TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on a shared focus on “deep state traders” and a distrust of the current political establishment. Speaker 0 insists that they are “focused on higher IQ conversations here” and that they want to “go after the deep state traders,” asking who is paying them and noting that the “Washington field office is one block away” from their location, implying proximity to the FBI in Washington, D.C. The exchange riffs on anti-establishment themes, with Speaker 1 adding that they have “gone dragged into forever wars on behalf of Israel,” questioning why the U.S. has been involved for “generations and decades” and asserting that Americans “will not allow” it, calling for white Christians to unite around “America First, America Only” and that there can be “competing interests.” The dialogue shifts to support for domestic groups and figures perceived as aligned with their cause. Speaker 0 says their priority is to gain reinforcements and to “pardon all the oath keepers.” Speaker 1 references the idea of aiding “the J sixers,” while Speaker 0 states they are focused on “the destruction of the world” and asks why they aren’t advocating for those groups. The conversation then explicitly identifies a racialized fear about the future, with Speaker 1 stating that “your children are gonna be black and Muslim,” and “your children’s children are gonna be black and Muslim,” attributing this not to genetic or demographic inevitability but to “the weak, feckless men that are allowing APAC to buy out our politicians and open up our borders.” Speaker 0 counters by describing “weak, tackless toxic, feckless men” in the country and reiterates that their priority is to “go after the traitors based on their actions and actions alone,” stressing that they have a “laundry list” of targets and that they do not care about appearances or which hair follicles or eye colors these people have. The two converge on the idea of targeting treasonous individuals, with Speaker 0 insisting that the focus is on those who have committed treason and that those who fund them come from all stripes. The overall thrust is an uncompromising approach to identifying and pursuing perceived traitors, tying together anti-war, nationalist, and white-identity rhetoric, while calling for pardons for controversial domestic groups and framing the fight as one against treason and influence from abroad.

Speaker claims the shooter is not a lone actor but a “hive,” and says Thomas Crooks was “on the federal radar,” with an “80 page document” of his accounts and statements to be released. Crooks allegedly started as a Trump supporter, then radicalized around 2020, publicly calling for violence against the left and posting videos of himself shooting with no bullets. He cites a comment about “lining up a bunch of socialist Jews … blasting their useless brains out with an AR.” The speaker notes Crooks' online history shows him “always calling for violence” and that he later targeted Trump while researching assassinations, including “best places for a a mass shooting” and other searches like “fertilizer bomb” and “how to molotov make a molotov cocktail.” He suggests this points to “a program” similar to MK Ultra, claiming “they find these candidates in schools.”

Speaker 0 claims to have explosive, verifiable information that can publicly challenge the Zionist-occupied Trump administration to deny it if untrue. They urge Kash Patel to deny the claim if it is false, noting that the information is highly relevant. They credit Mel, who they say was early with the reporting, and say they had heard rumors but sought verifiable proof before going on the limb to assert authenticity. The core assertion is that there were 12 Israeli cell phones on the ground at Utah Valley University on the day Charlie Kirk was assassinated. The speaker clarifies that these were not VPNs routed through Israel, but 12 personal cell phone accounts opened in Israel. They claim these accounts were on the ground at Utah Valley University on September 10, the day Charlie Kirk was shot. The speaker states that the NSA knows this, Kash Patel knows this, and people in the current administration know that too, and are desperate to keep the information from the public. They question why the administration would want to suppress the information and why it would spook those at the top, suggesting that if there is nothing to hide, there would be nothing to hide. To anticipate counterarguments, the speaker plays devil’s advocate, noting that perhaps the cell phones belonged to exchange students or Israelis touring UVU that day, or that 12 American students had Israeli-based cell phones after returning from a summer abroad and wished to keep them running in Utah. They acknowledge they do not know the answer and express a desire to know, emphasizing the need to uncover why this information is being concealed and who those 12 Israeli cell phones belonged to. Throughout, the speaker refrains from evaluating the claims’ truth and simply presents the asserted facts and questions, urging accountability and transparency regarding the supposed Israeli cell phone presence and its connection to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They close by reiterating their dislike of secrets, especially when they pertain to the public figure’s death.

Speaker 0 posits a theory that there were state actors or foreign intelligence agencies involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and attributes this belief to Benny Johnson, describing Johnson as “the anarchist” who told him so, and invites viewers to “check this clip out.” Speaker 1 responds by acknowledging that there is reason for people to believe this could be a professional hit job. They reference John Salmond as an excellent reporter and Steven Crowder as having access to leaked information. They state, “there is some considerable evidence that there were state actors involved here,” and emphasize their close connection to Charlie Kirk and his team, asserting that this is what they wish to relay to the audience. Speaker 0 returns to challenge Benny, asking which specific element changed his mind and led him to conclude that Tyler Robinson is now not a lone actor, and that state-level or foreign intelligence agencies were not involved in the assassination. He enumerates several potential clues: a text message from Lance Twiggs, similarities between Tyler Robinson’s photo and the jail mugshot, the speed at which Tyler Robinson was able to sprint, and the “man of steel” autopsy claim that Charlie Kirk stopped a 30-06 with his neck. He then asks which of these factors was decisive in shifting Benny’s belief away from the involvement of state actors, and expresses intent to wait for Benny’s answer.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

The speaker believes that the real enemy is not Donald Trump or Joe Biden, but the deep state. They claim that only they can speak the truth about various controversial topics, such as the possibility of January 6th being an inside job, the government lying about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the great replacement theory being part of the Democratic Party's platform, Big Tech stealing the 2020 election, and the national security establishment stealing the 2016 election from Trump. The speaker criticizes others for only criticizing Trump when it's convenient, instead of consistently speaking out against him.

The speaker says the subject of the interview is not a Democrat and would be offended to be called one. The speaker doesn't believe a political issue would cause the subject to do such a thing. The subject never mentioned the senator or representative who were targeted. He didn't like Tim Walz and would say things like, "I don't like that Tim Walz did this." The subject mentioned a protest, but the speaker doesn't think he said anything about it. The speaker would tell him to surrender himself so he could be taken alive. The subject listened to Infowars, and the speaker told him not to take everything they say for granted. The subject was a Trump supporter, voted for Trump, and liked Trump.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

They accuse us of what they're doing. These intelligence officials, the same ones who misled America, are worried about a second Trump term? They helped bury the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election. That laptop could have changed history. Now they claim Trump will weaponize the spy services. If Trump wins, I want them investigated for election interference. Joe Biden should be the first target. We need to expose them to the same rules they impose on us. They stole the election, and we can't just move on. They hid the laptop information. The deep state is real—media members, intelligence community members, both active and retired, and government bureaucrats. The deep state sabotaged the Trump administration before, and they're still here.

Speaker 0: Did you hear Trump's take on the JFK assassination, why he didn't release the files? Yeah. I know what Trump's take is. He said that if you knew what I know, you wouldn't tell people either, which is crazy. Well, and What does that mean? That's his position on the UAP thing as well Yeah. Actually. And that's a lot of people's position on it. I mean, you know, Trump is saying, of course, the CIA had knowledge of it. That is known. I mean, I mean, the whole it sounds like it's so funny. There's so many levels and there's so much I don't understand. But the whole JFK conspiracy industry, and it really is an industry, more books written on that than almost any historical topic, is is filled with wackos. Right? There are a lot of wackos in there. But it obscures that fact obscures the larger fact which is the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. Yeah. And so whatever. I could get into it at great length. But yeah. Yeah. They're they're still classifying documents sixty one years later. Both Trump and Joe Biden have, in violation of my read of federal law, kept those documents secret. There's no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination. It was a couple generations ago. There's no one person whose whose secrets are being protected. It's an institution or maybe countries. There may have been countries involved too. I mean, don't know the answer, but there's clearly something worth protecting. And I know that when I I spoke to someone who'd seen the documents, okay, two years ago and I got I got one fact out of him, which is, yes, the CIA was involved. And by CIA, CIA is a huge organization, but James Jesus Angleton, the head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this, which I think is well known. But that that's the view of someone who saw the documents. So I thought that was news, so I went on TV and said that. The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting, and I was driving back and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was the Secretary of State, but before then he was the Director of the CIA. And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange, so he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. But his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. It's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to me. I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime? What about the actual crime which is murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all. And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo was a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that. He was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Issachoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in The United States as CIA director. That's illegal. You're not allowed federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay? Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is, but he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay. That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a republican pooh bah in good standing. He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is like completely insane. Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view. And like he goes to fundraisers and dinners and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo. It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw. You are the bad guy. But no. He's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.

"I don't know who did this. And I sure hope that it was not from the left that would be better." "But it doesn't matter because the first Trump assassination also was not from the left." "It was just a guy who was going to also had Biden on his target list." "And it's been made in the ideology of this far right that you're seeing online." "It's part of a line, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump assassination, how Charlie Kirk," "It doesn't matter that it wasn't from the left because that part has been erased in the common litany of grievances." "Absolutely." "I mean, it's just it's just about the, momentum of violence. Right?" "If one side keeps punching, that's bad, that's really bad." "But it's much worse when one side punches, the other punches back." "That causes an escalation."

The speakers discuss Thomas Crooks, the drone pilot, questioning how he executed the act, citing his training at a gun range with federal agents and the use of encrypted communication platforms. They speculate about Crooks having a handler, possibly with terrorist ties or driven by left-leaning ideologies, and criticize the media for potentially radicalizing individuals by associating conservative views with threats to democracy. They ponder whether a foreign nation was involved in an assassination plot. Speaker 1 suggests the news cycle is attempting to move on from the story and accuses Democrats of weaponizing the situation, likening it to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the lack of independent verification regarding Crooks' medications and suggests he may have been drugged. Speaker 1 hopes a future, Trump-aligned FBI director will conduct a thorough investigation and declassify the findings for the public.

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not a lone shooter, citing messages they've received. The speaker questions why many Americans find the situation "doesn't add up," listing details such as the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone use, and being spotted with a rangefinder. The speaker, identifying as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. They ask if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt, imprison, and depict the target as "a modern day Hitler." The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, and if they received reports of anything "fishy" there, such as silverware or trash. They ask if the home was extremely clean, "almost like a medical lab," stating that's what they are hearing.

The speakers discuss the attempted assassination of Trump, questioning why the would-be assassin had no social media footprint and a professionally scrubbed house. They find it suspicious that CNN streamed the rally live and that the Secret Service deemed the roof he was on unsafe, while snipers occupied a steeper roof. They speculate it could have been a coordinated assassination attempt, with the shooter intended to be killed afterward. They highlight the suspect's young age and the possibility of radicalization or manipulation. The speakers are concerned about the lack of information released and the absence of a formal report. They mention leaked cell phone records showing a phone traveling from outside the FBI offices in DC to where the suspect lived. They find it odd that the suspect had multiple phones and no cutlery in his house. They suggest the suspect could have been under the influence of psychotropic drugs or hypnosis, referencing MK Ultra and Jolly West's experiments.

Speaker 0 introduces the topic of Israel allegedly having influence over the US government and mentions that Israel assassinated JFK, pointing to William Cooper as the source who was also assassinated by Israel. Speaker 0 references Cooper’s book Behold a Pale Horse and notes that Cooper was the first to obtain original footage from a CIA whistleblower showing who shot Kennedy and how they shot Kennedy. He says the media’s clips started at a cropped frame, and that Cooper’s release prompted further questions. Speaker 1 explains that the assassin was the driver in the car with Kennedy, visible in a film with public help. He brings the film, saying it shows the motorcade on Elm Street in front of the Book Depository Building, Kennedy having been shot in the throat, Jacqueline pulling Kennedy toward him in shock, and the driver turning around with a pistol in his left hand, firing over his right shoulder and shooting the president in the head. Speaker 2 asks for a repeat and then the duo watches the film. Speaker 1 identifies the driver as William Greer, noting he was a secret service agent. He describes the weapon as an electrically operated gas-powered assassination pistol built especially for the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting there is no puff of smoke. Speaker 2 questions whether the weapon is indeed a pistol in the lower right corner of the frame. Speaker 1 confirms it is an air-operated pistol (pneumatic) and claims it fired an exploding pellet that injected shellfish toxin into the president’s brain, so that if the pellet’s explosion did not kill him, the toxin would. He states that he read all of this in the documents. Speaker 0 asks what type of weapon was used to assassinate JFK and references the 1963 time frame, saying that intelligence agencies would have such weapons. He then questions whether intelligence agencies could have used such weapons to assassinate Charlie Kirk. He suggests listening to Jack Posobiec and others who are “carrying water for this administration,” implying time will tell.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

"Charlie Kirk's assassination has deleted evidence that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson haven't mentioned once." "This guy told the cops to arrest him so the shooter could have more time to get away." "This guy was deployed for 09/11, deployed against Obama, for George Bush, and personally worked with senators and US congressmen." "And he personally admitted it, and they wiped everything, but I downloaded it just before. George Zinn," "These donors like Manafort, Berman, Ronald Weiser, they manipulate elections, create countries, and have personally admitted to taking money from all of these countries." "Zinn, the patsy, is an example of an actor they use." "I have a full twenty seven minute video going over exactly what happened, why people like Candace Owens might be lying to you, and the archive podcast link in bio."

It's stressful dealing with people online who say they want to kill me and desecrate my corpse. I think it's an overblown reaction, like calling me a Nazi. It's like they think I'm Hitler and should be assassinated. Remember that guy who tried to kill Trump? His online footprint was professionally scrubbed. I doubt corporations like BlackRock are directly ordering assassinations, but individuals might see it as beneficial. That kid at the Trump rally with the rangefinder raises a lot of questions. CNN streamed it live, which was unusual. The Secret Service said the roof was too sloped for people, yet snipers were on a steeper roof. If it was a coordinated hit, someone shoots Trump, then they shoot the kid, and it's all wrapped up. He's basically a suicide assassin. Something radicalized him. And how did he have five phones and no cutlery in his house? The whole thing is insane.

Speaker 0 asserts: I’m not suicidal. Any creator, politician, or celebrity who tries to make a film or documentary on CPS has wound up dead, including a senator. The November film will be their hardest hitting, and they will “rip the veil off” to the point where CPS shows up at your door. Our government is running the world’s largest child trafficking network. They emphasize they would never kill themselves, do drugs, or put themselves in dangerous environments; if anything happens to them, it is the United States government. They watched the first take of the film and say, “they’re gonna kill me.” They urge a trip down memory lane to discuss Pizzagate, stating this is where it all starts. Speaker 1 begins by saying the Pizzagate story has outrageous connections and promising brand-new whistleblower information that will blow minds. They provide an overview: back to Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom many believe to be child pedophiles. They say there’s never been direct evidence, but in 02/2016 WikiLeaks published Hillary Clinton emails with John Podesta showing coded language about a child trafficking ring centered in a Washington, DC pizza restaurant basement at Comet Ping Pong. Edgar Maddison Welch went to the restaurant with firearms to “liberate the children,” but no one was hurt; it was later said there wasn’t a basement, so the scandal was dismissed, though there’s more to the story. The transcript then ties Hillary Clinton to Laura Silsbee, who was involved in trafficking, and outlines a chain: Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee exchanged documents detailing logistics of trafficking children from Haiti to Boise, Idaho. Laura Silsbee had previously kidnapped several dozen children from Haiti and attempted to cross into the Dominican Republic; she was caught and the children were returned to their families. Shawnee M. King is cited for reporting on Silsbee’s case. Jorge Puello, an attorney for Silsbee’s group, was suspected of leading an international trafficking ring; Puello was arrested in investigations by ICE and Homeland Security; his wife faced charges of sexual exploitation of minors and women. The narrative claims Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee were connected; Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly helped negotiate the release of Laura Silsbee and her accomplices after their imprisonment in Haiti. Speaker 1 then ties the connections to CPS: the number-one source of child trafficking is the U.S. CPS system, and the number-one gateway to sex trafficking in America is the foster care system. The foster care system allegedly lost over 100,000 children in the last twenty years, raised questions about where they went, and claims millions of children are abused in foster care by financially compensated foster parents and social workers. The Adoptive Safe Families Act (ASFA), championed by Hillary Clinton and signed by Bill Clinton in 1997, supposedly created and financed CPS/foster care by diverting Social Security funds to 50 states, giving a financial incentive to “kidnap” children. It is claimed that CPS targets poor and minority children and single-parent families, and that the system now functions as a government-subsidized child-trafficking ring. Speaker 1 lists correlations: CPS is a tool used to target conservatives; CPS offices get paid per child kidnapped; 83% of removals lack proof of abuse. The claim is that Hillary Clinton created the system and that Laura Silsbee, a friend of Clinton, is involved in Idaho’s CPS network. Laura Silsbee allegedly works with Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) and is a registered foster care parent in Idaho, receiving monthly payments for children in her custody, as shown by whistleblower-provided screenshots. Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador opened an investigation into IDHW financial misappropriations, but Idaho’s Department director Dave Jepison resigned and disappeared, and Judge Lynn Norton allegedly issued an order halting the AG’s investigation. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare allegedly dominates Idaho’s budget, and Laura Silsbee’s role with IDHW is framed as proof of a nationwide system. The narrative concludes by warning Idahoans to beware of Laura Silsbee (aka Laura Gaylor), Judge Norton, and supporters of IDHW, asserting that the system extends to all 50 states, including Arizona, Texas, and Florida, which are described as among the worst offenders in CPS corruption.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

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

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

"It's gonna come out." "There would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You'd have to ethnically cleanse 7,000,000,000 people to forget the Charlie Kirk story." "It's no one's forgetting it." "Not the ballistics guys on YouTube that we're all listening to, but no one's no one's gonna let this one go because and by the way, that's your fault." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "People mostly read about it, and then the feds lied about it." "You traumatized all of us." "You assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "This is the Internet generation." "K? We're running this." "We're not calming down. We're pretty upset, and we're gonna stay upset."

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.