TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that they are not saying the organization lost 85,000 children, but that contact was lost with them and their whereabouts are unknown. The speaker asks if that is a fair statement. The speaker asks if, after making three calls on average to check on 85,000 children placed by the organization, there was no response. The speaker then asks if it is fair to say that contact was lost with over 85,000 kids. The speaker asks for a yes or no answer. The speaker states that the organization does not know where 85,000 of the children are. The speaker then says they will move on after receiving no answer.

- 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.

The speaker asks if the other person has received any emails from colleagues, but the other person wants to know the question. The speaker then mentions that the State Department's internal email system has added pronouns to the "from" line without people's choice. They question why this decision was made and who made it. The other person says they haven't seen this phenomenon and offers to look into it. The speaker insists that it should be a choice and not imposed by the State Department, especially if the pronouns are incorrect. The other person agrees to investigate and thanks everyone.

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker admits to not knowing anything about it until it came out publicly. They mention that there were many names on the list, but the press only focused on a few. The speaker reiterates that they had no knowledge of the situation.

The speaker mentions that there are pictures of the Russian liberating Auschwitz without any snow, suggesting that the photos may be fake. They explain that the photos were taken much later because the army didn't have cameras when they arrived. The speaker clarifies that the pictures do not depict Auschwitz and are not of their liberation, as there were not many people with clothes and children, and no snow. They find this information fascinating and believe it is important to highlight this historical fact.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 refuses to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

He allegedly lied when asked if he was talking to other people. When a dozen people asked if he was talking to anybody, he allegedly said he did not have a roster and was not talking to anybody.

The speaker was asked whether they had communicated with a long list of people in relation to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. The responses were predominantly negative. Specifically, the named individuals were: Richard Khan, Darren N. Dyke, Sarah Kellen, Doug Band, Lawrence Summers, Huma Abedin, Noam Chomsky, Leslie Groff, Nadia Marcincova, John Luke Brunel, Alan Dershowitz, Kathy Rumler, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew), Peter Mandelson, Reid Hoffman, Karina Shuliak, Bill Gates, Eyud Barak, Woody Allen, Sandy Berger, Jess Staley, Paul Morris, Leon Black, Sultan Ahmed bin Salim (listed as Sultan Ahmed bin Souliam in the transcript), Leslie Wexner, Jack Kessler, Mark Middleton, Harvey Weinstein, Ellie de Rothschild, Ariane de Rothschild, Lynn Forster de Rothschild, and any other members of the de Rothschild family. Speaker 1's replies were mostly “No,” indicating no communication with these individuals regarding Epstein or Maxwell. The dialogue includes an exception: Huma Abedin. In preparation for the hearing, Speaker 1 acknowledged having talked to Huma Abedin about this topic, with the explicit question, “Have I ever talked to her about this in preparation for this hearing? I have.” Outside of that preparation conversation, Speaker 1 stated, “Not that I recall.” There is also a moment where Speaker 1 comments on familiarity with the list: “No. I don't know most of these people. Should I tell you that I don't know who they are or just tell you I never talked to them?” This reflects uncertainty about the identities of several individuals and a preference for simply answering that they never talked to them. Finally, the inquiry regarding the de Rothschild family elicited a uniform response of “No,” including a specific question about “Ellie de Rothschild,” “Ariane de Rothschild,” and “Lynn Forster de Rothschild,” followed by “Any other members of the de Rothschild family?” with the reply “No.”

Speaker 0 accuses someone of setting them up, repeating it twice. They claim that they were asked to come two hours later and were set up. They express frustration and mention not feeling well. The transcript abruptly ends.

The speaker states they attempted to communicate something and acknowledges the other person's job. They claim to be looking out for everyone.

A person is seen removing pictures, but it is unclear why. They are not affiliated with a management office and their identity is unknown. The situation is described as sad.

The speaker asks for the person's name multiple times and tells them not to worry about being in the news. They mention being proud of the person and ask them to show their face. The speaker denies touching the person and tells them not to touch them either. They mention that the person is not allowed to post anything and then the transcript abruptly ends.

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

Speaker 0 finds the behavior of the people following them peculiar and questions their presence. They express confusion and ask why these individuals are following them without any prior introduction. Speaker 0 also mentions that they are trying to take pictures of a building and feels disturbed by the sudden intrusion.

The speaker expresses disbelief and confusion, questioning the reality of the person they are speaking to. They believe that the person is part of a simulated reality, but acknowledge that they did nothing wrong. The speaker urges others to share what they are witnessing. They express frustration and fear that the person will call security on them.

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 declines to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

The speaker is frustrated about not receiving information and notices regarding certain issues. They express their dissatisfaction with the lack of communication and mention their involvement in managing Facebook pages related to the matter. The other speaker tries to assist by offering to send the necessary links via email. There is some confusion about email addresses, but eventually, the correct email is provided, and the link is sent. The frustrated speaker expresses concerns about past contamination and claims that people may have died as a result. They receive the link and mention forwarding it to others. The conversation ends with the frustrated speaker expressing their belief that the situation is illegal.

The speaker wants to know if the FBI is working with someone. They are told that the FBI concluded that person had nothing and stopped working with them. The speaker will check and confirm this information.

The conversation centers on a device the crew attempted to bring back from Antarctica. The key points are: - The group discusses being on the way back from Antarctica, with a device that has been confiscated. - They ask whether the device can be used on land. The response: no, it cannot be used on land. The item was checked in biosecurity yesterday, and although there were no problems found, the captain is responsible; the device will be received by him at the end of the day. - The device is said not to be related to the Internet or cybersecurity; one speaker asserts that cybersecurity is "completely fraudulent," and that the device is not about online connections. - The other speaker explains that this applies to all ships in Antarctica, not just their ship. All ships have cybersecurity measures to follow, and they cannot let such devices onto land. - The process is described as very strict. The claim is made that it is available for all ships around Antarctica, especially this one, with cybersecurity and forces to follow. - The first speaker thanks them and apologizes for any issue, noting they did not see any problem online during research. The captain is acknowledged as the responsible party.

The speaker claims the other person is acting differently, not calling or hanging out like they used to. The speaker states that the other person tried to contact them through business partners but never got their number.

The speaker wants an account returned because it wasn't utilized as well as it could have been. The speaker wants it back to continue their endeavors and allow the account to be utilized. The speaker suggests the account isn't helping the other person, especially if they are stressed. The speaker claims they were concise and respectful when requesting a phone call and were not "crashing out" or "tweaking out." The speaker states they were being business professional by scheduling a call, but couldn't provide sensitive information via text. The speaker acknowledges the other person is upset and feels the request is rude.

The speaker is frustrated because they have been requesting information for years but have not received any notices. They express their disappointment and mention that they have been meeting with the people involved for 20 years. The other speaker clarifies that they do not work for the city but for Coastal Engineering. They exchange email addresses and discuss the issue of contaminated oysters. Finally, the frustrated speaker receives the link they were looking for and mentions forwarding it to others. The conversation ends with a polite farewell.

The speaker is sharing screenshots in response to Heidi, who shared screenshots against what the speaker is doing. The speaker is trying to find someone they can trust who is standing with them, identifying Soap and RJ as trustworthy. The speaker asks if they have ever betrayed Soap and RJ, asserting they would never throw them under the bus for anything.

The speaker is sharing screenshots in response to Heidi, who is also sharing screenshots and is against what the speaker is doing. The speaker is trying to determine who they can trust and who supports them. They identify Soap and RJ as trustworthy allies. The speaker asks if they have ever betrayed Soap or RJ and asserts they would never throw them under the bus, especially in a situation like this.