TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Secretary of State Raffensperger sent a contractor to Fulton County, known for its voting issues. The contractor witnessed double scanning of ballots, unidentified individuals taking election materials, and discussions about disrupting the election. A 29-page report detailing errors, mismanagement, and chaos in the election was known to state officials since November. This contradicts Raffensperger's claims during a phone call with President Trump. It is unlikely that Raffensperger's office was unaware of the report.

The speaker alleges that a company chose a "least troublesome" witness they could easily win against, and that this choice was made the day before the witness was killed as part of a plan. The speaker claims there is enough data to assert the individual did not take his own life and that a larger plan was behind his death. The speaker states that culprits always make mistakes and that this information has been shared with the FBI. While the San Francisco FBI made no promises, there is hope that Kash Patel or the federal government will take interest and allocate resources to investigate. The speaker notes widespread support for the idea that the deceased did not commit suicide, citing reactions to PBD's podcast and other sources.

This morning, we were given a binder that was supposed to contain information Kash Patel had seen, but it was empty. The feeling is that the Southern District of New York FBI has the tapes and won't release them to the White House. If this is true, it's an internal civil war. You have a duly elected president and confirmed leaders of the FBI and DOJ, but the Southern District of New York is bucking their orders. If true, departments are in complete rebellion, a cancer that must be cut out. I believe in the president, Kash, and Pam's mission to root out this evil. If it's true we are in civil war. If I were President Trump, I would fly to New York and fire everyone in the Southern District Of New York.

A former CIA agent and whistleblower is prepared to testify under oath regarding an investigation into the J. K. McNugget v. Mamala contest. The whistleblower will claim that Mamala won by a landslide. The speaker suggests that something went wrong, implicating many people, including some unexpected individuals. The speaker concludes that AmClub was correct about the situation.

The speaker asserts that Texas lied to prosecute the T-Mobile whistleblower and that the case exposes information Americans aren’t supposed to know. A key claim is that a conservative constitutional judge from Collin County was replaced days before the trial with a retired liberal judge from Dallas, which the speaker suspects allowed a juror to be planted in the jury. During jury selection, defense and state weeded 50 people down to eight, but the judge ultimately selects the jurors. The state prosecution allegedly lied about the gated community entry, claiming a security guard was present and that the speaker snuck in, a claim the speaker says is false and used to portray him as a dangerous stalker. The T-Mobile executive allegedly stated he feared for his life and his family’s safety, yet the speaker notes the executive flew to Bellevue, Washington, to T-Mobile’s headquarters the next day, arguing it contradicted the notion of a genuine threat from the speaker. The state prosecuted by obtaining all of the speaker’s social media from Ex Twitter, Instagram, Substack, and the speaker learned of this only when Instagram notified him. The state and T-Mobile labeled the speaker a violent threat for discussing his guns in self-defense, with a cited tweet and related materials used in the case. The speaker claims that his communications—tweets, videos, a long-form website—were censored, and that he then went guerrilla with flyers and a self-defense stance described as “staccato for self defense.” During sentencing, the state subpoenaed a police officer who arrested the speaker sixteen years earlier for a felony marijuana charge, with deferred adjudication and probation completed in 2008, to portray the speaker as a still-active drug dealer. The state reportedly shared some of the whistleblower story but downplayed that T-Mobile violated Texas Health and Safety Code chapter 81 d by discriminating against the speaker for being unvaccinated. The speaker concludes by urging viewers to share the story, claiming it exposes corruption among elected officials and corporations.

A reliable source claims that someone from Washington called the Atlanta district attorney on Friday, urging them to indict on Monday to cover up mistakes made with Weiss. The district attorney explained that the jurors wouldn't return until Tuesday, but the caller insisted on Monday, regardless of the time. The purpose was to manipulate the news media. The identity of the caller is unknown, and this information is hearsay. The speaker believes the claim due to the leaked clerk document, the exhausted state of Weiss, and the late-night press conference.

- Kibbe on Liberty hosts Congressman Thomas Massey for part one of a mega episode focusing on the FBI-identified pipe bomber in the January 6 events and the anomalies in the official narrative; Massey argues he does not believe one loner acted alone. - Massey discusses prior coverage and context, noting a Steve Baker interview that documented inconsistencies in the official narrative. He points to fallout from that interview: a Capitol Hill Police official, who was third in command, resigned the day after the interview; another whistleblower contacted Massey about that officer, suggesting misconduct unrelated to the pipe bomb but part of a larger pattern of investigations. - Massey argues that the FBI’s announcement of a suspect came about a week after that interview and after reporting by The Blaze, and suggests the timing is suspicious. He says this coincidence is surprising and potentially a red flag, given that the investigation had been deemed inconclusive or dormant for years. - Massey emphasizes his own context: his staffer on the Hill watched hours of video to identify who found the second pipe bomb; he asserts that the individuals who found the second bomb should be considered suspects, and that the FBI admitted this to him. He recounts efforts with Kevin McCarthy to release video showing how the second pipe bomb was found, noting that those who found it were very lucky to locate it quickly. - He describes other connections and leads: his staffer now works for Kash Patel; Massey has spoken with a counter-surveillance officer who found the pipe bomb and with the officer’s handler, a Capitol Hill Police member who had previously worked for the ATF and later for Metro Police and Capitol Hill Police. He also mentions conversing with the assistant FBI director in charge of the Washington field office, in a transcribed interview with Jim Jordan about why cell phone data wasn’t used to geolocate the suspect (the provider allegedly corrupted data, which the judiciary committee and Barry Loudermilk’s committee disputed). - Massey references a 100-page report from Barry Loudermilk’s committee on the pipe bomb investigation, noting leads the FBI did not follow. He mentions a lead about an individual in Falls Church, Virginia (a former military man now in government service) whose metro card was used on January 5 and January 6; this person’s childhood friend allegedly used the metro card to approach the RNC/Capitol Hill Club area and take photographs near the pipe bomb sites. Massey asserts this person of interest, plus a neighbor who shared a wall with him, could be connected to others the FBI has not fully explored. - He contends that the arrest appears to derail other investigations and interviews that were being planned. He asserts that a “pro-Trump” motive has not been established for the suspect, contrasting the media’s framing with details such as the suspect’s My Little Pony interest and parental political donations. - Massey criticizes the prosecutor in the case, Jocelyn Ballantine, and recounts concerns about her track record (including involvement in the Flynn case, the Proud Boys case, and alleged attempts to obtain confessions implicating Trump). He questions why she remains at the DOJ. - They discuss broader concerns about FBI politicization and surveillance: Massey references reporters and contact with Kash Patel’s team to argue for cleaning house at the FBI, but notes Ballantine remains in place. He describes eight senators discovering they had been spied on, leading to a legislative push: in the last continuing resolution, lawmakers added a half-million-dollar payout and standing to sue the government for surveillance abuses, a provision he characterizes as carving exemptions out of the law; he says this was supported by most lawmakers, who voted for the CR due to Trump concerns. - They debate possible explanations for the pipe bomber case: the possibility that the FBI identified the suspect and cleared him, prompting no arrest due to exonerating information; or the possibility of a false narrative crafted by others to preserve the January 6 prosecution framework; or the involvement of a patsy or rogue actor. - Massey reiterates his three things he said on Twitter: the bomber was a lone wolf (which he disputes); the FBI was unwittingly incompetent for four years (which he says he questions and calls a cover-up); and it was not a Trump supporter. He stresses the need for more transcribed interviews and explanations from the FBI and ongoing oversight to uncover the full truth. - The discussion shifts toward Epstein files coverage and the broader goal of maintaining public pressure for transparency. They indicate a plan to release a separate bonus episode focusing on Epstein files.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

The witness testified that they were present when Tony Schafer received a phone call from then-Attorney General Bill Barr. The call was on speakerphone, and 6 or 7 other people were able to hear the conversation. Barr was described as irate, telling Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response indicated that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The conversation was described as agitated.

I'm at the airport, fresh from a White House meeting with President Trump, Vice President Vance, Attorney General Bondi, and FBI Director Patel. We were presented with a binder labeled "Epstein Files Phase One," meant to be transparent, per the President's order to declassify everything. Initially, Attorney General Bondi expected bombshells, the "dark stuff," but the binder wasn't what she anticipated. It felt incomplete. Then, late last night, a source from within the Southern District of New York (SDNY) contacted Bondi, revealing that the SDNY was concealing hundreds, maybe thousands, of additional Epstein-related documents from everyone, including the President.

I'm at the airport, and I want to discuss the Epstein files. I met with President Trump, Vice President Vance, Attorney General Bondi, and FBI Director Patel this morning at the White House. They presented me with a binder labeled "Epstein Files Phase One," ordered by Bondi and Patel. We were expecting bombshells, but the binder didn't contain any. Bondi mentioned that she had expected to find "juicy stuff" but didn't. Despite this, they prepared the binder for release, fulfilling the President's order for transparency. However, late last night, Bondi received a call from a source within the FBI, Southern District of New York, revealing that hundreds, if not thousands, of other documents and files were being hidden from everyone. They were hiding it from the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, the FBI Director, and you.

Last night, it was revealed that Tony Blinken played a significant role in orchestrating a plan involving 51 intelligence operatives. Their objective was to discredit a laptop that is widely known to be genuine. All evidence points to Blinken as the mastermind behind this scheme. It is crucial that he is questioned and held accountable for his actions.

The jury sent a note and then requested the legal instructions be read back, which took 80 minutes. All evidence related to their questions will also need to be read back. The jury is likely reviewing evidence chronologically and will use the rest of the week. A verdict by Friday afternoon is possible, but it wouldn't be alarming if it doesn't happen. Friday is the most likely date for a verdict.

The Department of Justice sent a letter to the Southern District of New York on a Saturday, which is unusual. The letter requests the court to set a surrender date for Devin Archer, who is scheduled to testify on Monday. The letter seems to be an attempt to pressure the judge to sentence Archer for something unrelated to the upcoming testimony about Burisma. This raises concerns about the Department of Justice's actions and possible coordination with the Biden legal team and House Oversight Committee. It is seen as obstruction of justice and a violation of the law. Despite these challenges, the investigation will continue.

Speaker 0: "What I'm saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents. There's a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. Alright? Mhmm. You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen." Speaker 1: "I'll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI's most wanted list. There are only two ways that happens. You die or your informant." Speaker 1: "Put that aside. Under congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when senator Cruz asked her, flat out, were there federal agents involved with January 6? And she said, quote, senator, I can't answer that at this time." Speaker 1: "The reason she said I can't answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russergate with Christopher Steelehauper and everybody else. It's the same narrative, and and I'm telling you they were there." Speaker 0: "You're so you're saying that she said I can't answer that because the answer is yes Yeah. And that would compromise whatever their operation was. Exactly."

The witness testified that they were present when Tony Schafer received a phone call from then-Attorney General Bill Barr. The call was on speakerphone, and 6 or 7 other people were able to hear the conversation. According to the witness, Barr was irate and told Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response indicated that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The witness characterized the conversation as agitated.

According to a reliable source, someone from Washington allegedly called the Atlanta district attorney on a Friday evening, urging them to indict on Monday to cover up mistakes made with Weiss. The district attorney explained that the jurors wouldn't return until Tuesday, but the caller insisted on Monday, regardless of the late hour. The purpose was to manipulate the news media. The identity of the caller remains unknown, and it should be noted that this information is hearsay. However, it aligns with the leaked documents, the exhausted clerk, and the late-night press conference.

The transcript centers on a report from NBC News about the man charged with planting two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters on the eve of the January 6th attack. The speaker cites NBC’s article, which states that the suspect told the FBI he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter. The speaker notes that NBC provides no direct quote or further context beyond that single claim. The speaker asserts that their own sources indicate the word used by the suspect, Brian Cole Jr., in his FBI interview was that he believed the 2020 election was stolen. However, the speaker claims there is a widespread belief within the FBI that this comment was a legal maneuver rather than a genuine belief. According to the speaker, the FBI allegedly thinks the statement was coached by Cole’s lawyer to secure a pardon from President Trump, specifically a retroactive pardon because Trump had issued a pardon for individuals convicted of January 6–related crimes. The speaker emphasizes that there is no additional evidence in Cole Jr.’s background, as far as their sources can determine, indicating he is a Trump supporter. They remark that NBC is one of the few outlets making this claim, noting that the article contains several paragraphs but only repeats the initial sentence without further detail. The speaker suggests that even within liberal media, there is a belief that the comment was a legal maneuver rather than a reflection of genuine political conviction, and argues that NBC’s reporting is selectively presented to push a particular narrative. Throughout, the speaker contrasts this with a broader media portrayal, arguing that while Brian Cole Jr. did make the comment about the 2020 election being stolen, the context is missing, and the media narrative is being shaped by selective reporting. The speaker frames the situation as an instance of media cherry-picking intended to influence perceptions about the suspect’s political affiliations and the nature of his statements to the FBI, rather than providing a complete account.

According to a reliable source, someone from Washington allegedly called the Atlanta district attorney on Friday, urging them to indict on Monday to cover up mistakes made with Weiss. The district attorney explained that the jurors wouldn't return until Tuesday, but the caller insisted on Monday. The timing didn't matter to them, as they wanted the news media to shift. The identity of the caller remains unknown, and this information is hearsay. However, considering the leaked information, errors in the clerk document, the district attorney's exhaustion, and the late-night press conference, it seems plausible.

The speaker claims that starting two days after January 6th, the FBI initiated twice-daily phone calls with policing agencies nationwide, including local, state, governor's offices, and mayoral offices. According to the speaker, these calls served as a national forum. The speaker alleges that the FBI used these calls to indoctrinate law enforcement agencies, mayor's offices, and governors across the country. The speaker asserts that the FBI used these calls to instruct them on how to prosecute individuals involved in January 6th.

John Nance and Hogan DeGidley discuss a recent FBI case and press conference. Patel’s FBI has been extremely transparent, and that transparency will continue to reassure the American people that information regarding this subject will flow as appropriate without jeopardizing the prosecution of the case. A key takeaway is the suggestion that forensic evidence could be the linchpin to identifying the suspect, despite millions of data lines to review; pieces such as DNA or a fingerprint related to the pipe bombs themselves may have been the actual “smoking gun.” There is emphasis on teamwork and the idea that information had been left to collect dust rather than being newly uncovered. AG Merrick Garland’s remarks are cited, highlighting that the evidence leading to the arrest had been sitting at the FBI for years. The FBI, along with US Attorney Piro and prosecutors, worked tirelessly for months sifting through evidence that had been at the FBI with the Biden administration for four years. The point is made that there was no new tip or new witness, just diligent police work and prosecutorial effort. Hogan DeGidley asks why the case wasn’t cracked during President Biden’s four years in office. The response suggests that it either couldn’t be done or wouldn’t be done, and that the American people suffered as a result. It is stated that this did not come from new evidence but from information already in the bureau and departments being sifted through. The discussion frames the case as a win for the administration, the FBI, and the DOJ, and a step toward transparency, accountability, and justice. They note that the attackers placed pipe bombs at both the RNC and DNC locations; the motives remain unknown, and questions about a possible Antifa link or other theories are mentioned as preliminary. Cash Patel is quoted as saying the FBI has committed to being the most transparent law enforcement operation in U.S. history while ensuring accountability in the courts with U.S. Attorneys and prosecutors. The aim is to divulge information when prudent and constitutionally permissible, safeguarding the case, to secure the nation’s capital and allow Americans to live in safe, secure neighborhoods. This is attributed to leadership from the FBI Washington Field Office. John Nance comments that Patel is doing a very good job and that the director’s social-media transparency is notable. He expresses encouragement about the FBI’s reform efforts and notes that the White House press narrative around January 6 is seen as misaligned with the pipe-bomb case. The arrest took place in Woodbridge, Virginia, a wealthy DMV suburb, prompting remarks about why the dots weren’t connected sooner.

Reyes, a neighbor, whispered something to the speaker, expressing their intention to serve the capital and storm it. This revelation changed our understanding of Reyes, as they predicted the storming of the US Capitol before it happened. The mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol, and we verified the authenticity of Reyes' statement using forensic software. We extensively searched through various sources, including news stories, FBI case documents, and deposition records, but found no prior discussions about this plan, except for one rider on substack.