TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states they were charged with sales murder without ever speaking to a detective, police officer, or DA. They claim Kamala Harris appeared at the two most pivotal times in their first trial: conviction and sentencing, suggesting it felt like a celebration for her. The speaker recounts that people describe their story as the worst nightmare, akin to dying. When confronted with a quote from Kamala Harris's book about the role of a progressive prosecutor, the speaker says it sounds like Kamala Harris as a senator now, but it was the polar opposite of what they and their community felt when she was the district attorney of San Francisco.

In my 30 years as a prosecutor, judge, and DA, I have never seen a witness torn apart like Michael Cohen. He lies constantly, including to congress, judges, and in court. Cohen claimed to have resolved an issue with Trump in 2016, but evidence showed otherwise. This case is a circus led by a liar. A judge should dismiss it before going to a jury.

I'm not worried about being targeted for prosecuting insurrectionists. Our team was thorough and adhered to the rule of law. The charging decisions were supported by grand juries and upheld by numerous courts, including the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court merely narrowed the statute's application without questioning its use in these cases. The new U.S. attorney's investigation feels like a wild goose chase, especially given the vast amount of files involved. It's frustrating to see someone undermine our hard work and suggest wrongdoing by the prosecutors. This undermines the integrity of the department and is unfounded.

With a swipe of my pen, I can charge someone with a misdemeanor, the lowest level of attempts possible. By virtue of that swipe, you will have to go to a courthouse and stand in line. You will have to hire an attorney. You may get arrested for a few hours and be embarrassed in your community. You will miss time from coming on to the Google campus, all because I've charged you with a crime, which I may choose to dismiss 2 weeks later. It's an incredible amount of power.

I was part of the group arrested for the Whitmer kidnap plot, which was set up by the FBI. I was acquitted. I thought I was doing security work, but it turned out to be targeting Whitmer's cottage. I got charged for material support terrorism and felony firearm possession. The government lied about the situation. I urge people to take action to ensure real justice in the face of government overreach.

Since Dr. Haim's charges were dropped, my law firm has received more calls from doctors reporting False Claims Act violations at their hospitals. They feel safer coming forward now, trusting they won't be threatened under the current administration. This increase in calls suggests the prosecution was suppressing whistleblowers. US Attorney Alamdar Hamdani is out with the change of administration, but will he be held accountable? At the very least, the Department of Justice should investigate and reveal their findings, especially regarding violations of department policy. Examples include the improper use of the target designation before the Assistant U. Attorney reviewed the evidence and the use of a personal cell phone to discuss the case with agents. Even just an analysis of what went wrong under his watch would start the process of accountability.

Before becoming Florida's attorney general, I was a prosecutor for 18 years, handling numerous trials. This case, previously rejected by various authorities, is now being pursued suspiciously close to a presidential election. The judge, meant to be impartial, is overseeing a situation unlike any I've encountered before.

As a former naval officer, I believe that if I had done what Hillary Clinton did, I would have faced immediate court martial. The lack of prosecutorial zeal and the delegation of the investigation to her own aides was a complete joke. This imbalance in the justice system needs to be rectified when I become President. Additionally, the Garland Justice Department turned a blind eye to the violation of federal law when crazed individuals threatened Supreme Court justices at their homes. If the protesters were in front of liberal justices' homes, action would have been taken swiftly.

The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department against me and my family, targeting me for blowing the whistle on gender affirming care for minors at Texas Children's Hospital. A Health and Human Services memo signaled that anyone interfering with this care would be targeted. They tried to manufacture an indictment, violating my patient privacy while accusing me of the same. Without X, the truth wouldn't have been heard. The charges were eventually dropped, a moment of indescribable relief after immense pain. This dismissal, with prejudice, means the case can never be brought again. Accountability is crucial: those responsible should be held accountable. The emotional and financial toll was huge, costing us almost $2,000,000. This case highlights how the government can exploit its resources to crush dissent. This isn't the America I grew up in.

With the swipe of my pen, I could charge someone with the lowest level offense, leading to their arrest and at least 48 hours in jail. They could lose time with family, maybe lose their job, and have to hire a lawyer, losing standing in their community. Weeks later, I could dismiss the charges, but their life would forever be changed. I learned at a very young age the power I had.

I told them they wouldn't get a billion unless the prosecutor was fired. I was leaving in 6 hours. They fired the prosecutor, and I'm getting a new one.

The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department and Health and Human Services against my family after I blew the whistle on gender affirming care for minors at Texas Children's Hospital. They targeted me after a memo was sent out that said anyone who interferes with gender affirming care will be targeted by the federal government. I was indicted, accused of violating patient privacy laws by releasing patient names. I redacted the patient names and protected their identities. I was facing ten years in prison. The Justice Department was trying to crush us, but we didn't let them. The case was dismissed with prejudice. It was an indescribable relief. Accountability looks like the people responsible being held to account. The emotional toll, the fear, and the legal defense cost us almost $2,000,000.

The conversation centers on Tina Peters, her defense team, and alleged procedural and ethical problems surrounding her case. The speaker details his personal involvement, including paying a million dollars to Doug Richards to defend Peters. He recounts discovering misgivings about Richards’ defense plan a few days before trial and visiting Richards’ hotel room to hear his theory of the case. Richards allegedly arrived resentfully on a Zoom call with other criminal defense attorneys and proposed a strategy to put Peters on the stand, claiming that “colonelson” told her to image a hard drive. The speaker notes that colonelson was the president’s attorney, not Peters’ own attorney, and Richards supposedly argued Peters could claim it was legal advice from an attorney, although the speaker states California does not have a legal advice exception and Colorado law would render such a defense nugatory. The proposed strategy allegedly aimed to create jury sympathy for a 68-year-old grandmother rather than present substantive legal arguments or evidence of fraud. The speaker contends that Richards’ strategy would have resulted in Peters going on the stand with no other witnesses, effectively inviting jury nullification and failing to argue legitimate defenses or present critical motions. Peters reportedly fell ill during this period, and she fired Richards at the last moment, seeking proper counsel. The judge and Richards are described as part of a “railroad” process in Colorado, with Richards allegedly designing an ineffectual defense to push Peters to testify, thereby enabling possible indictments of Kurt Olson and 45. The speaker asserts that several local criminal defense attorneys on a Zoom call were horrified by Richards’ strategy and that the defense was deliberately weak. Stephanie Lambert, currently indicted in Michigan, who is in leg irons in Washington, DC, then took Peters’ case and filed motions that, in the speaker’s view, should have been filed earlier. These motions contend that Peters, as county recorder, had the right to make a backup of election data, and that the backup was a legitimate act; a friend with a cyber background and a surfer athlete allegedly participated with Peters’ permission, though the employee “Billy” later denied it. The speaker asserts Peters did nothing wrong and that the charges should have been dismissed. The speaker criticizes the legal profession more broadly, claiming mass coordination by state bar associations and “Project 65” to deprive people of Sixth Amendment rights, citing John Eastman as another example. He mentions a concerted effort to undermine the defense and hints at promises of federal judgeships in exchange for cooperation. He notes that Peters’ motions filed by Lambert should have been filed earlier and accuses Richards of crafting a strategy that would have allowed immediate indictments of Donald Trump’s legal team. The speaker references a Supreme Court filing and a constitutional crisis, stating that the Supreme Court already has “everything it needs” as of the prior night. He praises one DC judge as fair and straightforward, while his other cases are described as varied, though he intends to proceed even if it means jail time. He promises to upload a confidential brief and invites the audience to read the filing with SCOTUS, signaling ongoing legal action.

I never imagined I would be charged with sales murder without speaking to any detectives or police. I was just arrested and charged. The first time I saw Kamala Harris was during my trial and sentencing; it felt like she was celebrating my conviction. When I share my story, people say it’s a nightmare, akin to dying. A quote from Harris emphasizes the role of a progressive prosecutor in advocating for the overlooked and addressing the root causes of crime. While this aligns with her current stance as a senator, it starkly contrasts with the justice I experienced under her leadership as San Francisco's district attorney, which felt completely different from her stated values.

Everyone is eager to hear your story, especially regarding the 2024 election. You have firsthand experience, which gives you authority on the matter. Can you share what's causing you to lose sleep? I received a text from a lawyer who previously tried to remove me from the ballot ten years ago. He threatened to send a cease and desist if I don’t stop speaking out. This has caused me significant anxiety. Courage is about facing fear, so I'm trying to push through it. It's concerning that individuals within the system are legally threatening you. I reached out to him to clarify what I said that was untrue, and we discussed it. Ultimately, everything I stated was accurate; he just didn't want it presented in a clear way.

I've put an end to the weaponization of government. A prime example of this was when a sitting president was allowed to viciously prosecute a political opponent, like myself. But how did that turn out? Not too good. Not too good at all.

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

"No matter the threats, I'm not backing down." "It is sad, telling, and downright dangerous that simply stating a bedrock principle of American law caused the president, our commander in chief, to threaten violence against me and to weaponize the Department of Justice against me." "I served at the Department of Justice." "I know that federal prosecutors have more control over the life and liberty of the American people than any other peacetime force." "I know that when these powers are used for good, they make us the more perfect union." "And I know that when these awesome powers are abused, when they are used to punish political opponents, to seek retribution, to do a president's personal bidding, there's nothing more dangerous in this country." "My message is clear. I took an oath to this constitution, and I intend to keep it." "I will never give up the ship."

Speaker 0 describes a judge threatening a witness with prosecution for testifying to their best knowledge and skills, saying that would make the witness criminally liable; asserts that such a threat by a judge constitutes a felony. Speaker 1 adds that many countries (27) have strict limits on defenses, often labeling real defenses as holocaust denial, preventing witnesses that counter official narratives and effectively blocking a proper defense; calls the situation insane. Speaker 0 reflects on lessons as an expert witness: he was never allowed to take a stand and was always moved off the stand. He states that German judges are obligated by case law to systematically deny any motion to introduce that kind of evidence, and that threats accompany this denial. Speaker 1 responds, though the exact wording is unclear. Speaker 0 recounts events from the early 1990s, noting that repeated appearances as a witness prompted panic and the introduction of new case law. He describes an incident where, in 1996, a defense lawyer wanted him to testify again, and the defense lawyer was prosecuted for merely filing a motion to introduce the evidence. He explains that in Germany, the defense cannot introduce evidence; only the prosecution and the judges can introduce evidence. The defense is defenseless because a defendant must file a motion for the judge to introduce evidence, and the judge not only systematically denies it but the prosecution prosecutes the defense lawyer for filing the motion. This pattern is described as serious and as something upheld by the German Supreme Court. Since then, filing motions to defend oneself in historical matters is described as a crime, with the act of defending oneself seemingly criminalized.

It was an emotional time seeing his baby get ripped from him, and it wasn't right. You never went through what I went through. You didn't endure all the things I had to endure. You weren't sleeping on a couch trying to raise a hundred bucks here, a thousand bucks here. I'm invoking the constitution here. Every defendant has the right to a fair trial, and no justice can be done in Ferguson or New York City if a fair trial cannot be had. You didn't sleep on a mattress in Louisiana. You weren't falsely accused by the federal government, not once but twice. You didn't go through three jury trials. James O'Keith is facing federal felony charges, charges that carry up to a quarter million dollar fine and ten years in prison. You didn't bleed and sweat and cry the way that I did for fourteen years. And you come into my institution and you have the gall to tell me that you're not the bad guy. This was never about you.

This situation with the DOJ is unprecedented. My husband was a federal prosecutor for 30 years, and this level of interference is not how our justice system is supposed to work. The allegations are serious, but I can't have a knee-jerk, politically motivated reaction. I need to do what's smart and right. I'm consulting with other leaders in government to determine my responsibility. When the allegations came out in September, I interceded to help stabilize the city. I don't want this situation to derail our progress. As governor, I represent the city and must protect my constituents. I need time to process this and figure out the right approach. Of course I am consulting with advisors on this matter.

The former president is being accused of converting a misdemeanor into a felony by the borough district attorney. However, two previous prosecutorial agencies have already examined the case and found nothing. This attack on the former president seems baseless and exaggerated, especially considering my experience as a prosecutor and defense attorney. It appears to be an over-the-top move.

A prosecutor should begin with a crime and then seek a name, not the other way around. The issue over the past four years has been the targeting of Donald Trump, starting from his 2016 campaign, leading to numerous investigations against him. As attorney general, I will not politicize the office or target individuals based on political affiliation. Justice will be applied fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward; otherwise, we risk losing our country.

The Biden administration weaponized the Justice Department against my family and me after I blew the whistle on gender affirming care for minors at Texas Children's Hospital. A Health and Human Services memo green-lit prosecutors to target anyone interfering with this care. The DOJ indicted me multiple times, even citing a non-existent law, for allegedly violating patient privacy, which I never did. They even threatened my wife. This ordeal cost us nearly $2 million. The charges were eventually dropped with prejudice, a huge relief, especially for our daughter. We're calling for accountability for those responsible for this abuse of power, hoping to prevent similar injustices. Without X, I never would have been able to blow the whistle. This isn't the America I recognize anymore.

This memo from Health and Human Services, it's a warning: anyone who interferes with so-called gender affirming care will be targeted by the federal government, who will use its full power to achieve its political goals. The Biden administration is giving the green light to prosecutors to manipulate HIPAA. HIPAA is meant to protect patient privacy, but it's being used to protect billion-dollar hospital corporations. Federal agents from Health and Human Services showed up at my door, investigating a case about medical records and gave me a target letter. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas is investigating potential federal law violations, and I am a potential target in a criminal investigation. I knew everything was going to change.