TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Emails have surfaced between Jack Smith and Merrick Garland, where it turns out they were planning trials like Stalin ran or the Maxi trials in Italy where they tried 250 mafia figures together. They're gonna try a thousand of us altogether in a stadium on camera and send us off to be liquidated. It was crazy what they had. And the emails, they were already planning it. They had no expectation of losing this last November. They found this in the bag. On the bright side, what I found is that it's very easy to figure out what they did because whatever they're accusing you of doing, that's what they were actually working on. That's how they became experts on all of it. So it really makes it easy to put together their rap sheets in that context. Leticia James is just one blaring example of that mindset here. So where do you think this is all headed right now then? So, how do you think it's gonna roll out? And who's domino number three? I think that we are have to I've I'm an outsider. I don't know any more than the next monkey, but what I would do is we have to, at a geopolitical level, mission one and two have to overthrow the governments of Venezuela and Cuba. None of them can survive. This was an act of war that was successful. They overthrew our republic. This was successful. It's a freaking miracle. We were never supposed to get out from under that. They cannot survive. This was a six act of war that eliminated our country. So that's and domestic have to, this all has to be exposed. We've got to this all has to be exposed. And all the parts of society, we need to have almost like a truth and reconciliation where a lot of people who took part in what was basically a Bolshevik revolution have to be exposed. And there there are people you know, there's a 120 federal officers from the CIA and the FBI who went out to Stanford, joined the Stanford Internet Observatory, and took part in a mass censorship industrial complex against the American people. In which case all kinds of medical information was suppressed, which got people killed as well as they supported this political coup. I don't think it's a coincidence that that happened just when it did. And they suppressed any information about the elections. Those people took part in a coup. The professors who took part in it, in a way with pleading, we're just idiotic professors who read too many Herbert Marcuse underlined it too. The people who swore an oath to the constitution at some point in their life and took part in that, I believe should be hung from the Golden Gate in full daylight, left to sunset, and then their bodies disposed at sea so that American soil isn't polluted by the corpse corpses of people who took part in such a program. That was the overthrow of The United States Of America, and there were people who swore an oath to the constitution who took part in it. And that's what really should If I were the president, probably, I would let all that machinery grind on. And at the last moment, I'd probably sign and send them to some island in Hawaii for five years and say, everyone just cool this hell off. We're all just gonna cool off. You guys betrayed the country by all rights. You should be hung. But what we're gonna do is send you this we're gonna take over some resort in Oahu at the tip of wire. We'll just send you there for, like, five years. Everybody shut up. Stay off social media. Be nicer? The Point Barrel, Alaska, I was thinking would be a little bit more appropriate, but that's alright. I mean on top of Island 2. Aleutian Island. Yeah. And just say we don't wanna hear from you for five years. You're gonna be well fed, take care of. Your tennis game's gonna be great. It's not gonna be, you know, it's gonna be prison cells. You can live like a college dorm. But, literally, the US should send them off for, like, four or five years just and not hear from them. They overthrew our country. And that's probably what really should I think should that or some kind of peace and reconciliation, but everything has to be exposed. Think of all the institutions from all these things that they used to throw in our face become our weapons. The idea that 60 judges looked at this and didn't see anything becomes our point, not their point. How corrupt is the system? Now once it's all proven and exposed to them, how corrupt is the system? 60 judges looked at this and saw nothing. That's how corrupt and weak and ineffective the system is. So all these points become points in our favor.

Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech, and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime. That's a lie, and it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about. And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them. There are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under The US code who disagree with their beliefs. Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That's got to be the red line.

Speaker 0 explains that the couple’s ruse may seem odd to some people and does not fit into any “white handbook” about keeping the kingdom orderly. There is no section on how to rescue children from sex traffickers. Speaker 1 interrupts to say they want to explain something. Speaker 0 continues that, using his team, they have had to figure things out on their own. He acknowledges that people may dismiss it, but he emphasizes gratitude for the opportunity to publicly state a principle: he will never confess to something he did not do, no matter who asks, unless God himself and an angel or some divine directive instructs him to lie to protect Elder Ballard’s name from defamation. He asserts clearly that he will not lie or confess to a false wrongdoing unless there is a divine instruction to do so. He reiterates that there is not one person on the planet for whom he would deviate from this principle, unless a direct message from God or a celestial being instructs him otherwise. Speaker 1 closes with a brief interjection: “But by the way, folks.”

Over the past four years, our nation's core values and institutions have faced a new kind of test, reminiscent of challenges during the Civil War era. It felt like a balloon being inflated to its breaking point. The courts play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, acting as a safeguard against arbitrary actions and defending our constitutional values. In the legal system, especially during sentencing, it's vital to recognize the individual before you. Whether they are a woman, Black, transgender, poor, rich, or anything else, they bring life experiences that you may not have shared. To apply the law justly, you must understand their perspective and apply the law accordingly.

No person is above the law, regardless of their position or title. This principle is fundamental to American justice. Everyone, including former presidents, must be held accountable under the same laws. There cannot be two justice systems; we must ensure that the law applies equally to all. The rule of law means that no one is exempt, and it is essential for maintaining a fair society. The idea that anyone could be above the law undermines the very foundation of our legal system. We must uphold this principle to ensure justice for everyone.

The speaker explains that according to the United States Constitution, law enforcement officers are allowed to lie to people, which they call "mere trickery." They emphasize that individuals are not legally obligated to speak to law enforcement officers or provide any information, including their name. If asked if they are under arrest and the officers say no, it means they are free to leave. The speaker points out that it is the responsibility of individuals to know their rights because law enforcement officers are legally allowed to lie. They mention that officers consider it part of their culture to obtain confessions, as confessions are highly valued as evidence in court, even if they are fabricated.

You can lose your job as a public official without being convicted of a crime in our constitutional republic. Impeachment is not punishment, but a way to cleanse and restore honor and integrity to the office.

Dan Bongino posted on X that something he learned from his time at the FBI shocked him to his core, stating, "we cannot run a republic like this, and I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned." Speaker 1 responded that they have seen up close the tactics used by those who care more for themselves, their ambition, their job, their influence, their political interests, and their selfish, self-serving interests than they care about the Constitution. They stated that every law enforcement and intelligence community professional swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Speaker 1 expressed their own frustrations but affirmed their resolve is rooted in love for the country and belief in its founding values, and therefore, they feel a responsibility to do something about what they are revealing, seeing, and experiencing firsthand.

The problem of fake news is not solved by a referee, but by participants helping each other point out what is fake and true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. Critical thinking matters more than ever, given that lies seem to be getting very popular.

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk’s murder, they have largely refrained from commenting publicly on the investigation. They say this is not due to lack of care or affection for Charlie, whom they knew well since his teenage years, but because they feel they don’t know more than others and want to avoid missteps given their personal connections to those involved. They name Candace Owens, Blake Neff, and Erica Kirk as people they know well and respect, and emphasize a desire to honor Charlie’s memory by seeking justice without criticizing others’ motives when people are sincerely pursuing the truth. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan during which the topic of Charlie Kirk’s case arose. They state they told Vaughan they do not trust the FBI, clarifying that this statement was not an accusation that the FBI is involved in Charlie’s assassination, and they did not intend to imply such. They acknowledge they like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and do not believe they would intentionally cover up a murder, but they argue that the FBI, being at the top of the organization, is part of a large bureaucracy where some parts act independently from leadership. Therefore, liking individuals within the organization does not equate to trusting the FBI as a whole. The speaker asserts that, as a lesson of the 2024 election, many of the nation’s largest systems and institutions have rot and require reform. They contend that January 6 was a setup and that the FBI was key to that setup, stating it remains unclear whether everyone involved has been fired or punished. They insist that no American is under moral obligation to believe everything the government tells them, especially institutions with a documented history of wrongdoing, such as the FBI’s alleged crimes, manufacturing crimes, and distorting justice. They emphasize that the job of the FBI is to find out what happened, tell the public how they arrived at conclusions, and convince the public of the outcomes, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. The speaker concludes by committing to avoid talking about topics they do not understand, to state things only as they know them, and to remain skeptical. They stress a duty to skepticism and to seek truth and justice without being swayed by tone or certainty from government officials. They reiterate love for Charlie and a wish for justice, while urging others to maintain scrutiny toward the investigation.

The speaker wants the American public to know that the FBI has had problems. The FBI will hold itself internally accountable and meet out justice to those who abuse their roles. Those who have taken missteps have already been eliminated from the FBI. The FBI will vigorously uphold justice as vigorously as they pursue violent crime, on a twenty four seven, three sixty five basis. The speaker will have zero tolerance for those who utilize their badge to harm the country.

When I was a cadet at West Point, we had a motto: "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do." However, as the former CIA director, I must admit that we did engage in lying, cheating, and stealing. It was a part of our training and it made me reflect on the essence of the American experiment.

We're at a troubling moment where facts are dismissed, a risky business for our democracy. Historian Heather Cox Richardson explains in her book, Democracy Awakening, that burying facts with false history is a key to authoritarianism. Big lies are springboards for authoritarians. America is at a crossroads, teetering on authoritarianism, but it is in our hands to change this. The book focuses on historical facts to set the record straight about conspiratorial retellings of our history. My judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of big lies when sentencing individuals convicted for their offense conduct on January 6th. We are all about the facts and enforcing the rules to ensure authentic and reliable facts are brought forward.

The Justice Department is vital to democracy, ensuring investigations are fair and free from political influence. Protecting sensitive investigations is crucial. Despite attacks, we remain committed to following the law. The pace of justice system trials is out of our control. Thank you, everyone.

The speaker describes a situation in which registration and voting can occur even when a person does not live in the country, citing an example involving a brother in Pakistan to illustrate the point. According to the speaker, there is evidence of two or three other people who are outside the country voting, as well as people residing outside of the district. This is presented as a factual observation about who has voted, including individuals located abroad and not within the local district boundaries. The speaker then critiques the online voter registration system by characterizing it as an honor system. The claim is that anybody can enter information into the online system to register and vote, relying on the promise of truthfulness. The process alleged by the speaker is described as follows: a person would place information into the system and then simply click a box stating that they are not lying about the information provided. After doing so, the person would receive an email from the secretary of state or a similar official channel in the mail, indicating acknowledgment or thanks for registering to vote, effectively confirming their registration. Following this registration, the speaker notes a procedural consequence: once an individual is on the voter rolls, they are mailed a ballot for each election. In other words, the pattern described is that being on the voter rolls automatically leads to receiving a mailed ballot for every election that occurs, according to the speaker’s account of how the system operates. The speaker emphasizes a continuity of this process across elections, implying that the mailed ballot would be a recurring consequence of enrollment on the voter rolls. Throughout the account, there is an emphasis on what the speaker views as the potential vulnerability or problematic nature of the system. The speaker asserts that the combination of an online registration process that relies on an honor system, the possibility of registering with false or unverified information, and the automatic mailing of ballots to those on the rolls creates a situation that the speaker finds problematic. The overall narrative connects the initial observations about individuals voting from abroad and outside the district to a broader critique of the online registration and ballot distribution processes, underscoring concerns about eligibility verification and the integrity of the voting system as described by the speaker.

Speaker 1 makes the case for secrecy in government and deception in national security, stating, "Now I wanna make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of national security affairs and possibly for deception where that's appropriate." He cites Churchill: "truth is so important it should be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." He adds, "If if I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would do it," and, "But would I lie about where the d day invasion was gonna take place to deceive the Germans? You better believe it." Speaker 0 questions why rules seem different for officials; Speaker 1 replies, "Because they are not dealing in the civil society we live in under the constitution. They are dealing in an anarchic environment internationally where different rules apply." The exchange touches the oath to the Constitution, openness, and whether "the constitution's not a suicide pact" justifies actions that might be "unprofessional" in peacetime; "I don't make any apology for it."

Innocent people don't silence, hurt, harm, or intimidate witnesses and victims. The system is completely broken.

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

Our task is to start peace with truth, just as wars can be started by lies. It is up to all of us to seek out and share the truth.

Cassidy Baraka was seven years old, got her vaccine, reacted in five minutes. Vomited for eight to ten hours, then she got a second vaccine, terrible abdominal pain, and she died at seven years old from her second COVID shot. And the only thing on her death record in part one says she died from COVID. Ian Schumacher was 11 years old. Amaya McDonough Rocha was 12 years old. Cerebellar tonsillar and bilateral uncal herniation stroke in a 12 year old girl. She got four vaccines on 08/03/2022. Meningococcal, Tdap, her third COVID shot and HPV. She reacted and died from a stroke in that month. So these are all facts in the record in Massachusetts. So you have a legal duty to act to investigate the department. Every one of you has that legal duty. You took this job. And if you don't investigate it to find out that what I'm saying is true and they committed felony fraud as a matter of custom and practice in Massachusetts over inflating COVID deaths and hiding vaccine deaths. Okay. Thank you. All this science stuff goes over your heads. I get it. But the reality is these people died from the vaccine. They were certified on the records as having died from the vaccine and it was hidden by removing the Y59.0 code, which means death from viral vaccines. So it's being hidden from the public. So with the fraud that I'm accusing, what good are all your statistics? You got to straighten out your house first. Thank you.

In a court of law, the truth should prevail. Trial by television or guilt by accusation undermines freedom.

The conversation touches on a sequence of controversial assertions that connect politics, finance, war, and media narratives, followed by a shift to fitness industry transparency. The speakers discuss economics, implying that there was “complete depression to, like, the most booming economy in the world” within a couple of years, and they urge asking why this happened by examining “the things or the changes that took place when he took office and started to and what he implemented,” insisting there is “a reason for why it had such a surplus in growth and a complete one eighty turn into the positive direction.” They then move to a claim about banking and a Rothschild figure, stating that after the banking incident, there was “literally arrest arrested one of the Rothschilds and, like, ransomed him back,” and assert that this is “probably a lot of the reasons why the war really kicked off.” The dialogue continues with a provocative assertion that “war is the most profitable thing of all time,” adding that “the Jews are still profiting off World War two, and that's why they wanna keep the whole Holocaust thing.” This leads to a claim that there would be money continuing to be made off the Holocaust, suggesting that “they're still making money off it,” and that “they use that” as a shield to justify ongoing actions “so it's like, I think it is important to take it on.” The speakers emphasize the importance of truth, even if challenging the Holocaust is controversial, arguing that truth is important and that speaking it out matters because it reveals what is “true.” They contend that in society there is a problem when “we can't talk about the truth,” and they connect this to current events or narratives about accountability and transparency. The discussion then shifts to the speaker’s identity as a fitness influencer who focuses on exposing fraud in the fitness industry, confirming that this is part of their mission and past. The conversation frames the same lens of transparency: just owning flaws or questionable actions and speaking the truth. They argue that some fitness figures “clearly [are] juiced out of their mind” and tell kids they are “natural,” which the speakers view as a problem. They acknowledge that people should be aware that looking like that is not natural, while clarifying that taking steroids does not make someone a bad person; rather, there should be honesty about it. Finally, they begin a closing line noting that “everyone makes” claims or judgments—indicating a broader stance on accountability and openness across both public discourse and personal branding.

I am here to testify and confirm that I will speak the truth. The witness has acknowledged this. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. I have spent the last 30 years in public service, striving to fulfill the needs of the people. The committee accuses me of pay-to-play, but I accuse them of the same. They only play politics when it benefits them. I believe they are all serving their own interests. I will continue my statement, as I am not finished. I am accused of breaking the rules, but I am playing by the rules we all agreed upon. The system is corrupt, and you wanted someone like me to guard it. You don't care about my values, just my actions. I don't care if you love or hate me, as long as I win. The rules are rigged, and reason is dead. There is no right or wrong, only being in or out.

My sister Barbara and I fought for truth, and I am grateful to the American people for standing by me. Our culture as Americans is rooted in freedom, which we deeply value and are willing to sacrifice for. We cannot take it for granted. We are awake to the importance of this in our country. Thank you to all the digital soldiers and to America.