TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It's unusual. This situation seems to involve not just prospective pardons for uncharged individuals, but also the president's family and associates who have supported him. The president appears to be using these pardons to shield those who have protected him, creating an environment filled with questionable characters.

Speaker 0 asserts that there are two F’s that come to mind: fraud by design and financial Armageddon. - Fraud by design: This, according to Speaker 0, was not an accident or a happenstance event. It is described as a system that is designed by the left for people in their social circles. The claim traces the system back to the top of the federal government, beginning with the Obama administration and being promulgated even more by the Biden administration. It is said to run down to the states, including governors across the country, specifically naming governors Waltz and Mills. The speaker also mentions the local level, noting bad actors and headlines in Maine and Minnesota. The overarching assertion is that this situation is “the tip of the iceberg.” - Financial Armageddon: The second F is financial Armageddon. Speaker 0 argues that if the Trump administration does not take the issue seriously, listeners are “probably on another planet.” The speaker contends that the problem will have implications for the state of Maine amounting to “billions with a b of dollars,” and that this will spell financial Armageddon for the state. The speaker emphasizes the urgent need to get a handle on the problem. In sum, Speaker 0 portrays a systemic, politically driven pattern of fraud across federal, state, and local levels, described as the tip of the iceberg, and projects drastic financial consequences for Maine unless the issue is addressed, asserting that the Trump administration is serious about taking action.

The speaker expresses concern over the 4.8 million votes cast in the election and suggests that it could have been manipulated. They believe that the same issues occurred in various communities, regardless of size, and that it was an organized crime involving dirty voter rolls, ballot boxes, and mail-in ballots. The speaker claims to have spent the last 15 months developing these findings and concludes that it was an organized crime committed against Americans.

The speaker references a developing controversy surrounding Anthony Fauci, stating that there is “talk of Anthony Fauci being prosecuted as that may have been a auto pen pardon.” They note that “Trump just said they might revoke those pardons.” The speaker asserts that this issue should be on the front page news of every major news organization, arguing that, for the past four years, people experienced lockdowns whose consequences included shattered lives and lost jobs and livelihoods. They contend these losses occurred “based on now a verifiably highly flawed test,” emphasizing that “only fourteen percent represented true infection.” In light of these assertions, the speaker calls for accountability, insisting that there must be discussion about preventing a recurrence: “There should be accountability,” and “we have to start talking about this because this cannot happen again.” The overall message ties the alleged prosecutorial and pardon-revocation developments to broader social and economic harms believed to have stemmed from the lockdowns and the testing that supported them, urging media coverage and a public conversation about responsibility and safeguards moving forward.

The speaker discusses talk of Anthony Fauci being prosecuted, mention of an auto pen pardon, and Trump’s statement that those pardons might be revoked. The speaker asserts that this should be on the front page news of every major news organization. They reference the past four years and the lockdowns, stating that people’s lives were shattered, they lost their jobs, and they lost their livelihoods. This is linked to a claim that the foundation for these outcomes was a verifiably highly flawed test in which only fourteen percent represented true infection. The speaker calls for accountability and emphasizes that this cannot happen again, insisting that the issue must be discussed publicly.

According to Speaker 1, the indictment of two judges is just the beginning, with more to come. These judges were allegedly dismissing immigration cases, releasing over a million illegal aliens in one year, allowing them to potentially gain citizenship. Speaker 1 questions how many judges are tied to cartels or foreign entities and hopes Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are investigating these connections. Speaker 1 believes these judges think they will get away with their actions, but more indictments are expected.

Speaker 0 raises the issue of leadership in Minnesota, noting that dozens of people have been charged and convicted for stealing millions of taxpayer dollars from government programs. The question is whether Governor Walls did enough to stop the fraud in the state, and whether Speaker 0 supports Walls’ decision not to run for reelection. Speaker 1 responds by crediting Governor Walls with achievements: Walls is the reason Minnesota has paid family leave and free school lunches. He notes that they have been through thick and thin together. Regarding fraud, Speaker 1 concedes that obviously everybody could have done more to prevent fraud, and he says that is a fair point to make. He points to current efforts, stating that Walls is setting up a whole bunch of infrastructure to do that. He affirms that the fraud is real and that it must be acknowledged. In terms of accountability, Speaker 1 emphasizes that when somebody commits fraud, there should be investigation, charges, prosecution, and, if appropriate, jail for the individual. He stresses that you do not hold an entire community accountable for the actions of individuals.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that there are no records of these required signatures, and it's unknown who used the AutoPen. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

The speaker alleges that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child trafficking, and the grooming of children. They reference Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with the Clintons as an example.

Biden auto pen thing was Payola. People were paying for pardons. New revelations from the New York Times about Joe Biden and the auto pen scandal. According to New York Times, mister Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons. Rather than ask Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the auto pen, which they saw as routine. Jeff Zients, former Biden chief of staff, three minutes later, hit reply all and wrote, 'I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all of the following pardons.' The final list reportedly included Fauci. 'cash for clemency deal' and 'three people controlled access, and they were making money off of it.' The House Oversight Committee has brought in a number of former Biden aides to speak about this, and this will drive a wave of questions.

The speaker is asked about the process of pardoning Arpaio. They admit to not knowing the details but mention that the president has the authority to issue pardons, even without the Department of Justice's involvement. They believe this particular pardon was within the president's power.

Speaker 0 accuses Minnesota of fraud on visas and their programs, asserting that 50% of them are fraudulent. They claim that Governor Walls is either an idiot or acted on purpose, describing him as bold for allegedly bringing people into the state illegally, who allegedly never should have been in this country, and who were said to be somebody they are not. The speaker contends that these individuals claimed to be married to someone who was really their brother or some other relation, and that fraudulent visa applications were signed up for government programs. They further assert that these actions resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars being taken from taxpayers. The speaker declares they will remove these individuals and recover the money, and that in the next year they will ensure that only people in leadership positions in the country who love this country are placed in those roles.

This past week, a record 1,500 commutations were granted, the highest number in a single day. Among those commuted were individuals involved in serious crimes, including a judge linked to a cash-for-kids scheme that imprisoned many, a man guilty of tax fraud costing over $1.6 billion, and a woman involved in a $26 million Medicare fraud scheme. Are you comfortable with these decisions? No, I’m not. There was also a man in Duluth running a major drug operation who had money hidden under his bathroom tiles that was commuted. I also disagreed with the pardon of the president's son.

Speaker 0 contends that a large number of pardons were issued by the auto pen on the final day of the Biden presidency, and asserts there is no record showing that Joe Biden participated in the authorization of those pardons. The speaker claims that these pardons include notable examples such as those for Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the Biden family, Adam Schiff, the January 6 committee, and an extensive list that the speaker describes as continuing at length. The core assertion is that every one of these pardons was signed with the auto pen and there is no evidence that Joe Biden was personally involved in the decision-making process behind them. According to the speaker, the absence of Biden’s involvement in the decision-making is a key element of the argument, and the implication is that this absence of direct participation should be recognized in legal terms. The speaker further states that these pardons could be declared null and void by the Department of Justice. The underlying claim is that there is a basis for such a nullification rooted in the way the pardons were issued, specifically the use of the auto pen and the lack of documented presidential involvement. The speaker also asserts that the ongoing investigation will produce evidence that will support the DOJ’s decision to void the pardons. In this framing, the investigation’s forthcoming findings are presented as capable of reinforcing the claim that the pardons were improperly issued or improperly authorized due to the absence of direct presidential action. The overall narrative presented is one of procedural challenge to the pardons, anchored in the asserted method of issuance (the auto pen) and the supposed lack of Biden’s participation in the process. The speaker emphasizes a sequence in which the pardons, if deemed void, would be reversed or nullified by official action from the Department of Justice, with future investigative evidence expected to validate that outcome in court.

Mister Speaker, President Biden's recent pardons for his family were shocking and unprecedented. It’s hard to believe he would issue pardons for over a decade of nonviolent offenses. Four years ago, when there were hints that President Trump might do something similar, prominent figures like Biden, Schiff, and Schumer condemned it as outrageous. Now, they support Biden's actions, which we find disgusting. This raises suspicions about the so-called "Biden crime family." If they truly weren't involved in wrongdoing, why would they need pardons? This issue will receive significant attention, and we will be examining it closely.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that no such signatures exist and the origin of the AutoPen use is unknown. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

The speaker notes increased talk of prosecuting Anthony Fauci, suggesting it could involve an auto pen pardon, and asserts that Trump said those pardons might be revoked. They argue this should be front-page news everywhere, referencing the past four years of lockdowns in which people lost their jobs and livelihoods. They claim these outcomes were based on a verifiably highly flawed test, which they state represented only fourteen percent true infection. The speaker calls for accountability and says we must start talking about this because it cannot happen again.

The speaker asserts that people will suffer due to an unspecified action. They state that fraud is a crime and claim there have been no referrals to the Justice Department in any instance. When questioned on this, the speaker initially denies being asked a question, then confirms that there have been referrals for fraud. The speaker then claims that billions of dollars were given to people for no reason and pivots to what they consider one of the biggest achievements of the first term.

Someone is allegedly going to be arrested for stealing 400,000 social security numbers and personal information from the Social Security database. This information was reportedly being sold to enable people to steal money from Social Security. The fraud is allegedly connected to illegal immigrants and voter fraud, as Social Security is the main way identification is established in the United States. Compromising the Social Security system can purportedly allow non-citizens to register to vote and obtain benefits. The speaker claims Democrats are using parts of the government to provide financial incentives for illegal immigrants to come to and remain in the United States, citing Social Security disability, Medicare, unemployment, and IRS refunds without income. FEMA funds meant for Americans in distress from natural disasters were allegedly diverted to pay for luxury hotels in New York for illegal immigrants, who are purportedly still there.

Liz Oyer and Joseph Schwartz discuss Donald Trump’s recent pardon of Joseph Schwartz, owner of Skyline, a nursing home empire with facilities in 11 states. Schwartz stole $38,000,000 from employees’ paychecks intended to cover health care and retirement benefits. He pleaded guilty to tax fraud and in April was sentenced to three years in prison, but last week Trump granted him a full pardon after he served only three months of his sentence. This pardon is notable because in April Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney, Alina Habba, issued a press release publicly thanking all agents and investigators who helped convict Schwartz. The investigation and pardon context: earlier this year Schwartz paid two lobbyists $960,000 to seek a pardon for him. The lobbyists are Jack Berkman and Jacob Wohl, described as far-right conspiracy theorists and convicted felons. They are known for elaborate scams, including attempts to frame public figures for fake sexual assaults. During the 2020 presidential election, Berkman and Wohl ran a voter intimidation campaign targeting Black communities, making tens of thousands of robocalls spreading disinformation to deter voting. They were convicted of felony election fraud charges in Michigan and Ohio and were fined over $6,000,000 by federal and state authorities. The segment notes that these two convicted fraudsters lobbied for a pardon on behalf of another convicted fraudster, and suggests a potential quid pro quo, though it acknowledges that Trump’s office has not stated a reason for the pardon. The host points out that Schwartz’s pardon has effectively put nearly $1,000,000 into Berkman and Wohl’s pockets and questions whether this constitutes a quid pro quo. Closing appeal: the host asserts that there is “incredible corruption of the pardon power” and urges viewers to raise awareness by sharing the post and asking elected representatives to demand accountability for presidential pardons.

The transcript presents a speaker arguing that Gavin Newsom’s welfare fraud problems are far worse than those attributed to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, and that the liberal media is not addressing these issues. The speaker states that Newsom “allowed $30,000,000,000 in fraudulent welfare payments to be issued by the unemployment agency,” and that as a result, small businesses in California must pay off all of that debt through higher payroll taxes. The speaker contrasts this with Walz, who is “accused of allowing $250,000,000 of food stamp fraud to occur to Somali organizations.” The speaker asserts that Newsom’s food stamp fraud is at a multi-billion-dollar level and claims Newsom’s food stamp fraud rate is “thirteen point four percent,” describing it as “three out of every 20 benefits managed by Newsom's administration for food stamps completely fraudulent.” Additionally, the speaker contends that California funds “left wing NGOs,” including various Somali community organizations in Minnesota, and asserts that “a lot of those NGOs are using taxpayer money for politics.” The speaker claims that the liberal media is not covering any of these scandals and asserts that people should know these alleged facts because they are not being discussed by the media. In summary, the speaker asserts: - Newsom’s welfare fraud is exponentially worse than Walz’s, with $30 billion in fraudulent unemployment payments allegedly issued by California’s unemployment agency. - As a consequence, small California businesses must bear the cost via higher payroll taxes. - Walz is accused of allowing $250 million of food stamp fraud targeting Somali organizations. - Newsom’s food stamp fraud is claimed to be multi-billion in scope, with a fraud rate of 13.4% (three of every twenty benefits). - California is funding left-wing NGOs, including Somali-related organizations, with taxpayer money used for political purposes. - The liberal media is not covering these alleged scandals, and the speaker asserts these are important facts that should be known.

The speaker questions why Donald Trump would be considering pardoning a known sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell, and notes that there has been no satisfactory explanation from MAGA supporters. They point out that Maxwell abused kids and that Trump has already given her a “really nice prison… like a club fed,” and is now considering pardoning her. The speaker asks, “He said it. Yeah, I'd consider why? Okay, hey, would you consider pardoning Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? I bet he would say no to that, as he should. Would you consider partnering Ghislain Maxwell, a known sex trafficker who abused kids? I have to think about it. Why? Why Mago? Why? Why would he have to think about it?” They urge that, before mentioning Biden, one must explain why Donald Trump would consider it, insisting that Biden is not president and is not the answer. The speaker asserts that Biden wasn’t the one who made a big deal about releasing the Epstein files. In contrast, they claim Trump attacked Biden for not releasing the Epstein files, whereas Biden assumed DOJ was doing their job and Trump didn’t. The speaker maintains that Trump can release the Epstein files right now. They further state that if someone brings up Biden in response, the only acceptable way to do so without appearing to defend a sex trafficker would be to first answer the question: why would Donald Trump even consider it? The speaker ends by saying they look forward to reading the response.

The discussion centers on the legality and appropriateness of Joe Biden's use of an autopen, particularly concerning pardons. It's claimed that the Trump administration believes Biden's autopen use may be unconstitutional if he wasn't fully competent or if others used it on his behalf. A former US attorney claims to have contacted senior Biden officials early on regarding Biden's competence and the pardons, receiving some responses. The speaker argues that incompetence could invalidate contracts and pardons, even though the pardon power is plenary. He alleges a whistleblower from the 2020 Biden campaign identified three "gatekeepers"—Clayne, Anita Dunn, and Bob Bauer—who controlled access and potentially profited from it. While not yet verified, this information is deemed potentially scandalous. The speaker clarified that he contacted the Biden family and others in the US attorney's office.

A Wisconsin government employee was fired for allegedly rigging the 2020 election by printing 64,000 extra ballots in City Hall. She had ballots filled out by city employees, kicked out observers, and brought in more ballots in the middle of the night. An email from a coworker confirmed the suspicious activity. The speaker believes this fraud led to Biden winning the election unfairly. The woman's actions were deemed illegal and unconstitutional, and the speaker calls for prosecution. They express anger and frustration over the situation, calling Biden a fake president.

Speaker 0 presents what he calls an explosive piece of tape: a man buys a registration form for an absentee ballot from a voter, pocketing $200 and expecting to collect the ballot when the voter receives it. Speaker 1 reacts, noting the illegality of the act and questioning why it isn’t illegal to do certain things, followed by a line that “We don’t get illegal” and a claim about lions, then attributes responsibility to someone who “came up with all this.” Speaker 0 continues, stating that she started the whole “pay to vote” scheme. He alleges that “the people that work for Ilhan” are actually counting the ballots, counting the vote. Speaker 1 adds that they “become a manager in the prison too,” claiming that those people “walk with you to the booth, and then they vote, oh, vote this guy. Vote this guy. Vote even if you speak English.” Speaker 0 introduces James O’Keefe, identifying himself as a truth exposer who holds the corrupt elite accountable, and pivots to messaging about protecting readers’ freedom and finances. The segment shifts to a financial pitch. O’Keefe warns of one of the biggest financial shifts of their lifetime, describing de-dollarization with nations like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia moving away from US dollars. He claims this threatens savings and retirement security and cites Ray Dalio’s warning about skyrocketing debt, relentless money printing, and a weakening dollar as part of a dangerous cycle that could impact Americans. He asserts that more Americans are turning to real assets like physical gold and silver, noting that gold “surged past $3,700 per ounce,” and that momentum is building. He says he has partnered with veteran-owned American Independence Gold to help viewers take action, offering to open a qualifying account with up to $10,000 in bonus gold and a free gold protection guide. He adds that a portion of every sale supports Tunnel to Towers and wounded warriors, and closes with the line, “Freedom isn’t given, it’s secured,” followed by the disclaimer, “This is James O’Keefe. As always, this is not financial advice. Always check with your licensed financial advisor before you invest.”