Daniel Sheehan: Constitutional Battles Over UAP Secrets

Instagram teen accounts have automatic protections for what teens see and who can contact them, plus time management tools. And Instagram will continue adding built-in safety features to help create age-appropriate experiences. Learn more about teen accounts and Instagram's ongoing work to protect teens online at instagram.com slash teenaccounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting? That's software overload. Odoo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Taxes was feeling so stuck. Sitting in traffic, squeezing into a parking spot. All to squeeze in getting tax help during your lunch break. Now Taxes is a TurboTax expert who does your taxes for you. While you go about your day getting real-time notifications about their progress. And the most money back guaranteed. Now this is Taxes. Intuit TurboTax. See guarantee details at TurboTax.com slash guarantees. Only available with TurboTax experts. Real-time updates only in iOS mobile app. This is James Fox, and you're listening to That UFO Podcast. Hi everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy, and delighted to be joined by a returning guest to the podcast. He is the president of the New Paradigm Institute, acclaimed civil rights activist, and constitutional lawyer, Mr. Daniel Sheehan. Danny, welcome back. Terrific. Thanks Andy. It's a delight to be here. Good to have you on. I'm really looking forward to getting into some of the weeds with you. Because in the last couple of weeks, for those in the future, we're recording this, Danny, in September 2025. And we've had somewhat of a historic UAP hearing happen just a couple of weeks ago. And we're still seeing, I think, some of the fallout from it now. But before we discuss that and get into some listener questions, you were also present the day before the hearing with some of the folks who are going to be involved. Can you tell us what were the days and weeks before the hearing like and that kind of build up to the day? Well, it was that we were trying, the New Paradigm Institute and some of the allies that we're working with, the UAP Disclosure Fund and the Saul Foundation with Gary Noland and others. You know, and I was in discussion with David Grush, who is on Eric Burleson's staff. And Eric has taken kind of the lead. Eric Burleson, Congressman Burleson, has kind of taken the lead on the UFO or UAP issue because Congresswoman Luna was kind of tied up on doing lots of the Jeffrey Epstein stuff that was kind of very hot going on. So he's sort of taken the lead on that. And so I was meeting with him. And what I was trying to do is I was trying to get the most meaningful witnesses that we could onto the panel. And I was trying to get them to bring Jay Stratton in because you know who he is. I mean, he was the head of the UAP or the actual Advanced Weapons Special Access Program, was kind of the boss for Lou Elizondo. And Lou, you'll recall back in November when he testified in front of the House Oversight Committee, he said that in actually response to a question from Congressman Burleson, that he, Lou, would not be authorized to tell everything he knew, even if he got into a skiff and had Burleson and others there who were completely cleared, that he would not be authorized to tell them what he knows. And so I was trying to get someone who does know what he knows and has authority potentially to talk about it. So we were trying to get them to bring Jay Stratton in because Jay has actually stated now that he has been physically in the presence of a confirmed non-human origin UFO. And he has actually seen with his own eyes the non-human beings that are connected with it. So I was trying to, we were hoping that we could get him to come before the panel of Congress people and tell them that under oath, but that didn't work out. But, you know, so we got, George Knapp was there and then we had the other, the two U.S. Air Force people and we had the Navy chief. You know, so it was okay. But the problem was, is that there was just a lot of frustration being expressed on the part of the congressional members that they weren't able to get at the information that they were convinced exists. And so that, so that was a lot of the discussion back and forth that was going on. And my conversations were going on primarily through Eric Burleson, the congressperson who was kind of heading up the UAP element of the task force on declassification. Jay Stratton, you mentioned, was one of the names I think folks have looked for to be at one of these hearings now for a couple of years and it's still not happening. When you say it didn't work out, what's stopping Jay getting there? Jay, apparently, is not being authorized by the people above him to actually state to Congress under oath what he has said in the documentary film. The documentary film that is the Age of Disclosure that has been done by Dan Farah and was coordinated basically by Lou Elizondo bringing the people in and Jay has stated there publicly, in effect, that he has been in the physical presence of a confirmed non-human origin UFO and that he is seen with his own eyes one of the non-human beings that was connected to the craft. And yet, he somehow has not been cleared from above to tell Congress that under oath. So that's one of the many peculiar situations that obtains at the present time. And we were trying to see if we could push through that before this hearing. Yeah, it seems similar to some of the videos we've had over the last kind of 5, 10, 15 years. We're getting the stuff that, and I'm going to use the word boring in the wrong context, but it's just boring enough to be released or just disinteresting enough that the gatekeepers are allowing it to come out. But it just seems that there's a stop before we can get the really good witnesses, the extra content on the videos that we're not getting that. And let me just ask you, mention Age of Disclosure. You must be close to that, Danny. What's happening that this documentary still isn't out? Because it really does seem they've missed the boat with this one. Oh, totally. You know, and what it is, is Dan Farah is, you know, trying to get himself in a position of having the highest bidder, whether it's Netflix or, you know, Showtime or, you know, Amazon Prime or whatever the carrier is, the distributor, to give him the best price. And he was actually involved in a, he was offering to show the film to the Senate, the senators. And he was offering behind the scenes to show the film to the members of the House prior to their voting on whether or not they were going to vote to include into the National Defense Authorization Act the full UAP Disclosure Act. You know, this was coming back up again, as you know, back in 2023, we got 23 of the 64 pages in that basically directed the military services and the intelligence agencies to gather together all of the information they've ever had about UFOs since 1945 and present it as soon as possible to the National Archives. That date is still coming up, now September 30th, extremely important. Just, you know, four days from now, they are scheduled to have to turn that stuff over to the National Archives. So we were hoping that we could get pressure put on the major agencies to comply with that order on September 30th by getting both houses of the Congress to put into the National Defense Authorization Act this year the full amendment that actually sets up the nine-person records review board, etc. And so the timing of getting that film shown to the senators who are still on the brink, who just couldn't quite believe that this was true because they were not being given that information directly by a person who has first-hand experience with the non-human aircraft and with the non-human occupants. The gatekeepers, if you will, from above still have not given the clearance to the people who have that information to tell Congress that under oath. And so there's this confrontation, this brewing here between the executive branch, which is refusing to give the clearances to tell Congress what it is they know. And so that's the weird situation we're in. And the people that are coming forward, as you know, Andy, are providing what they call either hearsay, that they are, for example, David Grush is saying that, look, he has talked to a substantial number of people who have direct knowledge of the existence of the UFO phenomenon and the fact that we're in possession. There's some units of our military and intelligence community that are in possession of one or more officially confirmed non-human origin extraterrestrial spacecraft and that they are in possession of the non-human bodies that have been confirmed through DNA testing to be non-human. And they keep on saying that, but when they're asking, have you seen them? Have you actually seen the craft? Have you been present with the craft? They say, I'm not authorized to tell you that, you know? So there are these gatekeepers. The way the thing is presently postured is that all of the witnesses who have been called by either the House or the Senate publicly are asserting that they are being prohibited by executive branch officials higher than they are in the order of authority. They're being prohibited from telling Congress under oath of this fact, that they're in possession of these craft and that they're engaged in the process of trying to reverse engineer them and that they're in possession of the non-human bodies and they've confirmed that they're non-human. This is an extraordinarily strange chess game that is going on here between the executive branch and the Congress right now. So the question really is whether the Congress is going to have the backbone to subpoena these people and bring them in. But the fact is, though, even if they subpoenaed them and bring them in, I'm sure they're going to insist that they're not going to tell them, that the witnesses are not going to answer the questions of the Congress people because they're being prohibited from doing so by their superiors in the executive branch. So this is a serious constitutional potential confrontation. And we'll see here on September 30th, just four days from now when we're recording this, that those agencies are clearly compelled by the law that was passed in 2023 of just a portion of the full UAP Disclosure Act. They've been ordered to turn this information over to the archives. And if they refuse to do it, then Congress is going to have to get up on its hind legs and issue subpoenas to drag them in there and try to hold them in contempt of Congress if they refuse to give this information. That's the constitutional confrontation that's brewing as we meet today. Okay, so they managed to subpoena some of these really high-end folks that have got the good stuff, that can give us good answers, that really need to be grilled in front of Congress or the Senate. I'm going to ask you a horrible question as a layman, and you're a lawyer here. Sure. What's to stop these people, under oath or not, just lying anyway? Because I feel we have seen folks under oath potentially lie about this topic. And I know that, well, you know, there's risk of jail time, there's risk of this. Given what we're talking about, the secrets at risk here, the national security state, everything that's at play, 80-plus years of a cover-up, surely these people are encouraged to lie. Yes. No, not only that, but they're instructed to lie. You know, we encountered this when we were doing the Iran-Contra case back in the late 1980s. You know, Oliver North came right before Congress and completely perjured himself, you know, lied. And then when we, our new paradigm institute, our Christic Institute that was the origin of our institute, you know, proved to the Congress that Oliver North was lying to them, Oliver North, right to their face, said, well, certainly I was lying to you. This is a classified program. And so, therefore, I'm lying to you. And they never did anything to him. That's the problem. You know, they think that they're going to be, the congressmen are afraid. They're afraid that they're going to get characterized as being unpatriotic by bringing military people in, an intelligence committee or intelligence community people, and compelling them to tell Congress what they're required by the Constitution to tell them. This is a very silly constitutional situation. Well, I say silly. It's a very serious constitutional situation here in our country because it's absolutely clear that the Congress has the constitutional obligation to oversee these executive branches. These executive branches are not independent of our Congress. You know, in the Congress, there's a United States Supreme Court case, at least of a previous Supreme Court, that held. It's called Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer. It's a very famous case in which the, you know, the Congress of the United States was determined by the Congress, by the Supreme Court, to be superior to the executive branch. It was the one making the policies and making the laws. The executive branch was charged with following them up and enforcing them. And so what's happened now since the rise of the national security state in 1947 with the passage of the National Security Act by Congress that conceded to the executive branch more authority, the executive branch has now taken the position that they are the government and that the Congress of the United States are basically part-time employees that kind of come and go. But they're the permanent structure of the government. And that's the epitome of a national security state that's insisting that basically the military and their intelligence agencies are, you know, are in charge. And that can't be allowed to happen here. So this UFO issue is calling to a head that long-brewing kind of constitutional confrontation between the executive branch and the elected members of Congress to see who's going to be in charge here. Is there a case to say that the subpoena power is almost pointless and more of a show than anything because you could subpoena and bring in the head of the CIA and they can just lie on the stand? And yeah, there might be an argument or a tension there, but what ultimately will that achieve? As subpoena power, what's its place? Well, they could be held in contempt of Congress. In the United States, marshals could be ordered to place them under arrest and put them in prison until they talk. You know, of course, they're going to, you know, push their chest out and be heroes and say, you know, I'll suffer the consequences of going to prison rather than break my security oath. And what that's doing is just making it transparent to everyone that the national security state is insisting that it's in charge and not Congress, you know, and that they're superior and that they're just not going to cough up the information. And so what's going to have to happen is the Congress is going to have to go up the chain and get people that are above these people who are saying that, look, I'm being prohibited by my superiors in the executive branch to keep this secret or defy you. And they'd have to work their way all the way up to the president. And then, of course, the argument, they're going to go to the Supreme Court. They're going to go to the courts and say, we want an order commanding the president to turn over this information to Congress. The only time we've had that happen is Richard Nixon over the tapes, the Oval Office tapes, when he flat out insisted that they were national security and he wasn't going to tell the Congress about them. And they went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court at that time, back in 1974, you know, commanded the president to turn those records over. And, of course, as soon as those records got turned over, it revealed that President Nixon was engaged in criminal unconstitutional conduct. And what he was doing is he was getting the CIA to instruct their people not to tell Congress something. It was the very thing that happened. So we're on the brink here of having another type of confrontation that is analogous to what happened with Richard Nixon. And so it's going to ultimately come up to the United States Supreme Court. But the Congress is the one that has to put that issue. They're the ones that have to subpoena these people. They have to bring them in. And when they refuse to testify and provide the information to Congress that they're constitutionally obligated to give to them, they're going to have to be held in contempt. And then they're going to appeal their contempt conviction to the Supreme Court. And they're going to try to get the Supreme Court to rule that the president has more authority in this area than Congress does. You know, that's what the executive branch is going to try to secure. And so this is a major test of all of our American institutions right now as to which of the branches of our government are entitled to this information. And Congress has the direct obligation under Article I of our Constitution to set the policies for the United States military services. It says that right in Article I, that the Congress of the United States is the authority to declare policy for our military. And it's not the president. You know, he can't do this. You know, it's not like we're in wartime. People make arguments that in wartime, the president has more power than he would might otherwise have. But the problem is the national security state is insisting that we are always in a state of war. That's exactly what the problem is here, that the national security state people are insisting that they are engaged in a war. And therefore, they have a right to do whatever the president tells them to do or authorizes them or allows them to do. And so that's that's got to change, that we cannot have our country be in a permanent war footing in authorizing the president of the United States and his appointees in the executive branch to insist that they have war powers here. This has to this has to this has to be confronted by Congress. And the problem is each of the individual Congress people, both in the Senate and in the House, are afraid of the national security state because they know that the national security state has been has been covertly ousting people from Congress. That they've been they've been they've been bringing money in from banks, for example, the Nugent Hand Bank in Australia. They brought in millions of dollars out of that bank account and knocked out Frank Church, who chaired the church committee that actually confronted the Central Intelligence Agency back in the mid 70s about their criminal conduct. And because he confronted them publicly on it, they ousted him covertly. They did the same thing to to what's this said from Kansas, Dick Clark, who publicly opposed covert operations by the CIA in Africa. And they they smuggled money into the United States from their secret bank accounts abroad and ousted Dick Clark. They did they did the same thing to to the United States senator from Indiana, Birch Bayh, who opposed the CIA on some issues. And we know that that's true. We know they've done that. They've gone so far as, in fact, to threaten to kill the families of one of the senators. That was Senator Durenberger, you know, back in it was 1986, I think it was that that he, in fact, got on the floor of the United States Senate and demanded that they investigate the off the shelf enterprise of Richard Secord in in Oliver North. And the very day after he did that, the following Sunday on the Monday morning, that three Spanish speaking guys came into the house of Durenberger, dragged his wife out of bed and put a gun in her mouth and threatened to kill her and the whole family. If Durenberger didn't go get on the floor of the Senate and withdraw his demand for the investigation, this is a extraordinarily serious problem that we've got here in the United States. And it's now come to a peak here in the in this UFO issue. And so the members of the Senate and the members of the House of Representatives are physically frightened of the national security state in this instance, because they know that there that the there is an element inside the executive branch that deems themselves authorized to murder anyone who tries to reveal this information. That's a fact. And I've talked right directly face to face with one of the people that has been put in the crosshairs to be assassinated. If he were to reveal the information that he's being forbidden to tell. So this this is an extraordinarily serious constitutional situation that we face here. And the problem is, is that virtually none of the members of the House or the Senate dare to take these guys on. And so what they have to do is they're going to have to establish an alliance among a substantial number of members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives who are going to dare to confront them collectively because they can't kill them all, you know, and they can't oust all of them. That would be too obvious then that they were doing that. They what they do is they pick them off one at a time, you know, and that's what they're worried about. A lot of good information there as well. So I appreciate that. And a lot of great context. You're really good at providing. Let me get your thoughts on the actual hearing itself then from from a couple of weeks ago. I'd like you to split it up, though, because I want to talk about the video separately. There was two videos, but, you know, the video. First off, the testimony for me, Danny, I've highlighted many times here. I thought the quality of the testimony was excellent. And I think for reasons, for several reasons, not all directly related to the hearing, a lot of that may have been lost in the aftermath because of, one, the Charlie Kirk situation that happened very quickly after. I think that dominated the news cycle worldwide. I think the video kind of stole the headlines from the day. However, the testimony itself, how did that land with you? Well, you had one of the Air Force people, Dylan, he testified, very importantly, he testified about being in 2012, I believe it was, that he was at Langley Airfield outside of Washington, D.C. And he saw a 100 to 150 foot wide triangular craft rise up from the base, from the Langley Air Force base, coming out of the NASA hangar and actually rise into the air right over him. And it was like less than, it was only 100 feet above his head, you know, and it was only 100 feet away. So there wasn't any doubt. And he was absolutely floored by the fact that this thing had come right out of the base itself. And so it made it absolutely clear to him, and he was testifying to this effect to Congress, that this was being piloted by somebody that was clearly associated with the United States government. And here is this craft. It's completely soundless. And it hovered over his head for up to like four to five minutes. And then it shot off at this extraordinary speed, just like the UFOs do, right? And so that, and when he was asked by Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp, well, did you get the impression, therefore, that this must be one of ours? This must be a United States built craft. He said that actually, and he did this in an interview that followed immediately. It wasn't to the congressional testimony, but he said on film, which is now released by Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp, that based on everything that he has now learned in a classified way, that he was convinced that that was not a man-made craft. That that was a non-human origin craft, but that it was being flown by somebody directly from Langley Field. And so that testimony is extraordinarily meaningful, okay? And, you know, and the other testimony of the Navy chief, for example, is, I mean, it's gotten to be sort of garden variety testimony. Oh, I saw a major craft that it came right up out of the ocean and flew right over the top of our naval ship, you know? And he's a very credible guy, a master chief, and, you know, there's no doubt that he's telling the truth, but the problem is, or the good thing that's happened is the information that's been made available to the Congress causes them to be kind of ho-hum about that now. Okay, good. So you got a 150-foot craft kind of silently rose out of the ocean and flew across the top of your naval vessel, and you're a completely credible witness, and you said you saw that. But the bottom line is, well, that doesn't tell us what we need to know. We need to know whether that was ours. Was this being piloted by, you know, a human being, or was this from some extraterrestrial or extradimensional source? And they can't get that information. They keep trying to get the information, but the problem is they won't do yet what they absolutely have to do if they're going to confront this issue. And there need to be more of them, because like something that people don't realize, that within an hour of that hearing completing on September 9th of just several days ago, that the House of Representatives held a vote on the National Defense Authorization Act. And the question there was, are they or are they not going to include into that National Defense Authorization Act the remaining 40 pages of the UAP Disclosure Act that requires setting up the Board of Review, to set up the subpoena power, to set up the process by means of which that panel was going to set up a UFO controlled disclosure campaign plan to deliver to the president? The question was, were they, were they, were they, were they going to include that in that National Defense Authorization Act? And there was only one member of the Republican Party who agreed to not support the National Defense Authorization Act without that amendment in it. Because they brought to the floor, because they brought to the floor, because they brought to the floor, the NDAA, without that amendment in it. And every single one of the members of the House of Representatives that were Democrats voted against the National Defense Authorization Act because it contained all kinds of things that they disagreed with. For example, taking all the money away from training anybody on racial justice, taking all the money out of the Defense Department, training anybody on gender sensitivity, you know, there were provisions in there, banning any trans people from serving in the military, you know, all those kind of things were in the National Defense Authorization Act. So every one of the Democrats voted against it. All that was necessary is for four members of the House of Representatives to have joined the total Democrats and opposed the National Defense Authorization Act on the grounds that it didn't have the UAP Disclosure Act in it. OK. And the only person who refused to support the NDAA without that amendment in it was Eric Burleson. All he needed to do was have Nancy Mace or Anna Luna or Tim Burchette join with him in withholding their support for the NDAA without the amendment in it. And the NDAA would have failed and they would have had to take it back and they could hold out and say, look, we're not going to approve the NDAA until you put the amendment in it. Right. They all professed to want protection for the whistleblowers. They all professed to be wanting to get the disclosure bill put in. And yet they didn't dare give the impression to people that they didn't support the military by voting against the National Defense Authorization Act until they put the amendment in. And so that so within an hour of that hearing, one of the most important events that happened that was in direct connection to that hearing was that Burchette and Anna Luna and Nancy Mace did not, in fact, put their money where their mouth was. You know, they basically chickened out and they didn't dare join Eric Burleson in withholding their support for that act without without the UAP Disclosure Act in it. So that that was a major event that took place that a lot of people didn't even realize was happening. And it was, in a certain sense, a part of that hearing. And it's despite all the testimony that they got in George Knapp, of course, his to his testimony was extremely important because George Knapp was telling them right to their face that, look, this is absolutely real. He, as an ABC television journalist of a complete reputation, is saying, look, he's talked to dozens of people, dozens and dozens of high level people who know that this is true and that the Congress has to do something about this. And he basically provided, I think, sort of an emotional pitch about that. But the other fellow, Dylan, the Air Force officer, that he basically told them right to their face about this extraordinary event of seeing a huge 100 to 150 foot triangle just rise right up off one of our military bases and fly right away. So that's that's I mean, what we're trying to figure out is how do we get enough people in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate to stop being afraid of the national security state people who are basically threatening them, not only threatening to kick them out of office by secretly funneling funds into against them, but threatening them physically. You know, you know, and this is exactly what's happening here that they've become convinced that the national security state is willing to resort to physical violence against them personally, if necessary, in order to protect this information. That's what we really learned on on September 9th. And that's and that's a frightening situation that we're in right now. And if they if they if they if the agencies continue to be instructed to not comply with the order of Congress to turn over this information to the archives four days from now on September 30th, you know, we're going to see whether or not that is going to generate enough support inside the Senate and in the House to have enough of these individual members of the Congress dare to join together to confront the national security state over this. So the UAP Disclosure Act, I follow the New Paradigm Institute newsletter that comes out. And I know in the most recent update, it basically said I'll paraphrase here. Things are not looking good in Congress for the UAP Disclosure Act, working with allies such as yourself through our volunteer network. The New Paradigm Institute has had 153 face to face engagements with congressional offices in the run up to Congress reconvening in September. While the fight for the UAP Disclosure Act is not totally over, things do not appear hopeful. So given what you've said there and where we are, Danny, is it looking like this is going to be a third year in a row where this isn't going to pass? And I know we've had you on before and you've mentioned elements of it have passed, but really the substantive parts of this act are looking like it's going to fail again. And then where does that leave it? Well, what that means is that the one last gasp thing that they have, that they could do is they could, that you could, and Burleson has introduced into the House of Representatives a standalone bill. Not something that has to go into the National Defense Authorization Act, but a standalone bill demanding that they appoint this nine-person board of review and that they, in fact, go forward and do what they're told to do under the remainder of the 40 pages of the act. So there is a standalone bill has been introduced into the House side. The problem is that the Speaker of the House, Michael Johnson, all he has to do is refuse to allow that bill to go onto the floor for a vote, which unless he's instructed to do so by President Trump, Michael Johnson is going to refuse to even allow that bill to come up for a vote. I believe that if you could put that onto the floor for a vote, out of the 435 members of the House, 400 of them would vote for that bill. But Mike Johnson is not going to do that. He's going to refuse to put that bill on the floor. But Eric Burleson has done everything he can to get it put in there. And nobody on the Senate side, Mike Rounds, Chuck Schumer, none of them have been willing to put in a standalone bill for the UAP Disclosure Act so that they could put it on the floor for a vote. And so what we're getting is we're getting the false impression that the Congress as a whole is really trying to get the information about the UFOs, but they're not willing to do what's necessary to get it. So that they're trying to get credit from their constituents for for giving the impression that they're trying to get it and then going, oh, woe is me. Somehow we're not getting the cooperation of the president or the executive branch. But the bottom line is they are not doing yet what they have to do because they're afraid, I think, of confronting the national security state over this issue. But we'll see. There's there's a a I would say on a scale of one to 100, there's probably not a double figures like 10 percent chance of the standalone bill being given the the opportunity to go to the floor for a vote in the House because because the speaker of the House, Michael Johnson, is going to refuse to do it. And it's just an arbitrary and capricious exercise of his power. And unless the people were, for example, in the House of Representatives, were willing to put a petition onto the floor, a a disgorgement petition that that just remember that it's what it's what they were threatening to do with the Epstein documents. They were threatening to put a law, a bill onto the floor of the House and they were going to have what they call a discharge petition. And what that does is overrules the decision on the part of the speaker of the House to refuse to let that bill go to the floor for a vote. So that the question is whether or not there would be the courage inside the House of Representatives to support a discharge petition to order the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, to put Eric Burleson's bill onto the floor for a vote. So that's that's the why it's only a less than 10 percent chance that that's going to happen. And unless that were to happen, it's absolutely right. What you're saying is this bill will not pass and that we are all in the UFO community going to have to mobilize to to take on not only the national security state, but take on the Congress to say you are failing the members of the Congress and the House and Senate are failing to perform their constitutional obligation and they need to be replaced. This is this is a failure on the part of our constitutionally elected representatives to fulfill their constitutional obligation to exercise oversight authority over the executive branch. Well, let's wait and see what happens with that. Like you say, it's not looking good, but that's a conversation for perhaps down the line. You've talked about the testimony. The other element there was there were two videos shown. One was from the USS Jackson event that had been previously shown on Weaponized with Chief Alexandro Wiggins back in April, I believe it was. A far less spectacular video than the second, but still has its place. It's difficult to read what happens in the video necessarily. You see an object. It's one of those videos similar to the testimony that we've seen quite a lot of these now. And there is an object being filmed and the story around it, I suppose, gives gives more of an interest for me than the video itself. The second video, however, I believe there was some some talk and scuttlebutt or discussion of the video the day before the hearing. Is that right? Yes. Yes. You were in the room. What was kind of happening there, Danny? Because I've I've heard a few different stories about the provenance of this video and that this whole dead drop situation isn't necessarily. As clear cut as being made out by by Representative Burleson. Yes. Well, it's Burleson is the fellow who has been driving this, as I said, that that Anna Polina Luna is kind of taken up with trying to get a discharge petition actually passed in the House of Representatives to force the the public revelation of the Epstein documents. So she is really taken up by all that. So Burleson has taken the lead inside the the task force on on government declassification. And he's the one that kept insisting upon getting to show this video. And there were different forces that were trying to prevent him from doing that. He has the courage of his convictions. And so he's he's the one that kind of pushed it through to get this this bill put there. And so that he not only dared to force the showing of the video, he dared to put the standalone bill on the floor to pass the remainder of the UAP Disclosure Act. And and and thirdly, you know, he is he is the one who agreed to withhold his support for the NDAA, the only member of the entire Republican House of Representatives that refused to support it. So he he has done this and is is becoming sort of the champion of this effort in the House. But yeah, and he's done a lot of great work. Yeah, 100 percent. A lot of great work being done. The video itself, Danny, I know I saw you the day after the night of not sure what it was on on some different news programs in the United States. I was watching various clips from various commentators. Very quickly, I'll just give you where I was with the video. I was watching the live hearing with folks in the discord chat for this podcast. When we saw that video and the overwhelming response was, wow, that looks incredible. However, that very quickly dissipated when one of the guys in the discord who is has a background in ammunitions from the British Army. And when he heard the missile was a Hellfire missile, I won't go into all the detail. Folks in the podcast have heard that he basically said, look, I'm very much of the impression this is a prosaic object. And that missile goes through the object, which if you then look at it in closer detail, it does look like it goes through. It doesn't look like it deflects. So what we have is a video where we're being told, and this is quite common with the topic, we're being told what's happening. It does look like one thing happens and we're being told something else. On one side of the fence, you've got pilots like Ryan Graves and Chris Leto who are coming out and saying, look, we believe this looks like it could be something prosaic or leaning towards that, certainly. But then we've got other folks who are saying this looks like a UAP deflecting a missile. Where are you sitting with this video kind of two weeks on, Danny? And I wonder, is there an argument the video with the sensationalism of it was maybe misplaced and it's taken away from some of the strength of the testimony? No, I hear what you're saying, Andy, that we don't know. At the New Paradigm Institute right now, we don't know what the answer to that question is. We do know that we're investigating it. We're trying to find out exactly what happened there. You know, that you can see that there appears to be some debris as a result of the impact or whatever encounter with the Hellfire missile, that whatever the object was, that some debris seems to fall away from whatever the object is. But it certainly doesn't blow up. It certainly doesn't become disabled because it apparently continues to fly. So we don't know quite what that could be that could take a hit like that from the Hellfire missile. And the Hellfire missile, bizarrely enough, appears to go, if it doesn't glance off of it, it appears to go through it in some strange way. You know, that I don't think Hellfire missiles are supposed to just go through something. When they hit something, they're supposed to explode and blow up what they're after. You know, so it's a very peculiar video at the present point. And our New Paradigm Institute is in the position of not having to guess and not being willing to guess at things until we know. So we really don't know exactly, Andy, what that what that really is. Yeah. And I'm I'm very much on on the fence with it because I don't know and I'm not a video expert. I'm not an analysis, but I've upset some folks by leaning over to the side of the missile has different variants. One of them has blades and no warhead. And if it's going through some kind of large balloon, whatever the material might be, it wouldn't explode on impact. It might not be designed to explode on impact and it would indeed go through it. And that's why it looks like it's shredding or popping it. The debris coming off of it is interesting, but we see it for such a short time. I know we're told there's an extra five minutes of the object going along, but we don't see that. So at a glance, that could be a payload underneath coming off and being stuck on a string, like we've seen with some of these balloons and spy balloons that have payloads. And I think that's the frustration thing for me that I love seeing videos. I'm really all up for it. I just don't think it was the setting for it personally. And I wonder with your legal brain on Danny, would you have recommended it at the time to show that video in that setting? No, my personal opinion is that our people need to be extremely careful about putting something out that is advertised, basically, as something really sensational. And then because then when it's found that it isn't that, you know, it actually detracts from the effectiveness of our whole program. I know that Lou has had that difficulty in the past, you know, even though he's gone to some lengths of saying, look, I haven't really checked all this out. I'm not verifying it. The effect that a given video has of giving a certain impression is what people tend to remember. And so I think that it probably was probably not the best thing to have done until more work had been done to verify exactly what that event was. And for me, it comes from a place of love for the topic and concern that I'm looking at the four individuals who have done a very brave thing to share their stories and testimony and fight to get where they've gotten. And watching that Dylan Borland episode on Weaponized, you hear more of his background, more of his story. There's a lot of emotion that comes with that. The psychological trauma he's had has an impact from his job and what he was actually doing is harrowing and fascinating to listen to. And my concern is that video gets dropped in. And if in a couple of weeks, indeed, Arrow or another organization can come out and show us that video is prosaic, it just, for me, dampens the whole testimony. Everything gets tarred with it. And that was my concern. And I wanted to bring up a kind of a theme we discussed on one of our previous interviews, Danny. The idea of a kind of fracturing of the UEP community. And you mentioned Burleson being a champion. I think you've got various folks in different places who are leading the line, so to speak, for this topic. Do you see, in any respect, and we maybe touched on this, maybe it was off air, actually, Representative Burleson has cited, obviously, we know he's working with David Grush. Which I think, for many folks, is fantastic. I love that. I think that's a great call. If you can get, you know, my NFL analogies wouldn't be great, but if one of the great quarterbacks of all time retires and you can get him on board to coach your new quarterbacks, then why wouldn't you? That makes sense. He's also citing relationships with Dr. Stephen Greer. I think he quite often quotes Dr. Greer. Representative Burleson has been off down to view the Nazca mummies. Is there an element of folks like Eric Burleson doing so much to try and get up to speed with a subject he hasn't followed for 20, 30, 40, 50 years? Yes. He's trying to do so much, so quick. Like, he seems to have, he seems to have almost binge watched all of the UFO content and documentaries in a weekend. And then he's, so he must have this story in front of them look so confused with many different agendas and narratives. How do you see that playing out right now, especially in respect to Mr. Burleson? Well, I hear exactly what you're saying, Andy. I think that Eric Burleson, I think, is a classic person of good faith who has come to the Congress, almost like Mr. Smith goes to Washington, the old James Stewart movie. You know, he's come to Washington and he said, oh, look, this has some really important things going on here. I need to do everything I can do to get educated about what's going on. So I'm going to be willing to talk with everybody from all sides to find out what's going on and get the best information that I possibly can. And the problem is that those old hands who have been in Washington for some time have already figured out that there are a bunch of factions that are operational in Washington, D.C. And that you need to know that territory before you kind of wander in there, because if you entertain even a meeting with one particular person, it's going to offend at least two or three other people who don't believe what that person is saying or they disagree specifically with what that person is trying to achieve. And so that, you know, that whole thing is that he kind of charges in where angels fear to tread. But on the other hand, the recognizing what all those different factors and factions are and therefore holding up and not even being willing to meet with people to find out what it is that they're saying is what keeps us where we are now. Yeah. So that everybody's kind of frozen in place that they they they you know, they don't want to meet with with Lou Elizondo because that's going to offend Dr. Stephen Greer. They don't want to meet with Stephen Greer because that's going to offend the people that are at the soul, the soul foundation. You know, they don't want to meet with people in the soul foundation, you know, that that one has to one has to try to make one's own independent judgment about what to do in the face of those kind of things. I tend to favor getting as much information from as many different sources as you possibly can. And and I think I have I have achieved that. I think I've gotten the New Paradigm Institute in a position where we talk to everyone. We meet with people. You know, I meet with Burleson. I meet with Lou. You know, we meet with all of the different factors. We meet with Dr. Stephen Greer. We meet with the people in both the House and the Senate and both the Republican and Democratic Party. I mean, it's actually gotten to the point in Washington, D.C., where if you meet with Democrats, there are certain people in the Republican Party that don't even want to talk to you anymore. But you can't you can't we can't allow that to govern what we've got to do. I think our New Paradigm Institute has been extremely successful, along with our allies in the UAP Disclosure Fund and in the Sol Foundation and all of the other different groups that are working in this area, even with Stephen Greer's Disclosure Project. We've all been successful in establishing what may well be the single most bipartisan issue in the entire United States Congress. I mean, you know, other other than, you know, fighting cancer. Right. You know, everybody will agree to that. But but but but this this potentially highly controversial issue, we have gotten support from the most extreme elements of both political parties and almost everybody in the middle. They want to have this information. The challenge is that they don't dare do what's necessary to get it. And so that we're trying to bring together a coalition of the Republican and Democratic Party and not only the membership, but the leadership of both political parties to to get them to take the steps that Congress is obliged to do in order to get this information. And so that that that that I am very much in favor of what it is that Burleson is doing, of trying to meet with people directly so that he knows himself, you know, do his own best ability, what the facts are, you know, and that's what he's doing. He's engaged in kind of a fact finding mission here. And the fact that some people that don't want him to meet with people who they have some opposition to is not deterring him, I view is a positive feature of what he is what he is doing. I do I do agree that he may be he may be engaged in what the Jesuit or we used to refer to as first fervor. That, you know, seminarians, when they first come into the priesthood, are really full of furor and energy and their spiritual beliefs and stuff. And after they've gone through about 10 or 15 years of training as Jesuits, they're asking, do you still believe? And they're always saying things. I do still believe. Sort of. Right. But. Yeah. So so that that's that's that's what Eric Burleson is is is a is a true champion. I've spent a lot of time talking to him. I really respect what he's doing, even though he is, in fact, one of the most conservative people in the entire Congress. I mean, there's I don't know that there's another thing in the world that Eric and I agree on. But on this particular issue, we get along fabulously. But but we've actually I've actually been in a room where AOC and Linda Taylor Greene are talking to each other who are actually, you know, conversing in agreement. That something ought to be done to get this information so that that hope springs eternal, Andy. And I think that with with proper assistance, I think Burleson and the people in the task force and the people in the House Oversight Committee and the people as a whole in the Congress can get this information. If they band together, if they dare to band together and not be threatened in chicken out, basically, in the face of the threats that are being posed to individual members of Congress by the national security state. That's good to hear. And I've voiced before it's just my opinion. I think it's very healthy when folks can come together from different backgrounds and like you say with yourself and Mr. Burleson have very differing views on almost every aspect of life. Other than one thing and you can have a reason, debate and discussion and you can agree on something and work together to move forward. You don't have to ignore and dismiss and, you know, all that kind of stuff because someone has has different views to you. We've seen a lot of that in the world recently and in the past. So we're not in the best of shape as a species. But just to follow up a lot of listener questions, Danny, as always, when you come on, we could spend hours here. But your time is time is precious. Just to follow up a little bit on what we were discussing before, you mentioned a lot of groups and one of the listeners, Dave Smether, sent in some some great questions. He mentioned, you know, groups like Chris Mellon, Elizondo, Dave Grush, Carnell, Jay Stratton, the Sol Foundation, New Paradigm Institute, UAP Disclosure Fund. You mentioned almost all of those. Do you have an assessment generally where is the code agreement between all of these groups, whether unspoken or spoken, you know, on this subject? Is there something you can see them all agreeing on or is it disparate factions? Yeah, no, that I think that all of the principal organizations and players agree that they want to have the total of information that is available to all six of our United States military services, all 18 of our United States intelligence agencies, all 32 of our United States defense department agencies, and all of the private aerospace corporations. That are in possession of this information about the UFO phenomenon and about the non-human intelligence that is deemed by everyone to be responsible for these UFOs. That they want that information delivered and put into the classified section of the National Archives. And they want the members of the House and Senate to who are who are willing to accept the adequate security clearances to be given access to that information. This is a constitutional requirement that our elected representatives be knowledgeable about what this information is as a basis for them to decide what policies to implement, right, to promulgate and to implement. All of us agree on that, okay? And all of the people that are involved in the Congress that are trying to get the UAP Disclosure Act passed agree to that. And very importantly, for the most part, every single one of these organizations agrees that there needs to be a responsible process by means of which this information is communicated to the people of the country. And to the country and to the country and to the country and to the country and to the world and that they do agree that it probably, with one exception perhaps, that it would not be a good idea just to take all of this sum total of the information. And just dump it into the public all at one time because that would not be the most effective way of getting people to absorb what it is that's in there. And what you'd get is you'd get all kinds of factions jumping on different pieces of it and trying to, you know, blow their own horn or flog their own horse or whatever metaphor you want to use there. I think that, but on the other hand, it cannot be the national security state that is the one that is making the decision about how much of this information is to be released and when, okay? Because they've already displayed for 80 years what they're going to do. They're going to lie and dissemble and threaten and try to misuse the information to develop nuclear weapons delivery systems and propulsion systems for their fighter aircraft. They're so focused on this national security view of the world that they are going to be, in my opinion, misusing the information, okay? And they have been misusing the information. So the next best level is to get the Congress of the United States to meet with the people who know about this, get all of this information conveyed to the National Archives and to have, I think, a special select committee of the House and Senate to be authorized to have jurisdiction over analyzing this information, okay? Now, that's what we need to do. We have to have something like the church committee that was put together to look into the wrongdoing of the Central Intelligence Agency. But the problem is, the problem is, as you recall, that almost nothing was done to the people in the Central Intelligence Agency after it was discovered what it is they'd been doing. Massive drug smuggling, assassinations, you know, blackmailing, torture, supporting fascist authoritarian governments around the world. And nobody, nobody was effectively punished for that, okay? That's a problem with the Congress. The Congress, the Congress, the Congress doesn't see itself as part of the justice system that is going to try to impose deterrence on future activity. They just want to get the information, okay? And so that they're likely to give immunity to get it. They're likely to agree to keep secrets that they shouldn't. And they're basically willing to become part of the National Security Club all by themselves, okay? And so that there has to be a very aggressive citizen oversight of what it is that's going on here. And so that's the challenge that I see right now. And I think that that's sort of the place where we are. I believe that what we have to do as citizens is we have to dig down and mobilize to raise up an aggression among our citizens that is comparable to the demand for the Jeffrey Epstein files. You know, the citizens are so upset about the Jeffrey Epstein information that they are actually succeeding and getting more and more pressure put on the executive branch to release information, which they clearly don't want to release, okay? So this is, we have an example in front of us right now of the kind of mobilization that we have to engage in here on behalf of the UFO information. That's where I think we need to go right now. That's where the New Paradigm Institute is going now. And I think that one aspect of the New Paradigm Institute that may be a little different from some of the other organizations is that we keep highlighting the problem of the national security state as a principal element of the UFO disclosure process. That it is revealing the existence of deep wrongdoing on the part of the national security state and that we need to get, we believe we need to get our citizens to appreciate that in order to know how difficult it's going to be to break through to get this information released. And others are less inclined to confront the national security state and they're trying to be cooperative with the national security state and they're basically trying to make sure that the people in the national security state get immunity for what it is they've done in the past. Now, they're arguing, not unconvincingly, that that's necessary in order to get them to talk because they won't talk unless they have immunity. But from being one of the lawyers in the group, the fact is you don't give everybody immunity in a criminal organization in order to get the information. And what you do is you pick key people, you give them immunity, and then they testify against the others. And then the others need to suffer the consequences for what they have done. That's what we believe has to happen here. Human Neutrino asks, does Danny think there's any hope that disclosure, big or little d, will take place before the end of the current Trump administration? And before you pull an arrow on me here and try and wriggle around what disclosure means, let's go with the general. There's an acceptance and announcement that, you know, there's a non-human intelligence at play here. Something big to the public. Now, I believe that there's an element deep within the national security state infrastructure that had made a decision that they were willing to release some additional information, including the reality of not just the reality of the UFO phenomenon, but the reality that the UFO phenomenon is the product of some non-human intelligence. I believe that they had decided that they were willing to reveal that over a seven-year period. The UAP Disclosure Act actually has this seven-year sunset period for it. So it's very clear that they've gotten in their collective mind that there's a seven-year process that they're willing to participate in, but that they want to reveal only a portion of the information. But the portion of the information, I think, that they're willing to reveal is the fact that there is, in fact, an extraterrestrial life, which doesn't seem exactly shocking, but, I mean, for them to finally acknowledge that there's extraterrestrial life around us in the universe, but that they're very reluctant to acknowledge that they've known about it for 80 years. And they're very reluctant to acknowledge that they've been in direct communication with members of this extraterrestrial intelligence. And they're very reluctant to acknowledge that they've, in fact, been building a secret weapon system based upon the technology of the UFO people. So that, to be clear again, that they're willing, say there's a body of information that's 100% of the information, that they're probably willing to, over a seven-year period, release 20% or so, or 25% of the information, a lot of which is very important for people to understand. And what this is, is that it's part of their choreography of releasing this information over a longer period of time. But all that they're willing to do, as of right now, is only basically 20% or so of the information, which they want to spread out over a seven-year period. And as long as the national security state remains in control of our government, that's the best we're going to get. And unless Congress can stand up on its hind legs and confront them, and I believe that even if they do do that, Congress has demonstrated that they're probably not willing to publicly release even 50% of it. They're still going to want to keep 50% of it secret so that the people that are in the governing echelons, the governing class in our country, are going to know the information, but the people won't unless we mobilize. We mobilize and demand to have the information. And I believe that if we mobilize among our citizenry, we're capable of extracting 75% of the information, but there's probably 20% to 25% of the information that, in my opinion, may, may possibly not be absolutely necessary for everybody to know, that may be sensational and may be, I guess you would say, moral problems with it. But it doesn't really necessarily enable us to do anything more. So all I'm saying is that it's conceivable that as much as 20% of the information may end up, even with the best mobilization of the citizenry that we can muster, remain confidential. But we're not certain yet. But that's the general sense of the New Paradigm Institute. And so we're willing to go for it, to get that basically 75% of this information and try to make certain that whatever remains in the 20% or 25% that doesn't get revealed is of a nature that we are convinced may not be absolutely necessary for everybody to know. And it's not necessarily practical. It's not going to necessarily help formulate any better policies. But that's sort of where we are right now. And so therefore, I think over the next seven-year period, we have an opportunity to get upwards of 50% of this information out. But I believe that if we mobilize, we can get 75% of the information out in the next 10 years or so. Did you happen to catch the video from the National Archives being released pertaining to Roswell, potentially? It looked like there was some kind of crash or, you know, and this is something Christian wanted to know about. He's saying that the National Archives always said they had no records on Roswell. What were your thoughts on that video coming out? And let me just add into that. It may or may not be even related. I don't want to go down conspiracy theory route. The day after the hearing, NASA confirmed they believe they've got proof of life on Mars, ancient microbial life on Mars, all of this around the same time. What's your take on all of those? Okay. I would say two things. My sense of the photograph that they've released regarding Roswell, I don't see any craft there. What I see is a crater in that the crater obviously is not something that was likely to be created by a weather balloon, right? And so it's very bizarre, you know, for given what they do know about Roswell, for the National Security State to be allowing the National Archives to release just a picture of the crater. You know, that's typical of the National Security State way, way, way, way too little, way, way, way too late to have any effect upon deterring people from believing the full panoply of what we know about Roswell. That isn't working. I mean, it's embarrassing to be relying upon a national security state that's as incompetent as it is. On the other hand, some people take great solace in the fact that the national security state has been as effective as it has been in keeping this from being publicly known by everybody. And it's such an astonishing body of information that it's hard to believe how they've kept it secret all this time. So it's, you know, so the Roswell thing is a whole lot of nothing, I think. You know, it's OK. So somehow they haven't even explained what this means. OK, what is that crater? You know, is that what is that crater? What kind of narrative goes along with that crater? We don't we don't know. So and now with regard to the life on Mars thing, that what they're what they're doing is they're indicating that they've picked up what the actual is. I understand it. What they picked up is indications of certain combinations of chemicals, which historically have indicated that they are byproducts of life. It's not life itself. It's kind of the shadow cast by some ancient form of life. It may have existed that has left the remnants of some of this chemical residue. But again, I think that there's, for example, the one thing that we haven't taken into account is the entire process of discovering more and more of these new exoplanets. You know, this is an extraordinarily important element in this whole unfolding here. Because my opinion is, is that what they're the national security state wants to do is to say, oh, look, we've we've started getting some kind of indicia of a life. Oh, we've got water now inside our solar system. We've got some indicia of potential ancient life inside our our our solar system. Oh, look, we've gotten some planets now that are outside our solar system that seem to have some indicia of potential life. You know, you know, and they're going to eventually if they can get away with it, they're going to slow walk this whole process to eventually say, OK, we've discovered evidence of some life on some distant star system. But it's so far away. We don't need to worry about them getting here. And it looks like it's very primitive form of life, you know, plant life or something. And they're going to try to slow walk this as slow as slowly as they can. And what they're trying to do, if I to be clear about it, I think what they're trying to do is they're trying to develop some of the technology of the UFO craft to get themselves into a position where they actually think that they could conceivably confront the E.T. civilization by back engineering some of their own technology to prevent them from coming here if our national security state doesn't want them here. You know, that's that's what they're doing, because that's the worldview that they have and that that they they want to be able to develop a weapon system that can challenge the the involuntary arrival at our to our planet of an extraterrestrial civilization. You know, but the fact is, they're already here. They're already here. The evidence is abundant that they've been coming and going for some time. And so that I think that this there's a pattern, a choreographing of releasing information indicative of the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. And that but it cannot be left in the hands of the national security state. Clearly, in my opinion, cannot be left exclusively in the hands of the elected representatives. Because of their membership in this elite ruling class and that they hold the people in fairly low regard. And the question then is what what might be the appropriate assemblance of of experts and stuff to handle this information. And I think that we've got to get the universities involved. We've got to get our world's universities involved, our scientists, our historians, our theologians, our economists, to be able to get the academic community involved in in all aspects of it. Every single department that's in the major universities of our world to get involved in analyzing what what's going on right here. And that's and that's what I think our people have to be pushing for to get the information, get it first into the hands of the members of Congress by depositing it in the secured sections of the National Archives. Allow our committees, allow our committees, the appropriate committees in the Congress to get a look at this and analyze it, to get a staff of people on board to go through it and analyze what's here and start sharing this information with members of the academic community. That's what I think that's what I think that's what I think we need to do and we need to get the churches and synagogues and the temples and stuff involved in doing disclosure on their part of things that they know. Clearly that they know clearly that they know that has to do with our capacities as human beings that have been suppressed about the abilities of telepathy and other kinds of qualities that we have that's that we are led to believe belong belong only to the prophets or potentially to UFO people that are a billion years more advanced than we are. That's an important point, I think. Danny, one more question, then I'll let you go. I know you've got you're a busy guy and you've got more things on today. Final question from Trenchtown. Does Matthew Brown whistleblower feel unsupported by the community and are other whistleblowers more sheepish in coming forwards than a year ago? I would say with regard to the second question, yes, that that there's a sense on the part of the whistleblowers that the the support that they thought might be forthcoming from Congress has disappointed them. And therefore, they don't feel as protected as they were hoping they would be to come forward. But we still have the corpus of some 40 people that have gone to the Senate Intelligence Committee. The key to this thing, the Senate Intelligence Committee is sitting on extraordinary information. And the Senate has still not agreed to hold a single hearing on this. Everything's been happening over on the House side that but the bottom line is, I think that the whistleblowers do feel less encouraged by this kind of fading courage on the part of Congress to really confront the the national security state. So that that that that I think is, in fact, what was the first part, Andy? Have your question? Does Matthew Brown feel supported by the community? Yeah, that that Matthew, it was it was I have to confess some responsibility for this minimally, hopefully, but that Matthew reached out to us a couple of years ago to our New Paradigm Institute. And I put it in a stack of things where we were trying to figure out if we can get whistleblower protection for people, et cetera. And I had a couple of minor exchanges with him. I should have moved much more boldly and supportively of of him. And he started to despair, basically, of really getting any help at all. And then he talked with with Jeremy Corbell and with George Knapp and then came forward with them and they were giving him support. I've met with Jeremy and told him, look, I'm perfectly willing to provide whatever legal support that Matthew wants, that we're happy to do so and apologetic for not having done it when he first reached out to us a long time ago. But he does. He does he does feel that he isn't being as supported as he should be. And and I wanted to know that that we're we stand by to help protect him. But the reality is, I would have to counsel him, is that the Congress has not come forward to provide the kind of protection that he and others need. And that's that. So we have to try to figure out what to do about that. You know, we have we have drafted the New Paradigm Institute has drafted a 15 page whistleblower protection statute, which is considered to be the gold standard. That's the kind of protection they really need to have if they're going to be able to come forward and provide the information to Congress. OK, and that needs to be passed. But but but but I believe that if if we get a major grant and that we're on the brink of getting here at the New Paradigm Institute, we will be in a position to go forward in a very aggressive manner on behalf of of of of Matthew Brown and or another or additional whistleblowers. And go after them in the same way that we went after the Iran-Contra off the shelf enterprise, the same way we went after the Pentagon papers to get those things published, the same way we went after the people who killed Karen Silkwood, you know, the same way when we went after the Three Mile Island facility to get that stopped so that we're we're standing by to do this. And we apologize to Matthew specifically for not having been as forward leaning as we should have been. But but we are in a situation where we need much better protection for people, including Matthew, to go forward. But we're we're willing to do this. Excellent. Danny, listen, thank you so much for your time. Do you want to just let folks know again how they can follow you, how they can follow the New Paradigm Institute as well? Yeah. What they should do is get a hold of the New Paradigm Institute dot org, New Paradigm Institute dot org and sign up to become members of the Citizens for Disclosure. The Citizens for Disclosure is the subproject of the New Paradigm Institute. We have state leaders in 32 of the states now. We're going to be having teams in each of the four hundred and thirty five congressional districts. We are not going to back down just because Congress this time around may not have been willing to do what we had hoped they would do. We're going to come forward and we need everybody's participation in this, you know, that we're working in coordination with the UAP Disclosure Fund, with the Saul Foundation, you know, with with Colonel Carl Nell, with Lou Elizondo, with Chris Mellon, all of the people and Dave Grush and Burleson and the people that are on the task force. We're trying to get everybody going forward in the same direction and not be cowed by the temporary lack of immediate success that we were hoping to get here in on September 9th. Excellent. Well, Danny, thank you so much for your time. Thanks for your work, good efforts and all your thoughts. And when we've got more updates, it'd be great to have you back on to share some more of that expertise. Absolutely, Andy. I appreciate every time I get to talk to you. That is all for this episode. Thank you very much for tuning in. Don't forget to leave the podcast a review on your chosen platform. Apple and Spotify do make a huge difference to the algorithm. If you're checking the show on YouTube, please don't forget to like and leave a comment on here as well. Any sharing you do is very much appreciated on any social media platform. And finally, you can listen to shows ad-free and sponsor-free in their glorious full versions by subscribing for less than the price of a coffee on Apple, Spotify. Just search That UFO Podcast Premium. YouTube, you can sign up and be a member. Or you can do that through Patreon.com. Thank you very much for listening, folks. Thank you very much for listening.