Transcription
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence for the Trump administration, has released previously classified documents. Actually, some of these documents that she released were hidden in a locked room because they didn't want anybody ever to find the documents or the information hidden in the documents.
Tulsi Gabbard found those documents in a locked room. She released them. She declassified them. And it shows us exactly how the Democrats did this, how they staged this plot against Donald Trump, this Ukraine impeachment hoax hoax in order to subvert your vote.
And by the way, I know that there's been some reports in the last week or two about whether President Trump is going to fire Tulsi Gabbard or whether Tulsi Gabbard might quit the administration because Trump and Tulsi have both publicly taken very different positions on Iran, foreign policy related to Iran, the military operation in Iran, etc. That's really no secret. Trump's even admitted that she has different views than him.
Um, however, President Trump should keep Tulsi Gabbard in his administration because Tulsi Gabbard might be the only person in his administration who is pursuing justice for the crimes committed against Donald Trump and against us by deep state swamp creatures. She is the only one who is saying, "Yeah, here's the evidence. I found it. I put it together. I'm presenting it to you. I'm releasing classified information that proves that what we knew seven years ago is actually true."
So to talk about exactly what revelations um are in these documents to put together, again, we already knew the basics, but this is the detailed version of how they staged this plot. We're going to bring on an investigative journalist who's been right about this story for the last seven years. He's the author of Swift Boating America, Hans Monkey. Hans, good to see you. Thanks for joining the show.
Thanks for having me.
Okay, talk to me about these documents that Tulsi Gabbard released. I mean, I do find it to be very vindicating that you and Shawn Davis and Paul Sperry and all of the Molly Hemingway and all of these excellent investigative journalists were basically right about this from day one, including the names of the people involved here. Um, but what stuck out to you the most about Tulsi Gabbard's document release?
What stuck out to me the most is the extent of the conflicts that this so-called whistleblower Eric Saramela had at the time and which were known at the time to the inspector general and the inspector general instead of just shutting it off at that point because we can get into some details here in a moment in terms of what all those conflicts were or are but instead of shutting it down and saying look this is a clown show go away he elevated the whole thing. He broke his own rules to make it happen in terms of making the impeachment happen. So, it's sort of a combination of absolute total corruption in the sense of the conflicts of interest of the so-called whistleblower and then perhaps even worse corruption on the part of the guy who is employed to be the sort of gatekeeper, the inspector general who then knowing all those problems and uh you know that that sort of struck me as the the core of it.
Yeah, it seems to me and this was I mean the whole thing is shocking as I said also vindicating uh and I hope something comes of this. I hope there's some kind of prosecution. I know we'll get into statute of limitations and what can actually be done a little bit later. But what struck me the most was that all of these different players were compromised. It wasn't just one person. There there's one person that you can say maybe concocted this plot and set it into action, but it required the corruption of multiple people from the inspector general um to Alexander Vinman to this alleged whistleblower Eric Taramela. I'm not sure, by the way, why Tulsi Gabbard redacted uh their names and even their their gender in this in these documents. I'm not sure. We're trying to we're trying to um figure that out right now why those why that name was redacted because we know what the names are. We know we know who these people are. I'm not sure why that's redacted. But then including Adam Schiff in the Congress, like all of these people had to act corruptly in order to pull this off.
That is exactly right. Now on on the point of why his name remains redacted. It might be something very simple in terms of uh kind of a legal barrier there and and there's a lawyer somewhere in the in Tulsi's office who said, you know, let's play it safe here. Specifically, what I mean is on the so-called whistleblower form, there's a box uh that CRMA had to sign in terms of whether he wanted his name released or not, and he said no. Um, and then he he made some exception that you can give it to certain people or whatever, but basically he said no. So, you know, in terms of uh being ultra cautious, I can perhaps see how everyone knows the guy's name anyway, so I don't think it makes much of a difference. So anyway, I think there might be a kind of an innocent explanation as to why that name is still redacted.
Now, in terms of the wider plot, you're absolutely right. It involved a whole number of people and we now we knew the outlines of this. We knew the outlines of this pretty well, but those have not only been confirmed, but you know, kind of filled in. So, we know all the details now. So it started on July 25th, 2019, which not coincidentally was the day after Robert Mueller's train wreck testimony in Congress, the day when the Russia hoax officially ended because he said no collusion at well, we all remember that the guy was completely beyond it. So obviously they needed a new hoax and that new hoax started the next morning.
So the first interesting thing I found in the in those new documents uh was that this this call between Zalinsky and Trump had been arranged at the last minute. I don't think we knew that. And it also said that it was the National Security Council who was pushing Trump to have the call whereas Trump was not so enthusiastic about uh you know having the call. So, of course, that makes you think, well, um, who exactly arranged the call and when exactly did they arrange it and did they already know that the Mueller thing would be a train wreck and they needed something else that they could, you know, clutch at? So, we can't prove this, but it certainly stuck out the fact that this was arranged at the last minute.
Now the next thing which personally has always bothered me and and it I guess it's seen as a routine thing, but I just don't agree with it. I think is really really bad. H this is also detailed in in these documents is that there were something like 12 or more people listening in on the call. Now this is supposed to be a diplomatic call between two presidents and you have all these people sitting in some room dark room somewhere listening in national security council types and so on. And um anyway as it turns out Alexander Vinman was one of those people. Again his name is also redacted. So you have these kind of code NSE1, NSE2 and so
Doesn't he witness one though in probably?
That's right, they they swap around the descriptions at some point, you know, maybe to confuse us, I don't know, but uh no one is actually well, some people are named, but but none of the main characters are actually named in in these new documents, but anyway, so we had Vinman listening in and then apparently Vinman uh according to these documents uh didn't report anything himself, didn't complain himself, didn't do anything himself, but used this guy, Sierra Mela, as a sort of a vehicle to push this hoax.
So, he said, "Hey, Eric, uh, I I was just on this call. I listened in on this call, and you know, Trump is extorting the president of Ukraine." Something to that effect. We don't know exactly what Vinman said, but that's how the ball got rolling. So, as you already mentioned earlier, Sierra Mala was never in the room. Now, even if everything is completely above the board and everyone's being totally honest, which they're not. We know that. But let's just assume this is always very bad because as soon as some it's like past the telephone, someone hears something and then they tell it to someone else and you're going to lose information. That's just that's just how it goes. But it gets even worse. Uh Vinman apparently didn't tell him that much. So then another guy, NSC2, comes along and there there are some uh identifications out there in terms of who that person is. um someone that goes back with Sierra Mela a while but yeah, you I don't want to say the name because I can't I can't vouch for that at at this time, but um anyway, another guy NS2 then also told CRMA about the call, but NS2 wasn't even on the call. He himself had only seen the the the readout as you say, it's not even a transcript, but he hadn't even didn't even have a copy of the readout. Someone gave him something to look at very briefly and that was the basis of that guy's information NSC2, so not Vinman, a second guy. And then the report says, the the one that was released yesterday, that most or pretty much all of the the substantial uh complaint against Trump is based on this whatever this NSC2 guy said. But you see, we're now talking about not only second or third hand hearsay. I think we're talking about fourth hand hearsay. We have the call. Someone jotss down something about the call. So that's the first level. Then we have someone uh telling that guy n2 about it. That's a second level. Then NC2 tells Sierramela about it. That's third hand. And Sierramela tells the inspector general about it. That's the fourth hand.
So in order to prevent that kind of pass the telephone, there was a rule in place in the inspector general's office that you cannot have second, third hand um complaints. You can't have that. It has to be firsthand. And um the inspector general changed the rules at the same time and he concealed the fact that he changed the rules and then he backdated the fact that he changed the rules to make it look as if he changed the rules like a long time ago. I mean completely corrupt and you know, so that's how the ball got rolling. You got Vinman, you got this NYSE2 guy. You got the inspector general himself involved. Again, I said earlier, he was supposed to be the gatekeeper, but he he was part of the plot. And I guess I I'll stop here, but we haven't even talked about Shiff yet.
Well, I want to get to Shiff because that was the other thing, and this was reported at the time again. Uh I think I think we all deserve a pat on the back to be honest. I be we got we got vilified so much for even saying the name. You know, when Paul Sperry at Real Clear Investigations reported that it was Eric Chiella, the mainstream media and the left acted like it was a federal crime to mention his name, that you would be sued into oblivion for false accusations because they they didn't want people to know. They wanted to hide from you who this person was, that he's not credible, he's a a Trump hater, a deep state swamp subversive. Um, and I think the people who stuck with this story and kept reporting on it deserve a ton of credit. I'm going to spend half the show just congratulating people because that's a long slog. 7 years before vindication. Um, but yes, talk about the role of Schiff here because it was reported at the time that the so-called whistleblower um had spoken to Schiff uh and lied to the inspector general about who he had spoken to and when. Talk to me about that and the implications of that.
Yeah, absolutely. So, um, there's an 18-day gap between Trump's phone call and Sierra Mela making the complaint.
And during those 18 days, a lot of, um, plotting was going on in in the background. And that plotting involved the, um, House Intel Committee, which at the time was led by Schiff. Now, it just so happens again, you know, um, where I'm heading with this is that I guess before today or before yesterday, we might have thought, well, you know, they you it was a a convenient thing. They used Trump's phone call and then they kind of just twisted into something and and built something out of it. But I think the evidence now points to premeditation.
They planned it all along the way it would play out. And so what happened with um Schiff is that he hired a friend of Sierra Mela in exactly that time frame uh July of 2019. And then that friend was a sort of the conduit to Shiff's committee and Sierra Mela was in touch with the committee about this issue. um which of course, you know, if he's a bonafide whistleblower who wants to go to the IG within his own section, okay, you know, there's a process for that and so let's assume the IG is not corrupt and you know, supposedly it plays out that way, but he never even allowed it to play out that way, even if we take the sort of the best case scenario because he went straight to Schiff. Now Schiff then lied about it and Sierra also lied about it and in the transcript that we got yesterday um the inspector general admits that CMLA lied about it. Now this transcript is from October of 2019. So the inspector general knew in October of 2019 that the so-called whistleblower had lied. You know, at that point, once again, you shut it down. If if someone lies about something so central, you know, you can't trust him on anything. It's it's just completely ridiculous.
And yet he just, you know, went forward. There's one funny little thing about a shift in in that transcript. He was also in the room in October of 2019 talking to the inspector general. It was John Ratcliffe, who's now the CIA director, who uh exposed the fact that Sierra Mela had lied about his contacts with Schiff. And at that point in the transcript, Schiff jumps in and says, "Uh uh, yeah, yeah, when I said that, that there was no contact. I I didn't mean there was no contact. I meant that uh we told him he couldn't testify." This is just completely, you know, made up. But it was just funny how is what they call that.
That's right. Yeah. But just a little anecdote out of what what we got here yesterday. Um, again, the overarching point is that there was a plot underway. The plot involved NYSE staffers. They involved this guy Sierra Mela who acted as a sort of a like a vehicle like a conduit. I mean
A stooge in a sense.
A stooge. I mean, he's not a good guy. Let's let's not, you know, make you know, let's not kind of call him a psyever. He wasn't like it wasn't like that. I mean, he they used him for a specific purpose, which is to get the whole ball rolling. Now, why him? Well, they knew he was anti-Trump. You already mentioned that. Um, there was actually reports about him back in 2017, how he was sabotaging the Trump administration from the inside. So, back in 2017, he worked for the national security adviser, HR McMaster.
Mhm.
And people got wind of the fact that he was sabotaging and leaking. And that that was reported at the time in 2017. So, that ties in with what you said earlier about uh the media, you know, going into full blackout mode. You can't mention the guy's name because if the guy's name had been mentioned in 2019 when all this kicked off, people could have just searched him and said, "Hold on, he was leaking and sabotaging Trump two years ago and now we're supposed to trust him as this sort of this above board neutral uh whistleblower." The whole thing would have just fallen apart, which is why they uh they covered it up and covered up his name.
Right? Which again is just a reminder. I mean, well, I think we hate the mainstream media on a daily basis because they, you know, have biased headlines and inaccurate reporting and they choose not to cover things that they should be covering, but it's actually much worse than that. It's much it I mean, they're propagandists and even that word, we use it so often, it's been uh we're desensitized to it, but they are actual propagandists who hate you enough to be part of a plot to subvert the president you elected.
Um, I find it fascinating the point that you made before about this call being set up last minute. So, it wasn't just like, oh, hey, let's use this call since it happened, but maybe that this was evidence that it was premeditated, that they hoped Trump would say something that they could use to trap him in this call.
So, that is the million-dollar question. Uh, Vinman was the one who listened in from the situation room. Chiara Mela was the one that they used as the whistleblower. NSC2 was one of the conduits of the information. Michael Atkinson, the inspector general, changed the rules and overlooked lying and didn't uh take into account the lack of credibility of all of these all of these individuals. But who was the person or the people who concocted this plot?
That's the million-dollar question. I don't know. Um, Schiff seems to be a very central player in all of this. And um, I I mentioned here a few moments ago that he happened to hire uh a friend of the so-called whistleblower at exactly that time. Um, of course, when you have a friend of someone working on your committee, you don't even need to like officially kind of leak anything, I guess, because friend tells friend and then friend goes to second friend and the new new hire goes to work and he already knows all these things which he was told by the by Sierla. Um, I hope we we find out more in going forward in in terms of how exactly this played out.
Now, unfortunately, and this is this is the bad part. You alluded to it earlier. Why did it take seven years? Well, it took seven years because that happens to be when all the statute of limitations have expired. Um, normally it's five years. So, if you do not bring charges for something within five years in federal law, you can no longer bring them. That's it. And the the charges have to be brought from the time that the offense happened, not from like now when we find out about it. It has to be back when it happened. So, you know, people argue is that a good thing, a bad thing. You know, law wants some kind of finality and so on. So, anyway, that's the rule. We can't change it. There are some uh circumstances where that can go a bit longer, but now we're at seven years. You know, it's not going to happen. None of these people are going to get charged.
They're all going to get off scot-free. There's not
At least not for the stuff that happened in 2019. Now, of course, you know, it they do corrupt things, then of course they're going to keep doing corrupt things or there may be other things that they could be charged with, but in my strong feeling is that the reason this was held back and if you go back on my Twitter, I've been asking for this transcript with with Atkinson, the inspector general, for the past seven years. I mean, my my whole Twitter timeline is is sort of every whenever it came up in some context, every few weeks, every few months, whatever, I would say, "Where's the transcript? Where's the transcript?"
I can attest to this. I've seen I follow you. I've seen I've seen this tweet. You were, as I said in the beginning, you were right from the beginning. I mean, it's kind of wild if you think about what was the uh the words in Tulsy's release were this was in a locked room. Like, they actually knew that if you got your hands on this transcript, their plot would be completely exposed. And so, they put it not only under a classification system, they actually put it in a physical place and locked the door to try to keep you from finding it.
That is true. But uh to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, uh this was a known unknown, not an unknown unknown. So we knew there must be a transcript. It's just where is it, you know, and the fact that they locked it away, it would have just taken someone making a special effort. Unfortunately, it took seven years until Tulsi showed up and made that special effort. You know, one of the really really annoying things is that the um the people in charge of uh intelligence, director of national intelligence back in the day,
It would have been their job to expose all these things. By the way, the same for um same for Russia gate, which you know started basically in 2017. Um, they had access to all that information. They could have released it all at the time. And by the way, I don't want to digress too far here, but that was one of the re who was the first director of national intelligence uh with Trump. Um, you know, they they had to uh they they made sure there were people there who would not open up the box on all these things. um Flynn as well uh a national security adviser you know slightly different track but nonetheless you know had to get rid of him because once you have people who open all these boxes you know you you lose control and Tulsi is that person now you mentioned earlier a lot of people have been criticizing her in terms of oh you know she uh she's not MAGA enough or you know whatever personally I don't even care I look at results.
I only care about results and the only person and I hate to say this because I like a lot of these people, but the only person who has actually delivered this past, you know, year, year and a half in terms of accountability, in terms of transparency is Tulsi.
Yeah.
Back in July, you know, the the CIA released this total CYA about their involvement in Russia gate. They said, "Oh, uh what they they they called it tradecraftraft errors." They said, "Oh, we made some tradecraftraft errors." This was in July of 2025. And it was Tulsi who stepped up and said, "No, you guys didn't commit. You didn't do uh tradecraftraft errors. You committed treason." I'm not sure she used that word, but she exposed the whole fraud.
Yeah, she could have. Well, going back to the to the statute of limitations, I mean, with Russia Gate, it was a similar situation, right? Statute of limitations had run out for some of these things. But in the case of the more serious charges, you know, sedicious conspiracy, treason, grand conspiracy, there are ways, to my understanding, I'm not a lawyer, that those charges can or the statute of limitations can be extended if there was any action that was taken to further the conspiracy, not just measuring the statute of limitations from the day one of when it started. Um, are there any similar loopholes for this?
Of course, there's always loopholes and if they did anything in the meantime in the past seven years to um for instance keep those documents hidden like someone um change the locks or something like that along the way.
I mean, that may have happened.
Absolutely. You know, especially uh I'd go back to January of 2025. A lot of bad things happened because you know, you had the incoming Trump administration and and the Biden people would have been hiding stuff and we already know there were these burn bags in the FBI. um very similar story there. So, anything like that, yes, it does reset the clock and that is great, but what you always want to avoid is even having to have that discussion about the statute of limitations. Those are notoriously difficult discussions and you know, courts, judges are notoriously against opening it up.
Yeah.
Um, so, you just want to keep it clean and by keeping it clean, you just look at just do it within five years. Whatever when there's a crime committ. Then you don't have to discuss it. You don't have to deal with it. It's no one can challenge anything. By the way, in in the Comey case, it's very very similar. They they brought the charge that you know, I don't want to digress, but you probably your your viewers remember that whole saga last year where again the people in charge were running out the clock on Comey and President Trump caught wind of it and brought in Lindseay Haligan as the US attorney in Virginia like at the very very last minute. I mean, there was literally three or four days left.
Yeah.
Within the five years. And then she went ahead and and did it and and got this guy indicted. Um, anyway, that was dismissed and for different reasons, and that's being appealed right now. But that's how important this 5year time limit is. You really, really, really want to stick within that. And I think if we go back, I haven't done this, but it would be a good exercise for, you know, someone to do where they go back and look at all the document releases over the past, you know, decade, ever since, you know, President Trump started on his journey. I would bet that pretty much every single one was after five years or a minimum of five years. That's sort of the target that they're aiming for.
Our movement is gaining ground. People around us are waking up. The mainstream media leftist narrative is cracking. At Blaze TV, we've built a home for some of the strongest, smartest voices in conservative media. When you subscribe to Blaze TV, you're not just watching content. You're supporting a movement. You're back-end creators who think for themselves. It's everything that the networks won't show you delivered on your terms on any device anytime. And it starts at just eight bucks a month. blazev.com/liz promo code Liz.