TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

The speaker explains why they didn't speak up earlier and expresses frustration with the lack of action taken regarding the election. They mention bringing in General Flynn and Sydney Powell to meet with the president, but faced obstacles. The speaker confirms rumors that Powell was kept away from the president. They also mention the need for a legitimate audit of the election.

The speaker expresses offense at claims that someone sent the National Guard, stating that this person never offered the National Guard despite bipartisan requests, including from Mitch McConnell. The speaker alleges the person's secretary of the army and secretary of defense delayed, and the National Guard was not sent until hours later, resulting in injuries and deaths. The speaker accuses the person of lying on TV, claiming a detachment from the truth and specifically refuting the claim of sending the National Guard, urging the press to challenge this assertion. The speaker also states that they do not have control of security, which is handled differently, referencing the power of the White House.

The speaker questions the evidence presented by elections officials, stating that it has been repeatedly debunked. They suggest inviting the officials back in to provide further evidence. Senator Tillery agrees with the suggestion.

The speakers discuss the possibility of someone setting up the police on January 6th. They mention that this has happened before and question if the same people also set up the rally attendees. They believe that there is a cover-up and wonder if that's why there has been a delay in releasing footage from January 6th.

Congressmen Roy, Crane, Biggs, and Mills are urged to act immediately to protect the president and potential next president. Legislation reforming 18 USC 3056, which grants power to the Secret Service, must be passed today. The speaker believes that without this reform, specifically removing the Secret Service's investigative function, the president may not make it to inauguration day, even if he wins. The speaker emphasizes the urgency of the situation, stating action was needed "10 minutes ago."

The transcript centers on discussions about security failures on January 6, 2021, and the steps taken to address them, including the involvement of the House Sergeant at Arms and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Key points: - Initiating discussions on National Guard: The witness confirms meeting with the House Sergeant at Arms regarding the National Guard prior to January 6. The House Sergeant at Arms was Paul Irving, appointed by Speaker Pelosi at that time. Irving reportedly stated he “didn’t like the optics” when the National Guard was first raised. - Run it up the chain and approval process: On January 6, when the witness sought approval to call in the National Guard, Irving indicated he would “run it up the chain,” understood as the leadership chain, leading toward the Speaker’s office and Speaker Pelosi. The witness clarified that the leadership chain on the House side comprises the top security official and the elected leadership team up to Speaker Pelosi. - How it ends up with Pelosi’s office: The witness stated that running up the chain would likely end with the Speaker’s office and possibly Speaker Pelosi, describing the path as through the speaker’s office. - Three calls with Pelosi on January 6: During a January 7 press conference, Pelosi claimed she had not talked to the witness since the breach and called for the witness’s resignation. The witness asserts that Pelosi’s claim was inaccurate, stating he spoke with Pelosi three times that evening. The three calls were: 1) First call: When the witness went to brief Vice President Pence at the secure location; he briefed Irving about returning to the chambers and the timing. Irving called Pelosi on the witness’s cell phone around 05:34 to have Pelosi on the line. 2) Second call: After walking away from Pence briefing, the witness met with Stenger and headed to brief the Senate. Jennifer Hemingway handed him Emily Barrett’s phone, and Pelosi was on the line as they discussed the information given to Pence about when the Capitol could be back in session; the witness stated he assured Pelosi the information was correct and that the chambers could be reoccupied by 7 PM. The call ended. 3) Third call: While at the Senate, on a cell phone, using another official’s cell line, the witness briefed leadership off-site at a secure location about plans to get them back into chambers. Pelosi participated in this third call as part of briefing leadership. - Pelosi’s comment and resignation: The witness concurs with Pelosi’s claim that he spoke three times, contradicting Pelosi’s assertion of no contact since the breach. The witness expresses a wish that Pelosi had considered the challenges faced and the efforts to bring in outside resources on January 6 before she called for his resignation. - Additional clarifications: When asked if Pelosi’s office or Pelosi herself politicized capital security, the witness said he had no idea. He also offered a closing remark hoping Pelosi would consider the witness’s efforts and the steps taken to reinforce security that day.

Just finished a meeting at the White House planning our objection for January 6th. We won't let Biden and the Democrats steal the election. Trump won by a landslide. Contact your house reps and senators to ensure their support. Many people are already involved. Stay tuned. Translation: Just finished a meeting at the White House planning our objection for January 6th. We won't let Biden and the Democrats steal the election. Trump won by a landslide. Contact your house reps and senators to ensure their support. Many people are already involved. Stay tuned.

Some individuals had planned to storm the Capitol as part of their agenda. Although I hesitate to mention it, as it could lead to my arrest, we must take action. We need to enter the Capitol. Let's proceed.

The discussion centers on why the National Guard was not deployed to the Capitol on the morning of January 6. The explanation given involves a two-step process for authorization: first, authorization by the commander in chief, which had been obtained, and second, a request by the local governing body, specifically the mayor and the Capitol Police Bureau. Mister Patel confirms that there was a letter from Mayor Muriel Bowser dated January 5 to the Department of Defense stating that she would not be requesting any additional National Guard troops. Consequently, they were on standby but not activated due to the mayor’s declination of the request. Speaker 0 presses the point, implying that there was an offering or possibility to deploy the National Guard that was not executed, and suggests contacting the Mayor of Washington, DC to understand other outreach to police departments. The conversation repeats that the National Guard was not initially deployed and questions why they were blocked or not prepared from the outset. Mister Patel reiterates the key facts: the authority came through the commander in chief, the local governing body had declined to request additional National Guard, and thus there was no immediate deployment. Speaker 0 takes responsibility for not having the National Guard ready, suggesting a need to prepare more in the future. The exchange emphasizes the procedural sequence—authorization, local request, and the mayor’s declination—along with implications about preparedness and the perceived blocking or absence of National Guard deployment at the outset.

The speaker, who is the chief of police, expresses frustration over the law that prevents them from bringing in the national guard without approval. They recount the events of the attack on the Capitol and their efforts to request assistance. They made multiple calls to different agencies, including the sergeant in arms and the chairman of the Capitol Police Board, but authorization was delayed for 71 minutes. Finally, at 2:09, they received approval and immediately informed their colleague. The speaker emphasizes their anger and marks the time as 2:10 when they finally got approval for the National Guard.

In the brief exchange, Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on two linked political questions regarding January 6. Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 is concerned about a new January 6 committee finding that could render him liable for events that day and questions why the National Guard was not requested or deployed on January 6. The underlying aim is to scrutinize accountability and preparedness for the events of that day. Speaker 1 responds directly, insisting that he did not refuse the National Guard and attributing responsibility to the absence of a request from the president. He adds a sharp retort to Speaker 0, suggesting that Speaker 0 is presenting Republican talking points and labeling him as “a serious journalist,” implying a critique of the line of questioning and framing. Speaker 0 closes the exchange by reaffirming the public’s interest, stating that “The American people wanna know.” He reiterates that there are ongoing questions that remain unanswered, signaling a continued demand for accountability or clarification from Speaker 1. Overall, the exchange centers on responsibility and timing surrounding the National Guard on January 6, with Speaker 1 asserting that neither he nor the president took the actions that would have prevented or altered what occurred, while Speaker 0 emphasizes the public’s continuing desire for answers in light of January 6 committee findings. The interaction highlights tension between seeking accountability for the events of that day and defending the actions or inactions of political figures involved.

President Trump is mentioned repeatedly. The speaker requests "just a minute" from President Trump multiple times. "A %" is stated, followed by "That's a random. No."

We are currently experiencing a hostile government takeover. I want to discuss this situation, but I am already running late for work. If you believe we need to stop this, remember that we had an opportunity to do so before, but some of you did not want that particular person in power.

Anne VanderSchel asserts that U.S. elections were not compromised by a glitch but were penetrated by global intelligence weapons, a system that did not begin in Colorado but in Serbia. She describes it as a CIA playground where foreign and domestic intelligence agencies perfected digital election manipulation long before Americans knew the name Smartmatic. She claims the system was handed off to Venezuelan military, weaponized through Smartmatic to flip elections, delete logs, and control entire nations, and that this foreign military infrastructure was quietly slipped into the United States, with her saying she witnessed it herself in Panama and the Darien Gap alongside Michael Young, noting the influx of Venezuelan and other foreign nationals. VanderSchel emphasizes that those responsible expected governors, secretaries of state, and corrupt supervisors of elections to cooperate, and they did—except for Mesa County, Colorado county clerk Tina Peters. She claims Peters imaged the Dominion machines before they were illegally wiped, thereby preserving the only untouched 2020 dataset in America. She notes there were 3,143 counties in the country, and Peters was the only county clerk who held that image, which VanderSchel says mirrors exactly what Serbian and Venezuelan insiders described. She asserts that once Peters exposed the election fraud and the foreign intelligence operation on American soil, those involved moved to destroy her, and that this is why she believes Peters is in a prison cell. VanderSchel characterizes Peters’ case as the single most important national security case in modern American history. She closes by stating she, Anne VanderSchel, will not back down and urges others to speak out as well. She calls for a strong public push to support President Trump’s executive order and the deployment of 500 National Guard pods in every state to reach election supervisors and precincts. She warns that if officials refuse to follow the executive order and hand-count ballots, arrests should begin.

The speaker explains that the handling of the event was different from previous situations. They mention that the decision was made by the intelligence agency and the military. According to a federal law, the speaker was required to request federal resources like the National Guard in advance from the Capitol Police Board. However, they were denied twice due to optics and lack of intelligence support. The decision was made by Paul Irving and Mike Stenger, who work for Pelosi and McConnell respectively.

The speaker discusses plans related to someone coming to help with the storm. The speaker asks if "Mister president" has spoken with former president Trump before, then tells former president Trump to "get a life" and help people. The speaker demands accountability and insists that "you know the truth." When asked if they plan to speak with former president Trump, the speaker answers, "No."

Tomorrow is January 6th, an important constitutional date. The speaker expresses frustration that the United States does not have a clear election outcome yet. They mention their experience in other countries, where they have helped run elections and encouraged those countries to follow their example. The speaker finds it embarrassing that their own country is facing election challenges. Another speaker agrees and mentions that according to U.S. law, if there are no poll watchers, the election should be redone. They ask for suggestions on what President Trump and the people should do. The first speaker suggests a 10-day pause to allow for recounts in select states, ensuring that the ballots are constitutional and not fraudulent. They mention issues like backdated ballots, phony ballots, and dead voters.

On election night and in the days that followed, it appeared that the results from the tabulating machines were not accurate. A decision by the board was made to do a hand recount to ensure accurate results of the election. Speaker 1 asks, “Wasn't that the DeKalb County election board attorney? Play it again, Sam.” The line about the hand recount is repeated: “And a decision by the board was made to do a hand recount to ensure accurate results of the election.” Speaker 1 responds, “What? Isn't that what I've been saying for twenty years?” The exchange ends with Speaker 0 stating, “Do a hand recount.”

An interviewer asks if it's true that President Trump offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. One speaker references Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, who testified that Trump never issued an order to deploy the Guard. Two interviewees claim that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Donald Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops. One speaker states that Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and President Trump were in the Oval Office discussing serious national security threats before pivoting to January 6th. Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops for use, should the request come in, but those requests never did. One interviewee clarifies the January 4th meeting was primarily about a foreign threat to the U.S. and that Trump brought up January 6th at the end of the meeting.

Some individuals had planned to storm the Capitol, and tomorrow they intended to carry out their plan. Although I hesitate to mention it, as it could lead to my arrest, I will say it anyway. We must enter the Capitol. Let's go.

I requested the National Guard urgently to come to Capitol Hill. I spoke with Pentagon officials to get approval. During the call, I emphasized the urgency of the situation, but was told they didn't like the optics of having the National Guard present.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th was a pivotal moment. The person who made that decision has not answered why. Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits to the inquiries of the January 6th committee. However, if we truly want to find out what happened, everyone's records should be examined. The speaker emphasizes that they have been forthright and provided their phone records. They made numerous calls to request approval and called multiple police agencies and officers to help regain control of the Capitol. The speaker's recollection is detailed and precise.

The speaker questions why the FBI didn't inform cabinet secretaries about potential threats on January 6th. They criticize the lack of security measures at the Capitol and mention offering National Guard support, which was declined. They believe better information sharing could have prevented the events. The speaker emphasizes that protecting the Capitol is a law enforcement responsibility, not a military one, and suggests cooperation between agencies. They imply political reasons for the lack of action.

The speaker recounts a phone call with Lieutenant General Pyot Pyot and General Flynn, where they discuss the urgent need for the National Guard at the Capitol. However, General Pyot expresses concern about the optics of having the National Guard present. The speaker emphasizes the dire situation and the denial of assistance, leading to frustration. They mention the shooting of Ashley Babbit and the delayed arrival of the National Guard at 6 PM. The speaker also highlights the fact that resources were sent to protect the homes of other generals but not theirs. They suggest that this systematic denial of support raises suspicions and could lead to conspiracy theories. The conversation ends with a discussion about the lack of intelligence and the politically charged nature of the situation.