TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Every time I do an investigative report, they call the police. It happened recently in Livingston, New Jersey and in Palisades, New York. They're calling the cops on me, even though I'm a journalist. I had a conversation with someone who didn't initially share their name, but I persisted and eventually got their business card. This experience taught me the importance of being relentless in seeking information. The public needs to be informed.

Host: You mentioned at one point that CDC management actually prevented you from interviewing Conservative leader Pierre Pauli on your show. Can you describe what happened there? Guest: Well we I mean I basically wasn't allowed to pick the phone and and talk to conservatives. I have some g chats here which I just want to you know read you part of this. I'm talking to my senior producer I'm saying okay, you know this is an editorial discussion. Can we get a Conservative perspective on this is essentially what I'm saying. It is a no to the Conservatives I'm told. We can't chase anyone from the entire party. The chase is with P and P. So if power and politics is not able to secure a conservative, or, you know, somebody that presents an alternate perspective, then we are not allowed to. I'm told at one point we're sure that there's a myriad of other types of interesting guests that you can chase outside of the Conservatives. Can I be included on conversations with power and politics? That's not how we work. I say to management by playing petty office politics we feed into Conservative narratives that we have a bias against them. Canada tonight is a melting pot of news of the day and politics and decisions, from it largely impact Canadians. So we need flexibility to to respond to emerging stories. So yes, I wasn't even allowed to pick up the phone and call to request Pierre Pauliev. Host: Look at what happened when I had Melissa Lanceman on my show, right? That I was threatened to be pulled off the air which CBC then said in a news statement they didn't threaten to do that. There are recordings of them trying to do this. Why Guest: I mean there's an effort to essentially, protect those in Ottawa in in terms of their perspectives on these things, in terms of who they want on the show. It should be about you know, we did an interview with Karen Johnson, my cohost on the new podcast I'm doing. She's another former CBC employee that is talking about the toxic culture. She said that she alleges that she was called a brown Barbie, a bimbo, but she says that it's it's a very high school culture. And these are things that this is fine if you if you have hosts doing that it's not fine but it okay but management you are responsible for dealing with that and so if management is not going to do anything, if the President of the CBC is going to come here and expect a tongue lashing and then be able to go back to the CBC and continue to get funding without accountability, these practices will continue. So shame is clearly not enough to get the CBC to a place where they will hold themselves accountable so it's incumbent upon this committee to do that.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

I'm here investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent and current advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. I questioned him about potential ethical conflicts, including fundraising activities and his work with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and lying. I'm operating within my First Amendment rights as a journalist, but he claimed I needed his permission to record him, which isn't true in Washington D.C. He was visibly upset, and at one point even cried. I believe he lied about his activities and shared sensitive information. It's concerning to see such political behavior from government officials.

Speaker 0: When I was actually walking out here, somebody sent me a photo of a CNN headline about what happened in Minneapolis. And this is the headline. I'm just gonna read it. Outrage after ICE officer kills US citizen in Minneapolis. Well, that's one way to put it, and that is the way that many people in the corporate media have put this attack over the last twenty four hours. And I say attack very, very intentionally because this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order. This was an attack on the American people. The way that the media by and large has reported this story has been an absolute disgrace and it puts our law enforcement officers at risk every single day. What that headline leaves out is the fact that that very off ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, thirty three stitches in his legs. So you think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile? What that headline leaves out is that that woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation in The United States Of America. What that headline leaves out is that that woman has is part of a broader left wing network to attack, to docks, to assault, and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job. If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth that a group of left wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the president of The United States to do what the American people elected him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws. The president stands with ICE. I stand with ICE. We stand with all of our law enforcement officers. And part of that is recognizing that you people in the media, not everybody in this room, but many people in this room have been lying about this attack. She was trying to ram this guy with his with her car. He shot back. He defended himself. He's already been seriously wounded in law enforcement operations before, and everybody who's been repeating the lie that this is some innocent woman who was out for a drive in Minneapolis when a law enforcement officer shot at her, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Every single one of you. Questions? Thank you, mister Vice

I’m doing my show like normal, and I’m reaching the end of the show when I see an alert from my Ring doorbell: somebody’s at the front door. I’m live, reading super chats and live chat messages, and I see that this guy has a loaded gun. He’s got a motorcycle helmet and a backpack, a gun drawn, and he’s knocking on the door yelling. I didn’t want to tip him off that I knew he was there, so I kept the show going for about a minute, then wrapped it up quickly. My producer runs in and I ask, who is that? What’s going on? He says, I called the cops. They’re here. The guy’s gone. Then I start getting changed out of my suit, and I hear gunshots go off outside. I jumped to the ground, not knowing what was happening. I step outside after the dust settles and there are about 10 cop cars up and down the street, the whole block locked down, the alley shut down. They tell me to get back inside. We’re not allowed to leave until the morning. That’s how late they were there. At the end of the night, after the cops left, I went out in the very early morning. Did anyone come and explain anything to you? No. Nobody said anything. It’s ridiculous. In the morning, I asked the guy what happened, and he told me the story. It turns out the shooter is a 23-year-old white man, a “white nerd,” short guy, who was at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, about two hours south of where I live. He killed three people earlier in the day: his roommate, killed the roommate’s sister, and killed the roommate’s mother. He then got in his car and drove directly to my house, parked outside, got out a .22 pistol and an automatic crossbow (a weird choice), and knocked on my door. He went around the house, tried the back door, tried the front door. The cops pulled up, he took off running through the gangway, hopped the fence, and ran into the neighbor’s house. I guess he went into the neighbor’s basement because the door was unlocked. He was hiding from the police. He shot two of the neighbor’s dogs, which is devastating. He ran back outside, and the cops spotted him. He shot at the cops. The cops shot him in the face, and he died on the spot. What was his motive? They never told me. To this day, I have no idea. There’s no explanation. There was no contact after the incident. The Illinois State Police came by about a week later to retrieve the Ring camera footage of the whole incident, and I downloaded that onto a thumb drive. That’s it. I never heard from the cops, never heard from the government. Not at all. A guy comes to murder you, kills three others and two dogs, and no one bothers to tell you anything? It’s ridiculous.

Speaker 0: The officer tells him to get a life, but the journalist insists that investigative reports are important for the country. Speaker 0 questions the journalist's credentials, but the journalist continues to ask questions. The journalist offers to provide all the material via email.

- it's illegal. The FBI will raid me. They've done it twice. - No. It's not secret. No. It's not on OAN and Newsmax. - Why isn't the FBI looking for two metaphysically attacked? Exclusive inside FBI fomenting insurrection. No? - Well, see, I was at the East Entrance on January 6. - I recorded two federal agents attacking the capital. - Well, federal agents came to my home and took my phones. They still have that. So, hopefully, someone will stand out. - I've given them twenty nine minutes of high definition footage of these two turds. - And to date, neither one of them has been arrested and none of their images have appeared on the internet. - They refuse to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement. - I've got them by the Cajones. - Avoid the FBI if you can.

I I'd be interested to hear what the conversation was that led up to the shots being fired because that's to me, it's silly. Guys out here just doing a job and then gets harassed and ultimately, you know, shot by somebody not even involved.

In the fall of 2023, an interview opportunity with Elon Musk arose after an attempt to bring the Twitter files to CBS News. The offer was to do a live interview with him on X. CBS News executives declined a live interview, citing uncertainty about what Musk might say. A number of conditions were set on the possible interview, including taping, editing, and restricting it to the CBS News platform. The speaker felt ashamed that a news organization would place so many restrictions on an interview.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that what was described is that he went there to try to stop the law enforcement operation, and that all the video shows him doing is documenting it with his cell phone, which is lawful. The only time he appeared to interact with law enforcement was when they went after him as he was trying to help an individual who law enforcement pushed down. Speaker 0 asks where the evidence is to show that he was trying to impede the operation, noting that he was filming, which he says is legal in the United States of America. Speaker 1 responds that Dana was there in the scene and was actively impeding and assaulting law enforcement to the point, but adds that this is not illegal. Speaker 0 counters that Dana wasn’t impeding it; he was filming, which is legal. Speaker 1 asks not to freeze-frame adjudicate the moment and insists that Dana was there for a reason, and that reason was to impede law enforcement. Speaker 1 further argues that de-escalation techniques were utilized during this action, including physically trying to remove those from the law enforcement scene and the use of pepper spray, which is described as another de-escalation technique. He states that those techniques did not work.

Speaker 0: Welcome back to Jake GTV news. Did you see ICE shooting American citizens? Speaker 1: I thought they were supposed to get rid of the illegals, though. Speaker 0: Me too. Let's go to Ching Chong on the murder scene. Speaker 1: Chloe and Michael, good morning. We're here in Minneapolis where ICE agents trained by Israel are causing chaos. We go to John for more. Speaker 0: Thanks, Ching Chong. Thought it was only Libtards who opposed this, but they are literally murdering Americans. Back to you in the studio. Speaker 2: Stand back. Speaker 1: Please don't hurt me, sir Ed. I'm here to get rid of the illegals, grandma. Speaker 0: Wow. Thanks, John. Check this out here. It's from the protest. Here we see an agent assault a woman for simply being at the protest. Speaker 3: Then Alex steps in to help her Speaker 0: get back on her feet, and Speaker 4: the agents pepper spray him and proceed to assault him. Speaker 0: They then proceed to remove his legally owned firearm and shoot him in the back roughly 10 times, not even kidding. Holy shit. Speaker 1: Please tell me they're gonna jail. Speaker 0: Nope. They're on administrative leave while the FBI pretends to care. Dude, what? Let's see what Trump's team has to say. Speaker 5: Very, very unfortunate incident. I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like the fact that he was carrying a gun. Speaker 6: You know, you can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. You just can't. And you can't listen. You can't walk in with guns. You can't do that, but it's it's a very unfortunate incident. Speaker 7: Do you Speaker 1: agree with Trump, Steen? Speaker 6: Oh, hell yeah. Guns are bad now. Didn't you get the memo? Speaker 1: What about the second amendment? Speaker 6: It's all four d chess, honey. Trust the plan. Speaker 1: Sup, bro? How do you feel about ICE? Speaker 0: This country needs more Indians than blacks. Check your privilege. Speaker 1: Dude, when did everybody get so retarded? Was it the vaccines or something? We go to the investigation team to learn more. Speaker 8: Thanks, Ching Chung. So basically, we uncovered that not only is ICE Embassy located in Tel Aviv, but they're using the same technology they used to genocide the Palestinians. Speaker 0: It's a freaking Jewish spyware by Paragon Solutions called Graphite, and check this out. Tell me why Alex Pretty was googled a month prior to the shooting and, again, five minutes before his death. Make of that what you will. Back to you guys. Wow. Wasn't the Homeland Security's own Twitter page being run from Israel? Speaker 1: Yeah. Same with ICE's embassy, Tel Aviv to be exact. Speaker 0: Freaking Jews, man. Speaker 9: Shut it down. He was an unhinged lefty who thought our Chobus Goy Trumpstein was a dictator. He kicked the taillight the week prior, so he deserved to be gunned down like a dog. Speaker 1: Air that. Jeez, Producer Berg, chill. Speaker 0: Gosh, he's so Talmudic. Speaker 1: Right. Always victim. Speaker 0: Anyways, here's their emotional justification for cold blooded murder. Speaker 1: That was a pretty good leg kick. Speaker 0: Right? Let's get Shapiro Steen's take on this whole thing. Speaker 10: Just because we didn't arrest anyone for the Epstein files, genocide, or our poisonous mRNA doesn't mean we won't also get away with murdering Boyum. After all, he kicked a taillight. Speaker 0: Yeah. I guess you're right, Shapiro Steen. Israel is our greatest ally. Speaker 1: You're not getting a raise. Speaker 0: Discount on your only freaks? Speaker 1: Not a chance. Ching chong, take it away. Gosh, dude. You're such a weak little simp. She's a literal succubus. Speaker 0: Anyways, let's take a tour with the IDF, I mean ice. Whoops. What was your training like? We were supposed to be trained for this? Speaker 0: Yeah. We've got an antiseptic on the next block. Get ready to murder. Stop resisting. Did you see me shoot that senior citizen? Yeah. Definitely not an immigrant, he sure had it coming. Let's see what Diego's up to. Speaker 2: I will tell you this, brother. What? You know? I will tell you this. You raise your voice? I raise your voice. Speaker 1: Wow. Isn't that like against the law? Speaker 0: You'd think so but they'll end up getting paid administrative leave and mental health support. Speaker 1: Seriously? Speaker 0: Dead ass. If I Speaker 11: raise my voice, you'll erase Speaker 2: my Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 11: Are you serious? You said, if I raise my voice, you'll erase my voice? Speaker 1: Yes. Mhmm. Mhmm. Ice. You guys are saving this country. Speaker 0: Didn't they kill that American woman last week? Renee Good or something? Speaker 1: That non chosen person? She was lesbian leftist Karen. Who cares? Speaker 0: Whatever you say, Daisy. No. Speaker 7: No. Shit. Shit. Oh my fucking god. What the fuck? What What the the fuck? Fuck? Speaker 0: You might be wondering, why Minneapolis? Tim Waltz ushered in a defund the police initiative, which created a perfect opportunity for Trump's team to bring about the first AI surveillance state. You know what they say, create the problem, usher in the solution. Tom, back to you. Exactly. Speaker 0: So Peter Thiel, a close advisor to J. D. Vance, founded Palantir, the company that built the AI surveillance system used to target sand people. That same technology was sold to ICE and rebranded as Immigration OS, creating a satanic surveillance network to monitor Americans. Speaker 9: Shut it down, Tom. That's not for the normies to understand. Keep it up and I'll turn you into a lampshade like I did with Jackie. Back to the Goyslop or you're canceled. Speaker 12: Goyslop Junior's Goyslop Filet is back, and it's got more seed oils than ever. Speaker 0: I hate myself. Goyslop Junior. Speaker 7: Go on. Speaker 6: Enjoy cancer. Speaker 1: Gosh, that looks good. Speaker 0: Producer Verk said if we stop talking about Palantir, Goyslap Junior will cater to the Super Bowl party. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 0: Zipped. Let's just have Eric Warsaw break it down for us. Speaker 12: Palantir. The same company that is run by the hardline Zionist Alex Karp who works closely with Israeli military, will now be in charge of America's civilian data collection. We built Foundry, which was just was used to distribute the COVID vaccine and saved millions of lives globally. Palantir is here to disrupt and make our the institutions we partner with the very best in the world, and when it's necessary to scare enemies and on occasion kill them. Speaker 12: And also, the target selections for the US military, police forces, and even target selections for ICE officers. Speaker 1: That's right, Eric. We're giving our data to the Israeli Jew whose AI targeted over fifty percent of the civilian deaths in Gaza. Here he is. Speaker 7: Your AI and your technology from Palestine to kill Palestinians. Speaker 13: Mostly terrorists. Speaker 1: And by terrorists, he means anyone who opposes their families being genocided, including women and children. This guy. Speaker 9: Shut it the heck down. Say goodbye to your Goyslav junior catering. Remember what happened to Charlie? You're next. Run the freaking commercials. Speaker 0: Want to express yourself? Well, now you can. I always wonder how dumb this going sometimes can be. Speaker 7: TikTok, Speaker 0: Now owned by the Jews at BlackRock. Speaker 7: We're watching that. Speaker 0: Wow. I thought China owning our data was bad. Now you can't even say Zionist without getting flagged. Speaker 1: Straight up. It's like, give it back to China at this point. Speaker 0: Anything's better than Jews at this point. Speaker 1: Right? It's like take a freaking joke, let alone facts. Speaker 0: That's based. We go to John for some breaking news. Thanks, guys. Couldn't have said it better. And this just in, we're taking over Greenland because it was promised to us by Lucifer himself. So take it away, Satan. Speaker 14: By the way, what are we doing with Greenland? We gotta do something with Greenland. Where's my advance team? Go to Greenland. They must have some satellite needs or something that we could do there. But we are coloring the world blue. Speaker 0: So satanic. Speaker 1: Right? Isn't Greenland the central hub for the undersea data cables connecting North America, Europe, and Asia? Speaker 0: Bingo. Speaker 0: Ching Chong joins us live from Greenland. Speaker 1: We're here in Greenland, and not only is it located on a gold mine of rare earth minerals, but its freezing temperatures are the perfect natural coolant for the AI supercomputers needed to power the new world order that will enslave humanity. Eric Morsaw, break it down for us. Speaker 12: If you thought George Orwell's 1984 was a bad surveillance state, wait until you see what Israel's Palantir can do with AI technology or America. It's gonna make the movie The Matrix look mild. Speaker 1: Thanks, Eric. But to truly understand the endgame, you need to understand their ultimate prize, Jerusalem's Golden Dome. The satanic cabal believes controlling this one holy site lets them hijack God's story for billions and install the Antichrist. Let's hear what Trump's theme has to say about it. Speaker 5: We will have all everything we want. We're getting everything we want at no cost. Speaker 10: So the so the Golden Dome will be on Greenland? Speaker 5: A piece of it, yes. And it's a very important part because it's everything comes over Greenland. If the bad guys start shooting, it comes over Greenland. Speaker 1: So what he means by that is the satanic cabal is taking a piece of God's throne and putting it on their AI brain in Greenland to legitimize the antichrist. Speaker 6: Is that some sort of question? Speaker 1: How does that make you feel? Speaker 6: Get the out of our country. Speaker 10: So what are we talking about? An acquisition of Greenland? Are you going to pay for it? Speaker 5: I mean We're talking about it's really being negotiated now, the details of it, but essentially it's total access. It's there's no end. Speaker 0: We're making Iran great again, Venezuela, and now Greenland. How exciting. Speaker 1: Why can't we just fix this country? Speaker 0: Because Israel is our greatest ally. Speaker 1: Right, Shapiro Steen? Speaker 0: Well. I'm so sick of pretending we're Israel first. Speaker 10: I heard that. Just because you stupid goyim think you can expose our satanic agenda doesn't mean you won't fall for our next tie up. Dennis, shut this episode down or you're all fired. Speaker 0: Thanks, Shapiro Steen. Suck on this. Anyways, if you're still not following Jake GTV, you're either brainwashed or legally retarded. Speaker 15: I think I figured out where our data's going. Just let me hack into Homeland Security real quick, and we're in. Speaker 0: And time to get rid of their lice For antiseptic purposes, of course. Did you hear we gave Jake GTV a strike on his YouTube? Speaker 9: Oh, someone's hacked into our system. Another pizza cost. Speaker 1: Look who it is, my base fucking noticer. If you wanna stop wondering what's going on and know, check out my new book on jakegtv.com. Otherwise, just hit the like, comment, and subscribe, and I'll see you on the next one. Speaker 9: Did you hit him with a YouTube strike? Speaker 0: Sir, we did, but he's not stopping. Speaker 9: Shadow ban his accounts. We must shut him down before the red Speaker 7: heifer Speaker 0: is sacrificed.

For over 2 years, the media and Democratic Party leaders controlled the narrative around the January 6th surveillance footage. However, we broke that monopoly by obtaining access to the footage. Other media outlets reacted strongly, accusing us of downplaying the violence. They argued that the footage should be shared with all news organizations simultaneously. Some even compared our actions to a Soviet or Nazi system. Despite the criticism, we believe in presenting the truth. The reactions we received were fueled by panic and fear.

We were filming at the border when Border Patrol detained us at gunpoint, ignoring 60 illegal immigrants nearby. Some of us were handcuffed for exposing the invasion while the administration supports cartels. Despite being released, mainstream media hasn't covered our experience. We complied with law enforcement, but the focus should be on securing the border.

The speaker always wanted to broadcast in their hometown. However, they became bothered by the media's direction, even before George Floyd, due to moral and ethical concerns. After George Floyd's death, mandates required that half of interviewees had to be non-white or from a protected class. CBS News allegedly prohibited using the term "riots" in reporting. The speaker feels blessed to be on the other side now. The other speaker believes the net effect was the death of many people and the destruction of an American city. They are bothered that it's been memory-holed and no one has been held accountable.

Can I say something on record? Who are you with? WSU. And CBS? NBC is over here on the right. That's an unusual position. No, I don't get it. You wouldn't. No. Look.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

I'm a journalist investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent, now an advisor to the joint chiefs at the Pentagon, about his political activities and fundraising efforts with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and being a liar. He even claimed I needed his permission to record him, despite being in a one-party consent state. He denied saying things that I have on tape, including discussing plans after Trump wins. I questioned the ethics of his political involvement as a Pentagon advisor, and I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate to share sensitive information with strangers, even joking about whether I was a Russian spy.

Social media and journalism can misrepresent the circumstances surrounding an event, and the post seen does not depict the entire incident. What often happens is that social media and mainstream media commentary distort content, which makes it harder to thoroughly investigate the activity and enforce the law. A single post or coverage item can present one side of the story without context, leading to people rushing to conclusions and the narrative “growing legs” that the investigation then has to manage. Speaker 1 asked where the nearest officers were. Speaker 0 answered that in the central business section they were working; both were in vehicles and had to maneuver through traffic. Regarding what exactly was distorted, Speaker 0 explained that social media irresponsibility frequently shows one side of the equation without factual context, and then people run with that, causing the issue to grow larger and become more difficult to manage as part of the investigation.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

"we have to wear disguises so they trust us." "In November, when I was in DC, I got assaulted while covering a protest." "Enrique Cario knew my name." "So the next time I went to DC, I had to decide my identity, which is not an uncommon thing that, you know, indie press has done." "I'm not it was I'm not a I'm not a Trump supporter. It's that I was watching them beat on people who were visibly pressed." "And they grabbed him by, like, the collar or by his backpack and, like, shoved him over, like, a half size wall." "I had my press card with me. I showed it to the car." "Did you have a Trump hat or no Trump hat? Yeah. Forfeit."

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.