TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts: it's a terrible, unspeakable evil, and he believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. The president knows.

Speaker 1 claims that Speaker 0's statements are lies. Speaker 1 founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 0 is there to take from them, but they are standing as a community. Speaker 0 asks if they are taking pictures of children near trans flags, condoms, and sex-related items, which they deem inappropriate for a public park. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 2 to stop touching them. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0 is not welcome in their space, but Speaker 0 says it is a public park. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of assault. Speaker 1 denies being violent and suggests Speaker 0 give them personal space. Speaker 0 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why they threw coffee at them, stating they are just there to cover the event.

Speaker 0 accuses the person of being a liar and corrupt, demanding their resignation. Speaker 1 adds that nobody trusts them and many Canadians have suffered due to their lies and corruption. They call for justice for the dead and blame the person for policies that perpetuate war. Speaker 0 labels them a war criminal and demands they be jailed. They accuse the person of having blood on their hands and being immoral. They emphasize the need to stop the corruption, war machine, and lies. Speaker 0 concludes by calling the person a failure, disgrace, and a terror who cannot show their face in public.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about a testimony where their son claims they were frequently on speaker phone discussing business with a business associate. Speaker 1 denies ever speaking to the gentleman and dismisses the question as lousy. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1, addressing them as Mr. President.

Speaker 1 argues that a scandal exists that is bad for Biden, but it can't be verified, while insignificant things are discussed. Speaker 1 claims the laptop was found, but the family is in hiding. Speaker 1 believes the media is fake and social media is the only way to get their voice out. Speaker 0 recalls Speaker 1 saying the media is discredited to ensure negative reports are not believed. Speaker 1 denies having to discredit Speaker 0, saying they discredited themself. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of inappropriately bringing up tough questions from the beginning, questions Speaker 1 claims Joe Biden is never asked. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0's first statement was about asking tough questions, which Speaker 1 deems inappropriate. Speaker 1 ends the interview early.

Speaker 0 states that someone likes them and put them in the movies a long time ago. They claim to have not judged anything, and that "they hate the dog." Speaker 1 warns not to be fooled by attempts to humanize someone and change perceptions of who they are. Speaker 0 confirms the discussion is about Trump.

The speaker accuses Schumer of lying and being a propagandist, stating this is unusual rhetoric for them. They claim to have no respect for Schumer, alleging he doesn't love the country or look out for anyone. The speaker mentions a past decent relationship and occasional encounters in New York, but now views Schumer as a "rank propagandist."

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.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes. Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist. Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.

Speaker 0: Expresses being a “never Trump” person and not liking him. Frames the discussion as a “he said, she said” dispute about who is telling the truth, jokingly questioning whether to believe Donald Trump who “always tells the truth? Just kidding,” or the woman on the tape. Speaker 1: States they cannot stand Trump, calling him a “fraud” and saying he is “exploiting these people,” describing him as a total fraud. Speaker 2: Agrees with Speaker 1, saying they don’t think Trump is the person and that he “doesn’t actually care about folks.” Speaker 0: Acknowledges an element of Trump support that has “its basis in racism or xenophobia.” Indicates a possible scenario where, if Trump has a strong chance of winning, they might have to “hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton,” adding they’re considering voting third party because they “can’t stomach Trump,” and describing him as “noxious” and leading “the white working class to a very dark place.”

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of "white guilt" and weakness, claiming he is creating more "Austin Metcalfs" by not condemning his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 counters that Speaker 0 has been "submitted" and is weak. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's patriotism, asking where he was on January 6th. He accuses Speaker 0 of "murdering white people" and being a degenerate. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 is using Austin Metcalf's name for t-shirts and propaganda. Speaker 1 states he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. He accuses Speaker 0 of trying to shut down a white man and trying to raise money. Speaker 1 says he came to give Speaker 0 a message from a father.

Speaker 0 stopped representing Epstein after the deal was made and hasn't seen him in years. Introduced to Epstein by Lady Rothschild, Speaker 0 had an academic relationship with him, attending conferences and seminars. Once they learned about Epstein's other life, all social relationships ended. Speaker 0 became Epstein's lawyer and defended him, proud of representing controversial people. Some criticize the deal, but Speaker 0 defends trying to get the best deal possible. Speaker 0 denies ever meeting the woman who made allegations against Epstein, calling it a complete lie. Speaker 1 appreciates Speaker 0 joining to discuss the explosive story and the horrific allegations against Epstein.

The transcript centers on an email from Howard Lutnick to Jeffrey Epstein and the surrounding reaction to Epstein’s public notoriety. The message indicates travel plans: Lutnick asks Epstein where he is located and what the exact location for Lutnick’s captain is, noting that they are landing in Saint Thomas early Saturday afternoon and plan to head to Saint Bart’s/Anguilla on Monday, with a dinner proposed for Sunday evening. Lutnick mentions traveling with “another couple, Michael and Mary Lerman,” and states that “each of us has four children.” The ages of the children are listed in the email as “two 16s, two 14s, a 13, a 12, an 11, and a seven year old.” The speaker points out that this is “forty years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted.” Following the email, the speakers express strong, unambiguous condemnation of Epstein and the surrounding circumstances. Speaker 1 asserts, “How this guy has a job today is a disgrace. That is There is no room That is disgusting. Fire. Fire. I'm done with these fucking people. Fire this guy right now. What is your excuse?” They emphasize a history of alleged deceit, with one speaker stating, “He’s a liar. Neighbors with this dude. Claims he only ever met him once. Lived next to him for twenty some years. That's crazy. Proven liar advising the president of The United States every fucking day.” The emotional tone escalates, with both speakers declaring, “I'm so done with these people. Yeah. That is so That is done with these That is absolutely abhorrent. I'm so fucking done with these people.” They mention tax-related concerns, noting, “and we gotta I gotta fucking file taxes in a couple weeks.” The dialogue then questions accountability and the persistence of Epstein’s influence in high-level circles: “What is the conversation when he's like, hey, I'm about to email Jeff back. You got you're four. What are their ages? I gotta what are their ages? Like, I get like, what a fucking” (truncated in the transcript). Overall, the excerpt juxtaposes a routine social planning email involving Epstein with a contemporaneous, vehement condemnation of Epstein’s legacy and ongoing professional influence, highlighting the contrast between personal arrangements and public outrage.

Speaker 0 states that Trump has accused people who didn't break the law of breaking the law regarding the election and that Trump said Liz Cheney should be put before a war tribunal. Speaker 1 rejects the premise, claiming Speaker 0 is imputing things, taking words out of context, and combining separate conversations. Speaker 1 believes Trump is more reasonable than people like Liz Cheney. Speaker 1 accuses the network of pushing the "Russia hoax" by taking the words of unnamed FBI agents as truth, leading viewers to believe Trump and Putin conspired in 2016. Speaker 0 counters that they covered an FBI investigation. Speaker 1 says the network gave credence to anonymous sources' accusations. Speaker 0 wants to discuss things Trump has said this week, but Speaker 1 wants to discuss the economy.

Speaker 1 insisted that a story should be aired because it is "bad for Biden," while Speaker 0 refused because it "can't be verified," specifically referencing a laptop. Speaker 1 claimed the laptop story is "one of the biggest scandals" and that the family is in hiding. Speaker 1 accused the media of being "fake" and said social media is the only way to get his voice out. Speaker 0 claimed Speaker 1 once said the media was discredited to ensure negative stories would not be believed. Speaker 1 denied this. Speaker 1 contrasted the interview with what he characterized as "softball" interviews given to Joe Biden. Speaker 1 took issue with the interview beginning with the interviewer stating there would be "tough questions." Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of working for a Russian oligarch and misusing money. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and criticizes Speaker 0's integrity. The conversation becomes heated as they argue about truth and lies. Speaker 1 questions the DOJ's treatment of him compared to Speaker 0. Speaker 0 mentions Speaker 1's conviction and reduced sentence. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's credibility. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of not being able to handle the truth.

Speaker 0 claims most people in the country voted for Trump and that he won the popular vote. Speaker 1 disputes this, stating it was a slim majority of voters and that too few people voted. Speaker 0 says those who cared about issues voted for Trump to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 counters that lots of voters were purged from voter rolls before the election. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of election denial. Speaker 1 accuses the "narcissist in that building" of gaslighting.

Two speakers argue over perceived dishonesty during the last four years. They cite Corinne Jean Pierre: "you sat up there and lied for him all of this time, and now you wanna be honest" and "and say you were an independent and it's the same. All of y'all did that for the last four years." One interrupts: "Wait. Charlton, man, I ain't lying about I ain't lying about a damn thing." The other counters: "Well, you ain't telling the truth." "Well, what?" "You just kept quiet. Okay. Don't let him talk to like that, Jay." "that, Jay. No. It's come on, man."

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.

In this video, Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1, accusing him of being anti-American and anti-free speech. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for working at CNN and trying to censor conservative voices. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and refuses to engage in an interview with Speaker 0. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 a liar and a fraud. Speaker 0 also accuses CNN of being fake news and engaging in racketeering. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing his belief that the truth about Speaker 1 and CNN will eventually come out.