TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts: it's a terrible, unspeakable evil, and he believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. The president knows.

"The American people to believe that? Do you think they're stupid? No." "What I am doing is protecting this country, providing historic reform, combating the weaponization of intelligence by the likes of you." "And we have countless proven you to be alive in Russia Gate in January 5." "You are the biggest put on a show so you can raise money for your charade." "You are a political buffoon at best." "But all you care about is a child sex predator that was prosecuted by a prior administration, and the Obama Justice department and the Biden justice department did squat." "And what did president Trump do? Bring new charges courageously." "33,000 pages of information to you." "I challenge you to say anything credibly to the truth." "Go ahead and run to the cameras where you wanna go now."

Ms. Green from Georgia states: "the man the 22 year old man, Tyler Robinson, that that murdered Charlie Kirk is not MAGA. His family may be Republican but all of the evidence that is being presented proves that he is a far leftist, very much integrated in online groups that are linked to Antifa. He was in a relationship with a biological male, so called furry, whatever that is, that is transitioning to be a fake woman. That is he was not MAGA, not one bit." She calls it "a complete lie, and it's an insult to every single Republican and person that identifies with those type of politics." She says, "We will not tolerate it," and claims that this language is getting many of us death threats day after day, and led to shootings on the baseball field where Steve Scalise was shot. "This is what led to President Trump nearly being assassinated this past summer. This is what has led to Charlie Kirk being assassinated." And so I just I just wanna give a warning there. "We're not going to tolerate that anymore. Mister chairman You know something else we're not going to tolerate is crime."

This isn't a place where you can just spin tales and deceive people. This is the news, and we tell the truth. It's alarming that a man who has struggled to denounce white supremacists is in this position. Remember when he said there were very fine people on both sides? Those words have power and meaning. When I speak, the world listens, including neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Why can't I denounce them or reject their support? I'm not talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists; they should be condemned totally. What's your response to my saying Liz Cheney should be fired? I keep speaking in extreme terms about the potential dangers to the country if I don't win in November. I've even used words like "bloodbath".

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of weakness and creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 demands Speaker 1 condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 he has been "submitted" and criticizes him for talking about Trump, stating, "When you do that, my name is Griswold." Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of supporting degenerates who are murdering white people and claims Speaker 1 is no more of a patriarch than he is. Speaker 2 asks where Speaker 1 was on January 6th. Speaker 2 states the solution is to help people where they are weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1's response to a grieving father is that he's weak. Speaker 2 threatens to run against Speaker 1 for Senate in Florida as a Republican. Speaker 2 claims Speaker 1's behavior is why "we're in the situation where we are." Speaker 2 says he came to give Speaker 1 a message from a father. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of being a black man trying to shut him down.

The segment discusses Rob Reiner, known as a successful actor-producer and a vocal critic of Trump who is very active on X. The conversation questions whether Reiner’s frequent anti-Trump rhetoric and what’s described as his seeming certainty in the face of new information indicates something unusual about him. The speakers note an impression that Reiner “seems crazy” or “impervious to new information,” and they wonder if there is some personal explanation behind his stance. Enter Mike Benz, a Twitter user recommended as a follow for this topic. Benz had previously expressed that, in his opinion, Reiner’s tweeting style suggested he was “talking like a CIA asset,” describing it humorously as a “cocaine fueled, almost psychopath immune to new facts, just seems like pure propaganda.” After this initial observation, Benz conducted further digging and found that Reiner is “friends with most of the CIA top guys” and that those individuals are “his advisers on this board that he created.” The core claim Benz presents is that Reiner runs an organization and has three CIA chiefs who serve as his advisors. Benz’s tweet is quoted to illustrate his characterization of the situation: he writes, “You can literally smell it on these people.” He describes “a CIA speak, frenzied energy of a man on cocaine, endlessly and wholly unaccountable bleeding about democracy, verbal state department print shop, in other words just saying what the state department would want you to say, and a psycho's lack of remorse.” He emphasizes that Reiner runs an organization with “three CIA chiefs who all serve as his advisors” and contrasts this with Reiner’s background as a Hollywood producer, asking why there would be “a Hollywood producer who's got advisors in the CIA and he's running some kind of a political investigation that happens to be bad for Trump.” The segment concludes by noting that, according to Benz, Rob Reiner has “no background in national security or foreign affairs” and is nonetheless accompanied by “three chiefs of the central intelligence agency in his ear.”

Speaker 1: Of course, as you all know, in the wake of Charlie's murder, there was an incredible amount of angry discourse from the right. Blaming the Democrats, blaming liberals saying, you're the reason this happened. Only to find out, surprise, 22 year old white dude, loved guns, raised by two parents, lived in a good home, dad as a minister, also a sheriff, didn't check it in boxes. Y'all thought he would check, did he? Speaker 0: Okay. First of all, a coat of mascara would be your friend. Speaker 0: That is disgusting. That was absolutely disgusting. Fuck her. Speaker 0: It's it's weird how she lost the points about him being a furry loving trans dating.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

He's labeled me venomous and disgraceful, criticizing the Supreme Court situation and calling me radical. Yes, we recognize his erratic behavior and lack of sound judgment. His time is limited, and we will unite against him. He's also called me a racist. We must confront an administration that is too male, too pale, and too stale. Thank you.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

The discussion centers on the president's comments yesterday, referring to "Trump supporter as garbage." Speaker 0 asks two questions: "does he think less of Americans who support Trump than he does of those who do not?" and "why is he using that kind of rhetoric? How is that presidential?" Speaker 1 says: "So so a couple of things. Couple of things. So just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out this is why he wanted to make sure that we put out a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say."

Speaker claims, "Brother Charlie got murdered, assassinated a few days ago, but the truth is he was assassinated a few years ago." They argue that electing people who demonize their political opponents leads to violence, adding, "So you might have pulled the trigger yourself." The speaker asks, "Who demonize political opponents? Who call political opponents enemies, Hitler, a threat to democracy, who say because we disagree, if you see someone, walk up to them and if they're eating in a restaurant, tell them they're not welcome, get in their face." They warn, "When you start saying stuff like that, calling your political opponents Nazis, fascists, stuff like that. Well, sooner or later, a kook is gonna hear that. A crazy person is going to hear that, and they're going to act on it."

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

Speaker 0 says it's "preposterous that we were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails again in the year 2025," that "they get activated," and that Trump won't be blamed for not releasing the Epstein files, "We spent years on this story." Speaker 1 counters, "No. Let let me you you had to take this story seriously for years, and it was false. It wasn't false." He asserts that "When Trump won in 2016, the intel community concluded that Russia didn't have a hand in his victory," but "Obama determined and wanted a new conclusion," sending "Brennan" to "come up with a new collusion," and insists "There was no proof." They claim "They amplified a false conclusion that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016." He adds, "The Democrats never cared about Epstein until they saw a political motivation," while noting "the right is more on top of Epstein" and that "We actually cared," concluding with "Save me your selective outrage."

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0 states that Trump has accused people who didn't break the law of breaking the law regarding the election and that Trump said Liz Cheney should be put before a war tribunal. Speaker 1 rejects the premise, claiming Speaker 0 is imputing things, taking words out of context, and combining separate conversations. Speaker 1 believes Trump is more reasonable than people like Liz Cheney. Speaker 1 accuses the network of pushing the "Russia hoax" by taking the words of unnamed FBI agents as truth, leading viewers to believe Trump and Putin conspired in 2016. Speaker 0 counters that they covered an FBI investigation. Speaker 1 says the network gave credence to anonymous sources' accusations. Speaker 0 wants to discuss things Trump has said this week, but Speaker 1 wants to discuss the economy.

Two speakers clash at a mourning event over Donald Trump. They repeatedly declare, "Tell Trump he's a traitor. Okay? Bye. Tell Trump he's a traitor. Trump is a traitor." One asks, "Don't think that's insensitive to be saying that while people are mourning Charlie Charlie Kirk? Kirk? I'm not saying anything about Charlie Kirk. I'm saying something about Donald Trump who's going to attend it." Another insists, "Given that Donald Trump is here, then yes. Donald Trump is a traitor. Donald Trump is a traitor. Trump is a traitor." The exchange includes "There are people that are friends with him." A speaker adds, "I'm not saying anything negative about Charlie Cohen." The other concludes, "You are interrupting people in grief." "You are interrupting crime people. There are crying people over there. There are crime"

"You know, I told myself I wasn't gonna make this video, but I'm gonna make it." "When Joe Biden was falling upstairs and falling downstairs and falling off of his bike and crapping his pants in public in front of the pope, no less." "And then when he was diagnosed with cancer, I don't remember seeing a single conservative Republican wishing him to be unalived." "But yet you fucking liberals try to assassinate our president when he was running for office again, not once, not twice, but three times." "And in the last twenty minutes, I have seen nothing but hate and spew vomit come out of liberals' mouths all over social media, elated and happy that Charlie was assassinated simply because of his beliefs." "Sick of this shit."

"Do you accept, Carrie, that this is a it's not just a one-sided problem? The political violence and violent rhetoric is a problem on both sides of the divide, and it's incumbent on everybody in a position of authority and influence to take the lead here in trying to to just tone things down." "There's been a few cases where it goes from from the right to the left, but there's been an exorbitant number where it's coming from the left to the right. And you can't deny that. If you add it all up, it's just more violence. I mean, president Trump was nearly assassinated. There's another attempt on his life." "The media has to take credit for what they have caused, the chaos they've caused in our country, and they haven't done it. And until they do, they need to be turned off, canceled, muted. They're absolutely abhorrent."

I used to be adored by the left, but not so much these days. It's like this "Trump derangement syndrome" is real. You can't even reason with people. I was at a friend's birthday dinner once, a nice, quiet gathering. I happened to mention the president's name, and it was like everyone got shot with a dart filled with meth and rabies. I mean, what's wrong with you guys? You can't even have a normal conversation. It's like they become completely irrational.

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"

Speaker 0: I loathe Donald Trump. Speaker 0: Everything we care about is under siege by a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic president. Speaker 0: Donald Trump is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, and a congenital liar. He's a racist, sexist, misogynistic, narcissist. Speaker 1: When Pritzker calls Trump antidemocratic and authoritarian, he's effectively calling more than 70,000,000 Americans the same thing. Speaker 0: Illinois Democrats have done more in the last five years to push back on the wave of authoritarian, antidemocratic, MAGA Republican nonsense than in any other place in the country. Speaker 1: Not even an assassination attempt has tempered governor Pritzker. Speaker 0: I am very pleased that he remains relatively unharmed, but it's still true that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, has been a, congenital liar, and is unfit for the office of president of The United States. Speaker 1: Pritzker's vitriol has become extreme.