TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We can't air unverified information. You mentioned before that discrediting me helps when I say negative things about you. But you’ve discredited yourself by focusing on trivial matters instead of serious questions about Hunter Biden's financial dealings. The story about Hunter's laptop, linked to Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, is being treated as a major issue. It's crucial to investigate whether a presidential candidate is corrupt, especially regarding money from foreign entities. You dismiss this as unverified, but the laptop exists. Why not discuss the significant allegations instead of insignificant topics?

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

In all your years in the industry, have you ever sexually harassed anyone by grabbing them against their will? No, never. But there were some hesitant individuals. Have you sexually harassed anyone? What are you implying, Howard? Could it be that you persuaded someone who was hesitant by giving them a gentle squeeze? More than gentle. Translation: Have you ever sexually harassed someone by grabbing them against their will in all your years in the industry? No, never. But there were some hesitant individuals. Have you sexually harassed anyone? What are you implying, Howard? Could it be that you persuaded someone who was hesitant by giving them a gentle squeeze? More than gentle.

George, your concern for victims of sexual assault seems disingenuous given your past actions. You were part of a team that aimed to discredit Bill Clinton's accusers, creating a so-called war room to destroy their credibility. You admitted to enabling Clinton despite multiple allegations against him. When Paula Jones accused him of exposing himself, you and your colleagues attacked her character instead of defending her right to speak out. Your comparison of Jones to a woman seeking money for a tabloid story shows a lack of empathy. Now, you question how others can support a man found liable for sexual assault in a civil trial, yet you seem to ignore your own history of shaming victims. How is this line of questioning appropriate for you at ABC?

How can someone with allegations of child trafficking and having sex with a 17-year-old be nominated? It's noted that he claims to have stopped once he learned her age. Matt Gaetz has consistently denied these allegations, calling them invented. He stated that this false smear follows a three-year criminal investigation, which concluded without any charges.

Hillary Clinton was accosted and accused of being a "super predator" responsible for millions of deaths. She was called a genocide supporter and accused of facilitating the genocide of Palestinian people. The speaker demanded to know what Clinton had to say for herself.

The Epstein files are detonating globally. Prince Andrew has fallen, police are searching his home, and the blast radius extends to anyone connected to Epstein or Maxwell, or even by association. High-profile figures are implicated: Larry Summers, who worked for Obama and Clinton, resigned from Harvard; Obama's top lawyer Kathy Rumler resigned from Goldman and, in emails, called Epstein “uncle Jeffrey” and advised him on press strategy; another Obama official, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, appears in the files. Bill Gates suddenly cancels a major overseas speech just hours before he was set to take the stage. Emails reveal meetings Gates had with Epstein after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, and one Epstein note claimed Gates “got an STD and needed help to hide it from his wife after contact with Russian girls.” Gates denies that happened. Thomas Pritzker, JB’s cousin and a frequent guest at Epstein’s townhouse, stepped down from Hyatt Hotel’s executive chairman role. Bard College is reviewing its president’s ties to Epstein. Leon Botstein’s name appears over 2,000 times in the documents. American Express issued a statement regretting Epstein as a client after he used their card to book travel for the girls. CNN reports that new age guru Deepak Chopra might be in trouble. In 2017, Epstein asked Chopra, “did you find me a cute Israeli?” Chopra responded, “universe is human construct. Cute girls are aware when they make noises. He later added, god is a construct. Cute girls are real.” In a 01/2016 exchange beginning with a link to a TED talk about the end of physics, Chopra wrote to Epstein, “statistics is like a girl in a bikini. What she reveals is obvious. What she conceals is more interesting.” Chopra was approached at the airport and repeatedly asked about his relationship with Epstein and whether he has any regrets. Hillary knows the heat’s on, but she is on cleanup duty. Clinton-related statements claim no links beyond routine charitable travel; “we have no links. We have a very clear record that we’ve been willing to talk about, which my husband has said he took some rides on the airplane for his charitable work. I don’t recall ever meeting him.” Ghislain Maxwell wasn’t just a Clinton Global Initiative guest; she had a complimentary access pass, personally approved by Bill or Hillary, and was an honored guest in 2013, years after sexual abuse allegations circulated, and attended Chelsea’s wedding. Stephanopoulos is also scrutinized for dining at Epstein’s apartment after his prison release. Lex Wesner testified under oath that Epstein told him he worked with Bezos, the Rothschild family, and Google. New Mexico reopens its investigation into Epstein’s ranch after a newly released email claims two foreign girls were buried there, apparently dying of strangulation during rough fetish sex. The FBI was warned Epstein could be destroying evidence with an incinerator after he built a suspicious barn with a chimney. National security is involved: Epstein was offered a chance to buy buildings owned by the Pentagon, in 2016, with a go-between for Epstein and Prince Andrew pitching a site next to the Pentagon labeled a “mission critical asset.” No deal was finalized, but why was Epstein getting a pocket listing for such a sensitive site? Other files show Epstein may have compromised US customs officers in the Virgin Islands by offering them food, advice, musical gigs. How did he gain this access, and why was he operating near the national security apparatus at all?

I want to discuss your recent comment comparing the Trump rally to a Nazi rally, along with past remarks like Obama's "bitter clingers" comment and Hillary Clinton's "deplorables." These statements contribute to the perception that some Democrats disrespect certain voters. Does this affect your campaign's message of unity? No, it does not.

You're being considered for FBI director, yet you didn't check if your associates, including the president, were involved in attacking police officers. Look at the Capitol Police behind you. Are you proud of raising money from those who assaulted them? You claim to support law enforcement, but your actions tell a different story. Did you ever publicly state that Donald Trump declassified all documents at Mar-a-Lago? You mentioned a declassification order, but did you confirm it included all those documents? Shouldn't we consider the potential risks to sources before declaring documents declassified? Did Trump consult agencies about the risks? You say you support transparency; will you back the release of your grand jury testimony and relevant sections of the special counsel's report? Your time is up.

Hillary Clinton addresses her silence and refusal to apologize, mentioning her fear of ending up like Martha Mitchell. She explains that she didn't want to satisfy the public's curiosity about her private life by standing by her man like Tammy Wynette. Clinton finds it ironic that Kenneth Starr's actions aimed at bringing down the president are the reason her husband is still alive. When asked if she hates Monica, Clinton clarifies that it depends on the definition of hate, mentioning her dislike for Monica's mother.

In 2016, I served as CFO for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Chairman Gensler, your enforcement director, Gerber Grewal, was the New Jersey attorney general who refused to enforce immigration laws and investigated Donald Trump multiple times. Your general counsel, Megan Barbero, litigated impeachment hearings against Trump, and one of your senior counsels is married to Peter Strzok. This raises concerns about impartiality at the SEC. The SEC's first enforcement action against SPACs was in September 2021, shortly after Senator Warren urged an investigation into Trump's Truth Social merger. It appears the SEC may be using its powers to target political rivals. Have you spoken to anyone at the White House regarding this investigation? I doubt I can change your mind about the political nature of these actions, but remember, power can shift, and such tactics may backfire. Thank you.

So, you called Elon Musk a fascist and implied he's a national security threat. But is that really more of a threat than, say, sleeping with a Chinese spy? What's fascistic about exposing government corruption? I know you just had dinner with lobbyists, and I heard you like to be with only attractive people. So, do you want to comment on any of this? You think Elon Musk is a national security threat, but you sleeping with a Chinese spy isn't? You don't want to comment on that at all? Looks like guilty is charged.

George Stephanopoulos is criticized for defending Bill Clinton against sexual assault allegations while questioning others' support for individuals accused of similar behavior. The transcript highlights Stephanopoulos' role in discrediting Clinton's accusers and his involvement in a smear campaign. The speaker questions Stephanopoulos' double standards and lack of consistency in his approach to sexual assault allegations.

Senator, I deny every allegation against me today that suggests I had sexual conversations or harassed anyone. This hearing is a travesty and should never occur in America. Staffers searched for sleaze and leaked it to the media, and this committee validated and displayed it at prime time. No one would want dirt dredged up and displayed in this manner. The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I'm here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. Something is dreadfully wrong when any person is subjected to this circus and national disgrace. As a Black American, this is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who think for themselves. It's a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, and caricatured by a committee of the US Senate.

Why isn't the felon being asked to step down like Biden? The media focuses on Biden stepping down, but why not the felon? Why isn't the media calling for the felon to resign? MAGA supporters are voting for a rapist.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

The speaker states they will be politically incorrect and issues a trigger warning. They question the claim that a wealthy man, married to a supermodel, would sexually assault E. Jean Carroll in a Tiffany's store. The speaker highlights that the alleged incident occurred at the height of the man's career, with no prior accusations for twenty years, and only surfaced when he ran for president. The speaker dismisses the accusation as "complete rubbish and political nonsense."

Senator Warren, is your acceptance of $520,000 from Big Pharma since 2020 the reason you oppose RFK Jr. suing them? Check my website. I don’t accept contributions from Big Pharma executives or any corporate PAC money, and you know that. Thank you.

At age 59, I walked off the bus as a different man. Although I'm not proud of it, what I said was just locker room talk. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has done far worse things to women. He has a history of abusive behavior towards women, and Hillary Clinton has attacked those same women. One of them, Kathy Shelton, was raped at 12 years old, and Hillary represented her rapist and laughed at her. Bill Clinton was impeached, lost his law license, and had to pay a fine to Paula Jones. So, when Hillary brings up my words from 11 years ago, it's disgraceful and she should be ashamed of herself.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

Senator Warren, is your acceptance of $520,000 from Big Pharma since 2020 the reason you oppose RFK Jr suing them? I don't take contributions from Big Pharma executives or any corporate PAC money, and you know that.

The judiciary you crafted over the past four years does not reflect America, lacking diversity, particularly with no black judges and over 90% identifying as Christians. You previously wrote that judges should not be ethically constrained from participating in protests supporting equal justice. Have you ever attended a protest as a sitting judge? I do not believe I have. You mentioned Girls Inc., but you claim not to know their policies, despite being on their board until recently. Your reports suggest significant financial contributions to them. Despite your political beliefs, can you assure us they won't influence your judicial opinions? The best evidence of my judicial approach is my past performance, prioritizing the law over personal beliefs. Do you believe in Bigfoot? Your time is expired, Senator.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

I think we should remove the homicide from the White House for a fresh start, we don't want any more murderers. Next question. Who are the murderers? Oh, Clinton, he murdered a guy. We're not making accusations without proof. That's too far, let's move on. This is not my week. Do you know where you heard that? We don't need this. I don't want to hear it, this isn't the place for accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. This is a live show. I thought it was a matter of record. You won't be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Manslaughter! Let's talk football.

I think we should get the homicide out of the White House and get a fresh start, because we don't want any more murderers. Clinton murdered a guy. That's going a little too far. This is not the place to make those accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. I thought it was a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Where did you ever hear that? Maybe George or Bill Clinton would be your hero. His career is over after this. Anyway, who cares? We're on the millionaire today. People always told me Hollywood was incredibly liberal and biased, and I thought it was untrue about it.