TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During my time at the CIA, I was responsible for briefing the press and circulating disinformation. Disinformation is not necessarily a lie, but rather a half truth. We would select influential journalists and provide them with information that we wanted to convey to the American public. We targeted respected journalists like Robert Chaplin, Kais Beach, Bud Merrick, Malcolm Brown, and Maynard Parker. I would cultivate their trust by sharing valid information and then slip in the data we wanted to spread, which may not have been true. We would also create an environment where journalists couldn't fact-check by briefing diplomats who would confirm our false information. Personally, I am opposed to these disinformation activities as they serve no useful purpose for the CIA.

I'm not sure if there was a CIA conspiracy to remove me from office, but it's possible. The CIA had a motive because I was critical of them and wanted to make changes. I can't say if there was a conspiracy, but it would be interesting for an investigative reporter to look into it. I don't think the CIA would go as far as to harm those who expose their operations nowadays.

Patricia, I need your commitment to stop starting headlines with rumors. It scares my veterans and employees. If you have a source, run it by our PR people first. Some reporters aren't even calling to check information before reporting it. We answered your question about the DOGE liaison, but it was still reported as a rumor. Headlines like "Elon Musk aide is now working at VA accessing computer systems" are alarming and untrue. We don't have DOGE employees, we have VA employees as liaisons. I want to work with you, but I won't tolerate reporters scaring my employees and veterans. I'm the most transparent VA secretary and I'm willing to work with you to get the facts right.

With the support of the CIA, it's fortunate that you weren't accepted into the organization, as you had wanted to join. We should be grateful for that, considering the seriousness of the CIA.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

I want to ask, aren't we all tired of the deep state? Let's say it louder, aren't we all fed up with the deep state?

Recently, in January, a member of the Senate Intel Committee tried to block someone from getting a job in the intel world because this person would push for the release of the JFK files. This senator's main goal is to keep those files secret, but I don't understand why they would be protecting the CIA, especially after the Church Committee hearings already discredited them. I know that a member of the Senate Intel Committee made that call to block the appointment. Someone asked if it was Tom Cotton from Arkansas, but I haven't asked him directly for an interview, even though I probably should.

Secretaries can set departmental priorities but cannot dictate our actions. We ensure they don't interfere with our work. It's not personal; it's part of my role. The individual in charge lacks understanding of the Department of Homeland Security and wouldn't recognize its significance.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

After being elected governor, I was interviewed by 23 CIA members who wouldn't reveal their purpose. They refused to share their names or roles, which was unsettling. They questioned me about my election, and I was struck by the diverse group present, resembling everyday people. We need to engage with those in this field to understand their activities and who they are monitoring. It's important to uncover the extent of surveillance happening.

I'm not with the CIA now, nor was I when I started out 25 years ago. I was with good people in the CIA when Donald Trump was elected to take the country back from globalists. Communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks run this country and broke its back. Forget the CIA. It's huge. Don't treat the CIA like it's mysterious or cool. Think of it like the post office. The CIA gets its talking points from me and other patriots, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

Taking on the intelligence community is incredibly risky. They have numerous ways to retaliate. Even a shrewd businessman would be foolish to antagonize them. I've heard they're extremely angry about how they've been treated and spoken about. I don't know exactly what they might do if provoked, but it's a dangerous game to play.

Speaker 1 discusses the possibility of a CIA conspiracy to remove them from office, citing CIA's advanced knowledge of the break-in and their dissatisfaction with the agency. They express a belief that the CIA feared them due to plans to reform the organization. While unsure about a conspiracy, they suggest it would be an intriguing topic for investigative reporting. They doubt the CIA would resort to eliminating those who expose their operations in the present day.

As the former chief of the Capitol Police, I find it interesting that the January 6th committee never asked me to publicly testify. I believe they were worried about what I would reveal about the events leading up to that day and the role of political leaders and their appointees.

Mister Secretary, considering the immigration situation over the past four years and the resulting national dialogue, do you think you would have approached things differently? Yes, it's important to recognize that in any large organization, including government, there are varying opinions on policies and operational measures. These differing views are expressed, decisions are made, and then everyone works together towards the common goal. Are you implying that your personal views on handling immigration differed from your superiors'? I prefer not to discuss the internal decision-making process. However, it’s a common reality that diverse opinions exist when many people are involved in making decisions.

When you come at the intelligence community, they have many ways to retaliate. So, for a businessman, it's dumb to treat them poorly. From what I'm told, they're very upset with how they've been treated. We need the intelligence community. Without them, we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking. Does he have an agenda to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? This taunting hostility is not constructive. Whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.

"In some cases, they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something." "This this gets to the real heart of the challenge here and the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy." "When you look at the so called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war." "And look at what that has cost our country in lives and treasure." "This goes all the way back to why this organization was founded." "So so, again, this is this is really what is at the heart of needs of what needs to be addressed within the intelligence community and why leadership matters so much."

I understand that you are simply carrying out your duties, but it is important to consider the consequences of blindly following orders. Many individuals hide their identities while "just doing their job," which raises concerns about accountability and integrity. It is crucial to reflect on the impact of our actions beyond the scope of our job responsibilities.

I've identified leakers within the organization, and we're actively uncovering more. Let me be clear: these individuals will be terminated, and they will face serious repercussions. Leaking information to the press, especially when it jeopardizes operations, puts law enforcement lives at grave risk, potentially leaving families without their loved ones. We're employing every available tactic, including polygraphs, email analysis, and communication monitoring, to identify these individuals. It's astonishing how these bureaucrats, driven by their agendas to undermine our mission of ensuring American safety, will betray one another to protect themselves. Rest assured, I am fully committed to finding and removing these leakers to ensure the safety of our law enforcement officers and agents, and to enable us to continue our vital work.

It's possible that these two individuals are overly self-important, believing they deserve special treatment. Some colleagues share this sentiment. If they truly felt that way, why didn't they express it publicly? Instead of being honest about their meeting with the president, they misrepresented their intentions on television. Your reporting suggests they had undisclosed motives, which should draw even more criticism than they already receive. What do you mean by that?

I believe the CIA was definitely involved in the murder of my uncle and the subsequent cover-up for six years. They have not released the necessary papers, despite legal obligations. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, confessions, and books like Jim Douglas' The Unspeakable that support this claim. These revelations are often released gradually, so they don't receive much attention.

We had a study on highway threats that was classified but got denied last minute because it wouldn't pass the New York Times test. Public affairs thought it could be misinterpreted as offensive bioweapons work. Despite its potential to help biosecurity, it was shelved. Most government work, even classified, is transparent.

If we were seen as a sanctuary program, especially one using federal dollars, we'd face a lot of problems. To avoid scrutiny, we strategically omit status inquiries from our federal statutes by subtly influencing bill language in congress. Now, with the new efficiency team's surveillance, communication has moved offline to encrypted apps like Signal, even though we're not supposed to conduct business there. They've installed software to track keystrokes and monitor our calls. If I end up on leave, I'm headed to the beach, taxpayer money well spent! Many in administrative roles are already leaving since we can't do much anyway. If I'm in Mexico, don't worry about it.

I was shocked and disturbed to learn that a government document specifically targeted me based on my reporting. It felt chilling, especially because I never expected this to happen in the United States. I have lived in and visited many authoritarian countries, but I never imagined such actions taking place here.