TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A lot of everybody knows where John Bolton lives because this is a main drag, especially for commuters. And, you know, I was a few minutes away, so I thought, wow, I just wanna see what's going on. We'll have to see what the search warrant affidavit says. I mean, if he's got classified documents, my view as well, he has to answer for that if he's got them the way Trump should have. On the other hand, if it's just about harassment because he said on complimentary things about Trump, many of them in his book, about Trump's mental capacity and ability to understand foreign affairs and very simple things. That's not legit, and that would seem to be the real concern that Donald Trump has since he doesn't clearly clearly doesn't care about what's classified and what isn't.

Joe Biden is being criticized for his policies, with some calling him dumb, incompetent, and mentally unstable. They believe his environmental, open borders, and DOJ FBI weaponization policies are a threat to the country. They fear that his actions may lead to World War 3 without any valid reason.

Mark Levin and others are using a "Trump skin suit" despite disliking him personally and disagreeing with his agenda, economic views, and foreign policy. Some at Fox News harbor contempt for Trump. It's frustrating to see figures like Levin and Laura Loomer, described as bizarre, championing Trump and claiming to define American interests, despite their lack of interest in the United States. Allowing such individuals to control a movement focused on serving America is an offense against reality and dangerous for the country. These people washed out of the Democratic party and now they're trying to take over the Republican party. Figures like John Bolton and Bill Crystal shouldn't be allowed to take over the Trump White House. The speaker doesn't want to relive past mistakes like Iraq and accuses Levin, Loomer, and others of being ignorant and irresponsible in their demands for military action, lacking understanding of the consequences.

Concerns are growing that those opposed to Trump, having exhausted other means to undermine him, may resort to instigating a world war to prevent his return to power and the potential exposure of their actions. The focus of Washington is on foreign policy and military power rather than domestic issues like border control or the drug crisis. A war with Iran, which is now allied with major global powers, could escalate into a world war involving Russia and China. The ongoing situation in Ukraine is seen as a failure, with no clear victory in sight. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran or Russia lacks the wisdom necessary for leadership.

He had "a military mind" but around 2009, "Obama came in" and he was "beside himself that he had to say, yes, sir, to this guy," so he started "working immediately against him." He "built up this whole network of people" as the "Muslim threat was not being taken care of." "You know, he was black. He was this." After Obama left office, he "decided to use that network for his own self." "A lot of people in intelligence and the military" decided to work against them, and "they would code stuff and send it out." "That was a military takeover and eventual handover to foreign interests" and "He is very much a one world government, one world religion guy." They tried to promote Trump: "January 6 vice president, remove Trump, and then he'd be president," but "that didn't work. Huge backlash. So they stopped." "We know what your intentions are, and everybody's on to them now." "It's coming out."

Some leaders feel a physical threat, including at least two assassination attempts against Trump, possibly by Iran. However, if Iran had tried to assassinate Trump, the U.S. would be at war with them. The American president was murdered, and we're still not allowed to know who did it and why. You can't have a president or senator who truly does his best to uphold the core idea of a democratic republic because he's worried about getting killed. If this were happening in Liberia you'd be like it's not a real government because whenever the president strays outside the pre prescribed boundaries, he gets murdered or worries about getting murdered. Foreign policy is the only issue they care about. They only care about the projection of force using American service personnel to fight faraway wars that have no material benefit.

They accuse us of what they're doing. These intelligence officials, the same ones who misled America, are worried about a second Trump term? They helped bury the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election. That laptop could have changed history. Now they claim Trump will weaponize the spy services. If Trump wins, I want them investigated for election interference. Joe Biden should be the first target. We need to expose them to the same rules they impose on us. They stole the election, and we can't just move on. They hid the laptop information. The deep state is real—media members, intelligence community members, both active and retired, and government bureaucrats. The deep state sabotaged the Trump administration before, and they're still here.

Donald Trump's foreign policy failures are highlighted, including inaction after Iran's attacks and drone downing. Criticized for surrendering American interests to Russia and Iran, he is deemed the worst foreign policy president of the speaker's generation. Supporters' claims of avoiding wars are dismissed as surrendering. Trump is portrayed as weak and fearful, not a master of foreign policy.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the current trajectory of U.S. policy under Donald Trump and its implications for international law, NATO, and the global balance of power, with frequent emphasis on Greenland as a flashpoint. - They suggest Trump is making a case for peace through overwhelming strength and unpredictability, implying that international law is seen by him as a restraint US power. Johnson argues that Trump’s stance includes threats and pressure aimed at annexing Greenland, and he questions whether this represents a genuine peace strategy or a coercive strategy that disregards international norms. - Johnson catalogs a sequence of Trump-era actions and rhetoric: Donald Trump “launched the coup against the Iranian government,” was involved in discussions with Zelensky, helped Ukraine, and then “kidnapped Nicolas Maduro,” followed by an escalation that included the suggestion of a military attack on Iran. He says Trump has “declared openly” that he does not recognize or respect international law, describing it as “useless. It’s whatever he thinks is right and what needs to be done.” - The conversation notes that Trump’s position has been reflected by close aides and allies, including Steven Miller, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessette. Johnson claims this broad endorsement signals a shift in how major powers might view the U.S. and its approach to international law, with Putin, Xi, Macron, and others watching closely. - They argue this marks a breakdown of the international system: “a complete breakdown of the international system,” with NATO potentially coming apart as the U.S. claims a threat to Greenland from China or Russia and insists that NATO is unnecessary to protect it. The debate frames Europe as being in a toxic relationship with the United States, dependent on U.S. security guarantees, while the U.S. acts with unilateralism. - The European response is discussed in detail. The host describes European leaders as having “ Stockholm syndrome” and being overly dependent on Washington. The letter to Norway’s prime minister by Trump is cited as an astonishing admission that peace is subordinate to U.S. self-interest. The question is raised whether NATO is dying as a result. - They compare the evolution of international law to historical developments: Magna Carta is invoked as a symbol of limiting rulers, and Westphalia is discussed as a starting point for the balance-of-power system. The hosts consider whether modern international law is viable in a multipolar world, where power is distributed and no single hegemon can enforce norms as unilaterally as in the past. - They discuss the economic dimension of the shift away from U.S. hegemony. The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency is challenged as BRICS-plus and other nations move toward alternative payment systems, gold, and silver reserves. Johnson notes that the lifting of sanctions on Russia and the broader shift away from dollar-dominated finance are undermining U.S. financial hegemony. He highlights that Russia and China are increasing gold and silver holdings, with a particular emphasis on silver moving to new highs, suggesting a widening gap in global finance. - The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is discussed as another instrument that could provoke a financial crisis: Johnson cites reports of European threats to retaliate with massive tariffs against the U.S. and references the potential for a broader financial shock as gold and silver prices rise and as countries reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasuries. - The discussion examines Greenland specifically: the claim that the U.S. wants Greenland for access to rare earth minerals, Arctic access, and strategic bases. Johnson disputes the rare-earth rationale, pointing out U.S. processing limits and comparing Arctic capabilities—Russia has multiple nuclear-powered icebreakers. He characterizes Trump’s Greenland gambit as a personal vanity project that could set off broader strategic consequences. - They touch on the role of European defense commitments, with German and other European responses to defend Greenland described as inconsequential or symbolic, and a suggestion that Europe might respond more seriously by hedging against U.S. influence, though current incentives make a real break difficult. - A broader warning emerges: the possibility of a new world order emerging from multipolarity, with the United States weakened economically and politically. They foresee a period of adjustment in which European countries may reorient toward Russia or China, while the United States pursues a more fragmented and confrontational stance. - The conversation ends with mutual concerns about the trajectory toward potential geopolitical conflict and a call to watch the evolving relationship between the major powers, the role of international law, and the coming economic shifts as the global system transitions from unipolar to multipolar.

Speaker 0: Did you hear Trump's take on the JFK assassination, why he didn't release the files? Yeah. I know what Trump's take is. He said that if you knew what I know, you wouldn't tell people either, which is crazy. Well, and What does that mean? That's his position on the UAP thing as well Yeah. Actually. And that's a lot of people's position on it. I mean, you know, Trump is saying, of course, the CIA had knowledge of it. That is known. I mean, I mean, the whole it sounds like it's so funny. There's so many levels and there's so much I don't understand. But the whole JFK conspiracy industry, and it really is an industry, more books written on that than almost any historical topic, is is filled with wackos. Right? There are a lot of wackos in there. But it obscures that fact obscures the larger fact which is the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. Yeah. And so whatever. I could get into it at great length. But yeah. Yeah. They're they're still classifying documents sixty one years later. Both Trump and Joe Biden have, in violation of my read of federal law, kept those documents secret. There's no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination. It was a couple generations ago. There's no one person whose whose secrets are being protected. It's an institution or maybe countries. There may have been countries involved too. I mean, don't know the answer, but there's clearly something worth protecting. And I know that when I I spoke to someone who'd seen the documents, okay, two years ago and I got I got one fact out of him, which is, yes, the CIA was involved. And by CIA, CIA is a huge organization, but James Jesus Angleton, the head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this, which I think is well known. But that that's the view of someone who saw the documents. So I thought that was news, so I went on TV and said that. The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting, and I was driving back and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was the Secretary of State, but before then he was the Director of the CIA. And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange, so he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. But his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. It's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to me. I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime? What about the actual crime which is murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all. And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo was a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that. He was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Issachoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in The United States as CIA director. That's illegal. You're not allowed federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay? Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is, but he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay. That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a republican pooh bah in good standing. He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is like completely insane. Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view. And like he goes to fundraisers and dinners and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo. It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw. You are the bad guy. But no. He's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.

The probe dropped when Joe Biden became president. So is this picking up where that left off, David? It's possible. I don't know with a 100% certainty, but it is notable, guys, that John Bolton, ambassador Bolton's security clearances were stripped earlier this year by president Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, took that security clearance away. They had concerns. The administration had concerns about ambassador Bolton still being able to access some of these documents and have some of those security clearances. It's also notable that John Bolton had a security detail as well because of the threats from Iran on his life. That security detail, that government federal paid security detail was also taken away, by president Trump's

The speaker dismisses the idea that Iran would be responsible if something were to happen to Trump, stating they have a long list of other suspects. The speaker suggests blaming those who spied on Trump, created the fake Russian dossier, and the FBI for legitimizing false claims. They also mention those who impeached him, the 51 intelligence officials who dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop, and those who allegedly rigged the 2020 election. Further, the speaker includes those who raided Trump's house and charged him in multiple jurisdictions, like Fannie Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Letitia James. Neocon warmongers who were upset that Trump didn't want to initiate wars are also on the list. The speaker believes Iran is a scapegoat and that the real threat is in DC.

The speaker believes Trump is a "crazy person." They feel that someone wants to be remembered in history as holding the line against Trump. When Trump was president and wanted to stimulate the economy, this person allegedly raised interest rates and did the opposite of what Trump wanted. The speaker concludes that "we don't want Trump to be in the clean government."

They are trying to remove Trump before the election, which should upset you. The indictment is indefensible, along with a recent rape conviction in New York. There are also concerns about what's happening in Georgia. Mainstream media reporters were allegedly mocking and laughing at Trump, which angers the speaker. Trump's support is growing, with 61% favorability compared to Ron DeSantis' 23%. The speaker believes Trump will never quit and wants to remove "rhinos" from the Senate and House, as well as defund the DOJ and FBI. Trump is seen as a savior in the political arena. The speaker praises Trump for uniting Americans from different backgrounds. They express frustration with the media and believe Joe Biden will be remembered as a corrupt president. The speaker questions if Biden accepted bribes.

John Bolton's security clearance was removed because it's not meant to last a lifetime. While he was considered ineffective, he was used strategically in meetings to project strength. Bolton, along with others, played a role in the decision to engage in conflicts in the Middle East, which resulted in significant loss of life and no beneficial outcomes. The expectation of lifelong security clearance is unreasonable.

Senior officials at the National Security Council (NSC) were reportedly fired, including Lieutenant General Timothy Hawk, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and commander of CyberCom. These firings were allegedly not due to incompetence or involvement in the Signal Group chat. Instead, a right-wing influencer and conspiracy theorist purportedly advised the president to remove them based on claims from an internet troll who alleged the officials were not sufficiently loyal to the president. The speaker suggests this action betrays national security and indicates a pattern of turning away from allies.

Trump was considered good on foreign policy, including getting out of Syria and defeating ISIS, but he was always hawkish on Iran. Zionists wanted a full conflict with Iran but only got the Soleimani assassination. Despite popular belief, Trump was allegedly pursuing regime change in Iran throughout his term, even getting close to overthrowing the Iranian government. This was also happening in Venezuela. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, and the rhetoric now suggests that such events wouldn't occur if Trump were president. Trump is trying to run even further to the right, making it hard to say no to war with Iran. Iran will be in the crosshairs regardless of the administration, especially for Israel, making them more of a target for the United States.

Trump criticized the military industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment, blaming them for the current war. He specifically mentioned Victoria Nuland, comparing her to Fauci in terms of responsibility. Nuland was involved in backing an insurrection in Ukraine in 2014, which led to strained relations with Russia and the subsequent seizure of Crimea. Trump's willingness to address this issue is noteworthy.

The judge in Trump's trial is biased and unfair, threatening Trump with arrest if he doesn't attend court daily. The judge has connections to Biden and is targeting Trump supporters as potential jurors. The goal is to convict Trump before the 2024 election to prevent him from running again. Democrats are using the legal system to destroy Trump out of fear of losing to him in future elections.

The deep state in Washington DC is a group of elites who believe they know better than the American people. The current administration is seen as a joke with unsuccessful policies. The speaker, who worked in the Pentagon after Trump, believes no one is truly leading the country. They criticize Secretary Austin and Mark Milley for the Afghan withdrawal and call the situation at the border a crisis. The speaker wants DJT back in office to restore order.

The probe dropped when Joe Biden became president. So is this picking up where that left off, David? It's possible. I don't know with a 100% certainty, but it is notable, guys, that John Bolton, ambassador Bolton's security clearances were stripped earlier this year by president Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, took that security clearance away. They had concerns. The administration had concerns about ambassador Bolton still being able to access some of these documents and have some of those security clearances. It's also notable that John Bolton had a security detail as well because of the threats from Iran on his life. That security detail, that government federal paid security detail was also taken away, by president Trump's

In 2016, it was stated that only the best and most serious people would be hired, which led to the best economy ever. However, multiple former high-ranking officials are now not supporting a potential presidential run. These include former Vice President Mike Pence, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton and former Attorney General Bill Barr, who called the person a "consummate narcissist," also do not offer support. The person in question has used disparaging terms to describe many of these former staff members, including calling Barr a "gutless pig," former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly "weak and ineffective," and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "dumb as a rock." Others were labeled "born loser," "milquetoast," and "China-loving." The question is posed: why were these people hired in the first place?

The transcript discusses the Pizzagate conspiracy, stating that it claims Hillary Clinton and her former campaign manager John Podesta ran a child sex ring at a Washington, DC pizzeria. It asserts that this is a lie. The speaker adds a satirical remark about Chuck E. Cheese robots being the only ones trapped in a pizza place, and it references a Westworld-like scenario where robots might rise up, framing it as part of the broader, unfounded fear. The origin of the conspiracy is traced to alt-right readers who examined Clinton campaign emails hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. They noticed more references to pizza and pizzerias than expected, and concluded that this signified a secret sexring. The speaker notes that “a lot of uninformed gullible people” believed the theory, providing Michael Flynn as an example of someone who amplified it. Flynn, who was Trump’s pick for national security adviser, tweeted: “new Hillary emails, money laundering, sex crimes with children, etcetera, must read,” as part of introducing or endorsing the narrative. The transcript emphasizes that the theory spread despite lacking corroborating evidence, highlighting the role of hacked emails and sensational interpretation by alt-right figures. The speaker adds a concluding retort: “Introducing it, you decide. Okay? Then I decide a guy who spreads this bull shouldn't be in charge of national security.” This serves as a final judgment within the dialogue on the appropriateness of promoting the conspiracy in a position of national security leadership. Key points highlighted include: - Pizzagate claims that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta operated a child sex ring at a DC pizzeria. - The assertion that this is a lie. - A satirical aside about robots at Chuck E. Cheese and a Westworld reference. - The alleged origin in hacked Clinton emails with increased pizza references found by alt-right circles, as published by WikiLeaks. - The spread of the theory among uninformed followers, with Michael Flynn cited as a notable promoter who linked “new Hillary emails, money laundering, sex crimes with children” to read. - A concluding stance that a promoter of this conspiracy should not hold a national security role.

I made mistakes in choosing some advisors. While I picked some great people, I also selected a few who were disloyal or gave bad advice. For instance, I hired John Bolton despite warnings from a friend, Phil Ruffin, who said he was trouble. I wish I had listened sooner. Bolton had a reputation that made other countries wary, thinking I might go to war. He was involved in the controversial Middle East decisions during the Bush administration. I often received more attention than others, possibly due to my outspoken nature.