TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @C_N_F__on__X
reSee.it AI Summary
Ruby Ridge exemplified government overreach and agency corruption. Randy Weaver was set up by the ATF, leading to his arrest for a charge he missed. Following surveillance by the FBI and US Marshals, a confrontation resulted in the death of Weaver's dog and a gunfight that killed his son and a US Marshal. After a prolonged standoff, Weaver and Harris were arrested, with Weaver later acquitted of most charges. The family received a settlement from the government, but no admission of wrongdoing was made regarding the deaths of Vicki and Sammy Weaver.
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
Ruby ridge was an example of government overreach and the corruption of the three letter agencies. The ATF set Randy Weaver up by getting an undercover agent to get him to saw off the barrels of shotguns he sold them. They arrested Weaver, but he failed to appear for the charge. The FBI and US Marshals set up surveillance, and has agents stalking the property. The Weavers dog ran into the woods where an agent was, the agent shot and killed the dog. Weaver’s fourteen year old son and friend went into the woods where a gun fight ensued leaving the Weaver boy and a US Marshal dead. The next day the Weavers wanted to go pay their respects, they left the cabin to visit the boy’s body. The marshals opened fire hitting Randy in the armpit. They made their way back to the cabin, got back to the front door where they were shot at again, the bullet went hit the family friend in the chest, went through the door and hit Vikki Weaver in the head as she was holding their baby. After that the standoff lasted eleven days and only ended with a negotiator. Randy Weaver and Harris were arrested on numerous charges, though Weaver was later acquitted of all charges except for the original charge of missing his court date. Harris was also acquitted of charges related to the death of the marshal. In 1995, the Weaver family received an out-of-court settlement from the federal government in a wrongful death suit. Randy Weaver received $100,000 and his three daughters received $1 million each. The government did not admit any wrongdoing in the deaths of Vicki and Sammy Weaver. #RubyRidge
reSee.it AI Summary
In 1975, I took on my first case as a lawyer, defending a man accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl. I argued that the girl had previously made false accusations and had fantasies about older men, which were not true. Ultimately, my defense led to a plea bargain, and the defendant, who could have faced a life sentence, was sentenced to just a year in county jail, serving only ten months.
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
Hillary Clinton’s first case as a lawyer was defending a child rapist. In 1975 Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a twelve year old girl. Clinton took on the case which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant. Clinton attacked the little girl’s credibility saying the girl brought false accusations before, and she fantasized about older men, all untrue. Her lying worked because the rapist who could have gone to jail for life only ended up getting a year in the county jail and only served ten months. #HillaryClinton
reSee.it AI Summary
I dated Willie Brown in the mid-90s when I was in my late 20s, and he was in his early 60s. He was a significant figure in California politics, serving as the speaker of the California State Assembly and later as the mayor of San Francisco, and he appointed me to two political positions.
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
Kamala Harris and Willie Brown dated in the mid 90s when Harris was in her late 20s and Brown was in his early 60s. Brown was a powerful figure in California politics, serving as the speaker of the California State Assembly and later as the mayor of San Francisco. He appointed Harris to two political posts during his tenure as speaker. #KamalaHarris
Video Transcript AI Summary
This woman openly dated Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, despite his marriage. She then married a Jewish man, leading the speaker to question her motives. The speaker suggests that her relationship with Brown was more genuine than her current marriage, hinting at ulterior motives. The speaker also expresses skepticism about Jewish men's romantic abilities and warns Joe Biden to be cautious.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This woman was flaunting her relationship with Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco. You know, sweet sweet Willie? Sweet Willie Brown. Sweet Willie. Sweet Willie Brown.
And they they were hanging out in the restaurants and out there on the wharf. You know, and Willie Brown is married. They were in public while she was a district attorney. Here she was, an adulterer, going with this man, you know, and and all over all over the the the get pick up the daily the the the the British newspaper there. I mean, they covered it.
Many of the people in in the the Frisco Frisco area didn't cover in America. They they didn't bring it up against her either. But, no, this woman was flaunting her relationship with sweet Willie Brown. And they were getting it on. And so she did date a black man because Willie is about as black as you can get.
That guy's black as about 2 minutes cold, and I am practicing. But here, what what is it? What does she marry this Jewish guy? Right? And I'm not against Jews.
I don't hate that. I'm a Zionist. Right? I'm not against Jews. Me?
No. Uh-uh. I believe in Abraham. Jesus too. But now she what what is it with marrying this Jewish guy?
Something's up. That guy so I can't believe that's love at first sight or any other sight. Something's up. Something something that woman that woman is up to something. That is that that that's a crawling woman.
Stop. I think she married that guy. Something's up. Something's up. I can tell you now.
Because I mean, I think I think I think Willie Brown had her nose open. Now y'all don't know that term. You Y'all don't know that. But no. I think Willie Brown, I think she was really kinda going for Willie Brown.
She was hanging on him. He trying to get I think he dumped her Willie Brown. Y'all know sweet Willie? That sweet Willie. Then look at the 2 of them.
Whoo. No. Look at that. No. I think Willie Brown had an oval.
I think she really like him. You know? And I should end up after dating Willie Brown, after dating sweet Willie. She reminds this Jewish guy. I just don't know Jewish man to be a great lover.
No. You know, I'm listen. I get it. I'm not against the Jewish food. You look me.
You know? No. There's some something's up with that camera bag ain't black hairs, and Joe Biden better watch himself. I can tell you that right
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
JD Vance is spot on, we need to fight fire with fire. If they want lawfare, lawfare is what we should give them. These Democrats opened up a can of worms, it’s time to give them a taste of their own medicine. #Trump2024 https://t.co/WTq1LP9dTu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many experts doubt the case's appeal, questioning why it was pursued. Concerns raised about a judge with ties to Democratic fundraising overseeing the case. Republicans urged to take action, subpoena judge Marshawn and daughter for connections to Democratic money. Investigate Soros and Bragg's involvement. Punishment needed for wrongdoing to prevent further abuse of justice system. Fight back to protect not just Trump, but all Republicans and conservatives. Full investigation and accountability crucial. JD Vance emphasized the importance of stopping corruption now.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You hear so many experts frankly from across the aisle say that this case won't stand up on appeal. Well, if the case won't stand up on appeal, why was it ever brought in the first place? Why was a judge whose family has gotten rich off of Democratic party fundraising allowed to preside over this thing in the first place? And Republicans, Jesse, we cannot just sit on our hands. We can't just complain about it.
As important as all of that stuff is, we have to be willing to fight back. We need to be subpoenaing, judge Marshawn and his daughter. We need to understand what are the connections be between big Democratic money and this sham prosecution? Did George Soros ever talk to Alvin Bragg about using his power to go after Donald Trump? We need to get to the bottom of it.
And when we find wrongdoing, we need to be willing to actually punish it. That is the only, again, the only language that I think these people are gonna understand is that if they do this, if they turn the American system of justice into Banana Republic garbage, they're gonna suffer consequences for it. And if they don't, Jesse, it's not gonna stop with Donald Trump. Banana Republican Republics never stop with the guy at the top. It's gonna go after a ton of other Republican officials and conservatives unless we fight back.
Nope. Stop it now. Full throated investigation and full accountability. Absolutely necessary. JD Vance, thank you so much.
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
Elise Stefanik lays bare the lawfare being waged against President Trump. This is unprecedented in American history, we can’t have a country if one side is using the justice system to eliminate a political opponent. #TrumpTrials https://t.co/qDF6pmbWJg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker criticizes the political lawfare in the Alvin Bragg trial, accusing it of being a sham to target Trump. They highlight the lack of prosecution by various agencies and question the motives behind the case. The speaker also questions the jury selection process, alleging bias against Trump supporters. They argue that this lawfare is aimed at interfering in elections and boosting Biden's campaign, vowing that Trump will win in 2024 to stop this misuse of the justice system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Miss Stefanik for 5 minutes.
Speaker 1: Oh, I love being able to respond to the novice from New York. First of all, thank you so much for stating the obvious that political lawfare is in fact election interference. That's what we're seeing with the sham Alvin Bragg trial. Thank you also to the novice freshman member for New York, highlighting that withholding military aid to an ally for a political purpose, just like Joe Biden is doing to Israel. Always grateful for you stepping in it.
Mister Costello, in your opening statement, you said that in the over 50 years serving as a lawyer, you, quote, have never seen the types of politically motivated cases that have been brought in this presidential election season. These political cases are being used as a weapon of war to damage, defeat, or impede political adversaries and their allies. Instead of political warfare, it is lawfare, a cancer upon our collective judicial system. I wanna begin with Alvin Bragg's weaponized sham trial in New York. Isn't it true that in Alvin Bragg's campaign for Manhattan DA, Bragg specifically ran on going after president Donald Trump?
Speaker 0: That is true.
Speaker 1: Isn't it true that Bragg's predecessor, Cy Vance, declined to prosecute president Trump.
Speaker 0: That is true.
Speaker 1: And the FEC also did not prosecute president Trump.
Speaker 0: That is true.
Speaker 1: And the DOJ did not prosecute president Trump in this case.
Speaker 0: The DOJ referring to the US attorney for the southern district? Correct. Absolutely true.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons the southern district of New York turned down this case was because the supposed star witness according to Alvin Bragg, Michael Cohen, was totally, quote, unworthy of belief. Isn't that true?
Speaker 0: Without a doubt.
Speaker 1: This is the same Michael Cohen who pled guilty to 7 counts in an indictment that had absolutely nothing to do with president Trump and actually predated the first time he met president Trump. Correct?
Speaker 0: Absolutely true.
Speaker 1: And and in fact, this is the same Michael Cohen who perjured himself to congress. Isn't that true?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: In fact, when called as a witness in this sham trial, Cohen was asked directly if he was honest during his testimony to congress. He said no, admitting perjury. But it's not just Bragg's case that is a total sham and illegal political lawfare going after Joe Biden's top political opponent, Donald Trump. This rock goes deep all the way up to the top in the Oval Office. Because when congress referred this admission of Cohen's perjury to Joe Biden's DOJ, isn't it true that the DOJ has refused to prosecute?
Speaker 0: That is true.
Speaker 1: Isn't it correct that Michael Colangelo, who was the 3rd highest ranking official in Biden's DOJ, was transferred to Bragg's office to run this weaponized prosecution of president Trump? Isn't that
Speaker 0: true? Not only true, but it's unheard of. Unheard of.
Speaker 1: It's a disgrace. Do you agree that this weaponization of lawfare goes straight to the top with the purpose of helping Joe Biden's failing presidential campaign.
Speaker 0: The circumstantial evidence definitely supports that.
Speaker 1: And the unconstitutional gag order on president Trump from New York Judge Merchant is unprecedented law fair.
Speaker 0: As far as I know, absolutely.
Speaker 1: And let's go to the daughter of the judge. Isn't it true that she is raising 1,000,000 of dollars off of this sham case?
Speaker 0: Well, I have to say I've read that in the media. I don't know it of my own knowledge.
Speaker 1: It is true. Thank you. One additional question. I wanna talk about the rigged and unprecedented jury selection process. Isn't it true that Bragg's team asked the jurors if they followed Trump on social media?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And isn't it true that they did not ask any of the potential jurors if they followed Biden on social media.
Speaker 0: Or Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: Or Michael Cohen. And isn't it true that 87% of the jurors said they voted for Joe Biden?
Speaker 0: That's true.
Speaker 1: Is this unprecedented and lawfaired jury shopping?
Speaker 0: Without a doubt.
Speaker 1: Without a doubt. Political lawfare for the purpose of election interference to go after Donald Trump. Do you agree?
Speaker 0: Totally.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons that Trump's polls continue to skyrocket, and it's why president Trump will win in 2024 to end the illegal and warped weaponization of the justice system. Because if they can illegally go after Trump, they can go after anyone. I yield back.
reSee.it AI Summary
The CIA has a long history of interfering in elections worldwide. Between 1945 and 2000, there were 81 instances of US interference. It's worth considering if we believe they would meddle in other countries' elections but not our own.
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
The has CIA interfered in elections all over the world throughout it’s history. From 1945 to 2000, there were eighty one instances of the US interfering in foreign affairs. Do we really believe the CIA will interfere in elections all over the world, but think they won’t interfere in our own elections? #CIA
Video Transcript AI Summary
US politicians accuse other nations of election meddling, but the CIA has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs through military coups. In one example, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's prime minister for nationalizing the oil industry, leading to widespread violence and the installation of a US-friendly government. Declassified documents reveal the CIA's involvement in the coup, highlighting their use of propaganda and bribery. Despite claims of no longer meddling in elections, the CIA director openly admitted to continuing such actions for "very good reasons."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Start with election meddling. According to US politicians, there's nothing more sacred than free and fair elections. We accuse other nations of meddling all the time. Recently, it's been Russia, Iran, and China getting the accusatory finger pointed at them. But as much as we want to project an image of our nation as a shining beacon of truth and freedom, we are the worst offender when it comes to meddling in foreign affairs.
And it's not even close. The CIA isn't a fan of subtle manipulation. The intelligence agency wants the world to see the results of whatever election or administration they're disrupting. What they don't want is for people to know they're the ones pulling the strings. According to one study, the CIA had engaged in 81 overt or covert interventions in foreign affairs between 1945 and 2000.
And that's just the ones we know about and not even counting the constant meddling and destabilization of the last 20 years. The CIA's weapon of choice for foreign meddling is the military coup. One of the earlier examples is the overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. Based on what you know about US priorities and the resources of the Middle East, what do you think was the catalyst for this coup? If you said oil, congratulations.
You're right. The US beating up other countries for their oil isn't just a meme. Masada had nationalized the Iranian oil company, which negatively affected US and British economic interests. To make matters worse, from a US perspective, Masada, while not a communist himself, had earned the support of the Iranian Communist Party. As you'll come to see, one whiff of successful non capitalist economics and the CIA is called in to destroy everything.
In this particular instance, Winston Churchill and President Eisenhower decided to overthrow the government of Iran. The CIA paid some of Tehran's most violent mobsters to stage protests across the city and orchestrated trucks and buses full of people to come in and seize the area. Between 23 100 people were killed in the conflict, which, of course, the CIA expected would happen. The intelligence agency then propped up a government under the rule of the Shah, who reigned as a monarch heavily dependent on US support to maintain power. Masada was arrested, convicted of treason by the new US friendly government, served 3 years in prison, and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest, all for the crime of trying to lead his country out from under the boot of Western imperialism.
The truth about this coup wouldn't come to light until 60 years later in 2013, when CIA documents on the subject were declassified. These documents prove the CIA's planning and execution of the coup, their use of propaganda, bribery of politicians, security and military officials, and their approval at the highest levels of government. You may be thinking, okay. If they declassify this information, that means they don't do that kind of thing anymore. Right?
Well, no. Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries' elections?
Speaker 1: Oh, probably. But, it was for the good of the system in order to avoid the communists from taking over. For example, in Europe, in 47, 48, 49, the Greeks and the Italians, we We don't do that now, though. We don't mess around other
Speaker 0: people's elections. Laura Ingram clearly gave this guy the chance to lie and say that we don't meddle anymore, but he didn't take it. The CIA director openly bragged about meddling in foreign affairs for quote very good reasons. Call me idealistic, but I don't think there's any reason for a country to disrupt the election process of other nations. But here we are.
It's out in the open
Speaker 1: that we do it to this day.
@C_N_F__on__X - Conservative News Feed
Remember when the women on the view loved Donald Trump? Before everyone caught Trump derangement syndrome he was a well liked guy. #Trump2024 https://t.co/Pxwy2Q7wH7
Video Transcript AI Summary
Joy Behar and others on The View once admired Donald Trump, praising his character and engaging in civil dialogue. However, they now criticize him, with Joy calling him a menace and Whoopi refusing to say his name. The shift in attitude towards Trump is notable, and the reason behind it remains unclear. Share your thoughts in the comments and show support by liking the video. Thank you for watching.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Altice is upstanding American.
Speaker 1: No. You're not hearing things. That's Joy Behar admitting her respect and adoration for Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: It was bad, Donald Trump. Joy said the guy wears a tube.
Speaker 0: He says that it's his own hair. So I believe him because I believe Donald. He's an upstanding American. Yeah. But America doesn't believe him.
We've gotten, you know, a letter poured in.
Speaker 2: Yes. I don't believe. I don't understand. Is that really his hair. Oh my
Speaker 3: god. Okay. You ready? Come here.
Speaker 2: No. It's true. It's it's it's real. It's not very pretty much real.
Speaker 4: Get away from me, you orange menace.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: You
Speaker 5: know? And looking like a real menace. Somebody attacks you. Should you attack back?
Speaker 3: I I believe, yes. And I believe as an you know, I mean, I could give you lots of examples. Yeah. But if you're known as a patsy, if you're known as somebody that takes it, I think it's terrible.
Speaker 0: Well, but the ad hominem attacks, those really are not effective.
Speaker 2: Personal attacks. Like, you're fat, is you're, you have
Speaker 0: no talent, all the things he says.
Speaker 5: How's that effective? Donald's been
Speaker 0: doing that. Because the leadership in a leadership position, I'm not sure that that's an effective way to attack your opponent.
Speaker 3: Strange thing has happened over the last couple of years called Twitter. And I have this account with millions of people. Right. And I've got all these and I used to say I wanna own a newspaper. This is better.
Speaker 0: You recently said about president Obama, I'm gonna quote you, he grew up and nobody knew him. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. The whole thing is very strange. What are you driving at there? Are you a Bertha, Donald?
Speaker 3: There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like.
Speaker 2: Oh my god. That's a turn. Is a What's what I'm telling you.
Speaker 3: He was 3 pounds Darling, I love you. I'm telling you.
Speaker 2: You too. I think that's the biggest pile of dog mess I've heard in the ages. If the president is inside out, that's not good. You know who says he cannot come up with the cash to cover his 4 $100,000,000 plus bond. You worried that you can't pay your bill?
Wait till he the other guy becomes president, and you won't have to worry about it because you'll be in some camp somewhere.
Speaker 1: I stumbled upon this old footage of the view, and I found it intriguing how at the time these women admire Donald Trump, showing him the utmost respect and even engaging in civil dialogue. But I feel like this is something they want people to forget. Joy mentioned how she believed he was upstanding, and Whoopi even told him that she loved him. However, today, these women make a living bashing Donald Trump. Joy calls him a menace, and Whoopi won't even mention his name.
Does anyone know what caused the shift of energy? Why do they now despise Donald Trump? I'd love to know your thoughts on this, so be sure to let me know in the comments below. And if you enjoyed this video, give it a like. Your support really helps the channel grow, and I truly, truly appreciate it.
Thanks for watching.