TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"The January 6 stuff was a culmination of what started many years ago back when Obama was in office." "There were some near the top who knew something was coming, and they prepped for it." "They were going to eliminate Pence." "There were agents out there. There were phony FBI out there. There was phony Secret Service, and there was phony US marshals." "There were people in place for months planning this, and there were there was help from certain intelligence agents and assets in this country, but there was also a foreign country, a couple of them helped." "One of them what we all like for Thanksgiving, yeah, Turkey." "They had people in their intelligence agency over there, MIT." "They were over here to help as well." "So why not come over here and help somebody else who is disloyal to his country and his president?"

The implications are far-reaching and concern the integrity of our democratic republic. An outgoing president took action to manufacture intelligence to undermine and usurp the will of the American people in that election. This launched what would be a years-long coup against the incoming president of the United States, Donald Trump.

- "The January 6 stuff was a culmination of what started many years ago back when Obama was in office." - "They decided to use it for their own self interest." - "There were a few at the very top, both sides, who knew exactly what was coming and tried to add to it." - "Yeah. And it was a coup." - "They were going to eliminate Pence." - "There were phony FBI out there." - "There were phony Secret Service, and there was phony US marshals." - "So the original plan was to take over the sledblade, and the marshals had to come in." - "That's why he was phoning marshals out there."

The discussion outlines that a year before January 6, the FBI conducted a planning exercise and had specific plans for the event. Speaker 1 states there was a tabletop exercise run in Boston in August 2020, five months before January 6. The memos that Kash Patel turned over to Congress, recently provided at the request of Chairman Barry Lautomilk, show that the FBI knew there was a strong possibility of a hanging or contested election, with both sides agitated and likely to escalate to violence. The memos also reveal that the FBI devised specific strategies, including embedding informants inside groups where political violence or agitation might occur. According to Speaker 1, the FBI had two dozen informants on the ground on the morning of January 6, and recommended mass prosecutions, even for the most minor crimes—described as exactly what the FBI did after January 6. Speaker 1 emphasizes two major points about the strategy: first, that the strategy was conceived months in advance and was carried out; second, that it represented a double standard because it differed from how political violence at BLM protests and far-left actions in 2020 were handled. The claim is that informants were embedded in both left- and right-wing groups, including Antifa and right-wing groups, and that intelligence suggested a bad episode would occur. They allege that, according to Chairman Barry Lautemux, warnings from informants were strong, but Capitol stakeholders in Washington, DC, did not receive those warnings or pass them along. This, they argue, shows two failed examples of the FBI under the Chris Ray era, with foreknowledge of events but actions that hurt conservatives while not alerting liberals or those who could have prevented violence. The documents are presented as now public, described as stunning by the speakers. Regarding whether there was any briefing to higher-level officials, Speaker 0 asks if there is evidence that Bill Barr, Chris Ray, or staff at the White House were briefed after the tabletop exercise and plan development. Speaker 1 responds that there is no indication of briefing the attorney general or other senior officials. There is no documentation showing that Barr, the Homeland Security Department, the Capitol Police, or the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police were alerted. The speaker notes that this suggests an insular FBI operation, drawing a comparison to pre-nine-eleven dynamics, implying systemic issues within the FBI.

The discussion centers on allegations that the United States has used or could use domestic and international mechanisms to effect regime change, including through domestic unrest and foreign influence operations. Speaker 0 describes a 2021 Special Operations Command instruction manual, framed as a vision for 2021 and beyond, that purportedly contains instructions and examples on how the military could work with the State Department, intelligence services, and USAID to use race riots to destabilize nations. He points to examples labeled as part of this manual’s guidance for destabilization via combined military-government-civilian efforts. Speaker 1 lays out a model of how revolutions are allegedly structured, starting with a government at the top and support funneled through USAID, the State Department, or other administration entities. He then describes a degree of separation through privatized NGOs, including the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, and similar organizations, with money flowing from entities such as George Soros’s Open Society Foundations through tides and government-funded NGOs like NED. He suggests money ultimately comes from the people, and that demonstrators, youth movements, a sympathetic media, and labor unions contribute to organizing protests. He outlines conditions for regime change: an unpopular incumbent, a semi-automatic regime (not fully autocratic), a united and organized opposition, the ability to quickly frame the voting results as falsified, media amplification of that falsification, an opposition capable of mobilizing thousands, and divisions among coercive forces like the military or police. He asks whether those conditions are present and implies they are. Speaker 2 cites a declassified CIA guide from 1983 aimed at training operatives to organize riots in foreign countries, including using agitators and hiring professional criminals to manipulate mass meetings, with the goal of turning general anger into violence against the regime. The guide describes creating a climate where a few hundred agitators could mobilize tens of thousands, using 200 back channels and 200 human assets to generate a 10,000–20,000 demonstration. It also notes strategies such as setting up job fairs near riots to enlist disaffected workers. He references USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), implying that “transition” is a code for regime change, and cites a 2009 congressional report warning that OTI was a foreign operation aimed at toppling governments through organized political warfare, including mobilizing unions, boycotts, and shutdowns of roads, transportation, hospitals, and schools. Fulton Armstrong’s quote is cited regarding government secrecy surrounding such operations. The speakers conclude by condemning actions conducted in the shadows, destabilizing nations using race wars to achieve political aims, and advocating that the military be involved, arguing these efforts occur without oversight.

The speaker discusses the Transition Integrity Project, a group that planned to forcibly transition Trump out of office if he won the 2020 election. The project involved prominent figures from both major political parties and the national security state. They ran simulations with different scenarios, including one where Trump wins but Biden is still sworn in as president. They even considered getting Black Lives Matter supporters to cause street havoc to make the country ungovernable. The speaker also mentions a deal between the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce to use union muscle to disrupt dictatorships. This is seen as a color revolution strategy to overthrow governments.

The left is allegedly using a "color revolution" playbook to remove President Trump, after being caught off guard in 2016. These color revolution specialists, like Michael McFaul and Norman Eisen, allegedly honed their skills in Eastern Europe during the Obama administration. Eisen wrote "The Democracy Playbook," which includes impeachment as a strategy. Eisen and David Brock of Media Matters allegedly collaborated on a plan to remove Trump before he was even sworn in. Their action plan stated that Trump's election put the nation "under siege" and that their "infrastructure groups" would be the first line of defense. The speaker claims that the media has pushed the narrative of Trump's unpopularity to create the perception that he cannot win a legitimate election. Democrats are allegedly setting the stage to claim election results were falsified. Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact are funded by groups with a left-wing agenda, such as George Soros' Open Society Foundations and Facebook. Steve Dace believes poll numbers are part of a spin to set up a narrative to challenge the election.

Shutting down a city could be a plan if Biden wins and Trump doesn't concede. If Trump narrowly wins, the strategy might pivot to targeting Democrats to ensure Biden doesn't concede. In DC, identifying Democratic leaders and players is key. Alternatively, if Biden narrowly wins and Trump doesn't concede, the focus shifts to targeting Republicans to pressure Trump to concede. The goal is to think through different scenarios, identify appropriate targets, and determine actions to enable people to organize and prepare.

The conversation centers on a set of claims and observations about January 6 that orbit around Sedition Hunters, Ray Epps, and the so-called “Northwest Scaffold Commander.” The speakers discuss and link multiple pieces of information to argue that the FBI and other agencies were paying close attention to, or coordinating with, covert actor networks on that day. - The discussion opens with a reference to a John Solomon article about Sedition Hunters and claims that the FBI and Justice Department paid Sedition Hunters about $150,000 to gather evidence on January 6 protesters to help the FBI make arrests. They note the figure was reported as over $100,000 in some places and $150,000 in a House hearing, and they say the FBI/DOJ paid Sedition Hunters, the SPLC, the ADL, the Atlantic Council, DFR Lab, and Bellingcat for intelligence. - The main focus shifts to a piece titled Meet Ray Epps (December 2021) by the speakers’ interlocutor, where they argue that the “main star of the show” was not Ray Epps, but a different figure labeled Northwest Scaffold Commander (referred to as Scaffold Commander). They emphasize that Sedition Hunters’ archives identified Scaffold Commander as their number-one suspect, although he was not placed on the FBI’s most-wanted list. - They recount how, on January 8, 2021, the FBI’s most-wanted list listed Ray Epps as a top suspect in the case, with public calls for information and a cash reward. By late June 2021, a Phoenix newspaper identified him as “Reyes,” and on July 1, 2021, the FBI removed Epps from the wanted list with no explanation and no arrest. They contrast this with Scaffold Commander, who was never added to the FBI’s public wanted list for identification by the public, despite being the focal point of Sedition Hunters’ investigations. - The speakers describe Scaffold Commander as an older man with glasses, a nerdy mask, and a blue cap, who allegedly directed the breach from the Northwest scaffold overlooking the Capitol. They claim he used a bullhorn to issue commands for approximately 18 minutes to an hour and a half, from 1:00 PM to about 2:30 PM, urging the crowd with phrases like “Move forward,” “Don’t just stand there,” “Help somebody over the wall,” and “We gotta fill up the capital.” - They juxtapose these observations with the chronology of the breach: the first breach around 12:53 PM, the crowd’s advance toward the Capitol, and the moment rioters entered the building. They argue Scaffold Commander acted as a ringleader and that Ray Epps was directly beneath him in the crowd, effectively functioning as an internal participant who helped draw people toward the front. - A key point they stress is that Scaffold Commander’s high perch and commanding role align with a long-cited CIA manual from 1983, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, which describes a small cadre of crowd agitators operating from elevated positions to direct slogans and crowd movement. They quote and reference passages describing an “outside commando element” that stays above the crowd to observe and direct a demonstration, using high observation points to shout instructions and guide the crowd’s actions. - The speakers argue that the FBI has not acknowledged Scaffold Commander, has not included him on any public list, and has not publicly solicited identification for him, despite Sedition Hunters’ focus on him as the pivotal organizer. They suggest that internal FBI records, memos, or emails about Scaffold Commander could be highly revealing, potentially showing whether higher-ups instructed not to pursue him. - They conclude by urging the FBI and related investigators to search their internal records for “Northwest Scaffold Commander” and make any relevant documents public, implying that such records could undermine the official narrative of the event. They also frame the existence of an internal, externally guided command structure as a critical piece of the January 6 story that remains underexplored by authorities.

They say the FBI anticipated consternation around the election and actually prepared plans for January 6. They held a tabletop exercise in Boston in August 2020, five months before January 6. Kash Patel recently turned over memos to Congress at the request of Chairman Barry Lautenberg (Lautomilk) of the J-six investigation. The memos show the FBI knew there was a strong possibility of a hanging or contested election, with both sides agitated and likely to escalate to violence. They devised specific strategies, including embedding informants inside the groups where political violence or agitation might occur. They say the FBI had two dozen informants on the ground the morning of January 6. They also recommended mass prosecutions, even for the most minor crimes, which is described as exactly what the FBI did after January 6. Two big takeaways: the strategy appears to have been hatched months before and then carried out, and it involved a clear double standard compared to the political violence by the left in 2020. The FBI allegedly embedded informants in a broad range of groups, including Antifa and right-wing groups, and gathered intelligence suggesting a bad episode would occur. Barry Lautemux reportedly stated that while the warnings from informants were strong, the preparations of warnings to the brethren of the Capitol in Washington, DC did not exist. In other words, warnings were not passed along. The claim is that two failed examples of the Chris era of the FBI show that, knowing something was going to happen, they implemented a strategy that hurt conservatives but not liberals and did not warn the people who could actually prevent the violence. This is described as the legacy of the Chris Ray FBI, now laid open in documents for all to see. The question is whether any part shows that Bill Barr or Chris Ray briefed the president or his staff, or senior White House officials after the tabletop exercise and the development of the informant plan. The answer given is no: there is no documentation showing that the attorney general, Barr or other brass were briefed, and no mention that the White House, Homeland Security Department, Capitol Police, or Washington DC Metropolitan Police were alerted. The characterization is that the FBI remained insular, echoing the same “diseases” seen before nine-eleven.

They argued that Black Lives Matter would mobilize in response to a Biden call to take to the streets, but they said they needed to do more testing to robustly gauge their likely receptivity so they could be mobilized at election time in case Trump clearly wins the election. The war game highlighted that the scale of recent demonstrations increases the stakes for the Democratic party to build strong ties with Black Lives Matter and be responsive to the movement's demands. They suggested giving Black Lives Matter what they want, specifically $50,000,000,000 in chamber of commerce money. They recalled that the chamber of commerce signed a secret deal with the AFL-CIO, described as the crux of the Molly Ball Time Magazine article, to have the protesters stand down when it was announced Biden won. So, between June 2020 and November 2020, the Democrat party openly planned at the highest levels to do favors for Black Lives Matter so that Black Lives Matter would owe them favors and be responsive to a Biden call to take to the streets to street protest Trump out of office if he won a $52.47 in a landslide electoral college victory.

The speaker discusses a simulation where Black Lives Matter was influenced by the Joe Biden campaign, with John Podesta playing Biden and Bill Kristol and David Frum playing Trump. The simulation aimed to cause a domestic color revolution in the US, led by a bipartisan group including CIA and DOD officials. Congress is now investigating, focusing on individuals like Mary McCord and seeking all related documents. The goal is to prevent Trump from using the Insurrection Act, even if he wins the election.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving never-Trump Republicans, DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign using Stanford University, University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council. These institutions, linked to the Pentagon, aimed to control social media to prevent questioning of mail-in ballots' legitimacy. The campaign involved threats to tech companies, resulting in a new censorship policy called delegitimization. This pre-censorship effort targeted 22 million pro-Trump posts on 15 platforms to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory. The goal was to avoid election crisis due to mail-in ballot discrepancies.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media with 4 Pentagon-linked institutions. They aimed to prevent questioning of mail-in ballot legitimacy. The group coerced tech companies to censor content through threats and pressure, resulting in millions of posts being banned or limited. The campaign was set up months before the election to avoid a crisis if the election results were disputed. The group's actions were based on the belief that a Biden victory would rely on mail-in ballots.

"You wanna talk about an insurrection? This is a insurrection against the American people that was thwarted at multiple times." "He looked me in the eye and said, the truth of the matter is we took the playbook for psychological operations and information warfare that we would use against our enemies, and we turned it against the American people to undo the twenty sixteen election and to make sure they didn't elect Donald Trump in 2020." "Now that is a senior intelligence officer with more than thirty years of experience, a patriot who served in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and he understood that the tactics of making something fake look real were ripped right up our out of our intelligence communities." "Our intelligence agencies not only harm Donald Trump, they were harming the American public, the national security interest of the American public."

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

Mike Benz outlines a conspiracy tied to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and a June 2020 war game that purportedly sought “a way to use riots, nationwide riots, and do favors to the Black Lives Matter movement so that they would owe them favors back to take to the streets against Trump if Trump won the election fair and square,” while also needing “a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to go after the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power” so they could be jailed after Trump left office. Bubba Boyd, who has written about the event since August 2020, explains that the discussion will cover the key players in TIP, the plan to subvert the 2020 election, how rigging the election and four prosecutions of Trump flow from the June 2020 conspirators’ meeting, and excerpts from a January 2020 Donald Trump speech to the World Economic Forum that allegedly signals why Trump and Trumpism had to be eliminated. The publicly named sponsors of the war game are Rosa Brooks and Niles Gilman of the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, described as the “globalist home of Silicon Valley’s anti-Trump billionaires,” with branches in Venice and Beijing and a China branch in direct dialogue with Xi Jinping. Michael Anton is cited as the author of a Trump national security document who criticized TIP’s war game, stating they were planning a coup against the election and publicizing the war game to normalize the idea. Brooks’s background is summarized as a lawyer for George Shullis at the Open Society Institute, then a State Department attorney for regime change, then a Pentagon policy lawyer under Obama, while teaching at Georgetown Law. The narrative asserts she advocated impeaching Trump and a potential 25th Amendment move, and even a military coup, in a 2017 Foreign Policy piece titled “three ways to get rid of president Trump before 2020,” including the sentence: “For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officers might simply tell the president, no, sir. We’re not doing that.” The claim is that she “couldn’t wait to launch a coup against Trump,” a portrayal attributed to a New York Times editorial response. In June 2020, Brooks and Gilman allegedly convened TIP’s war game about the 2020 election and its possible aftermath, with over 100 participants and 76 role players drawn from former Pentagon officials, the intelligence community, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the media, and Republican and Democratic institutions. Names publicly associated with anti-Trump activity are listed, including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, Bill Kristol, Michael Steele, Jennifer Granholm, and other unnamed figures, all described as major players in attempts to nullify the 2016 election and overthrow the government. Benz is said to detail the TIP war games and concludes that to prevent a second Trump term, Biden would need a large victory margin to overcome fraud perceptions, with the insurrectionist scenario calling for control of the military, Black Lives Matter, and other street rioters. The narrative asserts that BLM raised about 90 million in 2020 with donors like the Democracy Alliance and the Ford Foundation, and that Mark Elias led financial filings associated with the effort. The discussion further cites Defense One articles from August 2020 that reportedly called for a military coup and a subsequent open debate within the military about accepting orders, and claims that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley “was not about to obey any order from the president.” The appendix to TIP’s report allegedly debated criminally proceeding against Trump after leaving office and wiping out his “white supremacist and extremist base,” with a quote describing the need for a strategy to challenge networks that enabled Trump’s rise and remained “imbecible to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended,” implying a path toward removing Trump’s influence even after his presidency. The transcript also notes contemporary references to Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation linked to 2022 midterms, and alleged targeting of Republican election operations and other figures by the FBI. Excerpts from Trump’s World Economic Forum address and a January 2020 speech are presented to illustrate a moral and strategic framing against globalism and “radical socialists.” The presentation ends by inviting audience support and promoting further engagement, including a free newsletter.

Before the 2020 election, a group involving DHS, NATO, and the DNC planned a mass censorship campaign on social media to prevent disputing mail-in ballot legitimacy. They partnered with Stanford, University of Washington, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council, all linked to the Pentagon. Using threats and pressure, they forced tech companies to ban content questioning mail-in ballots. This was done to ensure public acceptance of a potential Biden victory due to mail-in ballots. The group aimed to control the narrative and prevent election crisis.

A group of public interest organizations and lawmakers are quietly planning to prevent former President Trump from pressuring the US military to carry out his political agenda. The concern is that this could undermine civilian control of the government. The article specifically mentions Trump potentially using the military to suppress domestic protests, similar to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The groups involved in this plan were also involved in previous protests against Trump. The fear is that if Trump were to win the election, these tactics would be used to destabilize his entire term and prevent him from stopping protests, even if they turned violent or occupied federal buildings. The speaker warns people to watch a movie about the Serbian revolution to understand how these tactics work.

Speaker 0: I want to ask about what if you've changed position on what happened in the twenty twenty election. Speaker 1: Oh, I think it was rigged. Speaker 0: You think it was rigged? Speaker 1: Yeah. I know more now than I did then. What you'd have to do is in February 2021, was a Time Magazine article that was published, it was about Mark Zuckerberg investing $500,000,000 in a get out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. And they focused in what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. And they went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of states in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it, we will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections. But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it. If you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, that there are, that you've got a, an RV going around and hauling people into the, into the polling places to vote. When you do that, if, if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back. You most likely would have ended up in prison. I mean, that's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge. $500,000,000 concentrated in Democrat counties for the purpose of getting out the Democrat vote. Speaker 0: How do you know it was to get the Democrat vote out? Because how does exactly do what are the mechanics of that? Of how it was You Speaker 1: I have to read the article. And what the article does is it lays it out, and the title is something along the lines of how a secret group of people were able to save the twenty twenty election, meaning how were they able to get Joe Biden elected.

The discussion centers on a sequence of events and documents that connect pipe-bomb material purchases in 2020 to a high-level, bipartisan war game and contingency planning around the 2020 election, with implications for how the transition away from Trump was imagined by prominent officials. Key facts cited: - Cole purchased pipe-bomb parts in June 2020 in two phases: June 1 and June 8, with additional purchases around June 20 and timers bought on June 3. - The timing aligns with the Transition Integrity Project, a war game exercise organized in June 2020 by Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration senior official who led the project, and involved figures from both parties including Michael Steele (former head of the Republican National Committee), Donna Brazile (former head of the DNC), and John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager). The participants allegedly included other high-ranking political, military, and intelligence figures from both sides. - The project is described as a bipartisan “war game” that examined how to handle a contested election and to plan for preventing Trump’s inauguration if he won, or managing Trumpism after a loss. The document referenced is a 22-page memo with an annex (appendix C) focusing on “clear Trump win” scenarios and alternatives to ensure a Biden victory or to defeat Trumpism permanently. - The narrative asserts that the Transition Integrity Project produced recommendations for handling a contested election through street protests, electoral strategies, and political pressure, with emphasis on mass mobilization, particularly with Black Lives Matter, to influence outcomes or to force changes in leadership if necessary. - The participants allegedly discussed provocative strategies to destabilize outcomes through street actions, including plans to mobilize protests and to leverage or fund Black Lives Matter and other networks to pressure the political process. They also allegedly discussed concepts such as alternate slates of electors, secession discussions in Western states, and the possibility of arresting Trump and his associates under various circumstances. - The discussion references a sequence of events and media coverage surrounding the 2020 election, including the “Red Mirage Blue Shift” concept (the idea that results might shift after Election Night) and the goal of mitigating perceptions of illegitimacy through censorship measures and strategic messaging. - The speakers connect the June 2020 war game to events around January 6, including the notion that the plan contemplated provoking a breakdown in the joint session of Congress and coordinating demonstrations that could impact the certification process. - The dialogue also ties the Transition Integrity Project to broader discussions about preventing Trumpism from enduring post-election and to “robust, intentional, and specific strategies” to dismantle networks associated with Trump’s rise to power. They discuss the role of mass protests, the potential use of the National Guard, and concerns about preventing or countering demonstrations in the lead-up to and during the certification of the election results. - The conversations reference mainstream outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Molly Ball’s Time Magazine piece) and insist that the Transition Integrity Project’s work was widely discussed and reported, with emphasis on its admission of planning to test receptivity of protests and to coordinate with foundations, corporations, and donor networks to fund and sustain street action if needed. - Throughout, there is an emphasis on not allowing Trump or Trumpism to demobilize automatically after the election and on preparing a comprehensive, multi-front strategy to address a perceived threat to democratic order. Notable participants named or implied include Rosa Brooks; Michael Steele; Donna Brazile; John Podesta; Bill Crystal; David Fromm; and Hillary Clinton’s campaign apparatus. The discussion ties these figures to both the June 2020 pipe-bomb purchases and the broader Transition Integrity Project, framing the war game as a blueprint for how to stop Trump, manage protests, and dismantle the networks that supported Trump’s rise.

Our cyber command and special forces have arrested over 400 individuals, including Pelosi, Biden, Hunter Biden, and Romney. We are in a military coup, arresting corrupt officials. The recent events at the Capitol were a sting operation to retrieve Pelosi's computer. Trump orchestrated this to expose Democrat corruption. Biden won't be president, there will be mass arrests and military tribunals due to lack of trust in government officials.

Undercover footage reveals coordination between leftist organizations, including Shut Down DC and BLM, for a coup action exercise. Democrat party members, federal employees, and intelligence contractors are involved. The plan is to shut down Washington, DC and other major US cities from November 4th until inauguration day. BLM Plaza will be the meeting point on election night, followed by the White House shutdown on the 5th. Key government buildings and police stations are targeted. Members of Congress supporting Trump will be confronted at airports and Union Station. The goal is to create a crisis and take over buildings. The left intends to take control regardless of the election outcome.

The speaker claims that the real faces of J6 are leftist Democrats who are against Donald Trump, regardless of the legitimacy of the election. According to an investigation by Milly Weaver, these individuals orchestrated the insurrection, fooling people into believing it was perpetrated by MAGA supporters. Evidence purportedly shows they are the real violent insurrectionists behind J6. One individual is quoted discussing putting pressure on the Democratic National Committee, suggesting taking over buildings, using disguises, and asserting that burning buildings are legitimate forms of resistance. They also discuss a campaign to get Democratic governors to refuse to deploy the National Guard. One speaker states they were in the front and orchestrated it, while also expressing support for Trump 2024.

Before the 2020 election, a coordinated censorship campaign was launched. This involved the Department of Homeland Security, NATO, and the DNC, leveraging institutions like Stanford University, the University of Washington, Graphica, and the Atlantic Council—many with ties to the Pentagon. These groups, many staffed by former intelligence officials, worked together to suppress discussion questioning the legitimacy of mail-in ballots. They used a multi-step plan to pressure social media companies into adopting a new policy banning content undermining public confidence in the election process. This involved threats of government action and leveraging media allies. Millions of posts across multiple platforms were censored or suppressed. The goal was to prevent questions about the election outcome, anticipating a potential crisis if initial results appeared to favor Trump before shifting to Biden.