TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Tucker Carlson was removed from outlets for daring to discuss the war. Donahue, with the highest-rated show on MSNBC, was fired for criticizing the Iraq invasion. The speaker accuses the media of lying about Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and supporting bailouts and money printing. They warn that the world is on the verge of World War 3, placing the blame on those responsible.

Rick Sanchez and Glenn discuss how western and Russian media frame the Ukraine war, the state of journalism, and prospects for ending the conflict. Rick Sanchez explains that in the United States, the media operates with Pentagon and State Department correspondents who are fed lines to read on air, often about “new documents proving that such and such a bad person” and then follow with praise for allies. He says many correspondents are good people but their job is to articulate the narrative dictated by those institutions, leaving little room for his pushback or for challenging the official line. He notes he was on CNN with a big show and tried to question those narratives, but was pushed off the air or fired when he did. He contrasts his experience in the U.S. with his current environment, where he has more editorial freedom, and argues that in the United States, leadership rarely covers the other side—Putin, Xi, Modi—beyond brief comebacks on comedy shows, while in Russia he can access ministers and officials and report what they say more directly. He recounts Putin’s remarks last night, noting Putin said “The US media has become in many ways what we used to do back during the Soviet era,” that they block and interfere, and that “Russia has the best intercontinental weapon in the world today, and it's called truth.” Rick emphasizes the difference in how truth and free speech are treated, pointing out RT’s 20-year anniversary of free speech in Moscow and contrasting that with U.S. media practices. Glenn asks about how the narrative has flipped over time, referencing early Davos moments with Trump and the Chinese delegation, and later Russia’s perspective in Moscow. They discuss accountability gaps in Europe and the U.S.—the lack of accountability for events like the Biden laptop story, the Afghan bounties, the Nord Stream controversy, and the claimed Ukrainian drone deals—arguing that the press often avoids tough questions and veers toward pro-Russian framing by labeling inconvenient facts as Kremlin talking points. Rick argues that the censorship culture makes it seem like presenting the Russian perspective legitimizes it, yet he insists that understanding opposing viewpoints is essential to address the conflict. Rick claims that after Joe Biden’s administration made it illegal for him to practice journalism in the U.S. (tied to Russian connections with penalties for noncompliance), he found greater editorial freedom in Russia. He asserts that in the U.S., Putin or Xi speeches are rarely covered in full, whereas in Russia, officials publicly present their evidence—such as Boris Johnson allegedly paying bribes to Zelensky’s government to prevent a peace deal in April 2022—and provide data, timelines, and formal declarations, like a stated MI6 operation against Russia’s pipelines and a separate incident involving the destruction of a Russian aircraft fleet. They discuss the Ukraine conflict as a proxy battle primarily between the United States and Russia, with Trump positioned as a potential mediator who could push for rapprochement with Russia, potentially lifting sanctions to move toward peace. Rick explains his view that Europe’s insistence on continued confrontation with Russia is a sticking point and that the war’s end would require a shift toward diplomacy and a reduction of war propaganda at home. He cites a Guardian article detailing financial incentives to prolong the war and emphasizes that Russia’s strategy—advancing while minimizing civilian casualties and flanking cities—deserves more attention in Western reporting. They touch on Trump’s stance, suggesting that his administration might seek to end the war by reestablishing relations with Russia, and stress that some discussions could extend beyond Ukraine, potentially involving Odessa and broader regional settlements. They note Merkel’s recent critical commentary about Poland and Baltic states and acknowledge shifts in Western media narratives as war dynamics evolve. The conversation closes with hopes for reduced propaganda, renewed diplomacy, and the possibility that Hungary could host a productive meeting between leaders to move toward peace.

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.

Rick Sanchez discusses his career trajectory, including his time at RT. He was recruited by Larry King and found RT offered more editorial freedom than CNN, Fox, or NBC, where questioning neocon foreign policy was a red line. He wrote his entire show without pre-approval. After leaving RT to rejoin a healthcare company, Sanchez returned to do a show that aired globally but was banned in the U.S. He felt compelled to share an American perspective with the world and engage in discussions to prevent further conflict. He recounts a call from a former CNN colleague, now working with the State Department, which he interpreted as a warning. Subsequently, the Biden administration, via the Treasury Department, effectively shut down the company producing his show, threatening legal repercussions for any American associated with RT, alleging Russian interference in U.S. elections. Sanchez expresses dismay at the state's control over information and the demonization of Russians. He notes that the Russian perspective on the Ukraine war involves broken promises from NATO and the U.S. regarding eastward expansion. He criticizes the U.S. media landscape, where former government spokespersons dominate news networks. He also recounts an incident where a newspaper killed a story about his experience after a call from an unknown party to the managing editor. He believes Trump's instincts are correct regarding engagement and that the real battle is between worldviews, with Russia being part of the Christian West.

Rick Sanchez discusses his career trajectory, including his time at RT. He was recruited by Larry King and found RT to be surprisingly journalistically free, more so than CNN, Fox, or NBC. He wrote his entire show without pre-approval. Despite his extensive experience and awards, he finds it difficult to get hired in the U.S., possibly due to his work with RT. Sanchez recounts being contacted by a former CNN colleague, now working in the State Department, which he interpreted as a warning about his work. Subsequently, the Biden administration, via the Treasury Department, effectively shut down the U.S. company producing his RT show, threatening fines or imprisonment for Americans working with RT. This action, he believes, was politically motivated and a violation of free speech. He also shares a story about a newspaper killing a story about him after a call from someone. Sanchez and the interviewer discuss the anti-Russia sentiment in the U.S., the demonization of Russians, and the one-sided narrative presented by American media. Sanchez shares the Russian perspective on the Ukraine war, emphasizing NATO expansion and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine as contributing factors. They lament the lack of engagement and the dangers of not hearing different perspectives.

Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Vladimir Putin in Russia has sparked controversy. Critics argue that Carlson, who has an exclusive contract with Elon Musk, is not a true journalist and is being used by Russia. They point out that many Russian journalists have been forced into exile or jailed for reporting on the Kremlin's actions. They question why Carlson is given the opportunity to interview Putin while Russian journalists face such risks. These critics believe that Carlson and Musk are both being manipulated by Russia, whether willingly or unwillingly. Despite this, the speaker states their intention to vote for Joe Biden in 2024.

Hello everyone! We're joined by Ben Swann today to discuss a critical issue concerning free speech. Ben shared an open letter to President Trump regarding the sanctions against RT, TV Novosti, and Sputnik. These sanctions prevent American journalists from working for RT, even when the content is aimed at international audiences. This move is unprecedented, as the U.S. government has never before sanctioned a news entity in this way. We believe that this action is an oversight and are hopeful that President Trump will remove these sanctions, upholding the principles of free speech and the right to consume diverse media. It's about defending the right to a counterpoint of view and preventing our government from controlling media narratives. You can help by sharing Ben's letter on X, tagging Elon Musk to draw more attention to this important cause.

Speaker 1 described learning the news 'just about an hour or two ago' and said they 'cheered up' and felt joyful, then spoke with RT. They 'fell in love with Russia so much' and now wanna stay, applying for Russian citizenship after I had asylum for two years, before this was granted. They credited editor in chief Margarita Cemignon and Maria Butina and Margarita Simignon for guiding them to asylum, while noting they were 'under threat by the US government, by the Biden regime' and that their life was threatened. 'Congressman Matt Gates told me that I was safer to stay here in in Russia,' and they continued their work with RT. Thanks to that guidance they rebuilt my life, despite facing possible prison in the US for sanctions related to being on channel one and working for RT. They are proud to work for Russia today; the Biden administration didn't appreciate that.

Tucker Carlson, a right-wing media figure, is in Moscow to interview Vladimir Putin. Critics argue that Carlson is not a journalist and instead spreads misinformation on behalf of the Kremlin. They believe his work is biased and not aligned with the facts. Some compare his interview with Putin to watching a scandalous show. Furthermore, there is concern that the Republican Party, including Donald Trump, is doing Putin's bidding. Although some see this as Republicans supporting Putin, others believe they are actually supporting Trump, who in turn supports Putin.

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.

America's involvement in Ukraine's war is questioned due to past corruption and censorship. The speaker highlights how the Ukraine crisis led to NATO redefining warfare as information control. This shift influenced censorship tactics in the US, impacting freedom of speech and democracy. The speaker firmly rejects supporting US actions in Ukraine until the censorship system is dismantled.

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 1 describes learning her name with emotion, saying "I I cheered up. I was so joyful," and she immediately talked to RT colleagues. She "'fell in love with Russia so much' and 'wanna stay,'" and she applied for Russian citizenship after two years of asylum. She credits editor in chief Margarita Cemignon and others for support while she was "under threat by the US government, by the Biden regime." She notes "Congressman Matt Gates told me that I was safer to stay here in Russia," and that "Maria Butina and Margarita Simignon stepped in and kinda showed me the path to asylum." She "continued my work with RT" and, with their guidance, could "rebuild my life." She recalls fear of possible prison in the US for sanctions related to Channel One and RT, and ends: "I am very proud to work for Russia today" and that "the Biden administration didn't appreciate that."

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

We are in Moscow to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin. The war in Ukraine has had significant global impacts, reshaping military alliances and the world economy. However, many English-speaking countries remain unaware of these changes due to corrupt and biased media outlets. While numerous interviews have been conducted with Ukrainian President Zelensky, no Western journalist has interviewed Putin. Americans have the right to know about a war they are involved in, and we have the right to inform them. Despite attempts to suppress this interview, it can be watched for free on our website. We encourage viewers to watch and make their own judgments.

Former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson conducted an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. While some criticize Carlson for being a right-wing conspiracy theorist and a useful idiot for Putin, others argue that he is not a journalist and lacks credibility. They accuse him of spreading propaganda and misinformation, particularly regarding Ukraine. Carlson's interview with Putin is seen as a platform for promoting the Russian president's agenda. Critics express concern about the influence and reach of Carlson's disinformation, describing it as gobsmacking and terrifying. They believe that some Americans yearn for a leader who can suppress opposition, control the media, and act with impunity.

Journalists have a duty to inform the public, especially about the war in Ukraine, which Americans are funding. We interviewed Vladimir Putin; it's our job to present diverse perspectives, even if controversial. The war's impact is devastating, reshaping global alliances and the economy. Many question the Western media's narrative, citing potential bias and censorship. Accusations of propaganda against Tucker Carlson are dismissed; Zelensky's appearances are presented as comparable examples of promotion rather than unbiased reporting. The public deserves access to information to decide for themselves. We believe in freedom of speech and the right to hear all sides, despite government attempts at suppression. This interview is crucial because Americans are funding the war and should understand the reasons behind it, including potential NATO expansion and the dubious nature of Ukraine's democracy.

Since leaving Russia, we've observed the Biden administration's actions pushing the U.S. closer to nuclear conflict with Russia, particularly after the recent missile strikes that killed Russian soldiers. This undeclared war, largely unknown to Americans, has escalated tensions to levels surpassing those during the Cuban missile crisis. Surprisingly, there are no backchannel communications between the U.S. and Russia, as Secretary of State Tony Blinken has severed all contact for over two years. Efforts to gain insight from Ukrainian President Zelensky have been blocked by the U.S. government, which has restricted his ability to speak with us. Recently, we interviewed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to discuss the potential for conflict and the future of U.S.-Russia relations. Stay tuned for that interview.

The speaker explains how they wanted to restart their life as an analyst and university teacher but faced difficulties due to political pressure. They then received an offer to run an interdisciplinary institute in Saint Petersburg, Russia. When questioned about the controversy of moving to Russia during the invasion of Ukraine, the speaker denies witnessing any repression and emphasizes their academic freedom. They refuse to condemn the invasion and argue that any outbreak of war violates international law. The interviewer brings up the Salisbury poisonings and the speaker's past interactions with Vladimir Putin, but the speaker finds these topics boring and uninteresting. They describe Putin as an intelligent and accomplished gentleman. The speaker dismisses accusations of being a Russian spy as dirty fantasy.

Big Tucker, a journalist, discusses his experiences interviewing various individuals, including Putin. He criticizes mainstream media outlets like CNN and Fox, claiming they no longer interest the youth. Tucker believes politicians prioritize foreign affairs over domestic issues. He mentions facing opposition and legal threats for his work. Speaker 1 interrupts, confused about being in the studio and shares a personal anecdote about a Russian man. The video ends with a comparison between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden.

The speaker explains that they were determined to do the interview with Vladimir Putin because they were prevented from doing so by their own government. They express shock and anger at the US government's spying and interference. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on evidence and that their main view is to tell the truth. They deny being pro-Trump or anti-Biden and state that their goal was to gather information about Putin and the current state of affairs. They also discuss the state of media bias and the importance of free speech.