TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Kamala Harris had a rally in Atlanta with Megan Thee Stallion to boost attendance. Fulton County allegedly buses in homeless people for events to make them look full. This tactic is not unique to Harris, as it has been rumored to happen during elections as well. The rally may not accurately reflect true support for Harris.

Former drug user and convicted felon Larry Sinclair claims to have knowledge about Barack Obama that he feels compelled to share. He describes his background and experiences with Senator Obama, including an alleged encounter in 1999 where Obama purchased and used cocaine. Sinclair also mentions a phone call made by his limo driver to Obama to set up the meeting. He contacted Obama's campaign in 2007 to request that Obama correct his drug use record, but received a call from someone named Mr. Young who seemed more interested in the sexual encounters Sinclair had not mentioned. Sinclair ends his statement by saying he will answer questions.

The transcript centers on allegations that Naftali Aaron Kranz is a paid protester and that a group called GetFree recruits and deploys paid demonstrators. A journalist questions whether there is someone they can speak to, and the conversation suggests the person of interest is on the other side of a park. The speaker asserts that Naftali Aaron Kranz is “a paid protester through and through,” and that he posts on LinkedIn to hire paid protesters for GetFree, a company advertising itself as a grassroots organization while paying people to protest. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four-plus years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, and civil disobedience (which is described as experience getting arrested). Compensation is reportedly 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours per week. The speaker claims GetFree’s stated mission is to undo white supremacy, despite the assertion that Kranz and others are paid to protest. The narrative highlights Kranz’s participation in protests, including celebrating vandalism, with an example cited of “Crown Heights stay winning” after an egg was thrown at a stranger’s cyber truck and dog feces placed on it. The speaker places Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he is not leading the protest but blending in with recruits, enabling a later photo op. The claim is that this recruitment tactic blends various leftist causes to inflate the appearance of each individual cause. The speaker also states Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and was encountered at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited again, with Kranz posting about paid protester roles and recruiting nationwide in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore to expand turnout at events. When clicking a linked job posting, the contract is described as nine weeks, part-time, paying about 3,400 dollars in stipends issued biweekly, with responsibilities including recruiting and training people to drive turnout. The speaker identifies Nicole Cardi at the top of the Get Free movement and attributes a belief that George Floyd protests were a factor in Biden’s 2020 victory. The transcript connects protest NGOs to political goals, claiming donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the Department of Justice is investigating for foreign contributions. It also asserts ActBlue funds activists like Indivisible Twin Cities, which allegedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been paid protesters, receiving over 7.6 million dollars from Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal note to stay away, and the journalist states they have to go.

Comms will continue to fuel the fire. We need everyone's support, regardless of political affiliation. Democrats had a 20,000 vote advantage in Dade County, but there were some irregularities in Milwaukee. There are valuable lessons to be learned from this campaign.

Former drug user and convicted felon Larry Sinclair claims to have knowledge about Barack Obama that he feels compelled to share. Sinclair describes his background and experiences with Obama, including an alleged incident in 1999 where he claims Obama arranged a cocaine purchase and engaged in drug use with him. Sinclair also mentions attempts to contact Obama's campaign to request a correction regarding Obama's drug use record. He received a call from someone named Mr. Young who seemed interested in the sexual encounters Sinclair had with Obama, which Sinclair had not mentioned previously. Sinclair concludes by stating that he will answer questions respectfully but will not tolerate disrespect.

We have established the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in American political history, similar to what was done during President Obama's administration.

ActBlue changed its donation process in September to require CVV numbers to prevent foreign donations. However, there hasn't been a noticeable drop-off in donations since this change. The information provided by ActBlue was misleading; they only require CVV numbers for new accounts opened after the change. This means that hundreds of thousands of existing donors are still not subject to this requirement, which was not clearly communicated.

Barack Obama's rise to prominence is remarkable, starting from being relatively unknown to becoming the Democratic nominee for president. A group of Democratic donors in Chicago supported Obama and funded his campaign, paving the way for his success. However, the media failed to provide detailed information about his background and beliefs, focusing instead on his charisma and the slogans of "hope and change." During the 2008 campaign, a man named Larry Sinclair came forward with allegations of a sexual encounter and drug use with Obama in 1999. Despite providing a sworn affidavit and taking a lie detector test, Sinclair's claims were dismissed by the media as conspiracy theories. Sinclair currently resides in Mexico.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

The conversation covers a mix of topics centered on political connections and accountability. It begins with a reference to Barack Obama, noting he “was president of The United States,” followed by a remark about his time in Chicago and a comment attributed to him: “only black people could live that way.” Attorney Klein is brought into the discussion, and there is a transition to turnover of questions and answers. A committee issue is raised: Speaker 2 accuses the person addressed of misleading the committee, including a contradictory written submission. The person responds that they will review the matter “in our next break to correct the record,” answering “Yes” to whether they will review it. The dialogue then addresses political campaign involvement. Speaker 2 asks whether the person helped out the president’s campaign, acted as a representative or spokesman, and whether it was their idea for the campaign dating back to 2011; the response given is “Yes.” Speaker 3 asks for identification of individuals associated with the Trump organization. The person confirms several individuals: Alan Weisenberg as the Chief Financial Officer, and Miss Rona Graf as the executive assistant to Mr. Trump. The request is for as many names as possible so the committee can meet them. The person confirms Rona Graf’s position and explains that she is the executive assistant, with her office directly next to Mr. Trump’s, and notes that she has been involved in a lot of what went on. There is a reflective aside from Speaker 1 about the difficulty of following the proceedings in real time, and a critical observation regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement: questions are raised about why Epstein would have the contact information of the executive assistant and why she would feel comfortable texting him back during a congressional hearing. Speaker 4 adds commentary on hierarchy and motivation, suggesting that Epstein’s influence is reflected in the assistant’s actions: “Epstein's clearly paying her… she's just following her marching orders for her paycheck.” The exchange ends with the implication that the hierarchy and payoffs influence the responses and behavior of those connected to the Trump organization.

Barack Obama’s rise from little-known state senator to Democratic nominee is framed in the discussion as a culmination of a small group of Chicago donors backing him, funding his campaign, and paving the way for his ascent, with two years in the U.S. Senate spent preparing to run in 2008, culminating in his victory. The interviewer notes that the news media avoided answering basic questions about Obama’s life, beliefs, and origins during the 2008 campaign, instead labeling inquiries as conspiracy theories. Larry Sinclair, who would later claim to have met Obama, appears in the studio. Sinclair recounts meeting Obama in 1999 in Illinois through a limousine driver he hired in Chicago. He explains he was in town for Lee Duke’s Naval Academy graduation and was seeking a party night in Chicago, specifically asking the driver if he knew anyone available. The driver, Jamere Motani of Five Star Limo, allegedly introduced Sinclair to a man whom Motani said was Barack Obama. Sinclair says he had never heard of Obama before and did not know he was a politician at the time; he asserts the driver knew Obama and described him as liking the same kind of partying Sinclair was seeking. Sinclair describes going to a bar in Chicago with Obama, where Sinclair asked for something to wake up and was directed to cocaine. He states Obama said he knew where to get it, and they left to obtain it. He pays $250 for cocaine, and in the limo, Obama allegedly pulled out a pipe and began smoking crack; Sinclair says he then performed oral sex on Obama after initiating a physical advance. Sinclair recounts the driver’s partition being up and that the driver did not object. The night continued with another encounter the next day when Obama supposedly returned to Sinclair’s hotel, the Comfort Inn in Gurnee, Illinois, with more cocaine, and the pair repeated the same program, including another sexual encounter and further cocaine use. Sinclair says he later left and Obama dropped him off at his hotel, but Obama then showed up the next day at Sinclair’s hotel for another encounter. Sinclair emphasizes he did not know Obama’s identity or political status at the time, and only realized who Obama was when he saw him at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004 and again in 2008. He asserts Obama used his real name, Barack, at the time of the encounters. Afterward, Sinclair sought to contact the Obama campaign in late 2007, urging Barack Obama to acknowledge his cocaine use in the past, asking that Obama simply state, “I did coke and I’ve done it as recently as 1999.” He says he contacted David Axelrod’s office in Chicago with three letters but never mentioned the sexual encounter in 2007. He recounts receiving a call from someone he identifies as Donald Young, a gay choir director from Jeremiah Wright’s church, who claimed to be with the Obama campaign and said that the campaign would not acknowledge the sex and drug interaction. Young allegedly told Sinclair that he had known Obama for years and had an intimate relationship with him, and warned him to be careful because the Obama campaign would not acknowledge anything. Sinclair describes Donald Young’s death in Chicago as a key piece of the narrative, stating Young was shot dead in his 2nd-floor apartment, with details that he says were publicly documented, and that Jeremiah Wright announced Young’s death early that morning. Norma Jean Young, Donald Young’s mother, is described as a former Chicago Police Department employee who believed Young’s death was to protect Barack Obama, and Lorraine Young, Donald’s sister, reportedly supported the claim that Young and Obama had been intimately close for years. Sinclair asserts that he disclosed his full story in a YouTube video in January 2008, but that the video was deleted after YouTube gave access to his account to someone else, and his emails and Hotmail were allegedly compromised. He contends that reporters avoided the story due to pressure from Axelrod to destroy him and because outlets did not want to lose access to the Obama campaign. Sinclair claims Greta Van Susteren and Ben Smith covered the story unfavorably; he labels Ben Smith a “grifter” and accuses Politico of misrepresenting his career and status as a fugitive, while insisting he never hid his past. In reflecting on Obama, Sinclair maintains Obama is a “grifter” who is power-hungry and believes Obama has influenced the Biden administration; he argues Obama’s presidency has pushed race relations backward and that Obama’s public persona masks transactional and sexual behaviors. He asserts that he grew up as a gay man in rural South Carolina and believes Obama’s campaign rhetoric contrasted with reality, noting Obama’s comments to supporters about fights and displaying a willingness to use race as a tool. The conversation closes with Sinclair acknowledging the complexity of the situation, reiterating his claim that he had sex with Obama and that Donald Young’s calls and subsequent death are connected to the broader narrative about Obama’s past.

The speaker discusses the involvement of the Office of Special Counsel and the actions taken by David Plouffe and CTCL. They highlight how Plouffe allocated funds from Zuckerberg to select cities without any applications. Additionally, they mention the $28 million in grants given to five cities in Wisconsin. The speaker suggests that this money was used to influence the African American vote in Milwaukee, as stated by Plouffe in a 2016 editorial. They argue that these actions were part of a partisan effort, supported by contracts that bound the cities to follow the directives of CTCL and Plouffe.

A foundation hired independent contractors to conduct voter registration. Two of the contractors were found guilty. The foundation, whose budget is 99% funded by state grants, did not participate in fraud, but hired people with state dollars who then used that to create fake voter registrations. Project Veritas exposed alleged ballot harvesting by supporters of Democrat representative Ilhan Omar and her allies in Minnesota. They claim paid workers illegally gathered absentee ballots from elderly Somali immigrants, with new video footage showing one operative bragging about collecting hundreds of ballots. The question raised is who is filling out the absentee ballots, with the people who work with Omar and other candidates allegedly working for them. The video notes, “Where do they pay the money? The minute we sign the thing, the election, that's really good thing.” The claim also states this is the brother of one of the city council members in that city. Observers described the report as very surprising and noted that an investigation would need to confirm all allegations. They highlighted concerns about mail-in ballots in a contentious election year and whether ballots arrive at their destination or if voters are influenced on how they fill them out, raising questions about ballot handling. The county attorney said the matter is illegal and that an investigation will proceed. The illegal part is ballot harvesting; portions of it are allowed in certain states where you can have that, but in this state, “you can take up to three for somebody else in.” That was 300. The investigation is ongoing.

Barack Obama, then a US Senate candidate from Illinois, stated that his election would break a barrier, as there were no African Americans in the Senate at the time. He emphasized the importance of including African Americans, Latinos, and more women in the political process, as the Senate makes decisions about war, peace, and taxes. Obama agreed that his potential election was proof that the voting process can work if minorities and young people get involved. He stressed the importance of political participation, noting that young people should be involved in decisions about war and taxes, regardless of their profession, so that their interests are looked after.

Kamala Harris is allegedly paying people to attend rallies. The speaker claims to have proof of this through a Casting Network billboard. The billboard sought nonunion actors for a Democratic event, offering payment, a per diem for meals and transportation, and coverage of flight and other expenses. The submissions were due the day before the speaker discussed it. The speaker believes this shows that the Harris campaign's ground game is a facade, as they are willing to pay for people to attend rallies.

Speaker 1 argues that there may come a time with an airborne deadly disease and that to deal with it effectively we must build an infrastructure globally to see, isolate, and respond quickly. He says investing in this infrastructure is a smart, long-term measure and not just insurance, especially in a globalized world where future outbreaks like a flu similar to the Spanish flu could arise in five to ten years. Speaker 2 contends that the CIA enjoys influencing a new president who has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. He claims the day after an election the CIA director offers a president-elect a PDB, a president’s daily brief, describing the “cool things” happening around the world, which allegedly pulls the president in. He asserts the CIA engineers the president’s reactions and questions and that this is a deliberate psychological profiling and manipulation technique used for decades to subvert foreign governments and one’s own government. Speaker 4 relates a story from February 2008 about a high-level asset who allegedly worked for several intelligence agencies, including the Saudi Intelligence Service and the CIA, and who was described as a non-U.S. citizen on a student visa, becoming president in 2008. He alleges the individual’s code name was Renegade and real name Barry Sartaro, claiming a cabal pursued a mission to destroy the United States from within one institution at a time, including defunding the military and ordering military actions that harmed allies and aided enemies. He claims the president’s office instructed commanders not to question orders, and asserts actions created ISIS-like outcomes by redirecting and abandoning equipment to enemies. Speaker 0 interjects with a narrative tying Bush and Obama together, describing a perceived connection through Barack Obama’s supposed adoption by Lolo Sotoro, with references to George H.W. Bush’s CIA tenure and oil-industry ties. He claims Obama’s grandmother operated CIA money channels to the Southwest Pacific, and asserts Obama attended a Hawaii high school with tuition figures and later became extremely wealthy, with Business Insider reporting 2017 net income and 2018 net worth figures for Obama, contrasting them with Trump’s earnings. Speaker 2 discusses Obama-era “kill list” meetings led by John Brennan, suggesting that Tuesday morning kill lists were used to authorize drone strikes or targeted killings, with weekly execution of these lists and a proliferation of drone missiles during Obama’s presidency. He notes uncertainty about whether subsequent presidents continued or revived the practice, but asserts it was a point of pride in the Obama administration. Speaker 5 and Speaker 2 conclude by reaffirming that Obama dropped more missiles from drones than anyone else.

Michigan voter data is described as a state secret that Jocelyn Benson is safeguarding from the federal government, with the speaker claiming she told authorities they can’t have it and contrasting this with the idea of not wanting the federal government to have your social security number. The speaker then alleges that Benson “gives our voter data away” to a nonprofit, and that she has done so since taking office in 2019. The nonprofit identified is the electronic registration information center, ERIC. The claim is not that Benson gives data away to ERIC per se, but that she spends taxpayer money to provide data to ERIC. The speaker contends that on television Benson presents herself as the guardian of voters’ data, while, in reality, she uses public funds to share it. After ERIC receives the voter data, the speaker says it is sent to another nonprofit, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR. The common thread alleged between ERIC and CEIR is a liberal operative named David Becker, who is said to have founded both organizations. The speaker asserts that in 2020, Becker’s CEIR gave Benson’s nonprofit $12,000,000 on the eve of the election. The claim continues that Benson used part of this funding to purchase Jocelyn Benson campaign ads. The speaker notes that this year, Lansing Republicans attempted to pull Michigan out of ERIC, as eight other states had already left, but the Republicans could not secure the votes to do so. The transcript suggests that Republicans facing Benson in the governor’s race should make this a campaign issue. It is presented as an easy story on the campaign trail: Jocelyn Benson’s friends obtain Michigan voter data and are paid to manage it, while Michigan taxpayers fund both sides of the lawsuit between Benson and the U.S. Department of Justice. The speaker connects the financial support from CEIR to Benson’s nonprofit with the broader political dynamic involving Benson and the DOJ.

Mike Benz outlines a conspiracy tied to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and a June 2020 war game that purportedly sought “a way to use riots, nationwide riots, and do favors to the Black Lives Matter movement so that they would owe them favors back to take to the streets against Trump if Trump won the election fair and square,” while also needing “a robust, intentional, and specific strategy to go after the networks that enabled Trump's rise to power” so they could be jailed after Trump left office. Bubba Boyd, who has written about the event since August 2020, explains that the discussion will cover the key players in TIP, the plan to subvert the 2020 election, how rigging the election and four prosecutions of Trump flow from the June 2020 conspirators’ meeting, and excerpts from a January 2020 Donald Trump speech to the World Economic Forum that allegedly signals why Trump and Trumpism had to be eliminated. The publicly named sponsors of the war game are Rosa Brooks and Niles Gilman of the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles, described as the “globalist home of Silicon Valley’s anti-Trump billionaires,” with branches in Venice and Beijing and a China branch in direct dialogue with Xi Jinping. Michael Anton is cited as the author of a Trump national security document who criticized TIP’s war game, stating they were planning a coup against the election and publicizing the war game to normalize the idea. Brooks’s background is summarized as a lawyer for George Shullis at the Open Society Institute, then a State Department attorney for regime change, then a Pentagon policy lawyer under Obama, while teaching at Georgetown Law. The narrative asserts she advocated impeaching Trump and a potential 25th Amendment move, and even a military coup, in a 2017 Foreign Policy piece titled “three ways to get rid of president Trump before 2020,” including the sentence: “For the first time in my life, I can imagine plausible scenarios in which senior military officers might simply tell the president, no, sir. We’re not doing that.” The claim is that she “couldn’t wait to launch a coup against Trump,” a portrayal attributed to a New York Times editorial response. In June 2020, Brooks and Gilman allegedly convened TIP’s war game about the 2020 election and its possible aftermath, with over 100 participants and 76 role players drawn from former Pentagon officials, the intelligence community, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the media, and Republican and Democratic institutions. Names publicly associated with anti-Trump activity are listed, including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, Bill Kristol, Michael Steele, Jennifer Granholm, and other unnamed figures, all described as major players in attempts to nullify the 2016 election and overthrow the government. Benz is said to detail the TIP war games and concludes that to prevent a second Trump term, Biden would need a large victory margin to overcome fraud perceptions, with the insurrectionist scenario calling for control of the military, Black Lives Matter, and other street rioters. The narrative asserts that BLM raised about 90 million in 2020 with donors like the Democracy Alliance and the Ford Foundation, and that Mark Elias led financial filings associated with the effort. The discussion further cites Defense One articles from August 2020 that reportedly called for a military coup and a subsequent open debate within the military about accepting orders, and claims that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley “was not about to obey any order from the president.” The appendix to TIP’s report allegedly debated criminally proceeding against Trump after leaving office and wiping out his “white supremacist and extremist base,” with a quote describing the need for a strategy to challenge networks that enabled Trump’s rise and remained “imbecible to the kind of pluralist democracy the founders intended,” implying a path toward removing Trump’s influence even after his presidency. The transcript also notes contemporary references to Arctic Frost, an FBI investigation linked to 2022 midterms, and alleged targeting of Republican election operations and other figures by the FBI. Excerpts from Trump’s World Economic Forum address and a January 2020 speech are presented to illustrate a moral and strategic framing against globalism and “radical socialists.” The presentation ends by inviting audience support and promoting further engagement, including a free newsletter.

Barack Obama has long supported Israel, even before his time in the senate. His political career was influenced by two prominent Jewish families in Chicago.

There have been discussions about former Labour Party members who were involved in past campaigns and have since left the party. Some staff members are taking time off to volunteer in various capacities, including door knocking across America. These connections are not new; for instance, Yvette Cooper assisted the Clinton campaign in 1992.

Speaker 0: I want to ask about what if you've changed position on what happened in the twenty twenty election. Speaker 1: Oh, I think it was rigged. Speaker 0: You think it was rigged? Speaker 1: Yeah. I know more now than I did then. What you'd have to do is in February 2021, was a Time Magazine article that was published, it was about Mark Zuckerberg investing $500,000,000 in a get out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. And they focused in what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. And they went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of states in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it, we will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections. But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it. If you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, that there are, that you've got a, an RV going around and hauling people into the, into the polling places to vote. When you do that, if, if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back. You most likely would have ended up in prison. I mean, that's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge. $500,000,000 concentrated in Democrat counties for the purpose of getting out the Democrat vote. Speaker 0: How do you know it was to get the Democrat vote out? Because how does exactly do what are the mechanics of that? Of how it was You Speaker 1: I have to read the article. And what the article does is it lays it out, and the title is something along the lines of how a secret group of people were able to save the twenty twenty election, meaning how were they able to get Joe Biden elected.

It feels like 2008 excitement in the air, from the outhouse to the White House. Kamala Harris will win the election with our help. Michigan hasn't seen this kind of excitement since electing Barack Obama in 2008.

The Somali community is critical to the election. The speaker notes that they wouldn’t be in office without Somali support, as Somali voters came out in large numbers and helped register people to vote. Recently, several thousand Somalis were naturalized as U.S. citizens, and Somalis can have a huge impact on the election beyond Minnesota, including in Ohio and Virginia. The speaker emphasizes that Somalis should not only vote but also help others vote, to maximize turnout. On their campaign, there are strong Somali leaders such as Himu Issac, described as a great, articulate, smart young woman who is mobilizing Somali voters and other voters to the polls, and Miriam, among others involved in the campaign. The message is that the Somali community plays a critical role not just in Minnesota but also in Ohio (Columbus, Ohio) and Virginia, and there is a call to contact relatives in those areas to encourage voting.

We have assembled the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in American political history, similar to what was done during President Obama's administration.

The speaker discusses the connection between George Herbert Walker Bush and Barack Obama's stepfather, Lolo Sotoro, who had business ties. Lolo Sotoro was involved in the Indonesian army's death squads and had connections to the CIA. Barack's grandmother facilitated the flow of CIA money to the Southwest Pacific. Lolo Sotoro adopted Barack, changing his name to Barry Sartoro. The speaker mentions the expensive high school Obama attended and his classmates' claims about the tuition fees. They also mention Obama's significant income and the trust fund left by Lolo Sotoro, making Obama a beneficiary. The speaker suggests a hidden game being played between Bush and Michelle Obama involving candy.