TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states they were charged with sales murder without ever speaking to a detective, police officer, or DA. They claim Kamala Harris appeared at the two most pivotal times in their first trial: conviction and sentencing, suggesting it felt like a celebration for her. The speaker recounts that people describe their story as the worst nightmare, akin to dying. When confronted with a quote from Kamala Harris's book about the role of a progressive prosecutor, the speaker says it sounds like Kamala Harris as a senator now, but it was the polar opposite of what they and their community felt when she was the district attorney of San Francisco.

The speaker discusses Kamala Harris's relationship with Willie Brown and how it helped her rise to power. Willie Brown, a powerful figure in California politics, supported Harris and helped her secure positions and funding. The speaker also highlights how Brown's influence affected the enforcement of prostitution laws in San Francisco, benefiting certain clubs while cracking down on others. The speaker criticizes Harris for not being transparent and for perpetuating the same political system she claims to challenge. The speaker mentions their own interactions with Harris regarding public information requests and her lack of response. Overall, the speaker portrays Harris as part of the establishment and questions her record.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

The speaker was asked what office they were elected to and if they needed support. The speaker responded that they are not the one to ask and that the person should speak with a man. The speaker then stated that they speak to over a million people.

The speaker and his brother made a commitment to fix something wrong after hearing a phone call at the White House. They faced backlash from President Trump, but their solution was not to seek revenge. Instead, they chose to get involved in politics. The speaker, being an army officer and a lawyer, felt a duty to report the call due to professional and military obligations. Now, the speaker has a new mission to represent the people of the Virginia 7th congressional district. He wants to ensure that their daughters have the same rights and opportunities, safe schools, functional infrastructure, and a well-governed government.

The speaker recounts their first interaction with their boss, Charlie, when applying for a public defender position. Lacking criminal defense experience, the speaker told Charlie he should hire him because he is Black. Charlie appeared to think the speaker was crazy.

The speaker criticizes the district attorney's office in Fulton, stating that it is currently dysfunctional and corrupt. They believe they are the right choice to improve the office, emphasizing their qualifications and community ties. They express a desire to attract talented individuals to the office and highlight the need for a district attorney who does not engage in inappropriate behavior or misuse funds. The speaker believes that the community deserves better.

The speaker discusses various legal proceedings and allegations of fraud in a conversation with another person. They mention the involvement of different individuals, including lawyers, judges, and government officials. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and accountability in their case. They also mention a private investigator who tried to help but faced obstacles. The conversation touches on corruption and the speaker's belief that those in positions of power are part of a larger network of criminals.

The conversation covers a mix of topics centered on political connections and accountability. It begins with a reference to Barack Obama, noting he “was president of The United States,” followed by a remark about his time in Chicago and a comment attributed to him: “only black people could live that way.” Attorney Klein is brought into the discussion, and there is a transition to turnover of questions and answers. A committee issue is raised: Speaker 2 accuses the person addressed of misleading the committee, including a contradictory written submission. The person responds that they will review the matter “in our next break to correct the record,” answering “Yes” to whether they will review it. The dialogue then addresses political campaign involvement. Speaker 2 asks whether the person helped out the president’s campaign, acted as a representative or spokesman, and whether it was their idea for the campaign dating back to 2011; the response given is “Yes.” Speaker 3 asks for identification of individuals associated with the Trump organization. The person confirms several individuals: Alan Weisenberg as the Chief Financial Officer, and Miss Rona Graf as the executive assistant to Mr. Trump. The request is for as many names as possible so the committee can meet them. The person confirms Rona Graf’s position and explains that she is the executive assistant, with her office directly next to Mr. Trump’s, and notes that she has been involved in a lot of what went on. There is a reflective aside from Speaker 1 about the difficulty of following the proceedings in real time, and a critical observation regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement: questions are raised about why Epstein would have the contact information of the executive assistant and why she would feel comfortable texting him back during a congressional hearing. Speaker 4 adds commentary on hierarchy and motivation, suggesting that Epstein’s influence is reflected in the assistant’s actions: “Epstein's clearly paying her… she's just following her marching orders for her paycheck.” The exchange ends with the implication that the hierarchy and payoffs influence the responses and behavior of those connected to the Trump organization.

The speaker is looking for a job and has always wanted to work at McDonald's, which they never did. They are running against someone who falsely claimed to have worked there. The speaker then mentions President Trump and greets the audience.

The speaker states they paid for everyone's food and gave a nice tip, specifying "no taxes on tip." They ask the audience not to hold something against someone who got nervous, and to support the local business. The speaker concludes by urging people to vote on or before November 5th, with the goal to "win this thing."

Michigan voter data is described as a state secret that Jocelyn Benson is safeguarding from the federal government, with the speaker claiming she told authorities they can’t have it and contrasting this with the idea of not wanting the federal government to have your social security number. The speaker then alleges that Benson “gives our voter data away” to a nonprofit, and that she has done so since taking office in 2019. The nonprofit identified is the electronic registration information center, ERIC. The claim is not that Benson gives data away to ERIC per se, but that she spends taxpayer money to provide data to ERIC. The speaker contends that on television Benson presents herself as the guardian of voters’ data, while, in reality, she uses public funds to share it. After ERIC receives the voter data, the speaker says it is sent to another nonprofit, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR. The common thread alleged between ERIC and CEIR is a liberal operative named David Becker, who is said to have founded both organizations. The speaker asserts that in 2020, Becker’s CEIR gave Benson’s nonprofit $12,000,000 on the eve of the election. The claim continues that Benson used part of this funding to purchase Jocelyn Benson campaign ads. The speaker notes that this year, Lansing Republicans attempted to pull Michigan out of ERIC, as eight other states had already left, but the Republicans could not secure the votes to do so. The transcript suggests that Republicans facing Benson in the governor’s race should make this a campaign issue. It is presented as an easy story on the campaign trail: Jocelyn Benson’s friends obtain Michigan voter data and are paid to manage it, while Michigan taxpayers fund both sides of the lawsuit between Benson and the U.S. Department of Justice. The speaker connects the financial support from CEIR to Benson’s nonprofit with the broader political dynamic involving Benson and the DOJ.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The speaker discusses various incidents involving the US attorney, Johnny Sutton, and his alleged misconduct. They mention a case where the time of day was changed to manipulate the outcome, as well as the illegal alien who received immunity to testify against agents but was later caught smuggling drugs. The speaker also talks about a sheriff's deputy who was cleared of wrongdoing but was later charged by Sutton. They speculate that Sutton's actions may be politically motivated, as he has connections to the Bush family. The speaker expresses their distrust and dislike for Sutton, calling him manipulative and destructive. They also mention a judge who went to college with Sutton and may have a bias against the defendants.

The speaker questions why the Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, is not taking action against a person who defended themselves. They express frustration at the possibility of the person only receiving a short prison sentence. Another speaker responds, stating that Alvin Bragg is known for being a justice warrior who prioritizes criminals over victims. They mention other DAs like Boudin in San Francisco, Gascon in LA, and Kramer in Philadelphia, who allegedly follow a similar approach. The speaker suggests that these DAs prioritize protecting criminals rather than victims.

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.

Speaker 0 asks for reassurance that the upcoming election won't be rigged or stolen. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that having Democrats in charge of the voting machines in Ohio is helpful. However, they also acknowledge that both Republicans and Democrats have manipulated elections in the past. Speaker 1 explains that those in power tend to try to tilt things in their favor.

The speaker claims that someone received 14,000,000 votes but was thrown out of office. The speaker states this action is a threat to democracy. The speaker also claims that this person hates the woman who ran instead of him and cannot stand her.

The speaker claims to have done absolutely categorically nothing wrong, stating that's what lawyers and people do. They were introduced to someone by a lady in law, Rothschild. The speaker indicates that this person knew all the most prominent people.

The speaker acknowledges the strong influence of donors, special interests, and lobbyists over politicians. They claim to have turned down significant amounts of money from these sources, stating that they are not accepting any money from anyone except the people of the country. Speaker 1 brings up the speaker's past relationship with Hillary Clinton, suggesting that it worked for her. The speaker responds by saying that as a businessman, it was their job to get along with people, including politicians. They emphasize that they did a good job in doing so.

Speaker 0 (John) explains that the other side “got tired of me winning, so he joined our side,” and asserts he has no animosity toward him, only regret that it became personal for some people, not for him, because it’s always about the survivors. He describes a reversal: after months of fighting, the speaker, the attorney general, the FBI director, the president, and the vice president could save everyone if they’d done the right thing four months ago. He questions whether Congressman Greene truly supports the release now, suggesting he’s only backing it because the president told him to support it, and attributes this to Mike Johnson. Speaker 1 asks if John believes the president’s current stance, given weeks of opposition and now support. John says he is concerned the president is opening a flurry of investigations and fears they may use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files. He believes they will try to use a legal provision allowing withholding materials if they are the subject of an ongoing investigation and would harm that investigation. Speaker 2 notes that the focus is on President Trump: he initially blocked the release and now has the power to release the full files anyway. Speaker 0 summarizes that for four months the president thought secrecy was best, but someone convinced him the releases are better; if serious, they should release them now. Speaker 1 asks why John thinks the president has resisted for so long. John contends the files implicate billionaires and friends of Trump and his donors, plus Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies, which is why there’s effort to stop the release. He predicts attempts to stop it will occur elsewhere and that this will backfire. Speaker 1 asks if the president will sign the bill; John says he thinks he will sign and would like to be at the signing party, joking about being invited to sign his own bill. John addresses personal attacks: the president attacked his wife, calling Margie Taylor Greene a traitor. John says the attack was a new low for him, but he laughs it off; his wife joked about inviting Trump to their wedding, and she blames him for not inviting him, which she says led to the anger. John remains optimistic the bill will pass tomorrow, with a veto-proof majority, and thinks the speaker will begrudgingly support it. Speaker 1 asks about the public breakup with Marjorie Taylor Greene over the Epstein files. John says Greene represents the base—the populist movement that brought Trump to the White House—and when Trump told supporters they are no longer his supporters if they want the Epstein files released, Trump lost many supporters, but Greene did not, and she remains in favor of seeking justice for the survivors. Speaker 1 asks if Trump has lost touch with the MAGA base. John believes Trump has strayed on fiscal responsibility, starting wars overseas and regime change, and on releasing the death steam files, away from the campaign promises that defined the MAGA base.

The speaker states they would have prosecuted Hillary Clinton and even offered to do so for Trump, but Trump declined. The speaker believes prosecuting Clinton would have been the "greatest honor" of their life. They claim to believe in justice, not disliking people, and even feeling sorry for some they've jailed. The speaker asserts that the only way to end "all the garbage" is to jail the "bad guys." They believe that jailing the "bad guys" will scare them and make them stop their actions, at least temporarily.

The speaker discusses a woman named Fenny Willis, who used to be their lawyer but is now a prosecutor. They mention that Fenny Willis represented them in a previous case before becoming a district attorney. The speaker believes this is a conflict of interest and questions how Fenny Willis can now try to indict them. They suggest doing a live interview to provide evidence of their claims. The speaker also mentions that someone else, possibly Kaepernick, was interviewed and told the truth. They express their belief that God works in mysterious ways.

The speaker describes themselves as a former "deep state" operative, accustomed to manipulating events from the shadows. They claim to have been involved in backroom deals, influencing politicians, and illicit financial activities. However, the speaker believes their past is catching up to them. They mention a "department of government efficiency crew" and Kash Patel investigating ghost payrolls, slush funds, and buried deals. The speaker also highlights specific individuals posing a threat: Patel with his investigative skills, Bongino publicizing the "Ukraine laundry," and Bondi, an attorney general, preparing to prosecute. The speaker feels trapped, with no means of escape or hiding, as their past actions are being exposed. They acknowledge the end of their ability to manipulate the system and anticipate facing legal consequences.

The speaker states an ad is deceptive because it portrays them and other law enforcement officials as standing alongside Kamala Harris. The speaker recalls a case where Harris appeared briefly for a sound bite and quickly left without interacting with anyone. The speaker says it was disheartening for them and their colleagues to be represented as supporting Harris. The speaker asserts they do not support Kamala Harris, citing her history of not supporting law enforcement. As the sheriff of Tulare County, the speaker believes Donald Trump better represents support for victims, criminal justice, and law enforcement.