Good afternoon. It's Friday the 20th of February 2025, just after 1:00. Welcome to UK called News. I'm your host Mike Robinson joining me today in the studio, Patrick Henningson. Welcome to the programme, Patrick. It's great to be with you, Mike. And by video link, we have Mark Anderson. Now we're going to get started today, of course, with Starmer in Washington visiting Donald Trump. They pushed out some nice video of that today.
As everyone will know by now, he was there for most of yesterday. The readout from the meeting said that they discussed the depth of the special relationship between the two nations and their commitment to shared security and prosperity. So this is fantastic stuff. But Trump, you know, was asked if Starmer had begged him to lift the threat of tariffs against the UK. Trump said he tried. He was working hard. I'll tell you that. He earned whatever the hell pay they pay him over there.
So that was that. So what were the highlights? Well then, of course, as you can see on screen at the moment, Starmer presented Trump with a a special letter from the King inviting him over for the second time. This is apparently the only time this has happened in recent history that that a world leader has been honoured, honoured with the second visit, second state visit. And well, I don't know, Patrick, what do you think? Is this desperation on behalf of the British to try to keep the
special relationship going here? Because you know, they, they, the British government views, you know, the United States as being the Braun to the British brains, right? Well, it's the indispensable partner in the special relationship. So I think this is good for Britain, Mike, to be slightly on good talking terms with Washington after the last couple of weeks. I think it has to be positive for Britain, for the US, not sure whether the US has changed their position or not.
I think they're still working things out. I think that's, I think that's right. Ukraine, of course, was also discussed. That situation opaque as it's ever been, Trump saying a ceasefire agreement will be agreed soon or not at all. So that's pretty clear then. And of course, the minerals deal is not done yet, but we'll talk about that in a second. The British media, of course, putting a brave face on everything that was going on. But the rhetoric from Starmer
has changed on Ukraine at least. Gone is the, you know, Britain, Ukraine must win, Russia must lose rhetoric and in its place is we must win the peace. But let's just have a look at one example of what Harbour was saying yesterday. Between our two countries, that is why this is the greatest alliance for prosperity and security I think the world has ever seen. Whenever necessary, we absolutely backed each other up. And that's. Could you take on Russia by yourselves?
Well, all right. One or two more, yes. So, you know, while the while the British press putting a brief face on it, undoubtedly there was quite a bit of Mickey taking up from Trump's side here and and really treating Starmer with somewhat of contempt. He's he's he's establishing the pecking order. They're making it very clear. Also, watch how Donald Trump shakes and Mike, he always puts his palm facing up, which is the sign of dominance.
And you put your hand down. So he did that with Starmer and Starmer fell for that one like most people do. But winning the peace. That's interesting. You know, I guess so it's no longer winning the war, it's winning the peace. So you win the peace by keep to keep fighting to get the peace. Absolutely. So that makes sense. Let's just listen to what he said about that. Mr. President, I welcome your deep and personal commitment to bring peace and to stop the
killing. You've created a moment of tremendous opportunity to reach a historic peace deal, a deal that I think would be celebrated in Ukraine and around the world. That is the prize, but we have to get it right. There's a famous slogan in the United Kingdom from after the Second World War. That is that we have to win the peace. And that's what we must do now, because it can't be peace that rewards the aggressor or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran.
We agree. History must be on the side of the peacemaker, not the invader. So the stakes, they couldn't be higher. And we're determined to work together to deliver a good deal. We've discussed a plan today to reach a peace that is tough and fair, that Ukraine will help shape those backed by strength to stop Putin coming back for more. And I'm working closely with
other European leaders on this. And I'm clear that the UK is ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal working together with our allies, because that is the only way that peace will last. So it's the peacemaker, not the invader. Patrick, just remind me, how many countries have Britain and the United States invaded in the last 30 years or so? Can we count that high? How many regime change operations have the US and Britain done, uh, since World War Two?
100 I think like, you know, I think we need to look back to just briefly might get a World War 2 history. Who won the peace in World War 2? Was it not the Russian Army, The Red Army, the Soviet Union, Operation Bagration to destroy the German war machine? I mean, they won the peace and the battle that happened then is happening on the exact same grounds today in Ukraine, in Kurds, in the exact same places. And I dare say, Mike, the results will be exactly the same.
Russia will adapt and overcome, repel and defeat the Nazi war machine that is coming out of Kiev, backed by NATO. Sorry to be like melodramatic about it, but you know, that's kind of like how you we should be looking at it. Absolutely. Now you, you said that Trump was absolutely establishing the hierarchy there. And on the question of NATO membership, Trump was asked, you know, what about NATO membership for Ukraine? And again, he was absolutely clear and absolutely clear.
There's no way in hell that that is going to happen. It was basically what he was saying. Starmer absolutely silent on this point. So he just sat there and and squirmed, really. But Trump was also asked about the question of his suggestion that Zelensky was a dictator because as Patrick was talking about a couple of weeks ago, of course, no elections in Ukraine and Zelensky out of his term of office already. And Trump had made a comment on this in recent days suggesting
that Zelensky was a dictator. But this is how he answered that question. Mr Zelensky is a bit tighter. Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question. I mean, how are they supposed to handle this? Just like that, just easily done. Just say I can't believe I said that. By the way, Mike, do you really think that the United States is going to vote yes on Ukrainian membership to NATO? Probably not.
No, probably not. Do you think Hungary will vote yes on Ukrainian membership to NATO? Probably not. Slovakia, probably not. It's a few other countries on the fence. Doesn't it take a unanimous vote to get the session to NATO? It should do. It does, doesn't it? So they're not going to ever get NATO membership, right? Full stop, Period. End of story. So why is Starmer and the other European countries and Mark Rutte keep banging on about this talking point that they're going
to be in NATO? Because it just ain't going to happen. No and date so. So what is the outcome of all these shenanigans? Will Zolensky is going to Washington, uh, later on today. I think he arrives at 4:00 this afternoon, Uh, allegedly they're to sign this big, uh, mineral deal. Uh, what else happens? I'm not quite sure, uh, but in the meantime, Trump, Trump has imposed fresh sanctions on Russia. So the question is what's going
on there? And there have been some apparent movement on the European defence situation because Macron has decided that he or he's suggesting that he will send nuclear armed aircraft to bases in Germany. And this follows the, the Friedrich Merz, who's the incumbent German Chancellor asking both Britain and France to offer this kind of support. So, So what, we'll, we'll see
what follows from that. But, uh, in the meantime, uh, you know, the question of money, uh, in Ukraine raised its head during the, uh, press conference yesterday and the questions that came afterwards, uh, and Trump continuing or appearing this time to suggest that it was Biden's deal over $350 billion in Russia in Ukraine was, was a very bad deal, very bad for the United States because the United States wouldn't be getting this 350 dollars, $350 billion back in contrast to the European
Union who effectively funded the thing through loans. And so they can expect money back, which of course is never actually going to happen in reality because recruits never going to have the money to pay that back anyway. But this is what Trump said yesterday. A little bit of what the European nation said. You know, they, they get their money back by giving money. We don't get the money back. Biden made a deal. He put in $350 billion. And I thought it was a very
unfair situation. We're not getting all of ours. I mean, quite a bit of ours was was was gifted. It was given there were some lanes but mainly it was gifted actually. So, so start we're trying to you know, us to mate sort of thing. We're we're with you but but you know, so 350 billion a mineral deal, is that a good return? No. And, and, and there's big debates, Mike, whether that 350 billion figure that Trump is throwing about is actually corresponding to reality.
I don't think it is. I think it's a little bit on the high side. I don't know how he still can't workout the methodology of how Donald calculated that. But anyway, it's Trump. So we could kind of roll with it. Yeah, So in the in the mineral deal, let's look at the mineral deal for a minute. We'll bring this up on screen here. Michael Tracy, great journalist, keeping an eye and keeping things fair and balanced in the United States.
He says it's not even accurate to call it a mineral deal. Ukraine is obliged to turn over 50% of its revenues, all extractable natural resources, well as physical infrastructure, ports, refineries, etcetera. So Trump wants to own a huge swath of the country's assets. So what's all this about Ukrainian sovereignty? So we got them into a war and now we've got them in Hawk and now we're repossessing the country, right? Trump's put Ukraine into administration. What about Ukrainian
sovereignty? You know, democracy, whatever. It's a joke. And Tracy goes on on this. Future provisions of the quote, mineral deal require ratification by the Ukrainian parliament. A little bit of a sticky point there. This is going to have to be ratified by the Ukraine's. I don't see them doing this. I don't see them they they could just say stuff it and what this could do. This is interesting, Mike. Why why shouldn't the US Senate
have to ratify any of this? Plenty of less consequential deals have been have required Senate ratification. the US is effectively taking control colonial possession control of Ukraine. He's got a good point there. But so I, I think this is going to hit the rocks. You know what? This could also down the road, embolden the people who want to make peace with Russia because do you think Russia's going to do a deal like this with
Ukraine? Do you remember the cooperation deal they had on the table before Yanukovych was ousted? It wasn't this predatory. So this is like a bad deal for
Ukraine all around. So I mean, I, I, I can't see how people can't see the perspective of how bad this has turned out for Ukraine. But they couldn't pivot to Russia at this stage even if they get rid of Zelensky and the pro war faction in Ukraine because they are in so much hawk to the West. They couldn't, but there are candidates who have put themselves forward for president, like Alexei or Restovich, who do want to open good relations with Russia and the West.
Best of both worlds, to steal the term from David Cameron. Best of both worlds. And isn't that what Viktor Yanukovych wanted before the coup in 2014? He wanted to have deals with the EU and Russia and the West. the United States and the EU said no, no, no, that's not going to happen. Cue the Nazis, cue Maidan, and the rest is history. That's how we got here to begin with. And here we are, back in almost the same position. Quite possibly.
So $350 billion, Trump yesterday saying that the US isn't going to get that back. But is that, has he been consistent on that over the last few weeks? No, we just have to backtrack and this is the listen. This is what Trump said. Just you saw what he said. You just played what he just said. This is the day before. Let's roll this and try to figure this one out. With Ukraine and this mineral
deal, what does Ukraine get in? Return, Mr. President. $350 billion and lots of equipment and military equipment and the right to fight on and originally the right to fight. Look, Ukraine, I will say they're very brave and they're good soldiers, but without the United States and its money and and its military equipment, this war would have been over in a very short period of time. In fact, I was the one that gave the Javelins. You remember the famous Javelins? That was me.
That wasn't Obama, it wasn't Biden, it wasn't anybody else. It was me. And they wiped out a lot of tanks with those Javelins. And they expression was that Obama gave sheets and I gave the Javelins. That was a big deal at the time. It wiped out. That was the beginning when people said, wow, that's something. Well, that was American equipment. Without American equipment, this war would have been over very quickly. And American money too. I mean a lot of money.
So that that war fighting equipment and the ammunition that sustained going forward for Ukraine, how long is it sustained? Well, it could go forward for a while and maybe until we have a deal with Russia. Look, are we going to, we need to have a deal with Russia, otherwise it's going to continue. But now when Americans put up their money, the taxpayer money and president approves it, we're getting our money back in some form. But it could go on for a while
or it could be settled quickly. I think it's going to be settled quickly. I spoke with President Putin. I think he wants to settle it. And once you get on with life. So are they getting their money back or are they not getting their money back? I'm not quite clear on that. It's he said Ukraine's going to get 350 billion. So that's an interesting figure. But just quickly, Donald Trump said without the Javelins, I gave the lethal aid when Obama
wouldn't. But this is the same Trump that said if I was president, this war would have never have happened. So on one hand he's saying that. The other hand he's saying that I kept the war going by giving them weapons and how great that is. So again, Trump constantly contradicting themselves. But what he's saying is more troops fight on more equipment, land, etcetera, etcetera. So this is basically a continuation of the status quo policy basically.
And so Russia has been getting on with life. They have been getting on with life by increasing the territory captured in in eastern Ukraine. They've also been getting on with life at home with their economy projecting 3% growth. So Russia's not in a bad negotiation in position the US is. So a lot of this is blustered by Trump. But that 350 billion figure, Mike, it's I think historically significant. And here's why. World War One reparations, just
looking back at history. So Germany at the end of World War One paid one £6.6 billion, OK, £6.6 billion. And that is in today's money, approximately $390 billion. Now use different ways you can calculate to adjust for inflation. There's a whole bunch of different. So that's a ballpark figure, obviously. So fact checkers, there's a lot of different tables you can use and formulas to do that. But roughly what this 350 billion corresponds with German
reparations at the end of war? One, just to put that into context. OK, so all of the chatter you're hearing, Russia must pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine. Have you not heard that constantly on heavy rotation for the last two years? Well, they are basically in Europe and the US been setting up this narrative that Russia
will pay reparations. And that's roughly the amount of money that the West has frozen in Russian foreign currency reserves and assets that they do not know yet what to do with or how to administer. So what Trump is, I think, trying to do is use the frozen assets as leverage for to get Russia to pay for rebuilding as part of a broader deal. I think this is far from ironed out. I think Trump is exaggerating how far down the line this is with Moscow. And this is going to be hugely
complicated. But we have another little bit of video on 350. Well, yeah, the 350 billion there it is coming up again. Now, Trump saying that two days earlier he said that there's going to be 350 billion for the US, But that's not all he said. This was incredibly revealing. We will try our best to deconstruct it. Here it is. Biden has spent $350 billion without any chance of getting it back. Now we're going to be getting all of that money back, plus a
lot more. And we provided a great thing. I mean, we provided something very important. And we'll be working with Ukraine. And because we'll be taking that, we're going to be taking what we're entitled to take now. They spent $350 billion and Europe spent $100 billion. Now, does anybody really think that's fair? But then we find out a little while ago, not so long ago, a few months ago, I found out that the money they spent, they get back. But the money we spent, we don't get back.
I said, well, we're going to get it back and we'll be able to make a deal. And again, President Zelensky is coming to sign the deal. And it's a great thing. It's a great deal for Ukraine, too, because they get us over there and we're going to be working over there. We'll be on the land and you know, in that way it's there's sort of automatic security because nobody's going to be messing around with our people when we're there. And so we'll be there in that way.
But Europe will will be watching it very closely. I know that UK has said and France has said that they want to put, they volunteered to put so called peacekeepers on the site. And I think that's a good thing. So not just 350 billion, but more. He says he's going to get extra. So Ukraine is just like an entry in the Uncle Sam's imperial Ledger at this point.
I mean, there's no regard for the Ukrainian people really for Trump. It's a transaction and he's talking about putting troops there. He's he's even saying they're not going to mess with us if there's US people working in Ukraine. So he's basically saying U.S. citizens contractors are going
to be human Shields to stop. Russia from fighting against Ukraine, What's to stop Ukraine from continuing these provocations in against Russian forces or inside Russian territory like they're doing in Curse Now what? Because there's US people in the West and that way the Russia won't retaliate by sending Kinshao missiles to arms manufacturers or airports. That's not going to happen, right? And what's Trump going to do if
things kick off? These people are going to basically say this was a disaster. There is no deal here yet. This is all talk and bluster. So this is like, we'll bring us up. We've got so many changes here. This is the Trump spin cycle. Mike. If take a look at this graphic, everybody for 5 or 10 seconds, that is Trump's media cycle. This is the spin. Get used to it. This is Trump land. It is confusing, it's disorienting, but get used to it.
We're trying to The mainstream media is not having much success either. No, indeed. OK, right. Let's just move on then and we'll move to a new topic and the question of foreign aid. Mark, let's, let's bring you on and say hello and tell us about, well, first of all, Biden's green energy slush fund, yes.
There's been, of course, a lot of waste in recent times by the Biden regime, particularly as it was leaving the White House, trying to fund the green energy regime, trying to get the electric vehicle EV industry up and running. This isn't a recent article I published. An American Free Press massive Biden green energy slush fund happens to be linked to a radical leftist Georgia politician. Of course, that's Stacey Abrams. She's become a fairly familiar face in recent times.
She campaigned heavily for Kamala Harris. And I've got some specifics as we move on and look at some of these other slides. This is some of my writing, White House's new Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, that we've heard about. It's a brand new thing, of
course. It alleges that the Biden administration set aside 2 billion for a struggling nonprofit energy company called Power Forward Communities, or Pfc, linked to Stacey Abrams. And then in April 2024, Biden's EPA awarded Pfc that company the grant 2 billion as part of its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund programme. Excuse me? Pfc received the grant even though the young company reported just $100 in total revenue during its first three months in operation.
That's according to its IRS Form 990EZ, which I reviewed. PF CS grant, If this was one of just 8 greenhouse Gas Reduction fund grants that the EPA doled out. And at that same time, April 2024 and altogether the grants totaled 20 billion with AB. So foreign aid can be a lot more, but look at these domestic expenditures. Not exactly pennies, not exactly pocket change. Anyway, looking on to the next slide. This is a little bit more of my writing.
I, I highlighted the main part to read here to make sure I get it accurate. Trump's counter moves regarding green energy and things like that. On his inauguration day, January 20th, he issued an executive order quote and this is a long title, temporary withdrawal of all areas on the Outer Continental shelf from offshore wind leasing and review of the federal government's leasing and permitting practises for wind projects in terms of green
energy sources. And then there was a more general one at that time declaring a national energy emergency. Moreover, Trump apparently is intent on revoking Biden's 50% electric vehicle or EV target. And it's important to note, though, that an executive action by itself doesn't end all this. The tax credits the state mandates, the federal emissions rules that Biden enacted don't
disappear automatically. So cutting vehicle emissions is an indirect EV purchase incentive, but nevertheless, and Trump wants to revise the rules and particularly federal emissions standards and fuel economy requirements, but revising the taxation and tax credits like that, which is part of the overall thing that will require an act of Congress. So again, just issuing an executive order, executive order in and of itself does not automatically get us off the EV
trajectory. There's a little bit more. I can just share some of these figures. We're reminded a little bit of the 2011 debacle with Solyndra. We might remember that a startup solar company in Fremont, CA 570 million was wasted during the Obama administration when Biden was VP and there was also 401 million that went down the drain with a bound solar in 2012 much like Solyndra Calla Solar.
Around that same time 280 million went down the grain and 193,000,000 was wasted and another debacle involving Fisher Automotive. And add to that a 123 systems which manufactured defective batteries and declared bankruptcy around that same time leading to a waste of 132
million. So I did a little math and if you look at the 20 billion in the recent figures and all those numbers I just listed from 20/11/2012 in those years, the money down the drain for green energy projects is $21.576 billion with AB. So interesting to note, that's for sure. Now moving on, I, I picked up a little bit last night as I was getting my news together on foreign aid and Chief Justice Roberts pause the order for Trump to pay 2 billion in foreign aid funding.
And this is just a brief add on to give us this breaking news. It, it happened this past Wednesday and we'll move on to the next one. And I got a few details here in red. Chief Justice John Roberts Wednesday night temporarily froze an order by a federal judge in DC that would have required the Trump administration to pay about 2 billion in foreign aid reimbursements for work that has already been done.
That a brief order issued just a few hours before the midnight deadline for the administration to make those payments. Chief Justice Roberts indicated the court is likely to move quickly on Trump's request to lift the order altogether. And the dispute stems from an executive order Trump issued last month declaring that foreign aid funds often are not aligned with American interests and values.
Which I think is a is a notable and laudable thing to to put out there by the president following this executive order. Of course, Secretary of State Rubio paused the foreign aid programmes funded by and through the State Department and USAID. So Trump is moving his weight around a bit and getting his way so far through the courts on foreign aid. And we'll see how that extrapolates into the future. But I thought that was an important add on.
We'll see what effect that has on the broad spectrum of foreign aid for Ukraine and for any other type of foreign aid. It's a little hard to tell, but I'll watch the Supreme Court closely to see if they follow through on what Roberts is indicating. So back to you guys. Thanks, Mark. Right. OK, let's let's move on. If you like what the UK column does, you would like to support us, please go to support.ukcolumn.org. There are options to help us out
there. You can make a donation, join us a member, pick something up from the shop and as we mentioned Clive to carl.com, if you use the link on this page, we will get a small Commission for anything you buy from him. But if you can't do any of those, please do share the material you find on the UK Column website because we need your help to beat the censorship regime. Now another reminder for the UK Column on location in Cheltenham on Saturday the 5th of April. Tickets going fast.
Catherine Gunn, Alex Thompson, Patrick Henningson speaking. Rajamaya joins that list now. And so that's going to be an extremely interesting day. We are going to have a private bar in the room after the event is finished, so if you're able to join us for a bit of a social afterwards, that is fantastic as well. That will be a cash bar, but we do need to let everybody know that no cash is is able to be
used anywhere else in the hotel. It's normally a non cash hotel, but because we asked for the ability to take cash, they have graciously agreed and so that we've got to applaud them for that. Do get to that event if you possibly can. The interview that was put out at 1:00 PM yesterday was with Diane speaking to Kathy Mudge to protect and teach about what's going on in schools and libraries. Taking action removed dangerous indoctrination. Absolutely.
If you didn't see that interview, please watch it. It was pretty harrowing for many of the people that did. And so do watch it and maybe it will motivate everybody to get involved in that campaign and so on. And sort of kind of related, Patrick, let's move on to what's been going on because in because Trump has released apparently some stuff with respect to Epstein. But has he? Well, this is supposed to be the big reveal, so that's what we're told. Anyway. We'll have a look at this.
So it's the new Attorney General. Pam Bondi have vowed to release all of the files on Jeff Epstein. JFK assassination, what else? Martin Luther King assassination, RFK assassination. Did I miss anything 911? They miss anything UFOs as well. So first up at bat is Jeffrey Epstein. Here is the New York Post Trumps DOJ feeds Jeffrey Epstein documents to underwhelmed conservative influencers. You should feel frustrated. So apparently, so far, this has been a big nothing burger, a lot
of hype. And we'll talk about how they kick this campaign off. I have my suspicions, of course, as many of you do. And then on the details of that, the contact lists including Alec Baldwin, Michael Jackson, Mick Jagger, RFK Juniors, mom Harvey Junior himself is well, admittedly flying on the Epstein Express on more than one occasion. Nothing to see there.
Move along. But what was really interesting here is how they released it. So these are what we're called, what we're told are conservative influencers, DC Drano, Libs of TikTok, and you see Mike Cernovich hiding in the back who used to work for guess who, Alan Dershowitz. No conflict of interest there. Again, nothing to see.
Move along. So a lot of people are upset that they gave them for Stibs, but what Trump is doing here is selling access to the White House to information based on how well you talk about the administration, how much smoke you blow up the White Houses chimney, let's say. So a lot of people are really disappointed in that. But nothing is more disappointing than the actual contents of the binder that they're holding up there so
proudly. And as this started to circulate online, let's take a look at this year, a lot of Pam Bondi is the blonde woman here. She's the new attorney general. She's feigning outrage, feigning outrage. The fact that there's thousands of pages that are have been buried by the FBI and we've got whistleblowers claiming that they're shredding documents overnight in the FBI. Again, a lot of these things are uncorroborated. We don't know if a lot of what you're seeing here is a show is
smoke and mirrors. And I think a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. And I think unfortunately, some of these operatives in the Trump administration are part of the show, unfortunately. But let's just take a look here. This was the letter that went from Bondi to Cash Patel basically officially complaining about how we were promised more. She said that she expects the rest of the documents to be delivered today, actually February 28th. So we should be expecting more disclosures, more releases.
I'm not holding my breath. I think the big reveal with the big public relations reveal, it was yesterday and it was a big nothing burger. I'd be surprised because there's legal implications with this, especially if there's any potential open cases. They can't. So what do they have in there? The flight logs. We've got this vertical, vertical because of the PDF here. But these are all the flight logs, Mike. OK, pretty shocking, right? Not really. All these things are publicly
available. And then it goes on to the address book. And what's interesting we get to the address book here is the redactions. Mike. This is Epstein's black book. Everything's all the details are redacted. Well, the unredacted version of this is available online. Just Google it. So there's nothing here. There's absolutely nothing here. They promised a lot. They delivered very, very little. So let's look at the release of these files.
And this is, well, let's take a look at the congresswoman who is fronting all this, Anna Paulina Luna. She's a Republican congresswoman from South Florida here, and she was put in charge of this to great fanfare. And she is upset. She's tweeting it out. I nor the task force were given or reviewed the Epstein documents being released today. A New York Post story just revealed that all the documents will simply be Epstein's phone
book. This is not what we or the American people have asked for and a complete disappointment. I am getting vibes that this whole thing is being stage managed. OK. And this is Ryan Dawson who is weighing in. Ha ha. I called it Little black book, the flight logs, both of which we already have. Ryan is one of many good independent journalists that had already collated all of this information, has the entire Epstein list through court documents, basically through
doing the homework. So that's what Anna Paulina Luna, we'll go back to her in a minute though. And so Ryan basically tweets out here and this is important, he said. Some people asked me how I got
the Epstein's list. And basically, Mike, it's by doing basic journalism, going through all the newspaper articles, going through the publicly available information, including the flight logs, looking at the victims statements, looking at the emails that were in the court documents, looking at the interviews that have been done by some of the media outlets with the victims. Hard work, in other words. Basic journalism.
Yeah, this is just collating. So this is what the independent media do. This is what independent journalists like Ryan Dawson do, but nobody else can do. None of these conservative influencers who are giving first crack at all this by the Trump administration, Privy position in the White House, They didn't do any of this work. Ryan, on the other hand, got deep platformed from every single big tech platform because what he did was collate publicly available information. That's Ryan Dawson.
So I'm going to say to people, and again, here's Nick Bryant, 2012, the black book. Most of it was released back then. There was many such releases since then. So again, if you've been following this story, none of this should surprise you. So I encourage people to follow Ryan Dawson on X at Ride Liberty. He is doing great work on this topic. He probably has the most amount of information as much as any or more than anybody else on the
topic here. But back to Representative Anna Paulina Luna. So this is when this all was announced, like February 12th here, and she was all kicking up big excitement here. She's saying that this is about transparency, this is about oversight. So they put her in charge of this whole portfolio. These are the things that conspiracy theorists and independent research has been gagging for decades to get their hands on. All these documents.
The ultimate dump, the mother of all document dumps, right? And so who they put in charge of this, who is she exactly? And at the time, I felt compelled to comment on this tweet by her because I was a little bit disappointed that they would put her in charge of something so important here. So her real name is Anna Maya Hoffer, not Anna Paulina Luna. She's in Congress, believe it or not.
She changed her name to Anna Paulina Luna to appeal to Latin American voters in South Florida before she started her election cycle. And these are various statements about her in a Washington Post report. Here, friends were shocked to see they knew her from her previous life. And she seems to change like a chameleon, basically. So that's interesting. And there she is with guess who, the US President Bibi Netanyahu. So are you a little bit suspicious?
Because all of this stuff ties back to 1 Middle Eastern country and it's not Iran. OK, so Epstein is regarded as an Israeli honeypot. Here is Anna Paulina pushing out on our after October 7th, the beheaded babies hoax. So she is a die hard Zionist Israeli operative who's been put in charge of JFK, Epstein and 9/11, OK, and RFK.
So these are events that are tied to Israeli intelligence according to many people's research, many books, a lot of material, a lot of experts have said that's the case. So that's the person they've had. They have running point. I can't imagine who would have commended her for the job. I really can't. It's probably the US president pictured there standing next to her, Benjamin Netanyahu. So there we are. And so, and again, apologies for the salacious images, but this
is the Orlando local news. She is a former stripper from South Florida. Now, what are the odds, Mike, that's right around Jeffrey Epstein's neighbourhood. I mean, let's just start putting two and two together here. The editor of this paper recently approached her at the time. This was before she ran, while
she was running. And apparently, yes, she worked at the strip club in Tampa. And Luna had recently lost a lawsuit alleging one of her fellow candidates threatened to assassinate her with Russian hit squads. So completely on hinged a total Nutter. And she's in charge, she's in Congress. So I know. Does any of this shake your confidence in the Trump administration in the system?
I, I, I, I really, I can't believe people haven't picked up on more of this, but we are living in a very strange time. We've got plenty to discuss. An extra that is for sure. Now let's come back to the UK in a sense, and the Express, because the Express has pushed out this story. Today, China's Wuhan lab sparks new coronavirus fears as it
plans ominous new experiments. And so they're saying that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology identified a new strain of coronavirus in bats that can infiltrate human cells similarly to SARS COV 2. The response? This is their words, the virus responsible for COVID-19, but.
So the question is, well, what they're saying is this newly discovered coronavirus, which they're calling HKUSCO V2 is like SARS COV 2 and it can penetrate cells for via the human ACE 2 receptor protein found on cell surfaces. And they're saying that it belongs to the same family as the virus causing the lethal Middle East respiratory syndrome, otherwise known as MERS.
And the paper here is calling for further investigation into the strains, which with more infectious spike proteins, as well as testing in human transgenic mice. OK. But I just want to remind everybody where the whole lab leak narrative comes from, at least as far as the UK is concerned.
Because the the main man pushing it of course is Richard Dearlove. Has been for the last lot of years, former head of MI 6. And for those of us that have been round long enough to remember, of course, this is old Yellow Cake himself, the man who provided the intelligence which allowed Tony Blair to head off to war. Now he is. And Christopher Steele's boss.
And Christopher Steele's boss. So, so all the Trump fans out there, this is the man that is behind the Russia gate saga that basically kept Trump tied up in so many knots during his first
term. So this is who's pushing this because this man is rabidly anti Chinese, just as he is rabidly anti Russian and so on. But the thing that strikes me, Patrick, is that, you know, when we get communications about this, the people who write us and say that viruses don't exist will also push the lab leak story. And it's, it's a bit, it's a bit tricky for me because because really people have sort of got to decide which it is they they
believe. Well, I don't know anyone personally that's pushing both of those two things. We have. We have. You might have some special people in touch with you, but what I can't understand is, you know, if you ask people, do you trust the CIA? And I won't say no, no, they're liars. They're overthrowing governments. They they're doing spy games. We never trust CIA. But then the CIA's official position is that this was a lab leak, Wuhan.
It is the favoured official conspiracy theory of the Central Intelligence Agency. And everyone who believes in the lab leak will say, I trust the CIA. I don't trust them for everything else. But on this, I absolutely trust the CIA. So we are into an amazing propaganda phase in in Western civilization where people have basically lost the plot.
And it's if you if you really think that the CIA is going to feed you a narrative after after all the dust settles and all the damage has been done and then they're telling you it's the Chinese and you believe that, then you really need to, I think reconsider what's happening in the world. And I think so many people are just so desperate for some direction on this. They feel hurt. They feel like they're the world's been turned upside down and it has. And so they're looking for
someone to blame. And of course, what's easier than finding a foreign enemy somewhere to blame and use that to build up a wave of policy to maybe attack or sanction or consider them their your enemy. That's kind of what's happening with China. I would just remind everybody that it was not the Chinese government which imposed lockdowns in the United Kingdom and the United States. Yeah, it wasn't the Chinese that yes, that's right. And it wasn't fighting aged Afghan males who were on the
beat enforcing lockdowns. It was British police, just a reminder. Absolutely, Mark. We've talked about Epstein. We've just talked about lockdown and so on. JFK was mentioned a few seconds ago. Clint Hill has passed away. Let's let's hear what you've got to say about that. Yeah, interesting that the JFK documents would come up with regards to the lady congressman with two names and the Israeli
connection that she has. Because one of the theories, one of the top theories as to why JFK got the Dallas retirement plan, as I call it, was that he hedged on giving Ben Gurion, the head of Israel at the time, the go ahead, the green light and the wherewithal to develop a nuclear arsenal. And so that's one of the main theories among several others, but that's one of the top ones, is that JFK would not cooperate with Israel on its military ambitions.
And that's one chief reason perhaps that he got the Dallas retirement plan. Anyway, Clinton J Hill, I met him in 2012. He passed away a week ago, One week ago exactly. The Secret Service agent, of course, who tried to shield the Kennedys. He died at 93 years old, notably. It's down to like three people now other than him now he's
passed away. The only Secret Service agent still living that was there that day is Paul Landis, who lives near Cleveland, OH, and Ruth Payne, of course, with whom Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald lived in Irving, TX. She's still alive. And then Marina Oswald herself. So it's down to those three people now that Clinton Hill has passed away. This is another picture of Clinton Hill in his younger days when he would often go overseas with Jackie on her separate trips from JFK, and he was
mainly her bodyguard. And of course, that photo to the right there is when he jumped on the back of the 100 X limo right after they heard shots in Dallas. And moving on from there. The testimony of Clint Hill is particularly interesting now. I met him in 2012 in Dallas, just north of the Texas School Book Depository, which is now the the museum, the 6th floor museum. And I asked him a question about that second shot that he heard.
And what he said to the Warren Commission back in 63 or early 64 regarding that shot, and he said in 2012 what he was saying even more recently. And that's a complete denial and a complete papering over of what he said initially to the Warren Commission. And it's worth reciting this exactly because the contrast what he said then and what he said in recent years is, is a very stark contrast.
But I think that Clint Hill went to his grave knowing something, excuse me, knowing something very pivotal about this whole event. And he took it with him to his grave. Anyway, Mr. Hill, he said this. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which seemed to me to be a firecracker and immediately looked to my right and is so doing my eyes had to cross the presidential limo. And I saw JFK grab it himself and lurched forward and to the
left. Arlen Spectre, the later a Pennsylvania senator who was a lawyer on the Commission at that time, Mr Spectre said, why don't you just proceed in narrative form, Mr. Hill to tell us. And Representative Boggs, a congressman who was on the Warren Commission at that time, he said this was the first shot. And here's the key part. Mr. Hill replied, This is the first sound that I heard. Yes, Sir. I jumped from the car, realising that something was wrong. I ran to the presidential
limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement because he had described it before as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object. It seemed to have some type of echo. And later on, it's worth noting that they found a 45 pistol slug in the grass along Elm Street across from the School Book Depository. Not a rifle bullet, a pistol
slug. And this next video shows the stark contrast between what Hill said then and what he said in very recent years. Let's go ahead and roll with that. And we had turned down on Elm Street or maybe 150 feet, and as I was getting to my left, I heard this explosive noise from the rear over my right shoulder. I didn't recognise it as a gunshot initially. So I started to turn toward that noise, and I only got as far as the back of the president's car because I saw the president's
reaction. And that's when I realised it had been a gunshot. He grabbed at his throat and he started to fall to his left. He had a back brace on, which prevented him from really bending much forward. But also immediately in front of him with him was seated Governor Conley in a jump seat. And the back of that jump seat was almost up against the knees of President Kennedy. So he started to fall to his left.
And when I then realised this was a gunshot, so I jumped from my position and I ran toward the presidential car with the intent of getting up on top of the back to prevent it, to provide a shield there for President and Mrs Kennedy. Now, when I ran, I had to go between a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle and car I was on. There was play engine noise. And they told me later there was a second shot that at that time,
but I never heard that shot. And as I approached the car, just as I was getting there, there was another shot that was fired. That one I heard. And I felt because that time the president had fallen a little bit farther to his left and his head was way down, like kind of like this. And that shot hit him in the back of the head. And then it erupted out of the upper right quadrant just above the ear. And it blew that portion of the skull.
Skull, which was still attached to the scalp forward like a flap, kind of, and out of that wound gushed blood and bone fragments and brain matter all over the back of the car, all over me, all over. Misses Kennedy. Now the first thing to unpack before we show the very pivotal next slide is that he denied even hearing the second shot, let alone describing it. The second shot was the one that he said sounded like a pistol being shot into a hard object. It seemed to have some type of echo.
He said that in 64, and now he denies even hearing the second shot whatsoever, which is very telling because what he said in 64 was very specific. It was a very vivid recollection of what he heard, not something that's just some off the cuff
comments. So to say now that he doesn't even remember the second shot definitely indicates, and I've done a lot of research on this, that he, he's taking something very important and not wanting to talk about it anymore and, and took it, took it with him to his grave. Apparently. Now in this next shot, although Clinton Hill, I believe had a lot of integrity and a lot of bravery and he served honourably.
He said that there was blood and gore all over the place, including all over him and all over Jackie. Well, these two shots, there's Jackie's same, a pink suit she was wearing that day when she was standing next to LBJ when he was sworn in aboard Air Force One, Absolutely no blood or guts whatsoever on the top of her garment. And then later on arriving in Bethesda, MD, that's Clint Hill
to her left. And as you can see, other than a little bit of discoloration on her skirt that was visible that day in Bethesda, MD, other than that discoloration on her skirt, her top garment was completely clean. There was no blood gushing all over her.
And Clint Hill later on when they got to Parkland Hospital, testified that he took his jacket and put it over JF KS face as they wheeled him into the hospital because it was such a gory thing to look at. But I can't imagine that he would take a blood soaked a sports jacket and put it over JF KS face. So there's two things there that Clinton Hill testifies about that that really beg the question as to whether he's being truthful about those
events. And so in fact, we're we're detecting some major contradictions. And we can talk about this a little more in extra, but this is an article I wrote in 2014 when I covered an event in Alexandria, VA, by Doug Horn, who used to be with the Assassinations Record Review Board, a very important independent body that was set up in the wake of Congress's
investigation in the JFK affair. And it it featured Dino Brugioni, who in 1963 was the top CIA analyst at the National Photographic Interpretation Centre in Washington, DC. And he saw the Uncut Z film before it was reportedly altered at ACIA Lab in Rochester, NY, called Hawkeye Works, which Mr Horn of the Review Board confirmed at the event that I covered back then. And I've talked to him since then. And you might recall, Mike, I covered the JFK event this past November.
And Doug Horn spoke at that. I covered it virtually. And he reiterated many of those same points. But I think in the interest of time, I think we can save some of this for extra. I'll leave it as kind of a cliffhanger. I'll I'll share a couple other interesting things, very interesting things when we get there. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much, Patrick. Let's let's come back to you then.
And, well, the Nordstrom pipeline situation continues to rumble on. Another, another unsolved mystery, another, another one of those for the for the bin. I don't think we're going to get any declassification on this one though. But we have released a really important story up at 21st Century wire.com exclusive the Nordstrom revelation submarines in the NATO lake. We raised that term last week, the NATO lake with Brian Garish.
This is a piece by Freddie Ponton and this is extremely interesting piece of information and a revelation that I would say is a result of very good research and independent journalism by Freddie Ponton. And we're talking about this NATO lake. The big question, Mike, was there sub activity during bow tops 22? Now there's nothing on the surface, no pun intended, but really nothing on the surface here.
So this Natal lake, can anything happen in this lake without any of the NATO countries knowing about it, especially the country who was in charge of. We found out, Freddie has found out, the submarine authority is the responsibility of Germany, believe it or not. And during BALTOPS, Germany was in charge. How would you know that unless you were inside NATO during BALTOPS? Well, something interesting happened on the way to the story here. So Freddie is saying why this
location? There's a lot of places where they could have done the explosions. There was shallower water as as shallow as 30 metres in some places. Why did they go for 8200? And why at that specific point in the Danish exclusive economic zone east of Bornholm Island, these are the questions? And why was there 17 hours between explosions? Interesting questions. And it led to a very interesting investigation here. And if you want to see the details of this, just go to 21st century.
I go to my YouTube channel actually because I am being heavily suppressed on YouTube, submarine activity in the Baltics. And basically we go through the full breakdown of all the documents. Freddie found this out by going through the Danish energy application for Nordstrom and that wasn't public and it became public and translated later. And it says submarine exercise zone right at the exact point where Born Home Island and the Nordstrom's meet. This was a sub training zone for
NATO. We have the documents in here. It's extremely interesting if you're interested in military affairs, but that's not the most interesting part about this. What was also interesting is that Danish television filmed on board one of the Danish naval crafts and had a flat screen TV during the broadcast and they accidentally revealed what could be classified. I don't know, no longer classified. Of course, this is the organisational chart for ball Tops 22.
So Freddie tracked this with every single team and found out where all of these teams are based, who was there on site, including divers from Panama City. So it does give a lot of credence to part of Seymour Hershey's story as well as Bidens Naval Advisor Michael Gilday was also on site and Mark Miley who was preemptively pardoned by Joe Biden before he left office.
So it's a fascinating read and I think it's going to go a long way to putting NATO into the frame on Nordstrom, which is always difficult because it's so multi layered, so complicated. It's hard to know what happened there without any whistleblowers
coming forward. So Freddie I think did a brilliant job of back engineering the story so far and allowing other researchers to get in there and other specialisations like Eric Anderson, the Scandinavian engineer, done great research, including gone to the bottom and done drones to film it and map it. So all these people are kind of helping each other, and this is the spirit of the independent media at its best. So I think it's going to be very interesting reading for a lot of
people. OK, OK, thank you for that. Now we've got to end just a couple of privacy related stories and first of all, the Apple iCloud, the British attempt to to remove the encryption from Apple iCloud. That story rumbles on because Tulsi Gabbard has got involved now. So basically this comes out of the what was what is known as the Cloud Act and this was signed in 2019. It came into force in October 2020. And as to say this might be the first significant act of Tulsi Gabbard.
Anyway, she wrote to a couple of U.S. Congress people saying my lawyers are working to provide a legal opinion on the implications of the reported UK demands against Apple on the Bilateral Cloud Act agreement. Upon initial review of the US and UK Bilat Bilateral Cloud Act agreement, the United Kingdom may not issue demands for data of U.S. citizens, nationals, or lawful permanent residents, nor is it authorised to demand the data of persons located inside the United States. Now.
The reason Tulsi is getting motivated by this is because although Apple has now simply removed this facility from people in the United Kingdom in order to try to swerve around this court order from the United Kingdom government. The original applications of the court by the UK government was demanding that Apple place a back door on their encryption mechanism for iCloud, which would have meant that that the UK government could have got access to anybody's data,
including that of U.S. citizens. So in order to prevent that, Apple has removed the facility from the UK completely, but not from any other jurisdiction. So Tulsi now is, is using her position, I guess as DNI to, to try to investigate whether there has been a breach of that agreement. Now what the implications are for the UKI don't know. And how that fits into what we were talking about at the start of the programme, I don't know. That remains to be seen.
Is this happening now? But this happening now? So right now the UK government are looking at everyone's iCloud, no? They have, well, basically bit bit, well, it is it. The question of the legality of it is, is still to be determined, of course, because they're giving themselves this power through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the amendments. That Act became an act of Parliament last year.
So, so we will, we will see how this develops and we'll talk a bit more, a bit more about this an extra as well. We'll see how this develops, but I think it's an interesting development there from Tulsi and we'll see whether there's any implications. So they haven't enacted it yet. Is this something they're planning to do?
No, no, this is a, this is a, this is a court order that that Apple has complied with in a sense because they have switched off the facility for UK iPhone and iPad and Mac users. Encryption. Encryption, yes, interesting. So we'll leave it there for today. I'm going to say thank you to Mark and to Patrick and to everybody that's been watching. Stick around for Extra because we've got lots to unpack in Extra. And if you're Auk call member, you can do that.
Otherwise, well, join us and then you can join us for Extra every time. Otherwise, have a great weekend. We'll see you at 1:00 PM as usual on Monday. Bye bye.