TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I'm not worried about being targeted for prosecuting insurrectionists. Our team was thorough and adhered to the rule of law. The charging decisions were supported by grand juries and upheld by numerous courts, including the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court merely narrowed the statute's application without questioning its use in these cases. The new U.S. attorney's investigation feels like a wild goose chase, especially given the vast amount of files involved. It's frustrating to see someone undermine our hard work and suggest wrongdoing by the prosecutors. This undermines the integrity of the department and is unfounded.

The speaker discusses the charges against Trump, including seditious conspiracy and obstruction of official proceeding, which were also used against the speaker and their co-defendants. They criticize the use of the Civil War statute and the lack of evidence presented in their trial. The speaker believes that Trump will face a similar show trial and criticizes the lack of due process in Washington DC. They also mention the bias in the court system and the complicity of members of Congress. The speaker urges the identification of true patriots and the removal of those who do not stand up for the Trump base from the Republican Party.

President Trump stated that a corrupt group within the American government weaponized intelligence and law enforcement agencies. One speaker argues that one doesn't have to be a member of MAGA to acknowledge legitimate grievances regarding Peter Strzok, Lisa Page texts, FISA abuse, and the Alvin Bragg case. Another speaker asserts that Merrick Garland followed the facts and law, and grand juries in Florida and DC believed there was enough evidence to indict Donald Trump on 44 counts. Jack Smith believes he would have been successful in two cases if Trump had not been elected president. The speaker claims the charges were dropped only because he was president. The first speaker clarifies that the initial concerns were about the Russiagate investigation and the Alvin Bragg case, while the second speaker addressed the Jack Smith investigation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the statute used in the January 6th prosecutions was misinterpreted and not meant for protests. They applied ancient canons of interpretation to reach this decision. The Biden administration misused the statute, but the Court upheld the rule of law. There are concerns about the abuse of power and oversight is needed to understand how this happened. The speaker, a former law professor, criticizes the cynical and biased use of the statute, highlighting the double standards in prosecution. The focus is on the need for fair application of the law.

Yesterday, we told you that new documents we got showed that Fonny Willis was recording was working secretly behind the scenes with the Biden justice department, the Biden White House, and the j six democrats to create a double jeopardy, double drain on Donald Trump's supporters by creating a similar indictment to Jack Smith, but in Georgia to move resources and lawyers and and attention span and divide it. We have we're supposed to have a justice system that avoids double jeopardy, but in this case, you can see the plot being created by these lawyers and by the collaboration. Today, we raise a question or we provide some evidence to a question that Jim Jordan raised about a year ago, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman. He believed that Fonny Willis' prosecution of Trump was being underwritten by the justice department because he saw a stream of funding. What we see, what we've provided to the public, is an unusual situation. In the middle of Willis building your case against Donald Trump and 18 of his allies and and to charge them with conspiracy in and racketeering in Georgia to double up on what Jack Smith charged in Washington, The justice department comes to Fonny Willis and says, hey. We just want you to apply for this grant, and we're gonna take this grant, which is normally competitive. We're gonna make it noncompetitive. Basically, you're the only one that's gonna get the money. Just fill out the paperwork and take your cash, about $2,000,000. It's that classic Washington grant, go help kids, not really much specificity, but they move it from competitive to sole source, meaning that it's wired just for her. It looks like the old Boss Hogg way of doing business or Tammany Hall way of doing business. And I think for Jim Jordan or Barry Loudermilk who was on our show last night investigating January 6 from the judiciary committee, this is a pretty serious issue for them to investigate. This looks like a gift grant to Fonny Willis while she's doing the bidding of Joe Biden to pursue and tie down Donald Trump and his friends in a criminal prosecution in Atlanta. It looks just like Tammany Hall, Chicago style politics, and there's now a complete body of documents for congress to look at this. It's it's a pretty pretty clear case of what's going on.

Just the News reports a story based on thousands of pages of documents obtained over years with the help of America First Legal, focusing on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her prosecution of a state case against Donald Trump that mirrored the federal case led by Jack Smith. The documents, they say, show that Willis was in deep collusion with the Justice Department, with the January 6 Democrats, and with the Biden White House. The claim is that the Biden White House said it would waive Donald Trump’s executive privilege for Willis, and the Justice Department said it would waive and approve Willis’s 2E requests to obtain federal workers to help build a case against a national figure at the state level. The report asserts the “fix was in” and that this constitutes the strongest evidence to date of coordinated action to pursue Trump across jurisdictions. The asserted significance is that the Democrats intentionally and strategically created a double jeopardy, double drain machine to go after Trump, potentially infringing civil liberties by pursuing prosecutions in multiple venues for the same or related conduct. The narrative claims this involved the Biden White House, the Biden DOJ, and the January 6 Democrats pressing Willis to create a system where Trump could be targeted in more than one place, a scenario described as a “double jeopardy, double drain.” The report suggests this development is now focused in Miami and anticipates further disclosures. Looking ahead, the program teases next steps: tomorrow they plan to reveal whether there was a financial incentive or “financial follow the money” stream to Willis tied to her pursuit. They note that if this pattern occurred in Georgia, there are similar election cases in Wisconsin and Arizona, raising questions about federal taxpayers funding state efforts to smear Trump and create multi-state double jeopardy scenarios. The discussion frames these elements as part of a conspiracy case beginning to unfold in Miami. Upcoming segments are promised to include new election integrity revelations from figures like Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Pam Bondi. These revelations are expected to concern intrusions and issues targeting the 2026 election, with the aim of informing Senate members—potentially swaying those on the fence about the Save or related measures. The program signals that these developments will be explored in upcoming appearances, including guests such as Barry Loudermilk.

Congress has little power and is offended that the speaker won't appear before a partisan committee. The speaker believes the real story goes back to 2016, with attempts to interfere with the election and overthrow the Trump administration. The speaker stands for fair trade, securing borders, and ending endless wars. Special interests in Washington can't make money under Trump, so they weaponize the justice system to prevent his return to the White House.

The speaker accuses Mr. Graves of abusing his position by prosecuting over 1,000 people involved in the January 6th incident and planning to arrest 1,000 more. They highlight a specific case of Matthew Perna, who peacefully entered the Capitol for 20 minutes without assaulting anyone or causing damage. Despite cooperating with the FBI and pleading guilty, Mr. Graves requested more prison time for Perna. Tragically, Perna later died by suicide. The speaker argues that the Department of Justice should stop being weaponized and focus on prosecuting real criminals. They announce their intention to introduce articles of impeachment against Mr. Graves.

Some Democratic members of Congress are preparing for the possibility of litigation. They're considering if they have the best teams possible to carry out their work. Some Republicans may say that Democrats are weaponizing the Justice Department, citing Trump's trial as an example. But in the United States, we are judged by a jury of our peers. Trump was found guilty in court on 34 felony charges. It's hard to make a partisan argument against that.

The speaker discusses the recent indictment of Donald Trump in Georgia and suggests that more indictments will follow. They speculate that an insurrection charge may be brought against Trump for the events of January 6th. They explain that under the 14th amendment, anyone guilty of insurrection or aiding an insurrectionist is barred from holding public office. They believe that this will be used to target not only Trump but also MAGA Republicans in office or running for office. The speaker argues that this will effectively outlaw the MAGA movement and leave only establishment Republicans. They claim that these establishment Republicans are happy to see Trump gone and are part of a corrupt system.

The speaker met with Mr. Martin, who seems like a good man. The speaker's concerns related to January 6th. Mr. Martin built a compelling case regarding some prosecutions that were heat-of-the-moment bad decisions. The speaker believes anyone who reached the perimeter on January 6th should have been imprisoned for some period of time and has no tolerance for anyone who entered the building. Mr. Martin explained how some people got caught up in it, making a stupid decision to enter a breached building. The speaker's issue isn't whether they should be charged, but by how much. The speaker believes what happened on January 6th was wrong, not prompted by others, and those involved disgraced the United States. Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, and the speaker agreed that some should not have been pardoned. The speaker would support Mr. Martin as a US attorney for any district except the one where January 6th happened and has indicated to the White House that they wouldn't support his nomination.

If the January 6 committee is legitimate, then members of Congress can't hide behind the speech and debate clause if they committed felonies by destroying or suppressing evidence. When Donald Trump wins the presidency, there should be a full investigation into those in Congress who aided this activity. We need to find out who was responsible, whether there was ill intent to suppress evidence from federal investigators, and hold them accountable. If the January 6 committee is legit, then it is subjected to federal statutes. The deep state has gotten away with things for too long, so we must defeat it to have real accountability, whether it's Democrat or Republican. Electing Donald Trump is the first step.

The speaker discusses the selective evidence and rigged cases surrounding the January 6th incident at the Capitol. They argue that the prosecutors, DOJ, and FBI have created a two-tier system of justice by hiding certain evidence and distributing others to maintain a false narrative of an insurrection. They also mention the attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot and highlight the connections between the law firm representing the group pushing for his removal and individuals like Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, and Gina Haspel. The speaker questions the logic behind accusing Trump of insurrection when he did not order the deployment of the National Guard.

Speaker 0 describes that on 07/18/2023 special counsel Jack Smith has decided to pursue another arrest and more indictments of President Trump, alleging it is a result of the Fed storming the Capitol on 01/06/2021 and targeting Trump for his role in the effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on that date. He asserts that all President Trump did was give a speech and that he incited nothing. He claims the people disrupting the peaceful transfer of power were “our government.” He argues that when videos from the Capitol appeared, Tucker Carlson, while still on Fox News, claimed the videos were manipulated, asserting they were added to with people, sound, fire, and smoke, probably mirrors, to make it look horrific. He says footage has been removed from the Internet, making reflection on 01/06 difficult, and that all remaining footage is manipulated, stating there was not all the fire and smoke and that the famous picture is a manipulated image. He asserts the rioters didn’t bring guns and that there was no fire or smoke, but instead “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and that history has been changed and references are no longer available. He claims that during the Fed’s direction, Trump did say on video what he should have said, including “I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election stolen from us, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to respect our great people in law and order. There’s nothing more he could have said.” He notes the video is difficult to find but exonerates Trump, maintaining he incited nothing, especially since the feds were doing most of it. He says this video will be important in the coming weeks and months as Smith continues to go after Trump, predicting suppression of the video by social media platforms, as in the immediate aftermath of the Fed’s direction. He says he captured the video and urges sharing. Speaker 1 quotes Trump: “I know you’re pained. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.” Speaker 0 adds that Tucker Carlson claimed Democrat party and those involved in planning and organizing the insurrection hired a Good Morning America producer to dramatize the footage and even dubbed in sound, to make it more sensational, implying the footage was staged. He questions why it would be necessary to add sound and create more people and fire or smoke to redefine the events, suggesting the feds planted and altered footage to present an insurrection. Speaker 2 reinforces the claim with a direct statement: “How staged and fraudulent was the work of the January 6 committee? Democrats hired a Good Morning America producer called James Goldston to dramatize the footage they released. They even dubbed in audio to make the pictures more sensational as in a docudrama. The networks carried it all live as if it were real.”

The White House confirmed Letitia James and Fannie Willis visited before suing Trump. Willis appointed her alleged lover to prosecute Trump, paying him $650,000 in taxpayer money. Nathan Wade conspired with the White House, billing them for meetings. Willis also collaborated with Adam Schiff on the January 6th case. Republicans were barred from the committee, which later destroyed evidence. Is the Biden White House orchestrating Trump's prosecution? - Armstrong Williams. Translation: The White House confirmed that Letitia James and Fannie Willis visited before suing Trump. Willis appointed her alleged lover to prosecute Trump, paying him $650,000 in taxpayer money. Nathan Wade conspired with the White House, billing them for meetings. Willis also collaborated with Adam Schiff on the January 6th case. Republicans were barred from the committee, which later destroyed evidence. Is the Biden White House orchestrating Trump's prosecution? - Armstrong Williams.

The Supreme Court ruled that a statute used by the Justice Department to charge over 100 January 6th defendants, including Donald Trump, is invalid. This statute, enacted after the Enron scandal, was deemed inappropriate for the events at the Capitol. The majority opinion suggests Congress did not intend for this statute to apply to such situations. Justice Barrett, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented, arguing that Congress did intend for this conduct to fall under the obstruction charge. This ruling poses challenges for the DOJ and benefits the defendants charged under this statute.

Speaker 0 accuses the Democrat Washington DC establishment and mainstream media of gaslighting Americans and lying to them. He says Christopher Wray appeared at congressional testimony claiming ignorance about undercover FBI agents, and alleges that people were left in solitary confinement in the DC Jail for eighteen months without family visits, shaves, or haircuts. He claims the FBI and others orchestrated events to paint Donald Trump as a domestic terrorist and to portray Trump supporters as wild extremists, while agents within the crowd agitated and destroyed a peaceful protest, turning it into chaos in which people felt they were fighting for their lives. Speaker 0 asserts that four unarmed Americans were killed that day: Ashley Babbitt, Roseanne Boylan, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Phillips, and says the FBI set up their murders with no accountability. He mentions that President Trump posted about the alleged lying to Congress and predicts an impending federal indictment for Wray, and he says “Read the messages I left you in the DC jail walls. You deserve it. Sleep well on that metal mattress.” Speaker 1 responds with “That’s right,” then asks about plans for legal action, noting a $25,000,000 lawsuit and asking whether it has been filed. Speaker 0 explains they filed a form 95, an official notice to the FBI and DOJ seeking recompense and reconciliation, stating they are coming for recompense and the American people deserve redress for families of January 6 detainees and others whose lives were affected, including people whose careers were destroyed. He says they will be filing an official federal court lawsuit that week. Speaker 0 contends the DOJ and FBI are complicit in a cover-up intended to overthrow the government and describes a plan from January 6 to create a false insurrection narrative to use a constitutional amendment to block Trump from running for president, labeling this a coup d'etat amounting to subversion of the will of the American people. He asserts due process violations by Christopher Wray, including Brady material violations (exculpatory evidence withheld), and claims such evidence was hidden from them. Speaker 1 asks how long Speaker 0 was held, and Speaker 0 states he was held for four years and one thousand four hundred sixty-seven days without a trial, noting he has no criminal record and repeatedly asking why federal agents, DHS agents, and confidential human sources were not disclosed, asserting these omissions violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment without fair due process. He reiterates the duration: four years and 1,467 days in custody without trial.

The speakers discuss the impact of recent court rulings on January 6 defendants. They mention the misuse of a specific statute by the DOJ, resulting in unjust imprisonment. They predict that the DOJ may still pursue charges despite the court's ruling. Recommendations include investigating collaboration between the DOJ and courts and potentially impeaching judges involved. For more information, visit Julie Kelly's substack and social media. The conversation touches on the need for accountability and justice in the legal system.

Speaker argues that hundreds of pages of declassified documents reveal, point by point, a dangerous sequence in the creation of Russiagate and a manufactured intelligence assessment intended to undermine the voices and votes of the American people who elected Donald Trump. They say this unhappy outcome led to a politicized, weaponized piece of fake intelligence that served as the foundation for later events—Mueller investigations, two congressional impeachments, and the raid at Mar-a-Lago. The speaker declares the real crime was against the American people, as this action singularly undermined the integrity of our democratic republic. They add that 37 individuals had security clearances revoked under the direction of President Trump, claiming these individuals aided and abetted in this seditious conspiracy that undermined democracy and broke the sacred trust professionals owe to the American people.

The speaker presents seven core points about the January 6 investigations and related prosecutions. 1) Original sins of government and due process concerns - The lawless formation of the House Select Committee on January 6 led to a one-sided, due process-free process. - The committee was gerrymandered by Speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel for the ranking member, and Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to cover that up. - The committee conducted scripted hearings with prewritten Q&A paths and cherry-picked, highly edited audio and video. 2) Collaboration with mainstream media and narrative shaping - The committee worked with major outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC) to blast a narrative of an insurrection. - The speaker claims secretly recorded video shows Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and friends admitting no real insurrection occurred. - The combined effect of the committee’s conduct and the media blitz allegedly poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC, and suggested that venue transfers should have been permitted. 3) Fourth Amendment concerns and the dragnet - Many defendants were swept up in a broad dragnet that the speaker believes resembled a general warrant violating the Fourth Amendment. - This involved geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants to telecom providers. - People arriving after the speech and the ellipse allegedly did not see that areas normally open to the public were closed, creating a trespass trap for the unwary. 4) First Amendment rights and unequal treatment - The Department of Justice did not treat First Amendment rights of the protesters with appropriate respect. - The speaker contrasts the January 6 cases with the 2020 Portland protests, where nightly attacks on federal courthouses and antifa/BLM activity were characterized differently. - The speaker asserts that insurrection labeling in Portland was more applicable to those actions than to the largely spontaneous January 6 crowd, implying selective enforcement. 5) Selective prosecution and unequal treatment - The January 6 defendants have not been treated the same as Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who damaged property and threatened the White House. - The speaker calls this a flat violation of equal protection of the laws and suggests broad public belief in selective prosecution. 6) Brady violations and exculpatory evidence - Widespread Brady violations are alleged, focusing on two areas: concealed or underreported footage of the Capitol, and the large number of unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts (over 800), with the possibility that exculpatory evidence remains unseen by defendants and their lawyers. - The committee allegedly acted like a star chamber, and there is concern that not all exculpatory material has been made available. 7) Judicial influence and misapplication of obstruction statutes - DC federal judges are said to have been influenced by the January 6 committee’s narrative and the mainstream media. - A statute designed to close an obstruction-of-justice loophole from Arthur Andersen/Enron is claimed to be applied to activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment, with unequal sentencing: Antifa and BLM defendants allegedly receiving lighter outcomes or settlements, while January 6 defendants face disproportionate sentences. - The speaker concludes by expressing disagreement with the overall approach and intention to speak on these concerns.

Speaker 1 argues that Jack Smith’s request to prevent evidence about security or intelligence failures before January 6 is unacceptable, claiming it would excuse Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC for failures. He asserts Pelosi was responsible for January 6 because she did not accept the security help offered, stating that 10,000 troops or National Guard were available if needed before the event, and that the event would have been different if 500 or 200 people had been used; he emphasizes that he offered 10,000 troops and that January 6 would not have happened with a larger deployment. He notes that he personally attended and gave a speech, and claims the audience included the largest number he has spoken to, contrasting with the smaller group that he says went down to the Capitol. Speaker 1 contends that the party should be allowed to introduce evidence showing that there were security and intelligence shortcomings, including the assertion that Pelosi “did not take the security that we offered her,” with the offer of 10,000 troops and the fact that “you had far fewer people than that.” He mentions that the unselect committee did not discuss or include references to “peacefully and patriotically” behaving crowds and says this group was not highlighted by the committee or in their words. He criticizes the prosecutor, calling Jack Smith a “deranged human being, unattractive both inside and out,” and accuses Smith of wanting to suppress testimony because the committee “illegally destroyed everything” and deleted evidence related to Pelosi’s decisions about troop deployment. He asserts that much evidence indicated Pelosi did not want the troops and that a letter from the mayor contradicted Pelosi’s stance. Speaker 0 acknowledges the point but keeps the dialogue focused; Speaker 0 reminds that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sun said January 6 was a preventable event if the intelligence and resources requested had been provided, noting that Speaker 0 sees this as an amazing point and confirms that the offer of troops was in writing. Speaker 1 reiterates that he offered 10,000 troops for January 6 and emphasizes that this fact is in writing, arguing that the prosecution is attempting to suppress relevant evidence. He maintains that Pelosi’s leadership and decisions about security are central to the discussion, and he reiterates the claim that the offer of security was not acted upon. The conversation pivots back to the assertion that the Capitol Police Chief’s past statements support the claim that January 6 was preventable with proper intelligence and resources.

The speaker claims they are being prosecuted for reporting Bill Barr and Armstrong Williams. They have notes from meetings about visas, January 6, and a RICO case. Barr allegedly said the FBI would go to Trump's house and discussed ways to prevent Trump from holding office again. Barr allegedly suggested using a recall charge against Trump because it's difficult to defend. Armstrong is described as having powerful friends like Barr and Ben Carson, and he allegedly calls Barr to resolve issues, such as visa approvals or lobbying for Turkish Airlines. The speaker claims meetings occurred with Fani Willis, who presented herself as close to Armstrong. The speaker alleges Barr, Armstrong, and other politicians were focused on stopping Trump. Meetings discussed Jack Smith's investigation into January 6 and creating content against Trump with help from someone at Facebook named Daniele. A meeting in September 2021 included discussions about the January 6 committee and targeting individuals like Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Roger Stone. Armstrong, despite portraying himself as a patriotic Republican, allegedly attended meetings with Barr to plan against Trump and those involved in January 6. The speaker claims Armstrong was inside Capitol Hill on January 6 but was never caught due to his connections.

We're diving into the January 6th select committee, which has not been truthful with the American people. The events of January 6th were indeed bad, with assaults on law enforcement being unacceptable. However, the narrative pushed by Democrats over the past four years is false and exaggerated. We aim to clarify what really happened and investigate why President Biden pardoned members of the committee. Since they are pardoned, they must testify, especially those no longer in office. Expect subpoenas to be issued soon.

We were federal prosecutors on the Justice Department's Capitol attack investigation until the Trump administration fired us on January 31st. Why were we fired? Because we did our job. We followed the facts and the law. What we did was justice for 140 police officers wounded on January 6th, 2021. We were hired to prosecute cases from the riot, and none of our defendants were acquitted, which shows the evidence was overwhelming. But last month, the president pardoned even the most violent convicts, calling them "hostages." Letters of termination hit the Justice Department, calling the prosecution itself a grave national injustice. Anyone who has watched videos of January 6th knows that prosecuting the rioters was not the injustice. The injustice has been the Department of Justice turning its back on law enforcement officers, members of Congress, and all the victims affected.