TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses suing Media Matters for targeting conservative voices through market manipulation to silence opposition. They mention a blueprint from 2016 outlining tactics to suppress conservative voices. They highlight the importance of protecting free speech rights and fighting against market manipulation to undermine these rights. The speaker emphasizes the need for vigilance among attorneys general in upholding the first amendment.

The Vidare Foundation, led by Lydia Brimelow, faces what she describes as "spiritual warfare" from New York Attorney General Letitia James, who she claims is targeting them for their defense of American identity. For three years, Vidare has shielded writers and donors from James's "witch hunt," incurring over a million dollars in legal fees. James seeks Vidare's submission and the exposure of their writers' and donors' names, not for transparency, but to punish truth and stifle courage. Brimelow highlights the difficulty Vidare faces in leaving New York and the personal legal challenges she and her husband face. She fears James could put Vidare in receivership, exposing all their records. Despite this, she draws hope from the J6 pardons and recounts a former board member being interrogated. Vidare is fighting for the "historic American nation" and has witnessed support, including legal aid after exposure on Tucker Carlson. They are seeking funds to overturn a $1,000/day fine, appeal a First Amendment case, and file ethics complaints against James for lying to judges. Brimelow urges supporters to donate at givesendgo.com/vdare or via mail, share their message, and pray for intervention in this "spiritual battle."

I have been accused, and it's been a paid campaign, of being a federal agent because I was at January 6 and did not get charged. However, despite being at January 6 and not trespassing, which is the crime that everybody was charged with, despite not being charged, not having committed a crime, I only had my bank account frozen for six months, I only was placed on the federal no fly list for a year, and I was only subpoenaed by Congress. I testified under oath when I was deposed as part of the subpoena last year, or I think that was rather in 2022, that I did not ever have contact with federal law enforcement at any time during or after any of the election riots or protests. This was a narrative that was cooked up. Nobody was saying this in 2021 or 2022 because all of my legal problems were publicized. I was on the no fly list, I had my money taken, I was banned from everything. It was only after Joe Kent was defeated in 2022 in the midterms that Max Blumenthal, Joe Kent's best friend, wrote a three part hit piece about me with his wife, Anya Parampol, accusing me of being a fed. They paid people, someone paid people, on Influencible to spread this article and the narrative that I'm a Fed. The claim grew that I gave a speech outside the Capitol and I said, we're taking the Capitol back, keep moving. They say I incited people to go in the building. The report says that none of their confidential sources on the ground were encouraging people to go in the building. There were undercover operatives or informants tasked to do that, but there were no undercover agents and out of 26 informants none of them were doing that. If the claim was I was entrapping people, that wasn't happening. The report also says that all the confidential sources were known to law enforcement before and were interviewed afterward. If I were one of the confidential sources, why would they make the mistake of freezing my money and putting me on the no fly list? The New York Times said they did charge me. I testified under oath that I never talked to law enforcement under penalty of perjury. So if anything, they’ve been saying Trump is gonna get in and blow the whistle. I wish he would on January 6 because if anything comes out, they could arrest me for perjury. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending myself from the feds; lawyers aren’t cheap. My lawyers, not cheap. I probably spent over 200,000, close to 250,000 in legal fees. All the money that I was given by the mysterious French donor, nearly all of it after it was unfrozen, I wound up spending on legal fees. I had to borrow money from people because my bank account was frozen for six months. I missed weddings of my best friends, funerals of my best friends because I was on the federal no fly list. I haven’t had banking services for four years. I haven’t been able to process a credit card for my business. I’ve been banned from everything—Facebook, Instagram; Twitter until May, not even a year ago. For years I spent defending myself from attacks as a racist and a Nazi and a Holocaust denier, then the tactic switched to accusing me of law enforcement, then gay, pedophile, the usual. The grand irony is that Tucker Carlson, a close friend of Max Blumenthal, collaborated on the piece; Tucker Carlson’s father is a federal agent, and during January 6 Tucker Carlson was not talking about election fraud and said he hated Trump. I’m pulling the veil back a little bit, because this is politics. The election was stolen, and there are these dynamics with Blumenthal, Kent, Tucker, and Max Blumenthal’s wife’s article in The Grey Zone.

The speaker believes many January 6th defendants were wrongly charged with 1512, an obstruction charge, and that a bipartisan Supreme Court threw it out. As a US Attorney, the speaker wanted to investigate the use of 1512, which they attribute to Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco, but ultimately to Andrew Weissman. Weissman, connected to the Mueller investigation, allegedly advocated using 1512 to target Trump, even if it meant "making it up." The speaker claims Weissman wanted to charge Trump after first jailing hundreds of people to validate the charge. 1512 was initially created after Enron to prevent the destruction of documents related to an official proceeding. Weissman allegedly planned to expand the definition of "official proceeding" to include the electoral college count. The speaker asserts that this plan involved jailing people, securing guilty pleas, and influencing judges to support the charge before targeting Trump.

People like me are experiencing what Trump faces. I'm being sued for displaying Trump flags. The left is using lawfare to suppress free speech, target opponents, and disrupt elections. Regular people, like the January 6ers and peaceful protesters, are facing unfair tactics and legal battles. Free speech is in danger.

On one of the first days this show aired about the 50 states, a delegation to Israel visited, with people from state and local governments going to Israel, reportedly “humping the wall,” “licking the wall,” listening to speeches from Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli dignitaries, and being given instructions on how they would serve. The discussion then shifts to free speech and second amendment rights, setting the stage for the rest of the show. Jonathan Cagle, an American journalist known on X (formerly Twitter) with accounts such as decent backup, geez, decent JC, has been arrested. He is appearing today in a federal court, facing charges of cyberstalking. The report attributes the arrest to a group of “psychotic Zionists” who have been mass reporting him, attempting to have him kicked off the Internet and from various platforms, filing unpublished and videoed reports, and involving law enforcement. They have accused him of harassing, threatening, and stalking them, and now he faces federal charges. A central question raised is how many reports it takes to get arrested and jailed, and whether a “magic number” exists. The conversation notes X’s new program that flags accounts, suppresses content, and reduces reach, assigning scores (80%, 90%), thereby “snuffing out” visibility. The discussion asks if a coordinated online group can push someone into being arrested, just by accusing them of cyberstalking or other offenses. There is a GoFundMe-style fundraising page linked to Jonathan Cagle’s mother, Lisa Cagle, who states: “I’m Lisa Cagle, and my son needs help with a legal matter as he is a patriot fighting for America's future. He has a platform on X and is joined by so many that share the same passion for the great USA. Any donation is greatly appreciated. We’re raising legal funds to help cover the legal defense of a man facing serious federal charges that raise important questions about free speech, due process, and the proper limits of government power. The case is complex, high stakes, and emotionally taxing, not just for him, but for his family and loved ones. Federal cases move quickly, require specialized legal expertise, and are extremely expensive to defend properly. Without strong representation, the system can overwhelm even those who believe deeply in their innocence. This fundraiser is not about relitigating the case online or attacking anyone involved. It’s about ensuring that every person, regardless of public opinion, has access to a vigorous, competent defense as guaranteed by the constitution. Legal fees for federal defenses can include, and there’s this list here, and I mean, it’s every step of the way. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps ensure that this case is decided in a courtroom based on facts and law, not by financial imbalance or fear. If you’re unable to donate, sharing this page is also deeply appreciated.” The narrative notes that federal court proceedings are challenging due to the government’s resources, and it references the J6 situation, where participants were uprooted from their homes and faced severe sentences, implying a concern about intimidation by federal power. The discussion promises to follow the case and provide updates on the court hearing and further information about what is happening, given the large online attack from accounts on X that have targeted Jonathan to destroy him, making it difficult to discern the facts. The overarching theme is concern over free speech, due process, and the proper limits of government power in the face of online amplification and organized reporting campaigns.

- "Do you know who Ray Epps is, and where is he? And, is he sitting behind bars like some of these other, protesters who've been sitting there without bail for so long?" - "And what we need to know is whether or not that cooperation existed on January 5 and January 6 to get people to do things that they might otherwise not do, like enter the capital." - "We already know as a consequence of reporting in revolver.news and in re really, that was confirmed by the New York Times that there were people texting their handlers from the crowd in January 5 and January 6." - "Now we just need to know whether the folks being controlled by the federal government were, in fact, the very people that were doing the worst things on January 6."

The conversation centers on Tina Peters, her defense team, and alleged procedural and ethical problems surrounding her case. The speaker details his personal involvement, including paying a million dollars to Doug Richards to defend Peters. He recounts discovering misgivings about Richards’ defense plan a few days before trial and visiting Richards’ hotel room to hear his theory of the case. Richards allegedly arrived resentfully on a Zoom call with other criminal defense attorneys and proposed a strategy to put Peters on the stand, claiming that “colonelson” told her to image a hard drive. The speaker notes that colonelson was the president’s attorney, not Peters’ own attorney, and Richards supposedly argued Peters could claim it was legal advice from an attorney, although the speaker states California does not have a legal advice exception and Colorado law would render such a defense nugatory. The proposed strategy allegedly aimed to create jury sympathy for a 68-year-old grandmother rather than present substantive legal arguments or evidence of fraud. The speaker contends that Richards’ strategy would have resulted in Peters going on the stand with no other witnesses, effectively inviting jury nullification and failing to argue legitimate defenses or present critical motions. Peters reportedly fell ill during this period, and she fired Richards at the last moment, seeking proper counsel. The judge and Richards are described as part of a “railroad” process in Colorado, with Richards allegedly designing an ineffectual defense to push Peters to testify, thereby enabling possible indictments of Kurt Olson and 45. The speaker asserts that several local criminal defense attorneys on a Zoom call were horrified by Richards’ strategy and that the defense was deliberately weak. Stephanie Lambert, currently indicted in Michigan, who is in leg irons in Washington, DC, then took Peters’ case and filed motions that, in the speaker’s view, should have been filed earlier. These motions contend that Peters, as county recorder, had the right to make a backup of election data, and that the backup was a legitimate act; a friend with a cyber background and a surfer athlete allegedly participated with Peters’ permission, though the employee “Billy” later denied it. The speaker asserts Peters did nothing wrong and that the charges should have been dismissed. The speaker criticizes the legal profession more broadly, claiming mass coordination by state bar associations and “Project 65” to deprive people of Sixth Amendment rights, citing John Eastman as another example. He mentions a concerted effort to undermine the defense and hints at promises of federal judgeships in exchange for cooperation. He notes that Peters’ motions filed by Lambert should have been filed earlier and accuses Richards of crafting a strategy that would have allowed immediate indictments of Donald Trump’s legal team. The speaker references a Supreme Court filing and a constitutional crisis, stating that the Supreme Court already has “everything it needs” as of the prior night. He praises one DC judge as fair and straightforward, while his other cases are described as varied, though he intends to proceed even if it means jail time. He promises to upload a confidential brief and invites the audience to read the filing with SCOTUS, signaling ongoing legal action.

I filed the first federal lawsuit against woke indoctrination in America. If my daughter is taught CRT or SEL, I will sue. I encourage every parent to do the same. We're tired of it. I don't want my child to be taught that her race and gender determine her success. I don't want her to be encouraged to express herself sexually in class. Our kids are not emotional support animals. I'm a mother, not a birthing person. We won't let this happen. We will find you every day.

Activists, prosecutors, and judges are accused of destroying the rule of law, with specific focus on Fulton County DA Fannie Willis, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, Manhattan judge Arthur Engerin, Biden justice department special counsel Jack Smith, and Obama DC judge Tanya Chutkan. They are criticized for criminalizing the first amendment, allowing crime and homelessness to rise, smirking at President Trump's trial, issuing a gag order, and using legal theories to remove him from the ballot. The audience is urged to donate to the Article 3 Project to fight against what is perceived as left-wing lawfare.

The Vidare Foundation, according to Lydia Brimelow, faces a "spiritual warfare" in the form of a "witch hunt" by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who Brimelow claims seeks to silence Vidare's defense of American identity. For three years, Vidare has shielded writers and donors from James's "Inquisition," incurring over a million dollars in legal fees. Brimelow states James wants names to punish truth and discourage courage. Vidare is challenging a $1,000/day fine, appealing a First Amendment case, and plans to file ethics complaints against James for allegedly lying to judges. Brimelow recounts attending Trump's inauguration and seeing the J6 pardons as a "reckoning with truth." She claims James interrogated a former board member and illegally forbade him from discussing it with Vidare. If Vidare can't pay its lawyers, James could put Vidare in receivership, exposing writers and donors. Brimelow urges donations to givesendgo.com/vdare or via mail, and asks supporters to share the message and pray for Vidare.

The speaker discusses the selective evidence and rigged cases surrounding the January 6th incident at the Capitol. They argue that the prosecutors, DOJ, and FBI have created a two-tier system of justice by hiding certain evidence and distributing others to maintain a false narrative of an insurrection. They also mention the attempt to remove Donald Trump from the ballot and highlight the connections between the law firm representing the group pushing for his removal and individuals like Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, and Gina Haspel. The speaker questions the logic behind accusing Trump of insurrection when he did not order the deployment of the National Guard.

This account describes a deeply personal experience tied to the January 6 events and the author’s broader concerns about government overreach and the persecution of dissent. The speaker asserts that their journey is real and not abstract, detailing actions taken against them by federal authorities. Key points include: - The speaker was arrested by the FBI, placed in a cell, and branded a terrorist by their own government. - Their teenage son, who was sleeping in Los Angeles, was followed by TSA agents and placed on a watch list. - The speaker’s bank accounts were flagged, their reputation attacked, and they were effectively sentenced by a system that allegedly knew the accusations were false but did not correct them. - The speaker references recent media coverage to claim a shift in official acknowledgment: news reports allegedly confirm that there were hundreds of undercover FBI informants present on January 6, contradicting earlier statements that there were none, and even later statements suggesting only a few. - The speaker insists on recounting these events in their book, “Selective Persecution, the Legalization of American Fascism,” not as a pundit but as a witness, arguing that what happened to them could happen to anyone. The speaker emphasizes the breadth and seriousness of what they describe as state actions: targeting an individual with legal and reputational damage, coupled with surveillance and coercive measures affecting family members and financial standing. The narrative frames these experiences as part of a broader pattern of government behavior surrounding January 6, asserting that the claims are supported by new reporting about FBI informants on the scene. Overall, the account centers on personal testimony of alleged misconduct by federal authorities, the collateral impact on family members, and a broader claim about systemic abuse and misinformation surrounding January 6, framed within the author’s critique of American political dynamics as described in their book.

Nancy Pelosi's daughter and her friends admit that there was no real insurrection on January 6th. The media's biased narrative and the January 6th Committee's unfair actions poisoned the jury pool in Washington DC. The defendants' rights were violated through the use of invasive surveillance techniques and the trapping of protesters. The Justice Department also failed to respect the protesters' First Amendment rights.

Speaker 1 describes being blacklisted by various platforms and services following the events of January 6th. They mention being permanently banned by PayPal, Venmo, Stripe, Patreon, and donor portals. Their organization, the WalkAway Foundation and Walkaway campaign pack, were also permanently banned. Speaker 1 expresses concern over Bank of America turning over records of individuals who bought coffee in DC on January 6th, violating privacy. They mention a fellow defendant who had their bank mortgage canceled. Speaker 1 believes that legal reforms are needed to prevent people from being barred from the financial world based on their nonviolent politics. They discuss being put on a terrorism watch list and facing extensive screening at airports. Speaker 2 emphasizes the importance of venue reform to ensure fair trials. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes they were framed by the January 6th select committee, to which Speaker 2 responds affirmatively and criticizes the suppression of evidence of election fraud.

Speaker 0 accuses the Democrat Washington DC establishment and mainstream media of gaslighting Americans and lying to them. He says Christopher Wray appeared at congressional testimony claiming ignorance about undercover FBI agents, and alleges that people were left in solitary confinement in the DC Jail for eighteen months without family visits, shaves, or haircuts. He claims the FBI and others orchestrated events to paint Donald Trump as a domestic terrorist and to portray Trump supporters as wild extremists, while agents within the crowd agitated and destroyed a peaceful protest, turning it into chaos in which people felt they were fighting for their lives. Speaker 0 asserts that four unarmed Americans were killed that day: Ashley Babbitt, Roseanne Boylan, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Phillips, and says the FBI set up their murders with no accountability. He mentions that President Trump posted about the alleged lying to Congress and predicts an impending federal indictment for Wray, and he says “Read the messages I left you in the DC jail walls. You deserve it. Sleep well on that metal mattress.” Speaker 1 responds with “That’s right,” then asks about plans for legal action, noting a $25,000,000 lawsuit and asking whether it has been filed. Speaker 0 explains they filed a form 95, an official notice to the FBI and DOJ seeking recompense and reconciliation, stating they are coming for recompense and the American people deserve redress for families of January 6 detainees and others whose lives were affected, including people whose careers were destroyed. He says they will be filing an official federal court lawsuit that week. Speaker 0 contends the DOJ and FBI are complicit in a cover-up intended to overthrow the government and describes a plan from January 6 to create a false insurrection narrative to use a constitutional amendment to block Trump from running for president, labeling this a coup d'etat amounting to subversion of the will of the American people. He asserts due process violations by Christopher Wray, including Brady material violations (exculpatory evidence withheld), and claims such evidence was hidden from them. Speaker 1 asks how long Speaker 0 was held, and Speaker 0 states he was held for four years and one thousand four hundred sixty-seven days without a trial, noting he has no criminal record and repeatedly asking why federal agents, DHS agents, and confidential human sources were not disclosed, asserting these omissions violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment without fair due process. He reiterates the duration: four years and 1,467 days in custody without trial.

I've got updates on a second story by Jeffrey Tishauer from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) about Tom Homan and me. This guy claims to be an investigative reporter, but he's really an Antifa activist. The SPLC is like the National Enquirer of the left, and it's an oxymoron for them to talk about truth. Jeffy's doing another hit piece, trying to tie in DEI and my employer with unrelated stuff. He's mad because I called him out. I work with various groups, even helped open an African American-led GOP office. Plus, this "Nazi hunter" is targeting normal people and groups like Moms for Liberty. Tishauer is lying. I didn't meet Tom Homan at Trump's inauguration. He's also twisting my words about confronting Venezuelan gang members. He is lying about my views regarding January 6th, too. This whole thing is ridiculous.

Speaker 1 describes being blacklisted by various platforms and services following the events of January 6th. They mention being permanently banned by PayPal, Venmo, Stripe, and Patreon, as well as being banned by multiple email services. Speaker 1 also discusses how Bank of America allegedly turned over records of individuals who bought coffee in Washington, DC on January 6th, expressing concern about privacy violations. They emphasize the need for legal reforms to prevent people from being barred from the financial world based on their nonviolent politics. The conversation then shifts to the topic of venue reform, allowing defendants to face charges in their own jurisdiction. Finally, Speaker 2 believes they were framed by the January 6th select committee and accuses Bill Barr of suppressing evidence of election fraud.

The January 6 committee was unlawfully formed by Speaker Pelosi and acted without due process, using cherry-picked and doctored video. The committee worked with regime media to blast the fake narrative of an insurrection. Secretly recorded video reveals Nancy Pelosi's documentary admitting no insurrection occurred. The shameful proceedings and media blitz poisoned the jury pool in DC. Many defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet violating the Fourth Amendment via geofencing and cellphone data warrants. The Justice Department didn't respect the protesters' First Amendment rights, unlike the kid gloves treatment of Antifa and BLM agitators in Portland. January 6 defendants haven't been dealt with in the same fashion as Antifa and BLM protesters, violating equal protection. Widespread Brady violations exist, including concealed footage around the Capitol and 800+ unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts potentially containing exculpatory evidence. Judges in DC seem to have come under the spell of the January 6 committee's original sin, allowing the mainstream media narrative to influence their decisions. A statute designed to close an obstruction of justice loophole is being misapplied. Antifa and BLM revolutionaries largely got off scot-free, while January 6 defendants' sentences are wildly disproportionate.

The speaker presents seven core points about the January 6 investigations and related prosecutions. 1) Original sins of government and due process concerns - The lawless formation of the House Select Committee on January 6 led to a one-sided, due process-free process. - The committee was gerrymandered by Speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel for the ranking member, and Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to cover that up. - The committee conducted scripted hearings with prewritten Q&A paths and cherry-picked, highly edited audio and video. 2) Collaboration with mainstream media and narrative shaping - The committee worked with major outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC) to blast a narrative of an insurrection. - The speaker claims secretly recorded video shows Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and friends admitting no real insurrection occurred. - The combined effect of the committee’s conduct and the media blitz allegedly poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC, and suggested that venue transfers should have been permitted. 3) Fourth Amendment concerns and the dragnet - Many defendants were swept up in a broad dragnet that the speaker believes resembled a general warrant violating the Fourth Amendment. - This involved geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants to telecom providers. - People arriving after the speech and the ellipse allegedly did not see that areas normally open to the public were closed, creating a trespass trap for the unwary. 4) First Amendment rights and unequal treatment - The Department of Justice did not treat First Amendment rights of the protesters with appropriate respect. - The speaker contrasts the January 6 cases with the 2020 Portland protests, where nightly attacks on federal courthouses and antifa/BLM activity were characterized differently. - The speaker asserts that insurrection labeling in Portland was more applicable to those actions than to the largely spontaneous January 6 crowd, implying selective enforcement. 5) Selective prosecution and unequal treatment - The January 6 defendants have not been treated the same as Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who damaged property and threatened the White House. - The speaker calls this a flat violation of equal protection of the laws and suggests broad public belief in selective prosecution. 6) Brady violations and exculpatory evidence - Widespread Brady violations are alleged, focusing on two areas: concealed or underreported footage of the Capitol, and the large number of unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts (over 800), with the possibility that exculpatory evidence remains unseen by defendants and their lawyers. - The committee allegedly acted like a star chamber, and there is concern that not all exculpatory material has been made available. 7) Judicial influence and misapplication of obstruction statutes - DC federal judges are said to have been influenced by the January 6 committee’s narrative and the mainstream media. - A statute designed to close an obstruction-of-justice loophole from Arthur Andersen/Enron is claimed to be applied to activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment, with unequal sentencing: Antifa and BLM defendants allegedly receiving lighter outcomes or settlements, while January 6 defendants face disproportionate sentences. - The speaker concludes by expressing disagreement with the overall approach and intention to speak on these concerns.

The speaker outlines seven points regarding the treatment of January 6 defendants. First, the House Select Committee was lawlessly formed and acted in a one-sided way. Second, the committee worked with regime media to blast the narrative that an insurrection occurred. Nancy Pelosi's documentary allegedly admits no real insurrection occurred. Third, many defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet violating the fourth amendment via geofencing and cell phone data warrants. Fourth, the Justice Department didn't respect the protesters' first amendment rights, unlike how they treated Antifa. Fifth, January 6 defendants haven't been dealt with in the same fashion as Antifa and BLM protesters, violating equal protection. Sixth, there are widespread Brady violations, including concealed footage and unreleased deposition transcripts. Seventh, DC judges are under the spell of the January 6 committee and are misapplying a statute, leading to disproportionate sentences compared to Antifa and BLM, who largely got off scot-free.

Ivan Raikland, a former intelligence officer and constitutional attorney, discusses his investigation into the events of January 6th at the United States Capitol. He identifies individuals, including Nancy Pelosi and her daughter, who he believes played a role in facilitating the unlawful entry. Raikland suggests that the Capitol Police Chief, Yogananda Pittman, may have manipulated evidence to ensure a high conviction rate. He calls for political solutions to address the situation, including reversing criminal referrals and pressuring the new Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, to release video footage. Raikland proposes defunding the Capitol Police Chief and others who do not cooperate.