TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 thanks Joe for covering the antiques in the crowd. They ask if it feels better and offer to spray something.

Speaker 1, who identifies as Russia, says: We did not break in. We did not broke shit. They were Antifa. We told the DC police, there's Antifa. Go get them. They did not move. They use on a pepper spray, mace, rubber palette. They treat us like we're animals. From beginning, when we start going down the steps up way before we enter the shit building. And then they start with the pack. They hit two woman in the head. There's three kids, probably 17, 18. They were bleeding in the head. There's two elderly people. One of them in a cave, got maced. So we did not break shit. The woman the police shot her, and then they throw her by the stairs. We did not break shit. We told DC police, those are Antifa. Go get them. We wear mega hat. We don't have much shoes. We don't look like we're in a crack. Those antifa, you tell them, they're in a fucking crack. Filthy disgusting. DC did not do nothing. They just stand up. They just stand up. Speaker 0 asks: So it wasn't it wasn't the MAGA people that that get that... Speaker 1, Russia, responds: It wasn't MAGA inside the city, whatever my brain froze. Capitol all day. The doors are open. There's Antifa has a black chair, folding chair. The cops seen him. Whether it's us or Antifa, you see somebody with a metal chair fold it. That means it's a fucking weapon. You will stop him. We go and tell them. There's probably people were taking video of me telling the police. Go get Antifa. We catch two. And the woman that there was a woman talking to them, and I told her, don't bother the police. Leave the police alone. They need to choose a side. If they lost us, they have no support. And then they start with pushing back back and hitting people. So it's not us. It's not us. Speaker 0 clarifies: Antifa It was... Speaker 1: The DC police saw them with a fucking black metal folding chair. They saw them. We pointed at them. They saw the brat boy following Antifa guy, and they did not do shit. One of Antifa could have a fucking knife to get one of us inside. No one did shit. Don't tell us we broke in. We did not break a glass. So you got in, but it wasn't you guys. The doors are open. The door. And guess what? It's a federal building. The police has no power on us. It's a federal building. It's our building. Speaker 0: Right. Okay. So it wasn't it wasn't the MAGA people that broke in. Speaker 1: Nope. We told DC police, those fucking antifa go get them. Okay. Speaker 0 asks: What's your name? Speaker 1: Russia. Speaker 0: Russia? Where are you from? Speaker 1 explains: I can't. It's a I'm under the state No. No. No. I came from Lebanon. I run from Lebanon because of this shit. And I'm not gonna raise my kids in that shit. Speaker 0 thanks Asha and says: Thank you. You need to do a testimonial of what happened. Put it on Twitter. Put it on every news channel because What? Speaker 1 completes: Fist this off. Black Lives Matter burned the country. Burned the city. They were ordered the police to back back, standby. They were not allowed to use tear gas. They were not allowed to use maze. They were not allowed to use rubber bullets. On us, they're. When they went in the White House and burned the church, all the fucking congress went and told Trump, you let your people pepper spray them. Meanwhile, BLM came there with a fucking weapons. Screw the police. They lost our support. Yes. Amen. They begin they're all gonna follow order. When we stand up in the front of Black Lives Matter to protect a cop I'm a woman and I did it numerous time in New Jersey. I didn't ever say we go in a rally and sadness know. But now, if I see a cop get shot, I would kill myself before I save him and mark my words on it. Speaker 0 closes: Thank you, Asha. Good to see you.

Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to see their babies. Speaker 0 asks where their babies are. Speaker 1 directs Speaker 0 to go over there to see them. Speaker 0 acknowledges that they would have to go there. Speaker 0 then thanks Katie, stating that it's amazing. Speaker 0 thanks someone again.

Thank you, everyone. Let's go downstairs to celebrate the next year. Thanks so much.

US President Donald Trump is angry about the Nobel Peace Prize snub. In a letter addressed to the Norwegian prime minister, Trump said he no longer has an obligation to pursue peace as he was ignored for the Nobel Peace Prize. Bloomberg accessed the letter, in which he argued that the prize is awarded by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian parliament, and reiterated his desire to seize Greenland, citing that Denmark cannot protect the land from Russia or China. He alleged that Denmark does not have written documents proving its ownership of Greenland, and added that the world is not secure unless The US has total control of Greenland. The backdrop to this is the Nobel Foundation clarifying that the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be revoked, shared, or transferred once awarded. Earlier, Venezuelan leader Maria Machado presented her Nobel Peace Prize medal to President Trump, crediting him for “his extraordinary leadership in promoting peace through strength.” Trump has publicly expressed a desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize on several occasions, including August 2025 when he called Norway’s foreign minister to discuss his chances and later complained after being passed over for Machado. Dr. Glenn Deissen, Professor of International Relations at the University of Southeastern Norway, joins the discussion. He notes that the Norwegian Nobel Committee, not the Norwegian government, awards the Nobel Peace Prize, making Trump’s letter to the prime minister unusual. He describes the premise as strange: “either you give me the Nobel Peace Prize or I won’t care about peace anymore.” He adds that the eight wars listed by Trump as ended include Gaza, where the US financed and armed the genocide, and an Iranian war ending after a surprise US attack, suggesting stopping that war does not align cleanly with the peace claim. Deissen says Trump’s peace vision centers on peace deriving from overwhelming strength plus ambiguity or unpredictability, the fear of consequences, which he believes motivates countries to compromise. At Davos, the geopolitical narrative is shaping up amid anti-Trump demonstrations and concerns over Venezuela and the Middle East. Deissen explains that the threats to seize Greenland are causing a rift between the United States and Europe, with Europeans unsure how to respond. They would like to push back, but fear that threatening military force could be problematic domestically and may not be permanent if power changes. He suggests Trump would prefer a pen-on-paper deal with Denmark for Greenland. The transatlantic alliance could be driven apart as tariffs and assertive U.S. policy unsettle Europe. The discussion frames Trump’s approach as resembling Nixon’s madman strategy—making adversaries believe he is extreme and unpredictable to force concessions—though it is unclear whether Trump is truly extreme or playing a role. The European stance remains uncertain and divided. Speaker 0 thanks Dr. Deissen for joining, and the segment ends with a note to download the WE ON app and subscribe to the YouTube channel.

It's been a long conversation, probably around three hours. I need to prepare a speech, but I’d love to do this again. They asked how long it would last, and I think three hours is great. It's been a lot of fun, and I appreciate your insights. Thank you for the honor of speaking with you. If my speech is a bit off tonight, I’ll blame our lengthy discussion! It’s truly a privilege to be here. Good luck to you, and thank you once again. Bye, everyone.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

A journalist engages with a person at a park, aiming to speak to someone, and the conversation shifts to a narrative about Naftali Aaron Kranz. The speaker identifies Kranz as a paid protester through GetFree, detailing LinkedIn evidence of the arrangement. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four or more years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, protests, and civil disobedience (the latter implying experience with arrests). Compensation is stated as 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours a week. GetFree brands itself as a grassroots organization, but Kranz and others are described as being paid to protest. The narrator asserts Kranz’s role in celebrating vandalism, citing an incident in Crown Heights where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s Cybertruck and dog feces were placed on it, describing Kranz as part of this sentiment. They place Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he was blending in with other recruits rather than leading, with the implication that field photos can be staged for later use. The claim is made that Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the narrator reports meeting him again at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited to show Kranz frequently posting about recruitment and expanding efforts to win reparations nationwide, with mentions of Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. A linked link is described as listing a nine-week contract, part-time, paying 3,400 dollars in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation and capable of recruiting and training people to drive turnout to events. Nicole Cardi is named as a figure at the top of the Get Free movement. The narrative shifts to donations, stating that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which is under Department of Justice investigation for foreign contributions. ActBlue allegedly funds activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which purportedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been reported to pay protesters, receiving over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal reaction to the information, expressing a need to stay away, before the conversation ends with Speaker 0 saying they have to stand there.

The speaker hopes the audience enjoyed the show, calling it one of the best. The speaker then states that they looked something up, noting that "we say it's gone."

They introduce the Kibbutz House as a lived-in space rather than their usual studio setup, with a big meeting house, and they note there are 10 to 12 people visible outside, though the space could accommodate more (even 50) for meetings. The property includes farm animals (chickens and goats) and about 100 acres of land, offering plenty for everyone. It’s located about a mile from the research Kibbutz, the studio, and Neighborhood News. Aaron Adler describes their past collaboration during the height of COVID, noting they did about a year of shows with him. He recalls daily coverage on Neighborhood News during that period, mentioning “23 times.” He mentions former contributor Andy DeBala, who has since moved on, and notes that many other citizen journalists are waiting to be found and could be invited to the studio. The goal is to put the neighborhood in news and highlight contributors from all walks of life—farmers, doctors, nurses, engineers, and others—though he jokes that lawyers might be avoided because “we have to sue somebody.” George has built a large research community with connections across Europe and across the United States, from Frau Hodel and Simon in Europe to people in California, New York, Florida, and Seattle. The space is described as a natural fit for featuring collaborations and for contributing to ongoing news stories, with contributors appearing on graphics and in front of the camera as a kind of minor costar. They specifically invite people to contribute to a news story that “everyone’s still talking about,” the Charlie Kirk murder, and urge people to visit during that week at 8015 Summerfield, Lambertville, Michigan 40144. Doors will be open at 9 AM. Attendees can bring key pieces of evidence or information, or simply come to hang out and make coffee for the live broadcast with George; one speaker even recounts cleaning the toilet upon arrival. They encourage involvement from people in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania, emphasizing that this is the week to visit. The session closes with thanks to Aaron Adler for making it possible, and to Mark Buckley, with a shared wish that everyone who can make it would participate.

The speaker thanks everyone present and acknowledges a message indicating the event has run long. They express gratitude and shift focus to Chicago, expressing a desire to win there.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss several interrelated topics centered on Florida and historical-political curiosities. - They acknowledge the depth of content about Jekyll Island and the Federal Reserve, calling it very complex and intentionally so. - They then pivot to Bal Harbour in South Florida, opened in 1947, described as the headquarters of Judaism in the Southeast United States. Bal Harbour is noted as being 50% Jewish and 50% other residents who enjoy living by the water. The name Bal Harbour is linked to the word “Baal,” described as the god of sacrifice, and a claim is made that no one on the street in Bal Harbour can explain the name. - A connection is drawn between Bal Harbour and high-profile figures: they mention John McAfee’s death and suggest a link to an apartment in Bal Harbour, with Surfside being part of the same area. They reference a mysterious collapse of a building (Building 7) in North Miami on the same night as McAfee’s death, claiming the collapse occurred in Bal Harbour and that American response teams were not allowed to dig; instead, the IDF was brought in to excavate the rubble. The speakers note a ceremony in which Ron DeSantis praised the IDF. - They compare Bal Harbour and Brooklyn/Manhattan Orthodox Jewish communities, noting elements like separate paramedics and hospitals for Orthodox Jews and suggesting past riots influenced these arrangements. They state similar patterns exist in South Florida, particularly around Bal Harbour and Hollywood. - The speakers clarify that the Chabad Lubavitch sect is the “headquarters” in Bal Harbour, describing it as the most messianic and hardcore Zionist, with tunnels and mattresses mentioned. They claim this group is very powerful: “every president in The United States meets with them,” “Putin goes and meets with them,” and they reference an Argentina leader meeting them in Bal Harbour. They claim Trump visited the grave of their head rabbi. - They discuss Palm Beach as a place associated with wealth and cultural relevance, noting it as the area America’s warm Gulf Stream current comes closest to the mainland, linking this to trade routes and the slave trade. They attribute Palm Beach’s warmth and beauty, along with mentions of Trump and Epstein living there, to its geographic position and climate. - The conversation ends with an invitation to continue the discussion and a plug for the hosts’ content, with Speaker 0 promoting Old World Florida on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Patreon, and noting they do many interviews.

In Columbus, Ohio, in front of the Great Minds Learning Academy, one of several day care centers associated with the Somali community, speakers discuss a report by Nick Shirley about fraudulent daycare facilities in Minneapolis. They note this is the second-largest Somali community in the United States and intend to investigate further. The team attempts to visit the first center, knocking and ringing the doorbell, but no one answers and the door is locked. They speak with a local man who says the daycare is owned by Somalians and mentions that he has never seen children there, noting that the center “use[s] the back door,” so they don’t see anyone coming in or out. He lives in the same building and confirms that he has not seen kids at the location. Another speaker reiterates, “I’ve just seen it the building itself. I’ve never seen nobody come out the building or go into the building.” The group proceeds to the back of the building, as suggested, but finds nothing there. They decide to move on, noting there are many more centers to visit, and plan to go around the city to speak with people at additional locations. They sign off with a plan to continue the investigation and stay tuned.

Speaker 0 asks, “Mean, where's your party's name? Right here.” He adds, “I'm grab that. I can make a few more.” He then states, “That was it.” Finally, he says, “I'm gonna go home. I”

Speaker 0 presents Connecticut memoranda series, volume one, describing a notice sent to Connecticut state officials (Attorney General and others) by certified mail and hand delivery through the governor’s office and Department of Public Health channels. The notice centers on acute renal failure (AKI) and argues it aligns with hospital homicide concerns. The speaker says the cover letter urges officials to seek personal legal counsel because if the state attorney represents the state, a conflict arises when citizens are harmed by state officials. The document allegedly provides detailed factual information drawn from official Connecticut records, intended to undermine any future “ignorance of fact” defense and to show that thousands have died from AKI and related conditions. Key claims and content: - The memorandum warns that described AKI deaths and related pulmonary embolism and thrombocytopenia are occurring in hospitals, and officials have a duty to act; failure to act after being informed could render officials criminally liable. The notice asserts sovereign and qualified immunity do not apply to criminal acts. - It asserts there are no statutes of limitations for most homicide crimes, and that inaction in the face of an imminent danger constitutes a legal duty to act. An inaction with knowledge of harm is framed as a criminal act. - Named recipients copied on the notice include Ned Lamont (Governor), Susan Bysiewicz (Lieutenant Governor), Eric Russell (State Treasurer), Sean Scanlon (Comptroller), William Tong (Attorney General), Manisha Juthani (Commissioner, Department of Public Health), A Orifice (Chief of Staff, DPH), and H Sultan (Special Counsel, DPH). The speaker claims these packages were signed for. - The memorandum is titled: “Memorandum notice of required action to thwart hospital homicides and acute renal failure deaths that are currently occurring and were occurring for the last three years, three and a half. Evidence compels immediate investigation and correction of injurious federal and state health protocols and mandates.” It cites a death-records study and a climate-related health data study obtained with approval to examine regional effects of temperature and humidity on heart disease. - It describes a data-driven investigation process with collaborators, including using discrete cosine transforms and discrete Fourier transforms to analyze signal-to-noise ratios in death data to determine seasonality and age-related patterns. The speaker reports that AKI deaths in CT rose substantially in 2020–2022, and notes a divergence from COVID death trends (AKI rising as COVID declines). - The speaker presents comparative state tallies for excess AKI deaths since 2015: Connecticut 1,721; Massachusetts 3,493; Minnesota 2,412. They claim thousands of AKI deaths across states, with CT showing a large increase in 2022 (and 2023) and assert that AKI was not adequately addressed by public health authorities. - The speaker discusses a pattern showing AKI deaths rising after December 2020, with a December 2020 inflection coinciding with a program (NCTAP). They claim hospital protocols and NIH COVID-19 treatments (remdesivir, baricitinib, ventilators) may have contributed to AKI and multi-organ failure, describing a two-signal theory: one signal linked to hospital protocols and the other to gene-based vaccines. - Graphs are described showing AKI versus COVID trends, with AKI not consistently correlated with COVID, and an observed spike in AKI deaths in CT beginning in 2020, peaking in 2022. The speaker notes a reduction in the proportion of AKI deaths that also test positive for COVID after March 2022, while AKI deaths continue to rise, suggesting a vaccine-related signal. - The speaker cites NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines (final update dated 02/29/2024) and notes a planned website shutdown (08/16/2024), arguing a lack of updated protocols. They allege data manipulation or suppression by public health authorities. - In the recommended actions, the speaker proposes an investigation plan: verify CT data, investigate younger age groups first (examples: 94 deaths, ages 25–44; 184 deaths, ages 45–54 in CT 2020–2023), obtain entire hospital records (without notice) including vaccination status and treatment timelines, determine whether vaccination influenced treatment pathways, interview families, review DNR decisions, and publish results so the public can decide on consent to vaccines and NIH protocols. - The conclusion asserts an AKI epidemic in Connecticut that allegedly claims more life years than COVID and rivals other major past diseases in impact. It states there is no statute of limitations for murder, and that qualified and sovereign immunities do not shield officials from criminal charges. It calls for immediate investigation and potential prosecution of officials who knowingly refuse to investigate AKI deaths tied to NIH/CDC/FD&C protocols, framing this as a public health and civil liberty issue. The speaker closes by inviting questions and urging action to ensure accountability, expressing a desire to be involved in cleaning up public health governance.

Speaker 0 urges the crowd to keep marching and not stop. Speaker 1 expresses support. Speaker 0 continues to encourage the march and thanks the participants. They emphasize the need to keep going and express gratitude for the quick response.

Speaker 0 asks the audience if they believe that the situation is heading in a certain direction. The entire room raises their hands in agreement. Speaker 0 expresses gratitude for everyone's presence.

We have reached the end of this hearing, and on behalf of the inquiry committee, we sincerely thank you for your participation. With that, I conclude the meeting. Thank you all. Are we done?

Follow Cynthia for the abbreviated tour. Thank you for joining us. Enjoy your day in the nation's capital. Others, please follow.

Welcome to the pre tour meet and greet at The People's House. Please silence all cell phones and recording devices before we start. Enjoy your tour of the United States Capitol.

Speaker 0 thanks the audience and Speaker 1 for their support. Speaker 1 acknowledges Speaker 0's efforts and mentions they have been working for almost 4 hours. Speaker 0 agrees and says it was worth it.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 bid farewell to the audience from the top of the fox. They express their gratitude and say good night.

Speaker 0 greets the audience multiple times and asks how they are doing. They also ask for the audience's names and say goodbye. The speaker then asks someone if they have an English name and what they do for fun.

The speaker returns to the Spot Project and observes substantial changes since their last visit in 2019. They point out the addition of new buildings, including a behind-the-scene structure that wasn’t present before, and the creation of multiple classrooms designed to teach Arabic, English, and mathematics, among other subjects. The emphasis is on providing children with the skills they need to survive in society, signaling a focus on educational development as a core component of the project. In addition to the academic improvements, the speaker highlights the development of physical facilities that support the children’s well-being and recreation. A football pitch has been built for the students to play football, which is described as a beloved activity, and basketball courts have also been added. This combination of educational spaces and athletic facilities illustrates a comprehensive approach to development, addressing both mental and physical health. The speaker commends SPOT Project for its work and extends heartfelt blessings, expressing gratitude and encouragement for continued support. They explicitly state that the effort is for a great cause that benefits not only the children but also the volunteers and supporters involved in the project. The speaker conveys a sense of humility and peace derived from witnessing the progress and ensuring that the kids are in a safe environment. A strong call to action follows: the speaker urges others to come out and see the improvements for themselves, to witness the positive changes firsthand. They invite participation through donations, underscoring that even a small contribution can help advance the project’s aims. The message emphasizes community involvement and personal engagement as valuable ways to support the initiative. Finally, the speaker reiterates the transformative impact observed over the four-year period, noting visible improvements and the overall sense of safety and well-being around the project. Their closing message encourages ongoing support and personal involvement, inviting the audience to visit, witness the developments, and contribute financially or through other means to sustain the efforts of the Spot Project.