TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 notes that the last administration was not transparent on the issue, but with the task force created, they have guided members within what they're cleared for. He asserts that they have encountered alien beings and recovered vehicles, with physical proof, and that he was partially cleared into those activities, having read intelligence reports from those programs. Speaker 1 reflects that online discourse about encounters and videos is plentiful, and asks if there is belief that the US government knows about alien beings coming to Earth. Speaker 0 responds that he doesn’t like to characterize where they came from, but they are definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. He claims to have recovered vehicles and physical proof and says he had partial access to the data and to intelligence reports. He confirms seeing with his own eyes according to his account. Speaker 2 says NASA speaks for itself and claims transparency with data, and asks whether to believe David Crush or if he is lying, and where the evidence is. Speaker 0 asserts that members of the current administration are very aware of this reality and the current president is knowledgeable on the subject. He trusts the president’s leadership and believes the president has assembled a team; he says if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3 says he has access and has had meetings with very smart people who believe there is something out there, and it makes sense there could be. He is not convinced himself. He asks if the person believes one, that he knows, and two, that he’s open to transparency on UAPs. Speaker 0 reiterates that the president is very well informed on the issue, and avoids revealing more than the president might want to reveal. He notes a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 1 asks about years of threat and testimony. Speaker 0 says he was physically threatened even before submitting his intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration, and sought legal protection because of professional and personal fear. Speaker 1 asks about recovering pilots or remains and whether that was seen with his own eyes. Speaker 0 confirms there were pictures and says yes, there were remains. Speaker 1 questions whether the origin is from another planet or outer space, and if it is interdimensional, seeking clarification. Speaker 0 explains he has talked to many veterans of the program and keeps an open mind on origin. He acknowledges an extraterrestrial hypothesis but does not usually go there because he did not see the data, and he is not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government has. He is not aware of any remains or signs of extraterrestrial beings or technology by his department. Speaker 3 says the US government knows, but asks whether other governments know. Speaker 0 says they know and have their own programs, and notes that two and a half years ago the US has been in an arms race with peer competitors like Russia and China, who have their own programs. He says he was able to view intelligence discussing adversarial programs and will leave it at that. Speaker 3 states that they’ve recovered things, and Speaker 0 confirms, noting there were bodies and physical remains. They discuss whether the motive or intent of the visitors was peaceful or not, acknowledging a mixed bag of activity and motive. They consider whether Earth’s genetic material could be a reason for visits, even jokingly proposing Jurassic Park as a tourist attraction for genetic material on Earth.

I've been investigating USAID spending through usaspending.gov and found that Chemonics International Inc. is the largest recipient of these funds, receiving $6 billion recently. They primarily transport pharmaceutical products, especially AIDS drugs, to developing nations. Chemonics earned $1.8 billion in the last year and has a troubling track record, with only 7% of health shipments arriving on time in 2017. Despite scandals, including issues in Haiti and Afghanistan, they continue to secure lucrative contracts. Their operations raise questions about effectiveness and accountability in USAID funding. If anyone has more information on Chemonics, please share.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

My critics, including many Democrats, accuse me of orchestrating a hostile, non-transparent government takeover. However, the public clearly voted for major government reform, which is exactly what they'll get. We're committed to transparency; our actions are posted on X and our website. We're implementing simple, basic checks and balances to ensure taxpayer money is used responsibly and correctly categorized. This isn't about individual judgment calls; it's about systemic improvements. Concerns about conflicts of interest, particularly regarding my past federal contracts, are addressed through our commitment to transparency and the implemented checks and balances. All our actions are public.

I'm concerned about the scrutiny USAID is facing. It's an organization that promotes national security, human rights, and global health. But, some USAID projects are questionable uses of taxpayer money. For example, millions of dollars have gone to tourism in Egypt, a Democratic Party propaganda arm, transgender opera in Colombia, sex changes in Guatemala, bat research in Wuhan, and even a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. These expenditures raise serious questions about how taxpayer money is being spent. We need to take a closer look at these allocations.

I think Elon Musk is dedicating his time to a country he loves and that has given him opportunity. I take him at his word that he wants to be transparent. The media is looking into him every day, and I wouldn't fear any investigation. I believe they are making announcements and inviting questions, but by definition, they aren't being fully transparent because they aren't providing data. I think information is being provided, but some choose not to believe it. I think there is fraud and abuse, and that it's possible they are finding and producing information about it. If data is being found, everyone would want to know. I love the idea of data, announcements, and regular reports. Congress needs to be engaged in this as well.

There's significant fraud in USAID, with radical groups receiving funds they don't deserve. A staggering amount, like a hundred million, is being misallocated. It's crucial to investigate the kickbacks associated with this spending. Who would invest such sums in questionable projects? It's likely that those who received the funds are not returning any to the government, indicating a high level of corruption. The key issue is understanding the extent of these kickbacks.

My team faced significant obstruction from USAID while trying to access records on taxpayer money. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending with minimal results. Notably, USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and also allocated money for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite travel warnings from the State Department. There are numerous examples of questionable expenditures.

USAID is far worse than people realize. Remember the outrage over Elon Musk buying Twitter? We should have that same energy about the $200 billion supposedly sent to Ukraine—Zelensky says only half arrived. That's $100 billion unaccounted for! Meanwhile, crucial needs like fixing Flint's water crisis ($1.5 billion) are ignored, while Ethiopia receives more annually. The system is corrupt; politicians benefit through USAID, creating a loop of self-enrichment. The media, also funded by USAID, manipulates public opinion, making us think we're wrong to question it. This isn't normal; our outrage is manufactured. We need to investigate this waste and corruption. If you're a business owner struggling to reach your potential, let's fix your processes and boost your profits.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

Speaker 0 (anonymous whistleblower): Government seems to be involved. They’re definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. We’ve recovered the vehicles and have physical proof. I was partially cleared into those activities and had access to the data, reading intelligence reports resulting from those programs. Speaker 1: And with your own eyes you’ve seen it. So when people say this is kooky, there’s nothing to back it up… Speaker 2 (NASA): NASA is open and transparent with our data. Do you believe what Mister David Crush said, or is he lying? Whatever he said, where’s the evidence? Speaker 1: What do you say? Speaker 0: Members of this administration are very aware of this reality; the current president is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I trust his leadership. I think he’s assembled a cabinet, and I believe if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, the capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3: I have access and have spoken to people about it. I’ve had meetings with very smart, solid people who believe there is something out there. It makes sense there could be, but I’ve never been convinced, despite that. It’s not my thing. Speaker 1: So you think, one, he knows, and two, he’s open to transparency on UAPs? He’s very well informed on this issue. Leave it at that. I don’t want to get ahead of what the president might want to reveal. There’s been a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 0: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration. I had to seek legal protection because I was fearful professionally and personally. Speaker 1: And when you mention recovering pilots or remains nonhuman, that’s something you saw in the intelligence with your eyes? Speaker 0: Yes. There were pictures. It’s uncomfortable to discuss because it’s outside a normal worldview to understand there is a biological sentience that piloted these crafts and does not necessarily look 100% like us. Speaker 1: Were there pictures? Speaker 0: There were. Speaker 1: When I said from another planet or outer space, you said you don’t know where they’re from. Is it interdimensional? What are we talking about? Speaker 0: I’ve talked to a lot of graybeards about the origin. I leave an open mind. There is an extraterrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming from elsewhere off Earth, but I didn’t see that data. I’m not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government had. I’m not aware of any remains the department has of extraterrestrial beings or technology. Speaker 1: Do other governments know? Do they have programs? Speaker 0: They have their own programs. Two and a half years ago we’ve been in an arms race with peer competitors—Russia and China—and they have their own programs. I viewed a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs. Speaker 1: We’ve recovered things—bodies and physical remains. Was there a sense of their motive or whether it’s peaceful or not? We’ve seen a mixed bag of motives. Speaker 0: Activity and motive vary; the reasons for visiting are not fully understood. Could it be because we have interesting genetic material on Earth and we’re a Jurassic Park tourist attraction? There could be a myriad of reasons. Speaker 1: For other people coming forward, what do you say about intimidation? There are reports of harassment. There’s hope. Congress values whistleblower information now, and there’s appetite to do the right thing. There are things happening behind the scenes that the administration may discuss when ready. Speaker 1: We’ll follow every element. It’s fascinating. Speaker 0: Thanks for having me. Speaker 4: Sean Hannity here. Subscribe to Fox News YouTube pay.

As a senator, I'm concerned about USAID's lack of transparency with taxpayer dollars. Examples include funding for a Wuhan lab, Iraqi Sesame Street, and fashion weeks in Europe. My TRACS Act aims to disclose every grant recipient to prevent funds from going to adversaries. The fact that the US government funded the creation of the virus that caused the global pandemic is incredible. It is terrible for people to believe charitable support is tied to political manipulation, so we need a firewall between genuine aid and CIA/State Department activities. It is an all American commitment to not letting the state be abused for political reasons. The focus should be on transparency, accountability, and clarity in our interactions with the world. We need to identify the waste, fraud within our federal government, and get those reforms over the finish line.

I've asked Congress to investigate where the money sent to Ukraine has gone. The American people deserve to know, as it's our taxpayer money. There's reason to be concerned because Ukraine has been known for corruption and money laundering. It's not just a billion dollars; it's a hundred times that amount sent to one country. Zelenskyy claimed Russia fired a rocket into Poland, which would be an act of war, but it turned out the rocket came from Ukraine. If Zelenskyy is going to beg the world for more money and demand more from the US, he needs to be more careful about making global statements that could bring us to the brink of war. We can't have full faith and trust by giving a leader a hundred billion dollars when he says, "I'm not telling you where the money went."

We had a productive discussion about USAID, an issue I've focused on for years in the Senate. USAID has consistently obstructed my congressional oversight efforts. I shared examples of waste within the organization during a recent conversation on X Spaces with Elon. It's crucial that we scrutinize every dollar spent there, and I'm pleased to see a shift in oversight to the State Department.

I have been investigating USAID's humanitarian aid expenditures related to the war in Ukraine for several years. My team faced significant obstruction and misinformation from USAID, which hindered our access to records detailing taxpayer money usage. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending by USAID with minimal data-driven results. Notably, funds were directed to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and there were expenditures for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite State Department travel warnings.

I believe members of Congress should be investigated for potential ill-gotten gains. There seems to be no other explanation for their consistent support of poor legislation. It's possible their spouses or significant others are employed by the very departments or quasi-governmental agencies that benefit from these votes. Until we investigate these potential conflicts of interest, the American people will continue to distrust Congress, and rightfully so.

Initially, USAID was created with good intentions. However, the agency has broken the trust with the American people and hasn't been transparent about where our taxpayer dollars are going. In 2021, the special operations command put out an instruction manual with instructions and examples on how the military could work with the state department, intel services, and USAID using race riots in order to destabilize nations. They also advocated for setting up job fairs near some of these riots so that disaffected workers could gain employment. These operations are taking place without government oversight, without the authority of the president, without the authority of congress. USAID needs to condemn this and provide oversight to congress on exactly where our tax dollars are going. Do you agree that this is wrong?

We've learned that USAID has been used to push globalist propaganda and potentially fund terrorism, even resulting in American deaths, which could lead to criminal referrals. The agency may need to be abolished. We aim to expose the millions of dollars going to radical organizations, some with ties to terrorists. There are questions about why mechanisms to prevent foreign aid from reaching terrorist groups aren't working, especially when we see terrorist weaponry linked to these funds. For years, USAID has been a slush fund for left-wing propaganda. We need to ensure American tax dollars benefit American citizens and interests, not wasted on things like DEI musicals abroad. This may be the world's largest money laundering scheme in history. We're committed to creating transparency across the government, thanks to President Trump and Elon Musk, who will help expose every corner of government. That is what the American people want.

I Googled USAID and apparently Trump and Elon shut off the world's oxygen supply. But what's missing from these stories is any reporting on what USAID was spending money on, like sketchy projects they funneled billions into, or why shutting it down might be a good thing. USAID was dropping millions on gender studies in countries that still stone women, funding infrastructure projects where nothing ever got built, and paying for DC cocktail parties instead of actual aid. The media is acting like USAID was a holy temple when in reality, it was just a government ATM with no withdrawal limits. Nobody even knew what USAID did until Trump shut it down. If your charity dies when the free government money stops flowing, it wasn't a charity. It was a money laundering Ponzi scheme. And the fact that CNN is crying tells you everything.

If I give an organization a billion dollars, I need to know where it went. Otherwise, that's wasteful and irresponsible. If you can't account for it, what am I supposed to think? Now, I'm not saying anyone is directly responsible for this. However, giving an $850 billion budget to an organization that can't pass an audit and explain where the money went seems like waste, fraud, or abuse to most people. They would naturally wonder why the money isn't properly accounted for.

USAID has been unresponsive and often operates independently of U.S. foreign policy, which is concerning given that it uses taxpayer dollars. There is a need for alignment between USAID's programs and the national interest, as outlined by the State Department and the National Security Council. Despite attempts to reform the agency over the past few decades, it continues to resist cooperation and transparency regarding funding and program details. This lack of accountability cannot persist, and it is essential that taxpayer money is used to support U.S. national interests. The ongoing frustration with USAID's operations has spanned multiple administrations and must be addressed.

I'm uncovering fraud by showing how money isn't reaching its intended destination but is instead being diverted, which goes against what Congress intended. Uncovering fraud should be viewed positively, and it's puzzling why anyone would defend it. We're working to address waste, inefficiency, fraud, and the weaponization of agencies. A prime example is USAID, which misuses taxpayer money to promote unwanted ideologies and destabilize foreign policies. It is common sense to stop funding these things. We aim to address this issue across all agencies, ensuring taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and effectively.

We're talking about $2.3 billion saved, but where's the proof? You won't be satisfied until you see the 10,000 pages of evidence. Specifics are needed. If we have to go to Congress, we will show where the money is going. Some details have emerged, like the $59 million spent on luxury hotels, but that was FEMA money abused for migrants. I'm not saying it's okay, don't put words in my mouth. The portrayal isn't factually accurate. I saw what FEMA does, I believe it. These are congressionally appropriate funds.

I know people who worked in the Reagan administration. When they asked the bureaucracy questions, they were often blocked and deterred because they weren't technical. Elon Musk's team bypassed this by directly accessing the tech systems. No president has ever done this. They found crazy things like payments to people with duplicate or no social security numbers, totaling up to a hundred billion dollars. Payments were also going to organizations like Internews Network, which promotes a left-leaning point of view, and to protesters worldwide. My team is being transparent about it. We went to the data, we found it. We've only been at this for twenty days, so give us a chance. We're already releasing a lot of information. People are trying to slow us down, but the biggest question is whether we can stop their grift.