TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

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.

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

My son Sean was killed in the Benghazi attack. He was a proud member of the US foreign service. Sean told me he was going to die the night before the attack. He was murdered by terrorists. I blame Hillary Clinton for his death. She lied about the attack being terrorism. I saw her lie to me and call me a liar.

I want to clarify that I did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky and I never instructed anyone to lie. These allegations are false, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused. However, I must admit that I had an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, which was a significant mistake and a personal failure on my part. I take full responsibility for my actions, and I deeply regret misleading people, including my wife. This incident reflects the consequences of the choices made during the nineties.

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.

Before calling on Senator Lee, I need clarification on whether the FBI headquarters, which investigates cybercrime and terrorism, should be shut down. I deserve an answer. If the best attacks against me are false accusations, this body undermines the credibility of the FBI. I have served in every theater of war and any claims that I prioritize political bias over the Constitution are unfair. I have the endorsement of over 300,000 law enforcement officers for the FBI director position. I am quoting his own words, and facts matter. You had three minutes in the next round to address this.

I questioned Mr. Patel's fitness to be FBI director, given his association with individuals convicted of assaulting police officers and profiting from it. I asked him to look at the Capitol Police officers present and explain why he is proud of what he did. I responded that I have never accepted violence against law enforcement. I have worked with law enforcement and never glorified violence against them. I never made a single dime out of violence against law enforcement. I also questioned whether Mr. Patel had claimed that Donald Trump declassified all the documents at Mar-a-Lago and whether he considered the potential risks to sources before advocating for declassification. I responded that President Trump issued a declassification order to a large number of documents. It was the responsible thing to do and no one died. I support following the law and providing whatever information the law requires.

Have you ever flown a plane? No. Were you a military or commercial pilot? No. Have you worked for an airline or as an air traffic controller? No. Have you worked for a company that manufactures or repairs airplanes? No. The FAA administrator role requires specialized knowledge, which I lack. I have no experience in aviation safety, and it would be unwise to put me in charge. The public expects an FAA administrator to understand aviation safety, especially after incidents like the near collision at Austin's airport. It’s concerning that someone without aviation safety experience could be in such a critical position.

This is unbelievable. You want to be the archivist of the United States, yet you lied under oath and in your QFRs. Just moments ago, you lied to me again and are now stonewalling, refusing to answer questions about your own public posts. Mister chairman, this is the most extraordinary situation I have encountered in my time in the Senate. I have never witnessed a witness so blatantly lie under oath as Dr. Shogan has done today, consistently avoiding questions from this committee.

I express regret for my texts causing confusion and pain. My political opinions were shared during the election, but they never influenced my work at the FBI. I criticize various politicians, including Clinton and Trump, but my actions were always unbiased. I was involved in the Russian interference investigation and take pride in the FBI's integrity. I believe the hearing is a victory for Putin and a threat to our democracy. I am ready to answer any questions.

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, as the former Capitol Police chief, question why the January 6th committee never asked me to testify publicly. They may have been worried that my testimony would reveal what happened on January 6th, the events leading up to it, and the role of political leaders and their appointees.

People reacted strongly, demanding action, but the speaker says they have sacrificed for two years, facing ostracization, harassment, and threats. The speaker states that while others lived normal lives, they risked everything. The speaker emphasizes that nobody got hurt on their watch, and the allegation concerns something from six years ago that was hidden from them. The speaker also claims the alleged victim wasn't even harmed.

I am deeply troubled by your responses today. You need to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You avoided answering that question when asked by Senator Durbin. Additionally, you should clearly state that those involved in the January 6th insurrection who committed violence should not be pardoned. I don’t have to say what you want me to say. I speak the truth and won’t say anything just to gain confirmation. I will answer questions to the best of my ability.

During a committee hearing, a senator questioned a witness about their relationship with Workers Dignity. The senator stated the witness did not disclose their relationship with the group to the committee. The senator claimed the witness told Senator Grassley they had never represented the group, then told Senator Lee they had advised them as a member of a legal advisory board ten years ago. The senator stated the witness then told Senator Cruz they had advised them for three years, and Senator Durbin that it was fifteen years ago. The senator noted the witness's bio lists them as a legal advisor to the group from 2013 to the present, and the Tennessee Bar Association cited this work for their nomination. The witness stated they served on a legal advisory committee for two or three years more than a decade ago, helping them set up as a non-profit. The senator accused the witness of lying to Senator Grassley about doing legal work for the group. The senator then asked if the witness agreed with Workers Dignity's condemnation of Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

You've got to be heard. When I returned, my boss said I caused extra work and removed me from my squad, despite moving 2,000 miles for this job. I was assigned to a national security squad, given no work for six weeks, and sent into a potentially dangerous situation. This organization feels petty and tyrannical, not looking out for my interests or those of Americans. I was suspended without pay, complicating everything. I understand the investigation process, but it feels flawed. My experience has been filled with retaliation and unjust treatment. I want to express my side clearly during the interview, but I feel the system is broken. I don't trust the FBI anymore, and I doubt it can self-regulate. I appreciate your understanding, but I need to voice these concerns. Let’s meet soon to discuss everything in detail.

It is an honor and solemn responsibility to testify regarding disturbing new revelations from the newest JFK files. It is a grave matter to assert that CIA officers were culpable or complicit in the death of a president, so fact checkers should have all the evidence used to support this testimony.

I thank you for being here, Mr. Mayorkas. Your actions have been watched closely, and it is believed that you have lied. The American public sees this too. You are seen as a threat to freedom and rights, but thankfully the first amendment exists to stop you. Your accusations are untrue.

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.

As Attorney General, I'm addressing the tarmac meeting I had with Bill Clinton back in June. We met privately in Phoenix for about 45 minutes while the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails was still ongoing. Shortly after, FBI Director James Comey recommended no charges. I acknowledge that the meeting might have appeared inappropriate, but I want to be clear: we did not discuss the investigation. Our conversation was about unrelated topics, like golfing and our grandkids.

The speaker claims, in sworn testimony, to have admitted to lying to the US government about a UN policy. According to the speaker, the UN admits in court filings that this is an ongoing policy. The speaker states they were not fired for lying, but for objecting to the Secretary General's policy, specifically for informing the US delegation and Congress about it. The speaker asserts the UN believes it has the right to lie to the US government, its largest donor, about providing names of US citizens to the Chinese Communist Party. The speaker says they were fired for revealing the truth about this policy.

They monitored the area before my speech, but nobody warned me about a man on the roof with a gun. People noticed him and even shouted, yet no action was taken. It was a mistake not to address the situation earlier.

The speaker claims that an individual lied before Congress and the media, stating that Obama's targeted assassination program killed no civilians on the Afghan or Pakistan border, when the speaker believes 50-75 innocent people were killed. The speaker says the individual was caught in that lie. Three years later, the speaker says the same individual lied emphatically to Congress about tapping CIA staffers' computers, initially denying it, then admitting to the lie. The speaker notes that in both instances, there were no perjury charges.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.