TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @RebelcastDC
@RebelcastDC - Rebelcast
Is The Media About To Memory-Hole Jeffrey Epstein? @Dylan_Housman & @reaganreese_ answer: https://t.co/k0RikM4WQD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss conservative media's coverage of the Epstein files, noting that Newsmax and Fox asked about it at a briefing. They emphasize the importance of conservative media pursuing this story to differentiate themselves from legacy media and address a topic of high interest to their audience. There are connections between the administration and the Epstein case that are worth investigating.
The briefing room is described as "reality TV" and not a place to get real answers. The administration may downplay the issue, but many Americans are interested in the Epstein files. Conservatives should be open to internal debate and discussion, even if it involves criticizing the Trump administration.
Both sides tend to accuse each other of being unified and always winning, which isn't true. The Democratic Party had internal debates on issues like Gaza. Conservatives need to discuss the Epstein situation and decide if they are satisfied with the current answers. Winning elections is important, but it's also important to deliver on promises. The Trump administration has kept many promises, which makes the lack of progress on the Epstein files stand out.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ray, can you just mention Newsmax and Fox both getting questions and asking about this at the briefing? I'll point out to people that you had questions prepared about the Epstein situation but didn't get called on. You've asked questions probably more often than anybody else in the briefing room that I can think of about the Epstein documents as that story's progressed throughout this administration. And I don't wanna get too hard on conservative media here and be too critical. We but we spent a lot of time criticizing legacy media and their shortcomings, especially under the Biden administration, which were egregious.
And so I think it's fair to say, you know, there are a lot of conservative reporters in that room, in that briefing room, a lot more than there used to be. Thanks to the administration opening up press access for more people, which is great. I'm glad that Newsmax and Fox with Peter Doocy both asked about the Epstein files. When I look at our readers and conservative Americans more broadly that are engaged with the news, I can look at the traffic on our site. I can look at the social media engagement.
I can look at all this stuff, these metrics. So I know for a fact, it's not speculation. I know for a fact that this is something they care a lot about and this is something they're very engaged with. If you're conservative media right now and you want to prove that you're different from legacy media, you want to prove that you can do a good job, that alternative media is worth investing in, worth paying attention to, this is a story that you can sink your teeth into. There is reporting to do on the story of how this all happened, what the reactions have been, what further steps might happen.
Is it really case closed or is there more stuff that's coming? There's a lot of threads. There are people in the administration that are connected to the Epstein case going back years in various capacities. There's a lot of threads that can be pulled on regarding the situation, and I just think it's interesting. I didn't watch the whole briefing yesterday, so I don't know how many other conservative media outlets got called on and did not ask about the Epstein files and the Epstein situation.
And I don't know what conversations may or may not be happening about, you know, the White House not wanting people to ask about that, but I think if you are a conservative this is a great opportunity. We talk all the time about how conservative media criticizes legacy media. Their criticisms are often correct and well placed, but they don't always fill the void themselves by doing good work themselves. In response, this is a prime opportunity where you can do actual good work on this and hold people to account and ask questions and try to get more of the stories hold, as conservative media and try to try to fill that void. I just think it's going to be very interesting.
We've already seen this happen online. I'm sure you've seen some of this where some of the influencers are fighting with each other about some of them are trying to move on very quickly from it, and some of them are saying, oh, hold on. Wait a second. Like, we deserve to know more about this. I think it's gonna be very interesting to watch who in conservative media is making the decision to roll over on this and let it go and who's making the decision to say, hey, let's try to do a little more reporting on this and see what we can uncover.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say two things. I would say one part of the problem is that the briefing room is not a place to get answers or to genuinely be informed on things that are happening behind closed doors. It's reality TV. It's essentially where everyone auditions for their big network show. And so that's part of the reason why I think you
Speaker 0: failed We've to see seen it from both sides. It's, you know, Jim Acosta got a show. Eugene Daniels got a show. This is a bipartisan issue.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And so it's not really a place where it's, you know, giving Caroline Levin an opportunity to slam the mainstream media because that clip goes absolutely viral on Twitter. And so I don't think there's I mean, it's unfortunate. It's probably a really great it would be a really great place to get answers to grill the administration, but I think that's essentially the fact of the matter is how the briefing room has evolved over the years. It's become this reality TV entertainment space to get these clips that go viral to, you know, catch the press secretary tripping up in her words rather than actually being curious and learning about policy.
The other thing I would just say is that I don't know. I think the administration's gonna be in a a tough place with all of this, with the Epstein files. And it's I think I could see them reasoning through all of this and just saying, well, Twitter is not real life and getting a lot of pressure on Twitter, through all of this. But I do think that when you speak to everyday Americans, I get a ton of text from people who are asking me to ask about the Epstein files, who wanna know answers. And we have even gotten, praise from left leaning outlets for being one of the few outlets who is constantly pressing the administration on the Epstein files.
And I think that is proof that this is something that's not just touching the online right. And also to that point, I would say that conservatives should also be more welcoming of, arguing with each other, talking things out, discussing things. Just because one conservative influencer or a couple of conservative influencers think it's not great that the Trump administration really didn't get them this answer on the Epstein files or it seems a little fishy doesn't mean that they can be against the Trump administration or, that there's a huge fracture in the party. This is leadership. This is a part of what happens when your party takes the White House, takes the government.
You talk these issues out. And I think that the more the conservative party can work through these issues, the better the conservative party can be post Trump, post 2024 when he's you know, someone inevitably has to run other than Donald Trump. It's probably not gonna be Donald Trump who runs in 2028 no matter how many times he tells us. And so I I think that the the unwillingness to, like, talk things out and kind of duke it out over these things because it might be seen as a weakness or whatever is, the wrong posture towards these things, but I'm just a journalist. So that's just my 2¢ for any conservative MAGA influencers listening.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. I I think it's totally fair and it's reasonable, and there are two things that brings to mind for me is one, we do see this on the left sometimes. I think there's this this belief kind of among conservatives. I it's interesting.
Both sides say two things about each other. One is that they never criticize each other. They're always united. Conservatives are like, well, the Democrats never criticize each other and vice versa. Democrats are like, well, conservatives, you know, when the time comes to vote, all the Republicans vote the right way.
We've seen that's not true on either side, frankly. I mean, the left was very critical of Joe Biden, particularly over, like, Gaza stuff and Palestine and Israel. And we just saw with, like, Thomas Massie and certain other Republicans on the big beautiful bill, like, there's plenty of instances where the rights aren't all on the same page. So that's a criticism that that each side makes of each other is that they're always on the same page, and why can't we be on the same page all the time? And they also accuse the other side of winning all the time.
Both sides feel like they're perpetually losing on every issue, which is obviously not possible. So that's another thing that always gets thrown out there. But we saw this, so I think a lot of conservatives will have this aversion to, you know, having these kind of conversations because they have that view of the left, like, the left's united, and that's how the left wins. And so we have to be united all the time no matter what. But Joe Biden got raked over the Colts relentlessly over the Gaza, Palestine, Israel stuff and, you know, it was tough at times for him to deal with it, but like that's how the party, the Democratic Party determined where they were gonna go on that issue.
Now a lot of people will look at that issue and be like, they don't like how they decided to go on it. They've gotten very anti Israel and and some would say anti Semitic in a lot of instances, but the party had to have that discussion and that debate about what they were doing. And so I think this is an example where conservatives have to have a discussion with what they're what they're doing and and what they think about this amongst themselves of, are we satisfied with this answer? Are we satisfied with this conclusion to the story, or do we think it is important to try to get more out of it? And the other thing that that comes to mind for me here is that conservatives conservatives have a strong, you know, desire to win.
They have a strong desire that that we need to win elections. We need to beat the left. It's all about winning. That's the main goal for everything, and that's obviously very important in politics. But you have to ask yourself also at a certain point, you know, what is the point of winning?
The point of winning is to get things done, get certain things done, and do accomplish certain goals. And, you know, if you're gonna win and then not, you know, deliver on things that that people want you to deliver on, it's you know, you're kind of putting the cart before the horse, I think. And you made a great point, which is that the Trump admin has kept a lot of its promises. If you had told me six months ago that they were actually gonna pass no tax on tips and no tax on overtime and and reducing taxes on Social Security, I would have been like, that's crazy. Like, that's just one of those things people say on the campaign trail.
That's not actually gonna happen, and it it happened. They were able to do it. They did shut down the border. Border crossings are more or less at zero. They've accomplished all they're they are deporting a lot of criminals and and violent people that that they said they were gonna deport.
So a lot of these goals, tariffs as well. You could just keep going down the list. A lot of these things that Trump said, we're gonna do this, have been happening. And so I think that shines even more of a light on this one as something where it's like, you know, so far, you guys have been sticking to your word on everything, and here's one where we we want a little bit more out of it. It's a normal reaction for people to have.
@theDCshorts - DC Shorts
🚨 JUST IN: J6er Shot DEAD During Traffic Stop 🚨 (WARNING: Graphic Material) https://t.co/rDpumUyyJq
Video Transcript AI Summary
I pulled you over for going 75 in a 55. You said you were keeping up with traffic, and you handed over your license and registration. You mentioned you were coming from church and your mom's cemetery.
Then you told me you're a January 6th defendant waiting on a pardon and that you're currently driving without a license because you're waiting for a hardship license after moving back from Idaho.
Because you are a habitual traffic violator, driving while suspended is a felony. You're going to have to come with me. I can't cut you any slack, since it's a felony, not a misdemeanor. I understand your circumstances, but you can't be driving. Turn around and put your hands behind your back.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello. How you doing? Good. How are you today? Pretty well.
The reason I'm pulling yours for seventy and a 50 five. Any reason for going that fast today?
Speaker 1: Sir, I'll just keep you on up with traffic.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Fair enough. You got your license and registration on yet?
Speaker 1: Can I put in parks?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Where you coming from today?
Speaker 1: Church in my mom's cemetery.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. I just wanna let you know that I'm a January 6 defendant. What do you mean? I stormed the cap on waiting on my pardon. Really?
Yeah. And I'm I I can't really afford getting in any trouble right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. I understand. Okay. I understand.
Speaker 1: I am driving without a license right now.
Speaker 0: Okay. So why are you doing that then?
Speaker 1: Well, I have to I've been waiting for my hardship license. I just moved back from Idaho.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And I hate to move back here because my my federal case.
Speaker 0: Alright, Matt. Hang tight for me. Okay? And I'll get back with you. Alright?
Hey, Matt. Do wanna go ahead and shut your vehicle off and step back here with me real quick? Yep. Go ahead and shut it off for me, please.
Speaker 1: Am I under arrest or anything?
Speaker 0: We'll come back here. I'll explain everything to you. Okay? Okay. Alright.
So I'm gonna hold on just real quick while I explain it to you. Okay. So today, you're getting off with a verbal warning for the speed. However, you're habitual traffic violator. I know.
Which means that you are at a felony status for driving while suspended. Uh-huh. So today, you are going to come with me.
Speaker 1: Well, I can't I can't You're gonna have to. Okay?
Speaker 0: You're gonna come with me today. Alright?
Speaker 1: No. I can't go to jail for this, sir.
Speaker 0: You're gonna have to come.
Speaker 1: Can I get a ride?
Speaker 0: No. Are you sure?
Speaker 1: This is a I'll violate my
Speaker 0: Just listen to me. Okay? Number one, it's a felony offense. There's no there's no leeway with felonies in the state of Indiana. Now maybe if it was a misdemeanor offense, I could work something out with you, but it's not a misdemeanor.
It's a felony offense. Okay? Mhmm. So that's how I that's why I can't work with you today with it. Okay?
I understand your circumstances, but you understand that you can't drive. Okay? So your driving has resulted into this situation. Okay? Now what I'm gonna do, alright is I'm gonna put your information right
Speaker 1: here for a sec.
Speaker 0: I want you to turn around and put your hands on. Don't you do it, buddy. No. No. No.
No. No. I'm shooting myself. No. No.
No. No. No.
@theDCshorts - DC Shorts
"MISLEADING": Former EPA Chief of Staff Says Trump Had Nothing to Do with Project 2025 https://t.co/Y7LqnAmnJf
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker denies coordinating with President Trump or his campaign while authoring the EPA chapter on Project 2025, stating it's misleading to suggest otherwise. They assert the Heritage Foundation's work on conservative policies predates Trump, with the "Mandate for Leadership" series existing since 1981.
The speaker claims Vice President Kamala Harris avoided answering if Americans are better off economically than four years ago, arguing most Americans are struggling due to the Biden-Harris administration's energy policies. They cite rising costs of gas, electricity, and groceries as evidence of financial hardship caused by policies like restricting resource development and demonizing coal, oil, and natural gas.
The speaker references an Institute of Energy Research report that claims over 250 actions by the Biden-Harris administration have hindered American energy production, including halting the Keystone XL Pipeline, limiting oil and gas permits, and impeding critical mineral access, increasing dependence on China. They state these actions have increased gas and electricity prices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have a prepared opening statement that I'll get into in just a second. But ranking member Raskin, you reiterated and have created a boogeyman that just isn't there. I did author the EPA chapter on project 2025. But in the course of that, I did not work with president Trump, with any of the people who work for him directly, or his campaign. And it is very misleading to suggest that there's any coordination there.
Because I can personally tell you, it did not happen. And I am not vying for a position in the next administration. I've actually left DC and I've moved to a small town in Mississippi, where I interact every day with people who live outside this bubble of gas lighting and misleading. And they actually are dealing with the consequences caused by policy decisions of this administration that isn't defined by progress, but defined by creating unnecessary hardship. I understand why it's hard to think about the the the political realm prior to President Trump.
But the Heritage Foundation has been very involved in pushing forward conservative policies for quite a while. And the mandate for leadership, the latest iteration, it's the 9th edition. This is a project that has been put out every few years since 1981. So it's been around for quite some time. And again, is more committed to representing the position of the broader conservative movement than any one candidate or person.
And I understand why there is the creation of this boogeyman, because your leading candidate is running away from policy actions she has taken that make Americans' lives much more difficult. In fact, Vice President Kamala Harris was recently asked on national television the following question. When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago? She said a lot of words, the question. Because the reality is, most Americans are not better off.
Most Americans are struggling to deal with expensive gas, expensive electricity, and high cost goods and groceries that have created financial burdens that Americans have had to deal with throughout the Biden Harris Administration. Their day 1 energy policies are a key driver behind Americans' increasing financial distress. From President Biden's promise to end all fossil fuels, along side Vice President Kamala Harris's commitment to ban fracking, Americans have suffered under their radical agenda. From the energy perspective, this has included locking up development of resources and demonizing industries. Mainly coal, oil and natural gas, that still provide 80% of our daily energy needs.
A recent report from the Institute of Energy Research has been tracking these actions. And they've found that since January 2021, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Congressional Democrats have taken over 250 actions that make it harder to produce energy in America. This has included stopping construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline that immediately cut 11,000 domestic jobs, including thousands of union jobs. Issuing a moratorium on new oil and gas permits on federal lands. Greenlighting Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline while shuttering the development of US are now 34% more expensive than 15 years ago.
Blocking the twin metals mine, shuttering US Steelworker jobs in Minnesota, and cutting off access to critical minerals that we need more and more of. And instead, this administration is making us more and more dependent on China. Slowing permits for LNG facilities from an average of 7 weeks to 11 months. Then completely halting permits for new LNG facilities altogether. Mandating that the consequences of these actions every time they put gas in their car, pay their electricity bills, or go to the grocery store.
@theDCshorts - DC Shorts
PASSIONATE Mark Robinson Fights for Gun Rights at Greensboro City Council https://t.co/tOoTOBgqAh
Video Transcript AI Summary
My name is Mark Robinson. I stand for law-abiding citizens' rights to bear arms. Blaming us for shootings won't solve the problem. Criminals won't give up their guns, leaving us defenseless. I will fight for our constitutional rights at city council. The Second Amendment applies to all, and we demand to keep our rights. Let's unite and dispel myths dividing us. We are the majority, and we will stand our ground.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister Robinson? Yes. Okay. I didn't have time to, prepare give us your name. I'm sorry.
My name is Mark Robinson. I live at 40115 Sassafras Court. That's right here in Greensboro. Lived in Greensboro all my life. I didn't have time to write a fancy speech.
I didn't have time to you know, I didn't have the the resource of a English teacher to sit down and write a speech with at school today and be, you know, brought over here, practiced, or anything. What I really came down here for was this. I've heard a whole lot of people in here talking tonight about this group and that group, domestic violence and blacks, these minorities and that minority. What I wanna know is, when are you all gonna start standing up for the majority? And here's who the majority is.
I'm the majority. I'm a law abiding citizen who's never shot anybody, never committed a serious crime, never committed a felony. I've never done anything like that. But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to blame put the blame where it goes, which is at the shooter's feet. You wanna put it at my feet.
You wanna turn around and restrict my right, constitutional right that's spelled out in black and white. You wanna restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people you're talking about in here tonight. It's ridiculous. I don't think Rod Serling could come up with a better script. It does not make any sense.
The law abiding citizens of this community and many communities around this country, we're the first ones taxed and the last ones considered and the first ones punished when things like this happens because our rights are the ones that are being taken away. That's the reason why I came out here today. Gun show or no gun show, NRA or no NRA. I'm here to stand up for the law abiding citizens of this community because I'm gonna tell you that what's gonna happen. You can take the guns away from us all you want to.
You all write a law. I follow the law. I'll bring my guns down here. I'll turn them in. But here's what's gonna happen.
The Crips and the Bloods on the other side of town, they're not gonna turn their guns in. They're gonna hold on to it. And what's gonna happen when you have to send the police down there to go take it? The police can barely enforce the law as it is. It's what I see.
We demonize the police, criminalize and and and vilify the police, and we make the criminals into victims. And we're talking about restricting guns? How are you gonna do that? How are you gonna do that when the police department's already hamstrung? You're not gonna be able to go down here and take these guns from these criminals.
So the criminals are gonna hold on to their guns. They're still gonna have them. They're still gonna break at my house, and they're still gonna shoot me with them. And guess who's gonna be the one that suffers? It's gonna be me.
Well, I'm here to tell you tonight, it is not going to happen without a fight. And when I say fight, I don't mean shots fired. I don't mean fist thrown. I mean, I'm going to come down here to this city council and raise hell just like these looters from the left do until you listen to the majority of the people in this city. And I am the majority.
The majority of the people in this city are law abiding, and they follow the law, and they want their constitutional right to be able to bear to bear arms. They wanna be able to gun go to the gun show and buy a hunting rifle or sport a sport rifle. They don't military grade weapons sold sold, sold at the, gun show. An AR 15 is not a military grade weapon. Anybody would go into combat with an AR 15 is a fool.
It's a semiautomatic 22 rifle. You'd be killed in 15 minutes in combat with that thing. So we need to dispel all these myths, and we need to drop all this all this division that we got going on here. Because the bottom line is when that second amendment was written, whether the framers liked it or not, they wrote it for everybody. And I am everybody.
And the law abiding citizens of this city are everybody. And we want our rights, and we wanna keep our rights. And by god, we're gonna keep them, come hell or high water.
@theDCshorts - DC Shorts
HYPOCRISY: Joe Biden Believes in Supporting Women's Sports?! https://t.co/twaQ7Xulzr
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the Biden administration's proposed rules to prevent schools from banning transgender athletes. It highlights the importance of supporting women's sports and LGBTQI+ individuals. The debate centers on the fairness of allowing biological males to compete in women's sports. The administration aims to prevent discrimination while acknowledging the complexity and diversity of opinions on the issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Most watched women's college game ever. It matters to girls and women finally seeing themselves represented, and it matters to all of America. That's why as a nation, we need to support women's sports. We need to support women's sports.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration has proposed new rules that would stop schools and colleges from passing outright bans on transgender athletes.
Speaker 2: A proposed rule from the Biden administration would prevent schools and colleges from putting a blanket ban on transgender athletes. Specifically, it updates the federal law known as Title 9, which ensures students aren't discriminated against based on sex.
Speaker 3: So I wanna say directly to LGBTQI plus kids, you are loved just as you are.
Speaker 4: Final regulations build on the legacy of title 9 by clarifying that all our nation's students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights. So according to the Biden administration, pushing women out of women's sports builds on the legacy of title 9. I mean, help me understand.
Speaker 5: They're saying all are welcome except for women. This is the most asinine really, I would say the the most anti woman, anti reality pursuit we have seen from this administration thus far. It is something that not
Speaker 6: only abolishes women's
Speaker 2: sports as we
Speaker 5: know it. This would allow men and women's locker rooms, bathrooms, changing spaces, and this would compel our speech. Students and faculty would be forced required to use preferred pronouns. And if we don't or if you, a 17 year old girl who's randomly housed with a male in your dorm room, if this is something you go to your administration and express your discomfort with, under these new title 9, this new proposal, this new rewrite, you would be guilty and charged with sexual harassment, not the man parading around your locker room. No, to president Biden that's considered brave.
Speaker 6: Former governor Nikki Haley, a presidential candidate says, quote, the idea that we have biological boys playing in girls sports, it is the women's issue of our time. Does the President agree that this is a women's rights issue?
Speaker 3: So we've talked about this many times. This is the Title 9, specifically. Look, and again, we've talked about this multiple times. It's a complicated issue, and there are a wide range of views on this.
Speaker 6: Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina.
Speaker 3: The Department of Education proposed a rule, as you know, that gives schools the flexibility to establish their own, athletics policies. And so while establishing guardrails, right, to prevent discrimination against transgender kids. And that is something that is incredibly important, that the president wants to make sure that we also do that as well.
Speaker 6: Does he think it's fair for girls to have to compete against biological males?
Speaker 3: I just answered the question. It is a complicated issue.
Speaker 0: Do you have a penis or most girls have a vagina?
Speaker 3: It is truly a complicated issue with a wide range of views, a wide wide range of views.