Untitled Document

[00:00:00] both raided by the FBI under different [00:00:02] Mine was over the president's daughter's [00:00:04] diary, yours over what was it over? [00:00:07] >> So, I mean, it's complicated for me to [00:00:10] try to answer that because when the FBI [00:00:13] was writing us, they basically said, [00:00:15] "There's a financial investigation into [00:00:17] some people you work with." And I was [00:00:18] like, "Okay." It wasn't until after they [00:00:21] left, I heard the Merrick Garland press [00:00:23] release essentially accusing us of [00:00:26] trying to subvert the presidential [00:00:27] election um and being paid [00:00:30] propagandists. So, I guess what that was [00:00:32] all about depends on who you ask. I [00:00:35] think it's pretty safe to say that it [00:00:36] was politicized regardless though. [00:00:39] >> So, you believe it to be a politicized [00:00:41] prosecution? [00:00:42] >> Very much so. And you mentioned we have [00:00:44] the we have the same lawyer, lovely, [00:00:46] expensive fellow. Um, I mean, according [00:00:48] to him, usually these indictments around [00:00:50] >> Jeff Lickman. [00:00:51] >> Yeah, Jeff Lickman. [00:00:52] >> I don't know if he wants to be [00:00:53] associated with [00:00:54] >> I talked to him before this and he said [00:00:56] it's fine to name him as we were both [00:00:58] He's both I Lickman was not as expensive [00:01:00] as many other lawyers I've worked with. [00:01:02] >> I mean, there's a very high ceiling for [00:01:04] lawyers. I suppose there are [00:01:06] theoretically more expensive lawyers [00:01:08] than him. [00:01:08] >> Yes. [00:01:09] >> But um [00:01:10] >> Yes. But so so SDNY indictment on [00:01:12] Russian funding influence in the FBI [00:01:14] raid. Just to refresh our audience, if [00:01:16] we could put up 101 GFX [00:01:20] on the screen there. Here we have we on [00:01:22] the screen. If we can put it up for the [00:01:23] audience, there's the the Southern [00:01:25] District of New York. United States. [00:01:27] >> My good buddies. [00:01:28] >> What's that? [00:01:28] >> My good buddies. [00:01:29] >> Good buddies. I mean, I' I've had a lot [00:01:30] of dealings with SDNY. [00:01:32] >> Did you see the Matt Tiermon video we've [00:01:34] dropped? [00:01:35] >> Yes, I did. He said he went to the SDNY. [00:01:39] He wasn't specifically clear about what [00:01:41] he ratted on. [00:01:42] >> Maybe it was about the diary, but that's [00:01:44] another story. So this is USA versus two [00:01:47] Russians. [00:01:47] >> Yeah. Not me. There was [00:01:49] >> Who are these two Russians? [00:01:50] >> So these are people who worked in [00:01:52] conjunction with our company. They were [00:01:54] doing social media stuff. Um there's [00:01:57] been a lot of misreporting on this case. [00:01:59] I've heard online that I've been [00:02:01] indicted. I had charges. They were [00:02:04] dropped. [00:02:04] >> That's what people might assume that you [00:02:06] were indicted. [00:02:06] >> Yeah. But I was not indicted. They were [00:02:08] indicted. [00:02:09] >> Yeah. I've never been indicted. Never [00:02:10] had charges against me. And I mean, to [00:02:12] be clear, our investigation is now [00:02:14] closed. I also want to mention that it [00:02:17] wasn't the case that, oh, Trump came in [00:02:19] and now he's trying to make everything [00:02:21] go away because our our, you know, our [00:02:24] content was favorable to conservatives. [00:02:25] No, this was basically all finished [00:02:28] before he even came to office. I also [00:02:30] want to make [00:02:31] >> So, they raided you because you had [00:02:33] information that could help them in [00:02:35] their case against these two Russians? [00:02:37] >> I would also say no to that. Um, I don't [00:02:41] think there's been anything new about [00:02:42] the case that wasn't already in the the [00:02:45] indictment. And what is in there, a lot [00:02:47] of it is very misleading. There's some [00:02:49] things that are outright false in there, [00:02:50] but I mean, essentially, they had been [00:02:53] listening to us for, I would say, years. [00:02:56] >> Listening to you, the the the uh [00:02:59] Southern District of New York, the FBI. [00:03:00] >> I mean, yeah, the FBI. [00:03:01] >> And they got secret warrants against [00:03:03] you. [00:03:03] >> Yes, that's right. [00:03:04] >> Through Google and Apple and all these [00:03:06] different companies. [00:03:07] >> Yes. And it's funny, uh, a few months [00:03:09] before this happened, I got a strange [00:03:11] login notification from Google that [00:03:12] someone was accessing my account from [00:03:14] Maryland. And I guess my message to [00:03:16] people is that if that ever happens to [00:03:17] you, don't just ignore it. It might be [00:03:20] the FBI. [00:03:20] >> Might be the FBI. [00:03:22] >> Yeah. Wow. [00:03:22] >> So, I mean, basically [00:03:25] why I mentioned my lawyer is that [00:03:27] according to him, these indictments are [00:03:28] usually four to five pages, not 30ome [00:03:31] pages as ours was. And I say ours again, [00:03:34] it's not my indictment, but as the [00:03:35] indictment related to our company was. [00:03:38] And um you know, since the two people [00:03:40] who are actually indicted in this were [00:03:41] not in the country, I I don't believe [00:03:44] that they ever thought that this case [00:03:45] would go to trial. Um I believe that [00:03:48] this indictment was essentially a press [00:03:49] release of things that they wanted to [00:03:51] allege knowing that they wouldn't [00:03:53] actually ever have to prove it in court. [00:03:54] And I mean, I'm right. It's never gone [00:03:56] to court. And there's from everything I [00:03:58] can tell like our investigation is [00:04:00] closed for sure. I don't think they're [00:04:01] doing anything with anything else. So, [00:04:03] it's just kind of there now. [00:04:05] >> So, this is this is the indictment [00:04:07] alleges that RT Russia today secretly [00:04:10] funded and helped steer this Tennessee [00:04:13] based company called what was the name [00:04:15] of the company? [00:04:15] >> Tenant. [00:04:16] >> Tenant. Who's in Who's in charge of [00:04:18] Tenant? [00:04:19] >> Um, well, I was like, I guess day-to-day [00:04:22] operations with my husband. And what's [00:04:24] really frustrating is that basically the [00:04:27] allegation is that, you know, there are [00:04:29] these Russians who are controlling [00:04:30] things. The FBI, like I mentioned, had [00:04:32] access to all of our in like our [00:04:34] internal communications. They knew [00:04:37] exactly how our workflow worked and our [00:04:41] creators had 100% editorial freedom over [00:04:44] everything that they put out. We were [00:04:45] actually licensing their content. So, I [00:04:48] mean, we worked with people like Tim [00:04:50] Pul, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin. These [00:04:51] people had their own production [00:04:54] workflows that we were not involved in [00:04:56] at all. We often didn't see the content [00:04:57] until they were the ones uploading it. [00:05:00] So for this to be spun as somehow this [00:05:03] is propaganda or I've even heard after [00:05:06] it was like pretty clear the creators [00:05:08] came out and said we weren't told to say [00:05:10] anything they changed it to they were [00:05:12] unwitting propagandists which as a [00:05:15] concept makes no sense. I'm sorry that [00:05:16] doesn't but [00:05:17] >> unwitting propagandist. [00:05:19] >> Unwitting propagandists. [00:05:20] >> Yeah. I mean, they they argue that did [00:05:23] they argue in this indictment that you [00:05:25] knew about or this indictment against [00:05:27] these two Russians that you knew that [00:05:29] you were spreading propaganda? [00:05:30] >> Well, so it's interesting. If there is [00:05:34] this big propaganda operation, you would [00:05:36] assume that there's a lot of proof of [00:05:37] what the propaganda is, right? [00:05:39] Especially since this was a media [00:05:41] channel. We're putting out content every [00:05:42] day. They should have a wealth of of [00:05:44] examples to choose from. One of the [00:05:46] examples of propaganda was the fact that [00:05:49] do you remember Tucker Carlson did a [00:05:52] trip to Russia and he there was this [00:05:54] clip that he did where he went to a [00:05:56] Russian grocery store and he was [00:05:57] impressed because I think it was cheap [00:05:59] and people were putting the the grocery [00:06:01] carts away. So we shared that clip [00:06:04] >> and that is in the indictment. [00:06:05] >> Do we have the picture of that producer [00:06:08] from the indictment? [00:06:10] >> This is the you may be sharing from [00:06:12] >> I might be committing a felony. Let's [00:06:14] play the tape. [00:06:17] This is Tucker in Russia. [00:06:18] >> Standing feature, maybe the longest [00:06:20] standing feature of Cold War propaganda [00:06:22] in the West was the Soviet grocery [00:06:25] store. [00:06:27] No products, no choices, shoddily made [00:06:31] things. And it wasn't actually [00:06:34] propaganda. It was real. And you can [00:06:35] look up the pictures on the internet if [00:06:36] you want. So, we thought it would be [00:06:38] interesting to take a look at a [00:06:39] contemporary modern-day 2024 Russian [00:06:43] grocery store. two years into sanctions. [00:06:46] Here we go. [00:06:49] All right. Here we go. So, I guess you [00:06:52] put in 10 rubles here and you get it [00:06:55] back when you [00:06:57] >> Anyway, this is a this is a longer clip, [00:06:59] but Tucker is kind of taking you through [00:07:01] the grocery store saying this isn't so [00:07:03] bad. And this is one of the clips [00:07:04] >> from Russia with love. [00:07:06] >> But this is something Tucker produced. [00:07:08] Oh, yeah. [00:07:08] >> And you guys distributed or reproduced [00:07:10] or disseminated. So, we it was going [00:07:12] viral and we were, you know, we would [00:07:15] share clips that were getting a lot of [00:07:17] attention as a lot of these other [00:07:18] outlets do. This was one of them. And [00:07:20] it's funny because as we were going to [00:07:23] share it, our producer, one of our [00:07:24] producers said like, "He's getting kind [00:07:26] of flak for this. People are saying he's [00:07:28] shilling. Should we still share it?" And [00:07:31] this is like how I I know that they were [00:07:34] definitely trying to paint us in a [00:07:35] certain way. Um, we had internal [00:07:37] discussions about it. We agreed that we [00:07:39] would share it, but we also when we did [00:07:40] share it, we mentioned that some people [00:07:43] are criticizing this as being um I guess [00:07:46] not telling the whole story. What do you [00:07:48] think? So, we were actually kind of we [00:07:50] tried to include that in when we shared [00:07:52] it. The fact that there are people who [00:07:54] says this who say this isn't [00:07:55] representative of Russia or who feel [00:07:57] that he's maybe trying to uh put a [00:07:59] better foot forward than is actually the [00:08:02] case in with these grocery stores. They [00:08:04] didn't include that either. They they [00:08:05] were just like, "Nope, they just shared [00:08:07] it. They are just trying to propagandize [00:08:09] Americans into [00:08:10] >> this is from the indictment. This is uh [00:08:12] can put the screen a screenshot on the [00:08:14] screen. Uh on about February 15th, 2024 [00:08:17] a video of well-known US political [00:08:19] commentary visiting go that's Tucker uh [00:08:22] who's Afanasa. [00:08:24] What is that? [00:08:24] >> Um that was that was um that's one of [00:08:27] the people who's indicted. [00:08:28] >> Indicted posted the video in the [00:08:30] producer Discord channel. What's the [00:08:31] producer discord channel? So this is I [00:08:34] mean we had an internal company Discord [00:08:38] channel. It's basically kind of like [00:08:39] Slack. Yeah. But but not Slack. We would [00:08:43] have a channel where people would give [00:08:45] pitches um where we would share [00:08:48] different clips that were getting a lot [00:08:50] of attention. Hey, do we want to share [00:08:51] this? Does anyone want to cover this? [00:08:52] That type of thing. Um so we were [00:08:55] operating that way for about a year and [00:08:57] this is the story that they chose to [00:08:59] highlight as proof of our [00:09:01] >> So this is what they say in the [00:09:02] indictment. This is the FBI or the [00:09:04] prosecutors and SDNY and the SDNY is [00:09:07] perniciously all about power. As Matt [00:09:09] Tiermont said, I agree with them on [00:09:10] that. They are really, it's really of a [00:09:13] dark kind of place. The SDNY it is. [00:09:15] >> It's not justice-based. It's power and [00:09:18] control. But this is what they write. [00:09:19] Quote, this is producer one privately [00:09:22] message founder two. They always use [00:09:24] these these metanyms in instead of your [00:09:27] real name. You're founder one. My [00:09:28] assumption is [00:09:29] >> yes. Founder two is your husband. Yes. [00:09:32] >> Who also, for the record, has never been [00:09:34] charged with anything. And [00:09:35] >> I mean, I was never charged. They raided [00:09:37] my home. [00:09:37] >> Yeah. They don't really care about that. [00:09:38] They just want to [00:09:39] >> It's It's kind of wild they raid [00:09:41] newsrooms, but we'll talk about that in [00:09:42] a minute. So, quote, "They want me to [00:09:44] post this. That's your husband." [00:09:46] referencing the video that the Russian [00:09:47] had posted, but quote, "It just feels [00:09:50] like overt shilling. They're referencing [00:09:52] something your husband wrote in the [00:09:54] Slack or Discord channel." Now, founder [00:09:56] two, that's you, replied, [00:09:58] >> "Founder two is my husband. [00:09:59] >> Pardon me. Founder two, as your husband, [00:10:01] replied that founder one, that's you, [00:10:03] thinks we should put it out there. [00:10:05] Producer Acquest. Okay. So, they're [00:10:08] trying to use this as justification for [00:10:10] for what? What What exactly is the [00:10:12] >> that this is a covert propaganda outlet? [00:10:16] The fact that we shared this Tucker [00:10:19] Carlson clip that we didn't we weren't [00:10:20] even involved in producing. It was just [00:10:22] kind of it was topical. It was going [00:10:24] viral. And again, that's not even the [00:10:27] full story. We we agreed that we would [00:10:30] share it, but also mentioned that there [00:10:31] was some controversy over the clip. So, [00:10:33] we were trying to cover all of our bases [00:10:35] and just kind of present it as is. [00:10:37] >> What how much money did these Russian [00:10:39] investors give to you guys? [00:10:42] >> Well, the investors that I mean, that's [00:10:44] this whole thing of who the money [00:10:46] supposedly came from. There's stuff in [00:10:48] the indictment that I can't verify that [00:10:52] if it it's if it's true, which I'm [00:10:54] seeing as how they kind of twisted [00:10:56] things that I know aren't true, I'm very [00:10:58] skeptical of. I'm not taking these [00:11:00] people's word on anything. Um like we [00:11:02] were working with a French team in terms [00:11:04] of the investor side. I speak French, [00:11:06] spoke French with them, but um something [00:11:09] else that was reported is the amount. [00:11:11] So, it was basically in the media made [00:11:14] to seem like I personally was getting [00:11:17] like millions of dollars, which was not [00:11:18] true. They reported our total operating [00:11:20] budget as money that was going to me [00:11:22] personally. Um, which is not accurate at [00:11:25] all. [00:11:25] >> How much money do you know that you [00:11:27] received from the people that sent it? [00:11:30] >> I think it was about 10 million to cover [00:11:32] all of our shows, uh, production, [00:11:35] travel. [00:11:36] >> 10 million is a lot of money. Yeah, it [00:11:38] was um we were working with big talent [00:11:40] and that was the thing like we were we [00:11:43] were in negotiations with these talents [00:11:45] for months and um you know these are [00:11:47] numbers that I didn't come up with [00:11:49] basically. [00:11:50] >> And what did they want in exchange for [00:11:51] that 10 million? What's the [00:11:53] consideration as part of the deal? [00:11:54] >> I mean none. This was basically like an [00:11:56] an angel investor situation. They had [00:11:59] absolutely no say over what [00:12:00] >> did they want an ownership stake in the [00:12:02] company or [00:12:03] >> No. No. And this was basically just and [00:12:06] I mean at the end of the day I I don't [00:12:11] know how much I should be talking about [00:12:12] people who are not me and I don't know [00:12:14] what their case is right now. You know [00:12:16] >> I'm you know Jeffrey worked with us on [00:12:18] what was going on with us. So these [00:12:20] other people Yeah. Sorry. The attorney. [00:12:22] So [00:12:23] >> you know what all the SDNY has or [00:12:27] doesn't have on these other people. I'm [00:12:28] not sure. My assumption is, I don't know [00:12:30] this, but my assumption is the SDNY has [00:12:32] just dropped this entire thing because [00:12:34] Trump is the president and that's what [00:12:37] happens unfortunately in our country. [00:12:39] Justice is downstream from who's in [00:12:40] charge. And that's my assumption. Let's [00:12:43] face it, healthc care is a mess. [00:12:45] Outrageous premiums, surprise bills, [00:12:47] denied claims, and now the rates are [00:12:49] climbing again. Medical debt is the [00:12:51] number one cause of bankruptcy, even for [00:12:53] people with insurance. That's why I [00:12:55] switched to Impact Health Sharing. No [00:12:57] networks, no woke nonsense, just real [00:12:59] savings and up to 50%. You can pick your [00:13:02] doctor. There's no surprise bills. [00:13:04] There's 247 teleaalth and maternity [00:13:06] support. Take control of your healthcare [00:13:09] before the system decides for you. Go to [00:13:11] impactomg.com. [00:13:13] That's impactomg.com [00:13:15] or call 855378677 [00:13:19] now. Impact Healthsharing, built [00:13:22] differently.