TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker addresses a discrepancy regarding an interview with Alex Jones. They deny using foul language and accuse Jones of being a liar and sensationalist. The speaker refuses to lend credibility to Jones and criticizes his spreading of lies and rumors. They mention an incident where Jones caused panic by falsely claiming Russia launched missiles at the US. The speaker warns Jones to tell the truth about them and concludes by taking calls from listeners who verify their claims. The speaker asserts their fearlessness and dismisses Jones as a coward.

Alex Jones claims he had the founder of QAnon at his house two years ago and should have hired him. He believes QAnon was started by people inside US intelligence. Jones says he spoke to one of these individuals who admitted their early involvement but claimed they haven't been in control for months. Jones suggests Trump's lack of denial implies knowledge or involvement with QAnon. He refused to address QAnon on a previous show because he didn't want to insult those already "brainwashed" by it. Jones states that QAnon is attacking him and gives them until next Tuesday to reveal everything, or he will expose it next Wednesday. He asserts he is risking his life and that this is not a game.

In this video, Alex confronts Oliver Darcy, accusing him of being a censor and a liar. Alex criticizes Darcy's affiliation with CNN and accuses the network of being fake news. He also insults Darcy's appearance and calls him a sociopath. Darcy denies the accusations and claims that Alex is spreading falsehoods. The confrontation becomes heated, with both individuals trading insults and accusations. Alex asserts that Darcy is trying to silence conservative voices and destroy the First Amendment. The video ends with Alex expressing his belief that he will ultimately prevail and that Darcy's actions will be seen as dishonorable.

Alex Jones believes federal agencies are trying to destroy him because he predicted 9/11, specifying planes flying into the World Trade Centers and blaming Osama bin Laden. Jones claims he researched false flag attacks and saw preprogramming in the news. He says he specifically predicted the CIA would fly planes into the World Trade Centers and blame it on Bin Laden. Jones says segments of intelligence agencies were tracking the hijackers, who were being trained in US military bases and given government money. He says Bin Laden was a CIA asset used to destabilize areas. Jones says the CIA and FBI were involved, and the Project for the American Century called for a "new Pearl Harbor." Jones says he was on cable access in Texas figuring this out while mainstream journalists didn't see it. He says the X-Files spinoff, The Lone Gunman, had a similar plot, and Chris Carter said the CIA gave him the idea. Jones says he also predicted they'd try to shoot Trump at a rally. He says the UN and the Rockefeller Foundation have been planning a global system using disease acts. Jones believes he's just taking them at their word. Jones says he's embraced the responsibility, stopped drinking, and lost weight. He says it's a spiritual battle, and people need to choose a side. Jones says the globalists had narrative control, but now a new international order is forming. He says the globalists made a deal with communist China, but China double-crossed them. Jones says the EU is allying with China, and the UK wants to be in an alliance with the US. Jones says there's a rise in violence and acceptance of violence. He says a long-time employee was assassinated. Jones says the US lost a war with Russia in Ukraine, and we're overstating our power. He says the Pentagon assessed that giving Ukraine weapons to strike targets within Russia had a 50% chance of nuclear exchange, but they did it anyway. Jones says the EU is refusing to end the war and arresting political opposition. He says Trump is trying to end it. Jones says the globalist order was collapsing, and Trump is coming in with a good system. He says the Democrats are escalating domestic unrest and terrorism, leading to a triggering event. Jones says they've been hyping a new virus to stop Trump's reboot of the economy. Jones says speech is being controlled in formerly free countries. He says they need to end speech in the US and shut down X. Jones says a mass shooting will be used as a pretext to shut it down. He says he got big news that the Connecticut Supreme Court won't hear his appeal. Jones says Hillary ran ads talking about him and twisting what he said about the Sandy Hook shooting. Jones says he was held in default for not giving them his secret plan to get rich off these people. He says he was given 20 things he couldn't talk about. Jones says they want to shut him down. Jones says the Democratic Party, the judge department, the FBI, and the CIA are involved. He says Obama illegally declared him a national security threat. Jones says the Justice Department paid over $4 million to the Sandy Hook Foundation. Jones says the US Trustee ordered a private security company to show up with guns. Jones says the judge said there was never an auction and that it was fraudulent. Jones says all of this stems from a school shooting in Connecticut, and he suggested there was something weird about it. Jones says he didn't commit the school shooting. Jones says no one's trying to find out why Adam Lanza did it. Jones says he's being blamed for the murder of all these kids when he had nothing to do with it. Jones says the Sandy Hook families are blaming him and raising money off his name. Jones says he's the ant in Bug's Life. Jones says he thinks a lot of the ethnic hate on social media is fake. Jones says there's gonna be an act of violence, ethnic-inspired violence, and that event will be used to shut down free speech on social media. Jones says the Connecticut Supreme Court said they're not even gonna hear his appeal. Jones says they're coming to shut down Infowars. Jones says people can find him on X at real Alex Jones. Jones says all of your voices are so important. Jones says Iran is plan B for the globalists. Jones says Netanyahu is trying to drag us into war since 9/11. Jones says Israel will nuke Iran, and then all hell's gonna break loose. Jones says the globalists are very reckless. Jones says smart, aware people are no longer smart or aware. Jones says it's like a mist that settles over all of us. Jones says we're sleepwalking into Armageddon. Jones says the establishment is all about never actually making a decision they get in trouble for. Jones says the future's been here for a while. Jones says they want a nuclear war. Jones says Ian Fleming wrote about a crazy billionaire who's gonna release a bioweapon on the earth. Jones says Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, which is an instruction manual of what they wanna do. Jones says we have to choose God, justice, and free will. Jones says if you're fighting evil, evil's gonna come after you. Jones says the lawyers are arrogant. Jones says what they've done to him, they wanna do to you. Jones says he could be shut down within two days, two weeks. Jones says they are coming to shut down Infowars. Jones says he's not gonna give up. Jones says it's only gonna make what he does that much bigger.

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

Aladdin and another participant discuss a string of controversial claims and conspiracy theories centered around Candace Owens and her husband, interwoven with personal updates and on-the-ground reporting plans. Aladdin introduces the topic by noting a disagreement with Zanny and invites Candace to continue, while also acknowledging support for a post in the nest. The conversation then moves to Candace Owens and her husband, described as a “MI5 asset” (a claim linked to his alleged background and funding). Speaker 1 identifies himself as a former intelligence officer who is currently in Ukraine, documenting the war to provide factual on-the-ground reporting and planning to visit Israel, Palestine, and Iraq to document events. He mentions a GoFundMe-style pin post on his profile for donations to his journey and stresses his aim to deliver factual reporting without spin. The discussion shifts to Candace Owens, whom Speaker 1 calls an “absolute fraud.” He cites “multiple indications back in 2022” related to Owens’s husband and references a firm he allegedly worked with, comparing it to a Wall Street-like operation in England. Specific firms mentioned include Parley or Glorify, and Avenger Capital Fund, suggesting that Owens’s husband is heavily funded by Jewish firms. When Owens speaks publicly, Speaker 1 argues, it appears to be designed to reveal a hidden network, prompting Aladdin to suggest peeling back layers of her narrative. The consensus among the participants is that Owens has become a prominent conspiracy disseminator who has shifted focus over time. The conversation traces Owens’s move from reporting about Charlies Kirk’s personal guard to broader conspiracies, expressing skepticism about the authenticity of texts Owens released between herself and Charlie Kirk. They describe those messages as not proving anything substantial about an assassination plot, though they debate their authenticity. The group notes Owens’s pattern of jumping between conspiracies without credible evidence, labeling some of her content as vile. Speaker 1 reveals that he knows Owens’s husband and alleges their marriage was arranged for clout, comparing the dynamic to a modern version of a high-profile “arranged marriage.” The discussion turns personal as Speaker 1, who grew up in Iraq, shares a harsh view toward Palestinians, calling them “parasites” and characterizing Palestinian behavior as spreading “cancer with their victimhood.” This remark is cited as part of the broader atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric surrounding Owens and related narratives. Despite expressions of support for America, Speaker 1 emphasizes his Ukraine mission and reiterates his invitation for donations to fund his reporting. Toward the end, the group veers into light banter about a coin-toss game, humorously referencing heads for soap and tails for a lampshade, then moving through a quick aside about quarters and college games before returning to the ongoing discussion.

Speaker 0, identified as Alex Jones, discusses his experience at the "cremation of care" ceremony. The other person in the conversation expresses disapproval of Jones for filming and releasing the footage. Jones defends his actions, arguing that the public deserves to know about the event. The conversation becomes heated, with the other person accusing Jones of violating understandings and practicing ambush journalism. Jones dismisses the criticism and asserts his right to free speech. The conversation ends with both parties expressing their lack of respect for each other.

James O’Keefe confronts Garcia’s office over Epstein photos. O’Keefe says, “You guys said that you you had Epstein photos that you you broke, and we actually broke it already. You redacted some of the stuff on the chalkboard. We we broke the story in May.” Garcia staff counters, “We stand by our story. We put out information that is not included in your photo, so we did include photos that were not. But thank you so much for coming.” O’Keefe asks why the words on the chalkboard were redacted; staff replies they “go above and beyond to make sure that we protect any victims or potential victims.” O’Keefe notes they “broke the exact same photo.” The staff asserts they have many photos O’Keefe did not, and they “included photos that did not have” what O’Keefe released. O’Keefe presses for credit; staff says, “Absolutely not,” and claims, “we put out photos that were never before seen.” The source allegedly is the US Virgin Islands, “with response to a request from Congress.” O’Keefe says he has his own sources and asks for attribution. The staff accuses O’Keefe of “selectively editing videos” and of a broader reputation for filming people without their permission, stating, “That’s your reputation, and that’s why people don’t trust you.” O’Keefe challenges with, “Can you give me an example of how I’ve edited a video selectively?” The staff responds that Project Veritas’ reputation preceded him and declines to provide an example, saying they don’t want to speak to his audience and that he has a “reputation for filming people without consent selectively editing.” The exchange grows heated; O’Keefe asserts he is here as a member of Congress in Garcia’s office and asks for fair treatment. The staff reiterates, “Photos that you haven't put out. We said we were putting out photos that are never before seen. We did that. We did not lie at all.” O’Keefe highlights that he and Garcia’s office have “kicked out here” and describes the interaction as elitist and condescending. He references a quote idea about perception versus reality, then notes they “broke” an image where Democrats in House Oversight claim they broke it, and mentions that one word redacted was “dank or dark brain,” questioning which victim that protects. He promises to seek a retraction and signs off: “This is James O’Keeffe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the corrupt elite responsible and accountable.” The interaction ends with the two sides firm in their positions, and O’Keefe walks away after being asked to leave, with Garcia’s staff maintaining their reporting and accuracy, while O’Keefe frames the encounter as a confrontation over credibility and transparency.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

Speaker 0 describes Candace Owens with highly inflammatory language, calling her an evil scumbag and a degenerate cunt. He accuses her of burning everything down and gloating while she does it, and claims she has security, though not the same level as others. He asserts that she lies about security and that her actions harm others, while conservatives who criticize her lack “balls” to call her out. He acknowledges that others have begun messaging him in support of criticizing Owens, but he dismisses credit for any such actions he didn’t claim. Speaker 0 asserts that Owens is hypocritical and hypocritically claims she loves Charlie Kirk while allegedly destroying what he built. He states he has bullets fired at his property and has to live in the middle of nowhere, with strangers approaching his Maryland home and residents being beaten when attempting to live there. He contends that Owens does not live the way she portrays, and that she is “burning everything down” and is evil. He claims the conservative movement is fractured and suggests Republicans are on track to lose the midterms, asserting that they were trending in a different direction until Charlie Kirk was murdered, calling it “the most effective political assassination in history.” Speaker 0 further asserts that Owens has turned Turning Point into “the perpetrators of the crime that was against them” and says he is not paid by any of these groups, has no special ties to Turning Point USA, and was not invited to their event. He contends that he does not want to participate with them and feels that conservative media are cowardly for not standing up to Owens. He mentions Megyn Kelly, appreciating her kind words but calling the situation pathetic bullshit. He emphasizes that no one is paying him, there is no Russia or Israel involvement, and he is simply risking his life by speaking out. Speaker 0 reiterates his frustration at Owens being placed in a thumbnail on her piece and calls her a “fucking cunt.” He insists that Owens benefited from the situation, and that she “killed Charlie” with her actions, claiming, “No one benefited more than her.” The exchange includes Speaker 1 confirming disbelief that Owens included him in the thumbnail and echoing the sentiment that she didn’t fly or act consistently with her claimed security.

I had a disagreement with a colleague in front of others, and the next day he refused to resign, so I fired him. On February 2nd, after a video I made went viral, another person from Project Veritas told me they would have an emergency vote to restructure the company. I received an email with the agenda while I was on a plane, and realized I would be removed from my position by the time I landed.

The transcript centers on a long-form discussion of the Epstein case, the alleged “deep state,” FOIA operations, and political maneuvering around Trump, with frequent calls to aggressively release and pursue Epstein-related documents and other investigations. The speakers assert that the FOIA department is being used to shield deep-state ties and that many federal offices are filled with anti-Trump figures who have prevented full disclosure. - Epstein files and the role of the deep state - The speakers claim the Epstein files are being selectively redacted by FOIA departments to conceal deep-state connections. They state that FOIA personnel are controlled by deep-state actors and that Epstein’s case involves a “fleet of aircraft” and operations linked to major power centers. They argue Epstein’s activities connect to money laundering, information laundering, and a broader set of deep-state assets and operations. - They propose a remedy: appoint Tom Fitton as special counsel on the Epstein files, arguing he “knows how FOIA really works,” understands key personnel, and has litigated Epstein-related cases for years. They assert this would restore public confidence and expedite the exposure of Democratic ties and other actors alleged to be involved. - They advocate for Trump to have executive-privilege-style powers to declassify and release Epstein materials, suggesting a broad interpretation of “Epstein file law” that would allow him to disclose or appoint an ombudsman with power to release materials at will. They emphasize the need to disclose Democratic ties and to hold press conferences when releasing documents, avoiding the use of fake documents or videos. - Specific figures and institutions named - Kash Patel is cited as saying there are “open files on a dozen plus coconspirators” and as someone who has noted alleged misdirections by those handling Epstein-related material. - Kyle Serafin and Phil Kennedy are mentioned as documenting a person at the FBI capacity who is “an anti-Trump advocate,” implying that deep-state appointments control FOIA and related processes. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss replacing FOIA and related personnel who are deeply implicated; they specifically name Tom Fitton as the ideal choice and entertain other high-profile figures like Tulsi Gabbard as potential custodians of the Epstein disclosures. - Tulsi Gabbard is described as being in charge of broader investigations tied to the Epstein files and other major political issues (elections, COVID-19, etc.). They also reference “Epstein files” intersecting with other investigations they attribute to the deep state. - Epstein, Maxwell, and allied networks - Epstein is described as deeply embedded with Western intelligence agencies (French, Israeli, UK, and US) and tied to Robert Maxwell, with Maxwell’s daughter linked to Epstein. Epstein is portrayed as having been “recruited by Bill Barr” and as a central figure in a long-running intelligence and blackmail operation. - The discussion links Epstein to Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder) and a French talent agency, portraying these connections as part of a large, interconnected network involved in money laundering, arms trafficking, blackmail, and intelligence work. - The speakers insist that Epstein’s activities extended to the late 1990s and beyond, including alleged involvement in “Shutters” in Santa Monica and other high-profile cases, with a consistent pattern of using underage girls and blackmail to exert influence. - They emphasize a broader motive: exposing the “deep state” to vindicate Trump and indict deep-state actors who allegedly engaged in illicit operations, including foreign intelligence services and Western governments. - The broader political frame and potential indictments - The Epstein files are presented as a potential hinge for indicting a wide array of figures across political lines, including references to Comey, Mueller, Hillary Clinton-era actors, and other “rogue actors” who allegedly hindered investigations. - The conversation ties Epstein to broader themes: the 2020 election, COVID policies, and anti-Trump actions by the “deep state.” They contend that the Epstein disclosures could demonstrate the depth of state interference in political processes and media, making Democrats and their institutions targets of accountability. - They argue the Epstien files could show criminal activity by multiple national actors, including Israeli, UK, and French components, and could reveal coordinated efforts to derail Trump and manipulate media narratives. - The Candace Owens angle and related criticisms - A substantial portion of the dialogue critiques Candace Owens, alleging she is running a “CIA-style” operation that distracts from the true conspiracy around the deep state and Tarantifa, and that she manipulates narratives related to Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk. - They accuse Owens of shifting narratives, fabricating alibis, and promoting disinformation, calling her a “SIOP” (psychological operation) and alleging her behind-the-scenes connections to MI6 or other international actors through her husband (George Farmer) and other associates. - They recount multiple incidents where Owens purportedly changed stories about meetings, alibis, and involvement in various investigations, asserting she uses “receipts” selectively and inconsistently to support divergent claims. - The speakers allege that Owens’s public warfare against Trump and TP USA is part of a broader intelligence operation intended to disrupt conservative momentum, link to Royal/MI6 circles, and undermine investigations into the deep state and its networks. - Tyler Robinson case and media dynamics - They describe Tyler Robinson as a Middle American figure whose transformation into a political actor is portrayed as a product of online radicalization and Tarantifa-linked influences. They claim there was a concerted effort to spoon-feed disinformation about Robinson and Candace Owens’ involvement. - They argue this is part of a larger pattern of media manipulation and disinformation designed to distract from real conspiracies and to target Trump and conservative movements. - Strategy and messaging guidance - The speakers advocate for Trump to go on the offensive with Epstein, releasing comprehensive, verified documentation, and pushing accountability for “rogue actors” in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and the NSA. - They stress the need for aggressive prosecution and the appointment of trusted figures to lead the Epstein disclosures, arguing that this could restore public confidence and pivot the political conversation toward accountability for the deep state. - They urge addressing the statute of limitations issues in COVID, January 6, and 2020 election-related cases before the window closes in early 2026, warning that delays by Bondi, Blanche, and others could jeopardize prosecutions and political support. - Promotional and logistical notes - The dialogue includes frequent mentions of promoting Alex Jones programs, products, and stores (alexjonesstore.com and infowarsstore.com) to fund operations, along with appeals to listeners to support the broadcasts financially and through purchases, framing financial support as essential to sustaining investigations, media efforts, and broader political action. In sum, the transcript presents an entangled, aggressively conspiratorial narrative: a claim that Epstein’s files illuminate a vast, deeply embedded deep-state apparatus spanning multiple nations and agencies; a call to appoint trusted figures (notably Tom Fitton) to supervise full disclosure; a push for Trump to declassify and publicly prosecute the implicated actors; a harsh critique of Candace Owens as part of a disinformation ecosystem; and a broader strategy to use Epstein, along with related investigations, to dismantle perceived institutional corruption while fueling political narratives and fundraising.

Owen Schroyer announces he is done at Infowars, explaining a abrupt departure after conflict with Alex Jones. He walked off the War Room mid-show Thursday; there was no family emergency. He intended to return this week and meet with Alex to finish positively, even offering to stay on as a satellite, but Alex said, 'We don't need you.' Good luck. He recalls Wednesday's exclusive on the school shooting with Kyle Sarifen and says, 'we broke the big exclusive,' riding into the fire with Alex, aware of likely backlash. After Thursday, he canceled his three-hour show, walked off, and says he wanted to announce on Infowars with Alex but was refused; now he's leaving and doesn't know if he'll return. He calls Wednesday 'our last dance' and notes Infowars War Room's eight-year anniversary would have occurred this week; Infowars could be off air.

Alex Jones explains that in the last 48 hours his contacts have been flooded with questions about the future of Infowars and what is really happening. He then pivots to praise Elon Musk as a “game changer” for freedom, comparing his impact to that of Donald Trump and calling them a dynamic duo. Jones asserts that Musk has been devastating to tyrants and corrupt institutions and positive for freedom and ordinary people. Jones states that Musk sent his lawyers to Houston last Thursday to appear in his corporate bankruptcy case, requesting all data, files, and information for review. He says the reason Musk did this is in Musk’s self-interest at X, to block attempts by others to interfere. Jones recounts federal filings where Democrats, using plaintiffs as a front group, allegedly claim they own the name “Alex Jones” and “real Alex Jones” on X, and that the Thirteenth Amendment does not apply to Alex Jones, arguing that one cannot take someone’s name or likeness without permission or compensation because that would be slavery. He asserts that they are attempting to overturn property rights and the right to one’s own name. Jones accuses The Onion, funded by a Soros-backed gun control group, of involvement, claiming they admitted on Good Morning America Friday to winning an auction that he says never happened, and that they want to take his identity and use infowars.com and his archive to edit, distort, ridicule, and discredit him, while also seeking to remove him from the air. Speaker 1 adds that, with the verdict, he asks not only to take Alex Jones’s platform away but to ensure he cannot rebuild the platform, preventing him from re-entering discourse or spreading what they call misinformation. Jones emphasizes the significance of Musk’s actions, arguing that freedom derives from self-interest and that Musk’s stance reflects a belief that if one person lacks freedom, everyone loses it. He credits Musk with enabling the overthrow of election fraud purportedly linked to Trump’s victory, then shifting attention to big pharma, Fauci, their alleged crimes against humanity, and efforts to stop World War III. Jones proclaims Elon Musk as a real-world hero, noting his power and wealth do not undermine trust because “you judge a tree by its fruits,” which Jones says are overwhelmingly positive in terms of fighting tyranny, waking people up, and providing a platform for billions to share information openly. He declares himself a defender, booster, and extreme supporter of Elon Musk.

After over a dozen years at Fox News, I've decided to pursue a new challenge, which was a tough decision because I value this show, our staff, and our audience. I'll be leaving Fox News at the end of the week. In a discussion about Donald Trump, the conversation turned heated. One person labeled Trump a sexual predator, while another defended him, criticizing the inflammatory language used. Disrespect towards a journalist was expressed, with claims that her questions were ridiculous and off-base. The dialogue highlighted a divide in perspectives, with accusations of focusing more on sensationalism than on public policy.

The Daily Wire fired an employee for not participating in a smear campaign against Candace Owens. Other employees have also left or been fired. Candace Owens exposed an attempt to record her in a bad light. Ben Shapiro is accused of censorship and silencing critics. The Daily Wire is criticized for being Israel-first. The company uses slander and deception tactics. The video ends with a comparison of saying "Christ is king" to burning a cross.

Speaker 1 recounts an interaction with Owen Shroyer, who allegedly dismissed concerns about Ali Alexander by saying he "just works for Infowars." Speaker 1 claims Ali Alexander hit on them, asking about their height and preferred alcohol, and inviting them to do chores. Speaker 0 expresses a desire to confront Ali Alexander.

In this video, the speaker, Alex Jones, discusses the challenges his company, InfoWars, is facing. He recounts conversations with a security guard and a court-appointed CRO named Pat McGill, who have filed false claims against him. Jones expresses frustration and determination to fight back against these actions, believing there is a plan to shut down his company. He plans to take legal action and calls for support from his audience. The video also includes a heated conversation between two individuals discussing the legal situation and potential conflicts within the company. Jones concludes by asserting his commitment to telling the truth and defying the "new world order." He encourages viewers to visit drjonesnaturals.com to support his company and keep their broadcast on air.

Candace Owens is described as a former friend of Charlie and at one time an employee of Turning Point, accused of peddling conspiracies and “building her business off of these lies,” with the assertion that she is making “a huge amount of money” from them. The speaker’s response to Candace Owens and others spreading these lies is simply: “Stop.” The conversation then shifts to a revelation that the interview was prerecorded, with sources from CBS News and audience members who say they had to do multiple takes because Barry wanted to read a prompter and questions were pre-submitted. In addressing the question, the speaker asserts that the podcaster Candace Owens and others are “lying,” and that “All of the money. Millions upon millions of dollars” have been earned by some people, while others did not benefit as claimed. The speaker argues that Candace Owens implies that building a business from podcasting results in immediate wealth, but claims the speaker “already had this business” and was “already at top of the chart.” Eric responds, and the speaker’s response to what to say to Candace Owens who is lying is “stop,” with a request for Erica to be explicit about what was lied about. The speaker claims to have reviewed lists and cannot find the lie, asserting that “The lies that I find are coming out of Turning Point USA.” Examples cited as lies from Turning Point USA include Mikey’s blood on him, Mikey’s dad being confused, and Rob McCoy’s statements about his father, which the speaker says Rob McCoy was confused about. The speaker also says Mikey’s departure as a hero does not feel honest, and alleges Charlie’s claim that he stopped a 30-06 bullet due to healthy eating and strong bones was a modern-day Christian miracle and a lie. The speaker asserts Charlie never wavered in his support for Israel, calling that a “nasty lie,” and accuses Turning Point USA of lying about Charlie’s life in the last weeks. The speaker also mentions claims that Barry won something, and questions whether Charlie’s evangelical commitment and preference for Catholic architecture were misrepresented as lies. The speaker notes further that Turning Point USA lied about various other points, including a supposed “blood bad blood” between Ben Chifferro and others, and Terrell Farnsworth being told to remove an SD card by police, stating that Terrell Farnsworth personally told the speaker that was not true. The speaker claims Terrell removed the SD cards because hats were being stolen, not because of other thefts, and questions the logic of taking the cameras instead of just the SD card, especially the camera behind Terrell’s head. Additional alleged lies include Charlie establishing a Doge, which is claimed not to have existed, and prior to Elon Musk’s government-accountability remark, that Charlie Christine flew drones—described as a major lie by Brian Harpold, who also allegedly stated that security had communicated with UB police to secure rooftops, which the speaker calls a lie. The speaker asks what they lied about, acknowledging mistakes but insisting they have not found a lie, and asks why there isn’t the same energy about lies from the feds, who allegedly told lies as well. The speaker references missing footage of Tyler Robinson turning himself in, unresolved questions about Egyptian planes, and years of tracking Charlie and Erika, with others laughing at these points. The speaker asks explicitly what they lied about and requests clarity, noting possible time-zone mistakes and a timeline discrepancy, and asking where the speaker is lying.

Speaker 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.