking us that ask a poll like hey, oh, just for chatting them Do they have any plan to subpoena? The people who corroborate David grush, the whistleblower story? Well, Senator Gillibrand in the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, her investigation would actually go through the Armed Services Committee, where she's the chairwoman of one of the subcommittee's overseeing this.

Well, she's told me that she wants to hear grush and the other people named in that first story by the debrief were crushed came out. That one will be interesting. And that's actually my question for Gillibrand tonight or this week. I'm curious if she's got a plan for hearing, and if she still wants to crush and the other people mentioned in that article that seem to corroborate his story. Now, it seems like what we have in the house tomorrow is grush. And not so much people

corroborating his story. But corroborating the broader story, you know, and so that's where I think having a divided Congress is great.

but that was that was a false name. And then the other one, I think the last name was Nell I forget the first name but that being said, was she talking about Then, or was she talking about truly getting to the root of where grush heard about the non human craft and the non human dead pilots that he referenced?

these folks, then hey, we want to keep going. And I think that's where I could see it, broadening out, but I think jeweler Brandon them want to start with, you know, just start small with what you can prove, and then slowly build your case and work, work your way out from there. But I'm not a senator. So there's a lot of stuff that I'm not privy to.

they may get voted out. With that being said, what my worry is, is this takes forever with anything government related takes forever. But with with politicians, you know, they want to do these hearings, and then six months, a year, year and a half later, they'll do another one. It worries me that the people that really are the driving force here, they could be gone by that. And you lose that, that that motivation to do this. So how much if any, how much does that impact all this?

got included in that. A measure that Harry Reid, you know, very much close to his heart, you know, a bill demanding, basically, full transparency, it seems on UAPs, their chosen term. And so that's where, oh, in Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, his office told me that, you know, the inspiration for that measure wasn't David grush inspiration for that was Harry Reid, you know, in his legacy. And so that's where sometimes

you do see members pass the baton. Sometimes that's within their delegation, but honestly, I haven't seen yet Jackie Rosen. She, the senator, one of the senators from Nevada, and then Catherine Cortez Masto. Neither of them were really too familiar with crush Rosen, at the end of our interview, or later that day, she found in she goes, Well, now that you alerted me to this gruff guy, she goes, I'm gonna have some interesting

reading tonight when I get home. And so that's where sometimes you see that baton passed within a delegation or, you know, if a Democrat passes the seat to a Democrat, or vice versa, Republican to a Republican, but then also, you see it just not within state delegations. Sometimes there's someone else in Congress who maybe wanted to be at the forefront of the issue. But maybe right now, they're a freshman lawmaker, and they're kind of waiting to see what happens in tomorrow's

hearing. And so that's where I hear you and you Yeah, you raise a good point on why to be a little pessimistic. Because the people who are out in front of this issue are louder and seem more knowledgeable than we've seen in the past. But then maybe there's a little hope for optimism that they can share that wealth, for lack of a better term.

interest. There was rumors, but I mean, we can't confirm it. At least the general public can't at this point that more people showed up to the classified briefing that happened right prior. And that's, that's fine for the classified hearing. And that's fine. But if they truly are the voice of the people, I would hope that they would want to show up at the public hearing, get as much information for for their constituents as possible. So with that said, what's the rumblings on who's

going to show tomorrow? Like, I mean, are a lot of people telling you that should be showing up are going to show up? Have you? Have you even explored that at all?

And comer gave them the huge massive oversight hearing room, even though it's a subcommittee investigating this, they're getting the big hearing room, which makes me think, you know, especially with all the cameras that are going to be there and all the media from across the US, but then across the globe, you would think that many members would want to come for that. But also, that's just kind of the nature of the house and

how they work. The Senate. They just historically, and even today, they tend to respond less quickly to what the people are thinking, you know, part of that it's the way the Founders intended it giving them six year terms. Which, you know, one could argue, oh, they're becoming experts on the issues under their purview, which would help for this issue with some of those folks on these committees. But I'm curious if you didn't hold that same hearing. today. If you wouldn't have a fuller,

or at least more people come in and sit on that Dyess. Because remember, just two years ago, this was so novel and new hadn't been done in 50 years. And so yeah, most news outlets were leading with, you know, not funny X file jokes, you know, jokes that they thought were funny that no one else did. And so that's where you're starting to see the issue taken more seriously in Congress, but then also outside of it. And I am kind of intrigued on how you know, what the headlines are,

after tomorrow's hearing. And I think that could have a pretty big impact on what the Senate does, or how many people would show up to publicly attached their name to this. Yeah. And we'll see, I think that's one that only time will tell. And I think, you know, even though the media, the press corps isn't going to be up on the Dyess. I think we play a pretty big role in this. And I think Thus far, we've largely done a disservice.

lately. So I I'm gonna, this will probably be one of the last questions here as we round third on the interview, and I want you back in the field rather than talking to me, because it's an important day. Tomorrow, obviously, we're on the eve of it. So get as much as you can out there. But I think Matt, the journalists probably wouldn't want to answer this. But Matt, my friend now, what do you expect tomorrow? What's your prediction on when you're listening on C span in the

hallway? What do you think's going to happen during the hearing? And what do you think the immediate reaction is going to be to the general public?

chat to come out. Very prepared to make a definitive argument. Now. We'll see if they can back it up. And the question for that is, how much are they allowed to back it up? You know, because we hear about the briefing, they got that they had to demand down in Florida, where, you know, Mac aids, and then they say, you know, and Luna and Bridgette they say they saw videos are whatever of craft that could not be human according to their

knowledge. I'm so curious, are we the American people going to be allowed to see any new footage or anything like that? Or are they going to be hampered? In how much of the case they can actually bring to the American people, you know, and so, with that, I just don't know, they're going to definitely push the envelope in. In his they're going to want to release as much as they can. Now, the game might be rigged from the get go. So well, you

We might, personally you me and others, and UFO Twitter community, we might have seen it, but that's where I'm curious how much the actual American public and seen on this and so who knows, pop your popcorn if you got it,

their testimony. I think it's great to get it on the record. I don't expect anything new from them only because they have done their rounds of media interviews, and so on and so forth. But I want to make sure that I add that into the show because we haven't really touched on them at all. Their voice is incredibly important.

doubt them. I don't think that there's any reason that they have to be under oath, but rather maybe submitted statements to support what I felt should be a more of a bigger hearing grush, I don't have a big what's the right word I'm looking for, like, like, a big problem with I don't know if that's the right way to say it. Not that I have a problem with the other two, but we've heard it and I think that if they are going for the home run, I would have loved to have seen, you

know, again, grush, but bring in somebody else that's supporting him that that that told him the information. And let me just quickly say, why the dotser review process of of grush, who approved the, at least we're led to believe this approved him speaking about dead non human pilots about non human craft, and everything that he says we are led to believe that he cleared it with Doctor, that's not an endorsement, but rather that there's no classified information there. So then bring

somebody in who had that firsthand. You know, I saw that that non human dead body or I work next door to whatever the story is, and I'm not trying to make light of it, but like, whatever it fill in the blank, that's who I would have liked to have seen. So again, not taking away from David forever, or Ryan Graves. They're awesome individuals. I'm glad that their voices and faiths are out there, and they need to be. But I think with a hearing like this, and you nailed it, that this is what

you heard anyway. So wherever the true source of this should be a home run, that nails that, and I feel that this issue deserves at that home run the Grand Slam. And it's not that those two individuals won't give it. It's just they won't get anything new. And I'll close the thought with this a lot of the rebuttal that I keep seeing to that, because I have voice that opinion here in the last week or so. The rebuttal is we have to start somewhere. We have to we have to build a base and branch

out from that. My response to that, if I may, is that we have been there. We have built the foundation now for a couple of years. It started in 2021. With the UAP report. We know pilots are seeing them and military training exercises and military operation areas that information that foundation is there, no one can can refute that. So it's great that Ryan Graves and David favor are there and their voice is in the mix. Don't get me wrong. But we're reinforcing something that we already

established in 2021. We need to take that next step, hit those people that grush was talking to hit even grush under oath with a few more pointed questions, and go from there. But that's what I've liked to see not to go off on a tangent. This is about you mad I'm not me. That's my reaction.

curious. I mean, we're gonna ask for chat now. I'm curious what their calculation was, and whether they were thinking, Oh, hey, let's paint the broader picture of grush there, and then when the Senate has their hearing, you know, they'll connect the dots more especially with Luna which she was telling me made it seem like she really wanted to get the American people more up to speed on some of these conversations that are

probably settled in UFO Twitter for lack of a better term. And so who knows a lot of times we think all these steps for lawmakers and then it turns out like Nope, this is what they did. You know, these are the people who read time. So

For me, I'm in that mindset that, hey, if you're not paying attention yet, then you're probably just not paying attention, you know, let's move on, for those that have paid attention. Because if there is something to Grusha his claims, if there's something to that, let's not give the foundation yet again, about pilot seeing this, that foundation is laid, let's drive this home. And that's, that's where I'm at. We can only hope

at 630. Or give me a call. So we're gonna have fresh stuff from him and from some of these questions, and then also gonna play some fresh, never before heard Adam Schiff tape, and then also Senator Mike rounds. People had questions about why. What was the term they use? 19 times and Schumer's? UAP. Bill, non

human intelligence, human intelligence. Yeah. So we have one of Schumer's co authors, Senator Mike rounds explaining why they use the term nonhuman intelligence, which to give a tease on it, he says does encompass AI?