Exposed Audio Reveals a Political Machine Operating Inside a Kootenai County Church

Why This Audio Matters to Kootenai County

Last night we released audio from an in-person meeting featuring Pastor Paul Van Noy and Davalu Cummings (a former federal agent), recorded August 15, 2024. The conversation centers on the 2024 Kootenai County sheriff race and the candidacy of Dan Wilson. While the meeting was requested by a churchgoer seeking clarity and asking why their pastor wouldn’t meet with Wilson despite ostensibly aligned values, the recording shows something else entirely: two political operatives using the authority of church and “expertise” to control narrative, filter information, and steer outcomes.

For Kootenai County residents who care about civic transparency, church-state boundaries, and fair elections, this isn’t just campaign chatter. The audio captures a real-time demonstration of influence: how faith, relationships, and institutional credibility can be repurposed to shape political behavior inside a congregation.

What you’ll find here: Our analysis of the audio (with the full livestream, audio clips, and complete transcripts embedded below) shows how the conversation was reframed away from the churchgoer’s documented concerns and toward delegitimizing Dan Wilson’s bid for sheriff.

Our Live-Stream Broadcast Analysis

Listen to the Audio Recordings

The Set-Up: “Briefings,” Gatekeeping, and a Controlled Frame

Early in the meeting (see transcript Clip 29), Pastor Van Noy describes a standing Monday “briefing” by a select group, explicitly for political advice, because, as he says, he is “supposed to be a pastor, not a politician.” The description is revealing: a pastor invoking religious office to open the door for political input while outsourcing research and positions to a private circle. Cummings is presented as the legal/analytical mind of that circle.

From there, the conversation is frame-controlled. Before the churchgoer can work through their sources, publicly available materials comparing Wilson and incumbent Bob Norris, Cummings challenges the credibility of those sources and establishes herself as the arbiter of what “counts.” This is textbook gatekeeping: cement the authority of the in-room experts, then put the burden on the congregant to “prove” not just facts, but the worthiness of their sources, motives, and even the meeting’s confidentiality.

Tactic #1: Reclassify the Meeting to Avoid Accountability

When the churchgoer raises religious privilege/confidentiality, They’re signaling a desire for good-faith guardrails. Cummings quickly narrows that privilege to counseling only, insisting the discussion is “community conversation,” not a pastoral counsel (Clip 29–30). That move is strategic:

• It erases a pastoral duty of care, converting a parishioner’s request for safety into a public-issue debate on the operatives’ terms.

• It insulates the operatives, letting them interrogate sources, motives, and affiliations without reciprocal commitments to protect the attendee.

The result is an asymmetric meeting: the churchgoer has to disclose and defend, while the operatives retain discretion over what leaves the room.

Tactic #2: Discredit the Messenger, Not the Facts

The transcript shows repeated attempts to undermine the source, not necessarily the content:

• Cummings presses for the identity and background of North Idaho Slow Growth research and Teresa Roth (Clip 30), asking whether a single person’s work “matters.”

• This move shifts attention off specific claims like incomplete KCRCC responses, special deputizations, or budget questions, and onto who compiled the claims.

Even where facts are conceded (e.g., fusion center history, Mossad training references in public materials), the meta-argument remains: your sources are suspect; our expertise is decisive.

Tactic #3: Invoke Expertise to Close the Question

Cummings frequently re-centers the room with legal or law-enforcement process talk (Clip 30–33). She outlines federal constraints around immigration enforcement, reserve deputy requirements, POST standards, and NCIC access, most of which is broadly accurate but selectively applied:

• These explanations sound final (“that’s federal; that’s statute”), implying Wilson’s goals are impractical or unserious.

• Meanwhile, incumbent actions are framed as already compliant/appropriate, even when the same scrutiny about feasibility, policy limits, or optics could apply to the status quo.

This one-way skepticism is a hallmark of political persuasion: use technicalities to box in reform proposals, but grant broad benefit of the doubt to existing power.

Tactic #4: Moral Framing and Fear Appeals

The Pastor’s long reflection in Clip 32 moves the discussion from policy to moral hazard. He connects Wilson to “Bundy-like” risks, civil unrest, and potential violence. This is persuasive framing:

• Shift the risk lens from the incumbent’s record to the challenger’s alleged temperament and supporters.

• Anchor the narrative in vivid fear (civil war, snipers, community division), making a meeting with Wilson seem not merely unnecessary but unsafe.

The churchgoer’s original question, “Why won’t you meet with Dan if your values align?”gets buried under the suggestion that Wilson himself is dangerous or at least dangerously naïve.

Tactic #5: The “High Road” Standard That Only Applies to One Side

The Pastor criticizes “mudslinging” and insists candidates campaign on what they’ll do, not on what others don’t (Clip 36–38). Yet in the same breath, he predicts Wilson cannot win, insists the incumbent will, and cites a personal record of access (“he’s never let ME down”) as proof of competence. That is incumbency bias cloaked as virtue: call for civility, but reserve trust and platform access for the officeholder who already has it.

The churchgoer’s point, that Wilson was disinvited from legitimacy, not merely averse to it, remains unaddressed. Instead, the Pastor reframes any missed or one-sided event as Wilson’s failure to show, even when terms were not neutral (“Show Your Proof” challenge, merchandise at venue, no mutually agreed moderator or format).

Special Deputizations, Budget, and the Helicopter: Optics vs. Reality

When the churchgoer asks about special deputizations (Clip 34–35), the conversation leans heavily into process opacity: no one can define the status, but it’s fine; it’s advisory; NDAs exist; sensitive meetings require discretion. Again, benefit of the doubt is granted to insiders, and concerns about conflicts of interest are minimized as perception problems not structural problems.

On the helicopter and funding, the pattern repeats: donors, tribes, rezones, and asset-forfeiture funds are treated as routine, even virtuous. But Kootenai County voters deserve straightforward disclosures: what authority, what access, what money, what deals, and who benefits. Treating legitimate questions as naiveté is not accountability.

The Bottom Line: A Church Platform Used as a Political Filter

Across the audio and transcripts, the constant is gatekeeping:

• Who gets a meeting (incumbent yes; challenger no).

• Which evidence “counts.”

• What risks are amplified (future danger tied to Wilson) and what risks are minimized (current entanglements, deputizations, donor optics).

• Which voices are pastoral (care, confidentiality, spiritual guidance) and which are political (briefings, messaging, strategy) and how seamlessly the Pastor and Cummings toggle between them.

This is not a neutral pastoral exchange. It is a political operation conducted under the credibility of the church, directing outcomes in Kootenai County while using faith language to sanctify the process.

What You Can Verify in the Embedded Materials

To empower readers (and voters), we’ve embedded the full livestream video, separate audio files, and the complete transcripts, including the churchgoer’s dialogue. As you listen and read, look for:

• Frame control: who asks the questions vs. who must defend.

• Source attacks vs. claim evaluation: when credibility talk replaces fact-checking.

• Asymmetrical scrutiny: how feasibility and legality are applied to Wilson vs. the incumbent.

• Fear cues and moral hazard: when rhetoric moves from policy to alarm.

• Access privileges: how special deputizations and private briefings intersect with public messaging.

Kootenai County deserves a transparent campaign conducted in the open, not behind closed doors under a cross.

1. Read, Watch, Decide

We invite you to watch the full video, listen to the unedited audio, and read the transcripts yourself. Then ask:

1. Is it appropriate for a church platform and a pastor’s authority to be used to filter and advance a political agenda?
2. Were the churchgoer’s documented concerns fairly engaged, or strategically neutralized?
3. Should access to a congregation be used to discredit a challenger rather than hear him?

This audio shows what happens when politics borrows the pulpit and why Kootenai County voters should insist on clarity, fairness, and daylight.