TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

The record cites page 55 of the committee’s interview with FBI employee Roya Demlow, conducted on 07/17/2023. The line records a question: If someone were to leave the interview and suggest or imply that when you said the laptop was real, that it meant the FBI had affirmatively determined in October 2020 that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that the contents belonged to Hunter Biden, and that the contents had not been manipulated in some way, would they be representing what you said? Correct? Miss Demlow’s answer: They would be representing what I said because I don't have much knowledge of that. They would be misrepresenting what I said because I don't have much knowledge of that. The statement continues with the speaker noting that this committee “likes to misrepresent or leave off complete sentences of what individuals said,” and adds, “I'd like to introduce this into the record.” The speaker then references the FBI's usual “no comment” stance, noting that such a response is common “when there's an ongoing investigation, particularly when it's a couple of days before an…” The transcript ends there, but the portion presented emphasizes Demlow’s caveat about knowledge limits and the record-keeping concern about misrepresentation by the committee, alongside the referenced context of no-comment responses in ongoing investigations.

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

How can you deny everything you've said and done? You can't even look me in the face. Kenya, just look at all the evidence. You have two of those. Please, I don't think you're going to get any more responses from the commissioner. Is there anything else?

Speaker 0: The Cathedral Of All Saints, Big Ben, the Field Museum, Philadelphia City Hall, the New York Public Library, and the Emmanuel Church in LaGrange, Illinois all share a massive issue: they do not have the original blueprints. Proving that they actually constructed these structures, when they say they did, and we have exposed this right here on this channel. We know that their narratives are all the same, which I believe are all generated by the AI. There’s never an author to any of these mainstream stories. It doesn’t matter which country the building is in. They’re all the same. They’re all constructed in a year. And then there’s a mysterious fire that burned down the original one, replaced by a guy with zero training, and then he never builds anything ever again in his entire life. And they don’t have the blueprints even though these buildings were publicly funded, paid for by the taxpayer, yet they say only the staff can see them. To this point, we have not received a single blueprint, and we have changed archivist minds as to how they should look at their job moving forward. This is no longer a theory. Within the last 10 episodes, we have taken this research to a whole new level of exposure. A full audit is taking place live. For everybody in the world to see, they’re caught off guard. They wanna know which institution we work for. They don’t like this because the story that they have worked so hard for years to believe is being dismantled in seconds by the people that want the truth, all of us. We want the blueprints. We want the ledgers. We wanna know how much water the donkeys were drinking while hauling thousands of pounds of stone to the site. We wanna know which stores they were buying all their chisels from. We want the records. We want the verification to their story, and the FOIA requests are a brand new weapon for us. We are forcing governments to respond legally, and to this point, they are failing horribly. The timeline that we all live in is completely fake, and we are just getting started. When we contacted the National Archives and Records Administration, nara.gov, we want the blueprints to the Federal Hall in New York City, so I formally requested the original construction documentation for the Federal Hall or the US Custom House that was supposedly completed in 1842 under the US Treasury Department. I want to know if the National Archives holds or has ever held any of the following materials related to its design or construction: the original blueprints or engineering drawings, specifications, ledgers, inspection reports, and the rest. I also put in there because we all know the rules now, and we’re cornering them very quickly. NARA replied back: we searched the cartographic branch’s architecture master list and, unfortunately, did not find any records that appear to be responsive to your request. A master list from the National Archives? They found three drawings from the US Custom House in New York City. However, these are dated nineteen o five, which is sixty-three years after the thing was done. So we all know that those don’t count at all. We did not locate any other reference to the US Custom House in New York City during our search and then gave us a massive finding aid for all of our reference. Do they know who they just gave the master list to? I have to say, I don’t think that that was a good idea for the mainstream narrative. The master list is the internal index of all architectural records held by the National Archives. If a federally funded building ever had blueprints, they would be cataloged in this master list. This is huge. The master list includes every federated architectural record created by, submitted to, transferred to, or preserved by any federal agency. If the federal government commissioned a building, paid for a building, inspected a building, or even maintained a building, then under federal law, the architectural records need to be preserved, and they would be within this master list. And they have admitted to us that the Federal Hall has zero documentation inside this master list, meaning that the federal government is implicitly admitting they have zero verifiable proof that they ever constructed the structure in 1842 or at any point for that matter. I want to take a look through this master list. Welcome to episode 159 of my lunch break. I hope you’re all having a great day. And if you’re new, welcome. Get 10% off all Dubby products right now by using code MLB. I’ll put the link in the description below. This is clean energy, no sugar, no artificial flavors, no jitters, no crash. There’s over 15 flavors to choose from, and every purchase helps this channel. Speaker 1: I thank all of our sponsors over on Patreon. Thank you to flatearthdave.com. You can check out his app, the flat earth sun, moon, and zodiac app. I’ll put the link right in the description, and you can use my referral code MLB. If you click the Tartaria button, you’ll see the my lunch break playlist right here. Speaker 0: I want to see this master list. We can see that it shows the date of construction, the city, and the building’s name. So we type in the US Custom House, and we can see that there’s 170 of them inside this master file. We scroll down to the one in New York City to confirm what this individual is telling us. And as you can see, we’ll be able to pin these institutions down, telling them that there are zero documents regarding their building inside the master list right out of the gate. Here it is: Confirmation, the US Custom House, New York City, the only documents they have, three of them from nineteen o five, exactly like they said, a consolidated file with no location. So do they even have these three pages from nineteen o five? And then I had a crazy idea, an idea that I should maybe type in the US Capitol Building. What files do the federal government have on this palace that was supposedly constructed without a power tool in just seven years from 1793 to 1800, the beginning of our timeline in my opinion. So why is it, when I type in The US Capitol Building into the master list, that the only construction documents that the federal government has on their own structure is from 1935, a hundred and thirty-five years after it was supposedly constructed? A consolidated file with 10 pages of documents. There are sketches. There are no records. A moment that everybody in the world right now watching is gonna see that the mainstream history is exposed. This is a horrible mistake, I’m gonna be honest with you, to give me this master list. I cannot believe we have this. We no longer need them to confirm anything. We have their log. We have their records, and we know what they don’t have. The nation’s capital. It’s blueprints from the seventeen ninety three to eighteen hundreds construction project. Those blueprints, the ledgers, they’re gone. I told you we were just getting started. New York Public Library update: they claimed only staff could see the blueprints, then said originals are only available to staff because they’re fragile, then said they’re not processed or conserved yet. They’re not available to the public. I replied that since originals aren’t available to researchers, I won’t share my report. If the originals ever show up, we can revisit this. The New York Public Library is clearly lying and contradicting themselves. Stop emailing me.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

Bob: Madame Ambassador, he says that this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous. Are we not on the same page here? Madame Ambassador: Well, Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI that has begun. Bob: But they are not there. Madame Ambassador: They are not on the ground yet, but they already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of various sorts already available to them and to us, and they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are unfortunately readily now available in Libya post revolution, and that it spun from there into something much, much more violent. Bob: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out We several months do Madame Ambassador: not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

Speaker 0: The officer tells him to get a life, but the journalist insists that investigative reports are important for the country. Speaker 0 questions the journalist's credentials, but the journalist continues to ask questions. The journalist offers to provide all the material via email.

What's happening at this hotel? Reports indicate that individuals have been filming children at a nearby primary school. Don't touch me; I'm just trying to understand the situation. You're pushing me away, but I need answers. This is unacceptable. Illegals have been filming children here. Why are you preventing me from getting information? It's ironic that you're calling the police on me when there are serious allegations about people filming children just up the road. You have no evidence? There is evidence. Where is it? The community deserves answers about what's going on with the children.

Speaker 0 asks about the location of hard evidence recorded on telemetry tapes. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't seen any indication that the telemetry data even exists, and even if it did, they don't have the machines to play it back. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1's research has shown the telemetry data is missing, which Speaker 1 confirms.

Byron Thedford? That's me. Oh, we received a report that you were pushing DEI in defiance of the state law and seeking loopholes to get around the law. Is that true? It's not. No, sir. You've never talked about pushing loopholes to get around the law? I haven't. No. What about this video?

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. The auditors initially didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that's right. You didn’t feel obligated to turn them over? We responded to the subpoena. It’s laughable to suggest a county could delete files in response to a subpoena. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February as standard practice. Can you confirm that’s done for all elections? I cannot confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we will provide one. The recorder will answer questions in a timely fashion, but he previously criticized Adrian Fontes, who ran the 2020 election. Yes, we had oversight from both parties during the election.

You are not being honest with this committee. We asked for all memorandums from the Secret Service on July 15th, have you provided them? You are dodging important questions that the American people want answers to. We had to subpoena you to be here, and you still won't answer. These are not difficult questions.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

The discussion centers on completing an audit of ballots to obtain a count and address concerns about the precinct. The participants emphasize that without counts, they cannot move forward. They insist that the audit piece must be completed first, not an investigation, so that a number of ballots can be established and the overall tally can proceed. Key points raised: - The need to finish the audit to determine how many ballots are in the ballot can, and to move forward with the numbers. “We need to move forward with the audit so we can get the numbers, so we can see how many ballots are here.” - A concern has been raised about the precinct, including the issue of multiple ballots with the very same signature. The team discusses handling this by counting the ballots and later addressing the concern, rather than delaying the process. “we will separate out and count those and add those in. We're there going to be an asterisk saying these ballots have the same.” - There is tension between continuing the presidential race audit and addressing potential irregularities. The instruction given is to complete the audit portion first and then review any issues. “the process right now is for you to put them in the piles where they belong and for the presidential vote and count the presidential votes… finish the presidential race audit, not separate them out, and then we'll move forward from there.” - The officials acknowledge the underlying concern about the precinct and previous issues with county ballots, but reiterate that, at this moment, the priority is to obtain a count and finish the audit. “We understand that there may be possibly an issue with this precinct. We understand that. But what I need for you to do right now is to finish the audit process.” - They clarify that the current activity is not an investigation, and that the aim is to produce a number for how many ballots were in the can when counting began, enabling progress based on the audit results. “This is not an investigation right now… not an investigation, not counting… what I need you to do is complete the audit so we can get a number.” In sum, the participants are focused on completing the ballot-count audit to establish a definitive tally, while acknowledging concerns about signatures and precinct irregularities, and planning to address those concerns after the audit yields a numeric result for the presidential ballots. The priority repeatedly stated is to finish the audit to obtain a count, then proceed with any further review.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

Interviewer and Professor engage in a wide-ranging discussion about October 7 and its aftermath, focusing on verified facts, contested claims, and the broader political context. - What is known about October 7: Professor states roughly 1,200 people were killed that day, with about 400 combatants and 800 civilians among the dead. He relies on authoritative human rights reports (UN Human Rights Council Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) but notes these organizations are not infallible. He maintains there is no compelling evidence that the deaths in Israel’s subsequent reaction were a significant portion of the total, and he rejects the claim that Hamas weaponized rape on October 7, arguing there is no evidence of mass rape and criticizing the idea as a political tactic. - Eyewitness testimony: The Professor criticizes eyewitness accounts that portray Israel as “the most moral army,” suggesting such testimonies may be biased by nationalistic or military-culture factors in Israel. He emphasizes that Israelis’ strong sense of unity and service in the army can influence narratives, and he questions the consistency of eyewitness reporting given the context of the festival attack. - The rape allegations: The UN Commission of Inquiry says it has no digital or photographic evidence of rape, and other officials (Pamela Patten, UN special envoy for conflict-related sexual violence) did not present direct forensic evidence. Patten examined thousands of photographs and hours of digital evidence but concluded there was no direct evidence of sexual violence on October 7. The Interviewer notes other outlets’ reports (BBC, New York Times) on rape and other abuses; the Professor counters by reiterating the lack of direct forensic or digital evidence and highlights inconsistencies in testimony and reporting. - Hamas planning and the larger context: The Professor traces Gaza’s humanitarian crisis back to long-term occupation, blockade, and international indifference. He cites early 2000s descriptions of Gaza as a concentration camp and describes deteriorating conditions through 2008 and beyond. He argues that by late 2023, Gaza faced extreme unemployment and social destruction, suggesting that the decision by Hamas to act on October 7 was shaped by a sense of urgency and desperation in a context where regional incentives (e.g., Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords) had shifted, effectively signaling that Gaza’s prospects were collapsing. He asserts that Hamas sought diplomacy and international law prior to October 7, citing past attempts at truces and engagement with human rights organizations, and notes that these efforts were largely ignored. - Comparison of political paths in the region: The Interviewer draws contrasts between Gaza and the West Bank, noting the latter’s relatively different trajectory. The Professor argues that Israel’s goal is to subordinate rather than conquer, contrasting it with Egypt or Jordan and highlighting the Gaza situation as distinct from other regional dynamics. He asserts that the West Bank’s path remains different from Gaza’s, though critical of settlements. - The Trump peace plan and the Security Council resolution: The Professor explains that a UN Security Council resolution endorsed the Trump peace plan and established a “board of peace” with sovereign powers in Gaza, effectively transferring authority to a body headed by Donald Trump. He claims the resolution endorses the Trump plan in full and that the board answers to no external accountability, with a six-month reporting requirement to the Security Council. He contends that this amounted to “handing Gaza over” to Trump and argues that temporary transitional authority would be insufficient to address reconstruction and humanitarian needs, given Israel’s stated aim of making Gaza unlivable. - Arab states’ support and the geopolitical calculus: The Professor argues that many Arab states supported the resolution due to coercive pressure or incentives (e.g., economic consequences if they refused), and he criticizes their alignment as a “death warrant” for Gaza. He expresses deep skepticism about the motives of regional actors and dismisses the idea that their support signals genuine commitment to Gaza’s welfare or a viable path to reconstruction. - The future of Gaza: The Professor asserts that Gaza is effectively “gone,” citing World Bank and UNKDA/IMF assessments that rubble clearance and reconstruction would require decades (minimum 15 years for rubble clearance, potentially 80 years for reconstruction under previous rates). He contends that Israel’s objective has been to render Gaza uninhabitable, leaving residents with a choice to stay and die or flee, and he critiques the willingness of various Arab states to endorse terms that lock in that outcome. - Closing stance: The discussion ends with the Professor reaffirming his grim assessment of Gaza’s prospects under the current framework, while the Interviewer expresses a mix of skepticism and concern about regional dynamics and the path toward a two-state solution.

There are significant differences between the two types of exercises. Legally, the findings of this report cannot be considered evidence. The findings will be included in the Secretary General's annual report, which will be discussed by the council on April 25th. Due to our methodology, we require UN-verified information to present to the Security Council.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. It’s appropriate to maintain files, and while we deleted some files, they were archived. The auditors initially did not have access to those archived files because they were not subpoenaed. It’s laughable to suggest that deleting files in response to a subpoena is acceptable. The subpoena should have covered all election-related records. I cannot confirm if purging the database after elections is standard practice, but limited server space may require it. If that is the case, why was data from prior elections still present? We will provide answers to these questions. It's important to note that we had oversight during the 2020 election due to concerns about the previous administration's competence.

Can you clarify the presence of federal agents or assets on January 5th and 6th? Specifically, how many were there, did they encourage people to enter the Capitol, and did any actually go inside? I can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Two years ago, you were asked the same question. Can you provide an answer now? I don't know the answer. So you don’t know how many were present or if there were any at all? I have no knowledge of that. You’ve had two years to find out.

We showed everyone the Geo Data on their own devices, presented in a PowerPoint. We included all evidence in the investigation, such as Knox, Ardens, and Max Hayes. We did not receive any physical evidence from NBI, only their file. Everything was transparent for the Grand Jury, with no information withheld.

Thank you for the briefing. I have a follow-up question. You mentioned survivors seeking specialized treatment due to trauma. How do you know this? I'm unable to disclose that information. I feel more confused after reading the report. I noticed you met with Yossi Landau, a Zaka volunteer involved in a controversial New York Times investigation. Your report references a disturbing story about a pregnant woman, which also came from Landau. This raises questions about the credibility of your findings. How does this differ from the New York Times story if you're just collecting evidence? I understand your concerns, but my report outlines our visits to four locations. You met with Landau, who is central to this issue. I acknowledge your point.

Why is there a classified briefing about hobbyist drones if they aren't military? I can't speak for Congress on that. We're sharing as much information as possible, but I don't have the details of the briefing to clarify what is classified. Rest assured, we are providing all the information we can based on what we know.

Israel has not shown proof of decapitated babies, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The families might not want those images online, causing further trauma. We haven't seen the evidence.