WATCH: Crowds on Demand CEO Says His Company Rejected $20 MILLION Offer to Recruit Anti Trump Protestors for Nationwide Demonstrations on Thursday – Says He was Worried about “Violent Agitators”
July 15, 2025
Crowds on Demand CEO Adam Swart revealed in an interview this week that his company was offered a $20 million contract for an astroturfed nationwide anti-Trump demonstration scheduled for Thursday.
Crowds on Demand is the “largest protest company in the country,” Swart said, noting that they specialize in corporate publicity and celebrity publicity. “We’re probably best known for political advocacy group publicity, that is, creating crowds of peaceful, enthusiastic demonstrators to turn out in favor of a particular cause or in opposition to one.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, leftist groups have planned over 400 protests across the nation on the anniversary of the death of Democrat activist and congressman John Lewis.
Like many other recent nationwide days of protest, including the now-infamous “No Kings” day, the “Good Trouble Lives On” protests are being organized by the 50501 Movement.
An interactive map on the 50501 Movement website shows the locations of all the protests.
These types of demonstrations are known for using paid participants and agitators to stir up the crowds. As seen in Los Angeles, California, thousands of suspected paid rioters were present, and one individual was indicted on federal charges for delivering bionic face shields to the rioters.
"Interests aligned with the organizers of the July 17 movement have approached us, and in fact, we rejected an offer that probably is worth around $20 million," Swart revealed in an interview with NewsNation's Brian Entin. Swart says he turned the contract down.
"I just don't think it's effective," he said, adding that "it's going to make us all look bad." He cited Trump's continued support despite the ongoing protests for the ineffectiveness of these movements. "This is the same old noise that has failed to land with the American people this last 6/7 months.
Swart told Entin that his company has a "large network of people" that they "compensate" for turning out to demonstrations.
Swart did not say who exactly offered him the $20 million to maintain the privacy of his clients, Entin said after he interviewed Swart.
Entin further reported, "he said he had some concern about violence based on what he's seen in the past, but mostly he just doesn't think that it's productive or really making a difference, big picture, about how the country feels about President Trump. And he says he just didn't want to get involved."
During the interview, Swart noted that peaceful demonstrators could be lumped in with "a violent agitator throwing a molotov cocktail" and create a "very big problem" with police being unable to differentiate between protestors and rioters.
Entin: Have the organizers of the July 17 demonstrations approached you?
Swart: Interests aligned with the organizers of the July 17 movement have approached us, and in fact, we rejected an offer that probably is worth around $20 million.
Entin: $20 million?
Swart: Correct. I mean, this is a nationwide thing, right? It's not to say I would have made $20 million personally, but the value of the contract would have been worth around that amount, nationwide, to organize huge demonstrations around the country, but personally, I just don't think it's effective. So, I'm not trying to call myself virtuous for rejecting it. What I'm saying is, I'm saying I'm rejecting it, not because I don't want to take the business, but because, frankly, this is going to be ineffective. It's going to make us all look bad.
Outcome of South Korean Election May Possibly Establish a Modern Acheson Line
July 15, 2025
The Infamous “Acheson Line,” which helped trigger the Korean War
In January 1950, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson articulated a controversial geographic line that placed the Korean Peninsula on the communist side of the early Cold War conceptual boundary. With the outcome of the South Korean election on June 3, this line may have reappeared.
After the official results were announced, the White House expressed concern about Chinese interference.
“The US-ROK Alliance remains ironclad. While South Korea had a free and fair election, the United States remains concerned and opposed to Chinese interference and influence in democracies around the world,” a White House official said in response to an emailed question from Reuters about the outcome of the South Korean presidential election.
The unusual caveat of concern over Chinese interference brought sharp responses in Korean media.
Despite large and frequent rallies in South Korea by conservatives and populists for the People Power candidate Kim Moon-soo, the Democrat Party candidate Lee Jae-myung won. It took me some work to find the Lee Jae-myung rallies.
Rallies are not the only measurement of energy, but they are noticeable.
Watching the election returns from the Myul Gong Bahn Jeom (Anti-Communist Restaurant) in southern Seoul along with several Americans and South Koreans, one thing was noticed. The initial results released in South Korean media were “exit polling,” a political metric tool that has subsided in use in the United States.
One report on exit polling is titled “Exit Polls: A Tool for Propaganda, Narrative Building, and the Normalisation of Electoral Doubts,” which is what the initial exit polling in South Korea appeared to be. With one of the final screenshots of exit polling showing Lee winning 52 percent to 39 percent, much of the international media ran with the exit polls and announced Lee the decisive winner. Within about an hour of the last exit polling, South Korean media announced that actual counting of the ballots had begun.
The final official results showed 48 percent to 42 percent, a much closer 6 percent spread.
Former U.S. Ambassador Morse Tan speaks to a Stop the Steal Rally in South Korea, July 2025
New President Favors Withdrawal of US Forces From Korea
Lee said in his inaugural speech that he would bolster U.S.–Japan ties. Lee’s remark was a bit orthogonal from his past comments and behavior. In the past, he has referred to the U.S. military presence in South Korea as an “occupation force.”
In an article for the East Asia Research Center, Tara O, a retired Air Force officer and noted Korean Peninsula expert, had this to say about Lee: “Lee Jae-myung also has made anti-U.S. statements, casting the U.S. in a negative light calling the U.S. an occupation force, when he said ‘In fact, the pro-Japanese faction (Koreans), whom the U.S. was not able to liquidate, joined with the U.S. occupation forces, retaining the control system, didn’t they?’ at the Yi Yuk-sa Cultural Center on July 1, 2021.”
The withdrawal of U.S. forces and the ending of the long-standing U.S.–South Korea alliance has been the goal of left-leaning thought in the country.
When I was in South Korea during the presidential election, there arose a rare opportunity to meet with a senior-ranking North Korean defector, Kim Kuk-song. When I asked Kim which candidate was preferred by North Korea and China, he said it was likely Lee Jae-myung, so it would be easier to have the United States expelled from the Korean Peninsula.
Protesters against stolen election in South Korea
Burgeoning Tripartite Alliance Now on Shaky Ground
Former President Yoon Suk-Yeol set aside long-standing grievances between Korea and Japan lingering from World War II and sought a much stronger three-way relationship with Japan and the United States in a coordinated, trilateral military arrangement.
Despite years of a U.S. military presence in South Korea and Japan since the end of the war, in June 2024, the first-ever trilateral military exercise was held. The exercise, called “Freedom Edge,” was multi-domain, meaning air, sea, land, space, and cyber domains were included in the game play.
The exercise significantly rattled North Korea and China. O wrote: “Lee met with the then-Chinese Ambassador to South Korea, Xing Haiming, displaying notable deference. When Xing issued a thinly veiled threat, warning that South Korea would ’regret betting on China’s defeat’ in response to the Yoon administration’s pro-Western foreign policy, Lee offered no rebuttal.”
The South China Morning Post reported that Lee said U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) could play a “critical role for the United States policy of containment against China.”
When read carefully, the operative part of Lee’s view is that the U.S. military and the tripartite arrangement were “for the United States”—while Lee didn’t include South Korea as benefiting from this arrangement.
Need for a Permanent US Ambassador
One of the most exasperating matters during the South Korean 60-day “snap” election process was the absence of a Trump-nominated ambassador in place in South Korea.
The outgoing secretary of state, Tony Blinken, announced on Jan. 10 that Ambassador Joseph Yun had been appointed Chargé d’Affaires, ad interim, at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul.
Previously, Yun had “retired” from the State Department in 2018 in what was characterized as dissatisfaction with U.S. President Donald Trump’s leadership in his first term. Yun returned to service in 2022 during the Biden administration.
A confirmed ambassador is critical to providing direct and clear articulation of the policies and positions of the U.S. president.
The South Korean crisis since December has been one of the most tumultuous in the history of the country, and there has been very little input from the United States despite a massive call for Trump’s support from many influential South Korean personalities on social media.
Hopefully action will be taken soon. If not, Lee’s track record and American indifference may inadvertently reestablish Acheson’s 1950 folly, with disastrous results.
All viewpoints are personal and do not reflect the viewpoints of any organization.
This article first appeared in Epoch Times and was reprinted with permission, with minor editorial adjustments for clarity and formatting.
NEW: Forensic Analysis Reveals Epstein Prison Video Had Nearly 3 Minutes Cut Out – Not Just One Minute at Midnight Like Originally Reported
July 15, 2025
According to analysis conducted by two different forensic experts working with WIRED, at least 3 minutes were cut from the “raw” Epstein prison video posted to the DOJ website last week.
The Gateway Pundit was the first to report that an entire minute was cut from the DOJ video that was released last Sunday.
If you follow the full video you can see for yourself that the video is cut off at 11:59:00 and there is a ‘missing minute.’
BOMBSHELL: DOJ Caught Deleting 60 Seconds from Newly Released 10-Hour+ Epstein Surveillance Video — Missing Clip Raises Explosive Questions About “Suicide” Narrative
During the White House Cabinet meeting last Tuesday, AG Pam Bondi was asked about the missing clip in the Epstein video.
“Could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse tape on the night of his death?” a reporter asked Pam Bondi.
“The minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively… the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suic*de,” Bondi said.
Bondi said every night at midnight, the video has a minute missing.
WATCH:
BREAKING: AG Pam Bondi responds to why a minute was missing in the Jeffrey Epstein prison video, Trump says talking about Epstein is a waste of time.
Reporter: Could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse tape on the night of his death?
According to WIRED, nearly 3 minutes were cut from the Epstein prison video.
Wired recently reported that the Epstein prison video was edited using Adobe Premiere Pro.
“Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute,” WIRED reported.
NEW: Metadata from the “raw” Epstein prison video shows approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds were removed from one of two stitched-together clips. The cut starts right at the “missing minute.”https://t.co/akGXqznId6
WIRED said the missing 3 minutes may be related to the one-minute gap at midnight.
“WIRED reviewed its findings with two independent video forensics experts who confirmed that the edit occurred just before the missing minute mark and that approximately three minutes of footage were cut from the original clip,” the outlet reported.
The nearly three-minute discrepancy may be related to the widely reported one-minute gap—between 11:58:58 pm and 12:00:00 am—that attorney general Pam Bondi has attributed to a nightly system reset.https://t.co/akGXqznId6pic.twitter.com/dQYjMriD5P
Trump Slams Reporter on Ukraine: “You Should Have Asked that Same Question to Biden. Why Did he Get Us into This War?” – “Because HE’S A DUMMY, That’s Why! And You Don’t Cover it Right.” (VIDEO)
July 15, 2025
President Trump went off on a reporter on Tuesday for implying that his 50-day tariff deadline on Russia would allow them to continue the war for 50 more days, slamming the reporter for ignoring Biden’s incompetence.
Trump spent nearly 20 minutes speaking to reporters before he departed the White House this afternoon.
Many of the questions centered around the war in Ukraine and the President’s plan to sell NATO allies US-made weapons and equipment that the alliance can then transfer to Ukraine.
When a reporter accused him of “giving Putin 50 additional days to prosecute this war,” Trump signaled that “it could be sooner than that” and went off on the reporter. “You should have asked that same question to Biden. Why did he get us into this war? You should ask that question,” he said.
“You know why he got us in? Because he’s a dummy, that’s why! And you don’t cover it right.”
Trump continued, “You should be asking that question to Biden. Why did he get us into this war? Because he’s incompetent, and it would have never happened if I was President.”
WATCH:
Reporter: Why are you giving Putin 50 additional days to prosecute this war?
Trump: I don’t think 50 days is very long, and it could be sooner than that. I don’t think 50 days is very long. You should have asked that same question to Biden. Why did he get us into this war? You should ask that question.
Reporter: I have asked that question.
Trump: Yeah? And what did he tell you? Why did he get us into this war? You know why he got us in? Because he’s a dummy, that’s why! And you don’t cover it right. You should be asking that question to Biden. Why did he get us into this war? Because he’s incompetent, and it would have never happened if I was President.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump announced that he will impose “secondary tariffs” of 100% on Russia if they do not come to an agreement to end the war within 50 days during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Monday.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
