TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that someone, presumably a former FBI director, called for the assassination of the president. The speaker states that the individual knew exactly what he was implying, and that this implication was clear. The speaker believes the individual apologized, but doesn't want to apologize for advocating violence. The speaker calls this person a "dirty cop" and says his history is not clean. The speaker does not want to take a position on what should happen as a result of the alleged assassination call, but will leave the decision to others. The speaker suggests that leniency might be understandable if the individual had a clean history, but because he doesn't, the speaker is less inclined to be lenient.

The speaker warns that challenging the intelligence community is unwise as they have ways to retaliate. Despite being a savvy businessman, the speaker believes the individual is foolish for doing so. The intelligence community is reportedly displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about. Translation: The speaker cautions against provoking the intelligence community, as they have means to retaliate. Despite being a practical businessman, the speaker thinks it is unwise to challenge them. The intelligence community is said to be upset with how they have been treated and talked about.

Speaker 0 launches into a furious monologue, directing insults at someone who would report fellow Americans to the federal police, calling them dumb, idiotic, unpatriotic, and un-American. The speaker says, “Eat a dick,” and condemns anyone celebrating the capture or arrest of fellow Americans. They insist they are not moving on to other news and insist on staying on the topic, expressing anger toward those they reference as helping “the feds.” The speaker demands that the others understand they should not think the situation will benefit them or make them feel safer. They declare, “God is just and swift,” and threaten a confrontation, signaling they will address the matter aggressively while claiming to have “friends in high places” who will listen without payment, asserting they know they are a “good fucking person,” American, and a Christian who loves the nation. In contrast, they accuse the others of not loving their country, not being Christian, and not caring as much as they claim. The speaker asserts they have ample time and resources, contrasting themselves with others who supposedly have less. They reference a public figure, Candace, suggesting someone is upset by her actions toward someone named Charlie, and claim they have time to engage as needed. The speaker rejects the idea of having four kids, stating they have “a bunch of anger,” substantial intelligence, and many friends, and they condemn their opponents with coarse language. They declare they will not threaten violence and assert they would not harm a fly, stating they love flies even though they think they are awful. They insist they do not have to harm anyone, claiming God tells them not to seek retribution on their enemy and that vengeance belongs to God. The speaker ends by reiterating, “Fuck you,” and asserting that God loves them and will handle the situation, directing final hostility toward the unnamed others.

The speaker asks for a response to the "seashell on the seashore messaging, 8647, and now open criminal investigations" regarding Comey and Brennan. The respondent says that in their opinion, neither Comey nor Brennan should attempt more than six of the ten commandments, because they are not nice or ethical people. They claim that people who have worked with Comey and Brennan closely would say they are about as popular as male pattern baldness.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

Speaker 0 and Ivan engage in a heated exchange centered on identity, politics, and authority. Speaker 0 challenges Ivan’s stance, contrasting actions with labels and insisting on a focus on actions: “Focus on actions. Okay?” He accuses Ivan of being politically correct and weak, urging him to admit pride in being white: “Say you're proud of being white. Let's go. You better be white.” Speaker 0 references a problematic past event, saying, “Just like on January 6,” and attributes a stance of political incorrectness to himself and a lack of it to Ivan: “You’re politically correct. No. You’re weak.” He questions Ivan’s employment status and suggests a concern about keeping a job: “I was crushed, dude.” He notes Ivan is close to his employer, asking, “Who's my employer? FBI Washington field office,” and asserts that Ivan never faced indictment for January 6, saying, “Yeah. Because I’m that good. I run feds.” The exchange continues with provocative claims about who controls federal agencies: “I run feds. I think that's what the CIA does.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 praising Ivan in a paradoxical way—“God bless Ivan. He’s a bulldog and freedom fighter.”—while accusing him of being debulled by the mainstream media, a remark about Ivan’s portrayal in media. The dialogue weaves bravado, insinuations about loyalty and employment, and references to FBI/CIA, all set against a backdrop of a charged confrontation over identity and political alignment.

The speakers discuss how leaders are intimidated and manipulated by the intelligence community. They mention that if someone like Mike Johnson allows Pfizer to lapse or reforms it, they are warned that they will be held responsible for any terrorist attacks. They claim that the intelligence community constantly uses fear tactics to keep leaders in line. They also mention how Trump was targeted with multiple impeachments and criminal charges, and they speculate that similar tactics will be used against Mike Johnson. They suggest that the intelligence community may approach him with a picture of JFK to intimidate him.

President Musk warned against taking action, advising to shut the government down. This caused fear among those involved. What insight does he have?

Someone sent the speaker a video of a young, talented person from Chicago attacking him, claiming his father was in the CIA. The speaker initially dismissed this as untrue. However, after his father's death in March, he learned his father was indeed involved in that world, which shocked him. The speaker questions how this person knew about his father's involvement in intelligence, given his father's age. The person in the video claimed the speaker was a CIA operative. The speaker vehemently denies this, expressing strong animosity towards the CIA. He also says the person has since claimed he is funded by Russia. The speaker finds the CIA accusation personally offensive.

Taking on the intelligence community is incredibly risky. They have numerous ways to retaliate. Even a shrewd businessman would be foolish to antagonize them. I've heard they're extremely angry about how they've been treated and spoken about. I don't know exactly what they might do if provoked, but it's a dangerous game to play.

The speaker engages in a disrespectful conversation with Bob Iger, using offensive language and insults. They request to call Bob Iger for assistance in a game show, but it turns out they don't actually need help and confidently state they will win the prize. The speaker then expresses their opinion about people who prioritize appearance over morality.

The speaker suggests that going against the intelligence community is unwise, as they have numerous ways to retaliate. Despite being a practical businessman, he is making a foolish decision. The speaker wonders what actions the intelligence community would take if they were motivated. They claim that the intelligence community is upset with how he has treated and spoken about them.

The speaker states, “We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” They claim to be a “US citizen, former …,” and challenge someone, asking, “You wanna come at us?” They instruct the other person to “go get yourself some lunch, big boy,” signaling a taunt and confrontation.

He's provoking the intelligence community by criticizing them, which is unwise. They have ways to retaliate. The intelligence community is upset with how he's treated them. We rely on them for information, especially regarding Russian hacking.

The speakers discuss powerful individuals who want to keep Speaker 0 out. Speaker 0 believes they should want him because he is a great candidate, but Speaker 1 suggests it's about control and being on their team. Speaker 0 refuses to make a deal with these people and sees it as a battle worth fighting. Speaker 1 mentions the importance of raising money to win and suggests pausing rather than going away. Speaker 0 disagrees and vows to be the biggest pain for these people, even if it means they might try to kill him. Speaker 1 understands but advises caution.

The speaker criticized someone for making inappropriate and false personal comments. They mentioned that meeting with President Biden is challenging because he is intelligent, curious, and pays attention to details.

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

The speakers discuss the importance of being cautious and guided by their purpose. Speaker 0 worked in counterintelligence and counterterrorism for 22 years in the FBI. They advise Speaker 1 to seek competent help and gather intelligence before making decisions. Speaker 1 expresses concern about aggressive actions from alphabet organizations. Speaker 0 reassures them that they will be prepared and ready to face any challenges. Speaker 1 warns that if Speaker 0 returns to private life, they will still be targeted. Speaker 0 appreciates the warning.

An individual states that someone is working to help the blind see and asks if the work comes down to aligning with President Donald Trump to identify over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. The speaker responds that people get upset when fraudulently obtained money is taken away, and that they want to harm him for stopping their fraud and want to hurt Tesla for stopping government waste and corruption. The speaker concludes that bad people will do bad things. The first individual states that those who will end up hurt are the people who work in dealerships and those who build Teslas, which is despicable on the part of those who may have a political difference.

The speaker claims to have found documents related to Jim Comey that were not where they should have been. The speaker says these documents are unflattering to Comey. The speaker asserts that Comey disgraced the FBI numerous times with his role in crossfire hurricane and other abominations. The speaker finds it stunning that Comey continues to attack their leadership when they are cleaning up the mess Comey created and continue to find things from his era.

When you come at the intelligence community, they have many ways to retaliate. So, for a businessman, it's dumb to treat them poorly. From what I'm told, they're very upset with how they've been treated. We need the intelligence community. Without them, we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking. Does he have an agenda to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? This taunting hostility is not constructive. Whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.

Former government official suggests that the government will harm Donald Trump. The donor class must take action, implying violence against Trump. Intelligence agencies can retaliate against those who challenge them. Infowars claims to provide truthful information about future events, unlike other networks. Visit infowars.com for more information.

I have alerted my legal team about a potential business matter. I am known for being litigious. Please call the necessary people immediately. I feel wronged regarding Russia. This is dreadful. I have made this mistake five times before and I would rather not repeat it. If this issue disappears, that would be preferable. However, if it doesn't, you, along with everyone else, will face consequences. If I end the interview now, it will be at 11:40 and I will stop the recording.

The speaker discusses how President Trump's actions towards the intelligence community could have consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has ways of retaliating and that they are upset with how Trump has treated and talked about them. The speaker also highlights a statement from Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, who suggests that the president should be afraid of the CIA. The speaker criticizes Schumer and Mitch McConnell, claiming they are influenced by money from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and health insurance companies. They argue that corruption is the reason for the current state of the country.