ally it's not the purpose of it. The purpose of it is overthrowing countries.

So now that you have that context, now the other thing that USAID does to disguise what it's doing is there's this unlimited, just it seems like thousands, I think it is thousands of NGOs, non-government organizations. So they exist all over the world. And if USAID gives one of them some money for something that sounds good on paper, oh, if we give you some money you'll work on some climate stuff, and then that entity has money and then if it gives it to somebody else, then maybe the only thing you would see is, oh, and then this other company gave it to clean up the water in this place that needs some clean water. And you go, oh, that sounds good. But really the whole thing is a money laundering situation to, presumably Democrats are taking some off the top wherever the money moves. And by the way, it's 98% Democrats. It's just a Democrat money laundering asset that the Democrats use and also the deep state.

So now that you know that it's this vast network of connected things for the purpose of laundering money, for the purpose of overthrowing other countries, right, so you need to know it's 100% fake. Now this is the Mike Benz explanation. So I'm borrowing this. This is not my personal opinion, except that Benz makes such a good argument and has such good receipts that if he says it and he shows you his work, I'm kind of on that page. Because his credibility is through the roof and he shows his work just with public stuff.

So here's what Michael Shellenberger, who writes for Public, it's a subscription news-related site that is amazing, I'll read some of this. He goes, now the evidence suggests, talking about USAID, that USAID along with CIA were behind the 2019 impeachment of Trump. What? USAID and the CIA were behind the 2019 impeachment of Trump. That's the one where they said Trump said some things to Zelensky on the phone and he should be impeached for it. Now, how could you possibly know that these entities were involved in that? Well, here's how. The part you probably already knew is that the whistleblower who came forward and said, oh, Trump said he wanted to send Rudy Giuliani to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, that was a CIA analyst who was left over in the White House from the Obama days. So the whistleblower was CIA. Now you might say, oh, you mean ex-CIA? No, I don't think there's any such thing as ex-CIA. I mean, not really, is there? So the first thing we know is that that CIA analyst, that's kind of suspicious, said that something happened. And according to Drop Site News last year, they revealed that the CIA analyst relied on, he didn't hear it himself. Oh, I'm not sure I knew that before, but he didn't hear it himself. He relied on reporting. All right, so the reporting that he relied on, that's the CIA analyst slash whistleblower. He relied on some organization in the government. Oh, okay, government organization called the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, or OCCRP. I didn't even know that existed. Now, who are they? Ever hear of them? I've never heard of them before. Huh. I wonder what we could learn about that organization. So it's an American government or NGO or something. But apparently it's fully controlled by USAID. Wait a minute. So USAID, the entity that is primarily involved in overthrowing other countries, and one of the tools that we know they've used is this very same thing, this Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. And that when USAID has used them in the past, why did they use them in the past? Well, allegedly it was in the service of overthrowing five or six foreign regimes.

So in other words, the CIA, USAID, and then this entity, the OCCRP, were all involved in the impeachment of President Trump in ways similar to the regime change operations that all three organizations engage in abroad. The three of them are supposed to be exterior-facing entities, and their job is to overthrow other countries. The same entities using the same method, which is somebody reported something but the report was fake, and then you use your fake news assets to act like it was true and it's the most important thing that ever happened. That's what happened. Every part of what we do to overthrow other countries successfully was used against Trump, I think multiple times. So this in this particular case, it was for the impeachment. You knew that impeachment was complete fake, right from the first. I think we all knew, wait a minute, that's just fake. You're just making stuff up. There's no way he said that. And whatever he said was certainly legal. He had every right to ask about it. And especially now that we know the depth of the Biden crime family, Trump asking Zelensky to look into it would never have worked because Zelensky is fully owned by the CIA. It never would have worked. But it was perfectly appropriate to ask for it. And he got impeached for that.

Now, as Shellenberger points out, the difference between the CIA, USAID, and OCCRP working together to overthrow a foreign country, it's illegal to do it in the US. And it's not just a little bit illegal. It's the most illegal thing you could possibly do short of, I don't know, being a serial killer or something. What would be more illegal than overthrowing your democratically elected president? Nothing. Nothing. This would be like assassinating Kennedy or something, allegedly.

All right, so does that story check with you? Yeah, I feel like the DOGE penetration of USAID is the Rosetta Stone that allows us to finally see everything we suspected. So I certainly knew that there was a conspiracy to impeach Trump. I obviously knew that it was organized. It was obvious that the media was completely complicit. It was obvious that the whistleblower had some agenda. But I couldn't quite connect all the dots. And now we have it's all connected. It was the exact same tools and the exact same technique that they use on other countries. But what they counted on is that Americans are not aware of these tools and they're not aware of how they're used. And DOGE just changed that. Now we're aware of the tools. And Mike Benz changed it even before DOGE. Now we're aware of the tools. We can actually watch the flow of money. And it apparently is just a gigantic money laundering thing for Democrats. So it seems to be just feeding people money in a variety of illicit ways and trying to overthrow countries, including our own. So yeah, the Democrats who say we've got to keep that USAID, they either have no idea what it really is or they don't care. Which is worse? I don't know which is worse. Actually, I think not caring would be worse.

Well, meanwhile, Pam Bondi, who's only one day in the job, Attorney General, she's got some directives already. She's going to fight the weaponization of justice. How about the weaponization of impeachment? And it's not really the justice system per se, but it kind of is similar. Maybe they should look into that. She wants to eliminate the cartels and lift the death penalty ban for just certain types of things. So that's good. And she's going to be looking into Alvin Bragg's hush money case and also Jack Smith, I think. So yes, Alvin Bragg, in my opinion, was clearly an illegitimate lawfare situation.

All right, here's my question for lawyers. Is it not obvious already that there's a RICO problem going on here? And what would it take to trigger it into a RICO? You know, maybe you don't need to. But some of the things people said as, well, Scott, everything USAID did was legal. To which I say, yeah, technically maybe they're allowed to give money to anybody they want and it's not illegal. But if their intention is to give it to entities that will give it back to somebody, you know, like a kickback or to subvert an American election, well, that seems to me kind of coordinated and RICO. When if you just look at, if the only thing you looked at was the 2019 impeachment case, you could see the coordination. The coordination is all over that. Obviously the media was part of it. And remember, I used to say that I couldn't understand why the media wouldn't debunk all the hoaxes, you know, like the drinking bleach hoax and the fine people hoax. And I would say, how can you not debunk the things that can be debunked just by your own video that you own? You would just have to look at the whole video instead of the edited one. You could debunk the whole thing. It's the biggest story in the country, both of them were at one point. And never, not years later, not at any point, did they debunk those things. And here's the reason. They always knew that they weren't true. They were obviously part of a criminal conspiracy. Because if you don't have the media on your side, then all of your other weaseling gets uncovered. So controlling the media is step one. I mean, you can't do the other weasel stuff unless you control the media.

All right, so we'll see. Maybe you need a specific leader to make it a RICO. I don't know.

So now a dozen states, according to Daily Caller News Foundation, a dozen states are looking into whether or not there's some charges they can put on Anthony Fauci because the federal charges... Wait, who said that? Oh no, Andrew Tate just weighed in. "The entire case against me was funded via USAID to remove my influence from the internet. I have the paperwork." Oh man, I'll bet that's true. Now remember, it's Andrew Tate, so you know, don't get too enthusiastic about the veracity of it. Let's just put it that way. But if he does have the paperwork and he can show that his specific case was funded by USAID, then that would mean that the reason for it was to remove his influence. I've always assumed that's what it was. I didn't know about the USAID, but I always assumed that some deep part of the American government is what closed them down, maybe working with Five Eyes, you know, other countries. Great Britain would want to close them down as well. But I don't want to run and embrace that as true because it's just a thing Andrew Tate is saying on X. But if I had to place a bet, I'll bet he does have the receipts. We'll see. It would be a bold thing to say if you couldn't prove it. Now that's interesting.

So anyway, the states are looking to see if there are any charges they can put on Fauci. I am completely against this. I'm completely against it. The way I read the story is the states have ganged up. They started with the person and now they're looking for the crime. They started with the person and they're checking with all the other states. Hey, do you see a crime? Do you see a crime? Got any crimes we can go after him for? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You can't start with a person and then look for a crime. That's not going to fly. Don't make me support Anthony Fauci. All right, because some NPC is going to say, oh, you defended Anthony Fauci because you like vaccinations. It will kill you. No, I don't like what Fauci did. Yes, I believe he probably violated some crimes. I don't know which ones, but probably. But he's got a pardon from the federal government. If these states don't have obvious crimes that are sort of right in front of them, you don't get to go looking for it. That's too far. That's too far. So we'll see what they come up with. But you can't have Pam Bondi trying to stop lawfare and all 12 of our states are engaged in it publicly. That would be lawfare. That's what it is when you start with a person and then look for a crime. Oh, we can find some crime here. No, totally messed up. I don't want to have my name associated with anybody who would do anything like that. So you better do better. This is not up to the standard. This is not up to the current standard of the United States. It is up to the standard of what we just got rid of. We just canned Biden because of this kind of stuff. Don't shit on Biden and then start being Biden. So unless there's something I'm missing about this story, this is a hard no. Absolutely not. Don't make me look like some Biden guy just because I'm supporting Trump or supporting the Republicans in this case.

So checking in with the Democrats and their messaging. They've decided to go with Joy Reid said Musk is a private citizen trying to take over the government. And let's see, what did Jen Psaki say? She said it's a hostile takeover of government. There's no other way to describe it. Really, there's no other way to describe it. I'm going to use that. That's the argument for people who don't know how anything works. You can use it for everything. You see this in my hand? It's a porcupine. Shut up. There's no other way to describe it. No, it's not a pen. There's only one way to d