TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 warns Speaker 1 that sharing certain information may lead to an arrest for a public order offense. Speaker 1 insists they are just expressing their opinion and heading to a gig. Speaker 0 explains that they have the right to detain Speaker 1 to discuss the offense. Speaker 1 denies any offense and claims that the group they mentioned supports terrorism. Speaker 0 states they will address any offensive behavior from the group as well. Speaker 1 argues that their comments are free speech. Speaker 0 emphasizes their duty to allow peaceful protests. Speaker 1 expresses frustration with ongoing issues in the UK. Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1's right to their opinion but questions why they shared it with the group. Speaker 1 explains their frustration. Speaker 0 concludes by stating that the group may be a terrorist organization, but Speaker 1 should not share that information.

Speaker 0 informs the prime minister about a reported terrorist attack at the Niagara crossing of the Canada US border, with two people dead and one injured. They ask for an update on the government's action plan for homeland security. Speaker 1, a reporter, questions the terrorism claim, citing US and Canadian officials who deny any evidence of terrorism. Speaker 0 corrects the reporter, mentioning that CP had previously made three corrections for false information in one article. They consider checking with the Guinness Book of World Records for such a case. Speaker 0 clarifies that CTV reported the Canadian government's presumption of terrorism in the incident.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The speaker questions the security protocols and suggests that the government did not vet the individuals on the extensive lists. They doubt that the speaker personally verified each person's security risk before allowing them in. The speaker rejects the government's attempt to solely blame the speaker and emphasizes that it is the government's responsibility. They advise the speaker not to take collective responsibility for the incident.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, as no officials confirmed it. Speaker 1 defends their statement, mentioning that the government of Canada presumed it was a terrorist incident based on media reports. Speaker 0 argues that media reports are not the same as calling something terrorism. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that media reports of a terror-related event came from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 asks if CTV was irresponsible for their tweet, to which Speaker 1 responds with a comment. Speaker 1 hopes Speaker 0 won't publish something they need to apologize for again.

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just the Soros/Open Society network, but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

The speaker defends the decision to freeze bank accounts and credit cards, despite a recent federal court ruling questioning the measures. They emphasize that the government acted to protect Canada's safety and national security, including economic security. The decisions were not taken lightly and involved collaboration with various levels of government. The speaker acknowledges the seriousness of the threat faced by Canada and asserts their confidence in the decision made, both in the past and at present.

Sunny declined to comment. The speaker views the situation from a legal standpoint, noting that Hamas, like other designated terror organizations such as the Proud Boys in the United States, is recognized as a terror organization.

Paola Lorigio from The Canadian Press questions the speaker's decision to label the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge as terrorism, despite no official confirmation. The speaker defends their statement, citing media reports and claiming that the government of Canada presumed it to be a terror-related event. They also criticize The Canadian Press for issuing three corrections in one article. When asked if they think CTV was irresponsible for reporting the incident as terrorism, the speaker redirects the question. The conversation ends with the speaker pointing out the contradiction in the reporter's comment.

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

The discussion centers on Venezuela and whether to engage with Nicolás Maduro. The dialogue notes that there has been consideration of talking to him, with uncertainty about the approach: “What Venezuela, sir? Are you planning to talk to Nicolas Maturo? I might talk to him. We'll see. But we're discussing that with their with the different steps.” The speakers acknowledge that Venezuela may be a topic of discussion and mention that “We might talk about Venezuela.” A key point raised is the United States’ designation of Maduro as the leader of a foreign terrorist organization. The exact assertion stated is: “The US this week did, of course, name him the leader of a foreign terrorist organization.” This designation is presented as a context for questioning the desirability of talking to him. In response to whether diplomacy with Maduro is prudent, there is a conditional stance expressed: “Why do you wanna talk to him if he's the leader? If we can save lives, if we can do things the easy way, that's fine.” This line frames the decision to engage in talks as potentially justified if it can save lives and if it can be accomplished through an easier route. The speakers also acknowledge flexibility in method: “And if we have to do it the hard way, that's fine too.” This phrase indicates willingness to pursue stronger or more challenging measures if necessary, depending on the outcomes or constraints involved in engaging with Maduro. Overall, the exchange highlights a tension between pursuing dialogue with Maduro and the U.S. designation of him as a leader of a foreign terrorist organization, balanced against the potential to save lives and the spectrum of possible approaches, from easy to hard. The conversation suggests that the decision to engage or not would be influenced by the prospect of saving lives and the practicality of the approach, given the current designation by the United States.

The speaker thanks the press office for releasing information on ICE arrests and asks why similar information isn't released for deportations to El Salvador. The response states that the Department of Homeland Security released the information. The individuals deported to El Salvador are foreign terrorists, and these deportations are counterterrorism operations, unlike the arrests and removals conducted daily by law enforcement. The speaker notes that the details provided were not released by the adjuster. The response clarifies that the deportation was a counterterrorism operation involving foreign terrorists, not illegal immigrants convicted of crimes in American communities, emphasizing that these are distinct categories with different definitions.

Speaker 0 references the World Trade Center bombing and a diplomat who allegedly issued a terrorist visa with CIA involvement. Speaker 1 expresses disbelief at a plan to fake a terrorist event to secure congressional funding. Speaker 0 responds that faking the deaths of 4,000 people is impossible, implying the event must be real. Speaker 0 adds the event should not be blamed on Muslims.

Speaker 0 warned that if any ally tries to help the ICC, they will be sanctioned. They said, "we're gonna sanction you," and that "we should crush your economy because we're next." They referenced Justin in Canada and his position, asking, "What should the penalty be?"

The speaker states that, according to the Trump administration, cartels have been labeled a foreign terrorist organization. The speaker then asks for a response to this designation and a message for Donald Trump.

Speaker 0 discusses public fatigue with politics and asks for simple answers, focusing on whether money will be printed or put on the line of credit, mentioning figures “11,000,000, 11.3.” Speaker 1 responds by asking how Speaker 0 would explain to constituents what they will vote on, and suggests Speaker 0 should help explain to Canadians. The exchange centers on whether the minister will print money or use the line of credit, with Speaker 0 pressing for a direct answer. Speaker 0 continues to press for a clear position, asking the minister to reveal what they will do and to share with Canadians. Speaker 1 repeats the question in a different form, asking what will be said to constituents if they vote in favor but are not willing to support Canadians, and asserts the need for help to explain. Speaker 0 insists on an answer, and Speaker 1 questions how not to explain to constituents what they will do, asking for clarity about the measure. The dialogue returns to the core inquiry: “Will you be printing money or the line of credit?” Speaker 0 asks if the government is running a deficit and asks for the deficit amount. Speaker 1 reiterates that the measure is intended to support Canadians at a time of need, and asks Speaker 0 to stand by their vote and say yes in favor, since it will support Canadians. Speaker 0 asks whether the program is a capital investment or an operating expense, noting difficulty in distinguishing with broad definitions. Speaker 1 responds that the definition is not as broad as suggested and directs attention to what the IMF says about Canada’s adopted definition. Speaker 0 presses for a determination on whether the program will be a capital investment or an operating expense, asking again for clear categorization. Speaker 1 states it will be a funding expense and an operating expense aimed at supporting Canadian health, but then interrupts to allow for clarification, indicating that there is also an aspect that could support capital investment. Speaker 0 clarifies the focus on Canada, and Speaker 1 explains the IMF reference as part of the discussion. A pause is requested by Speaker 1 with Miss Cobina on the floor, and Speaker 1 acknowledges the need to finish the clarification, allowing Miss Cobina to continue.

Speaker 0 confirms making a phone call to the Prime Minister at 3:34 pm. Speaker 1 questions if there is a record of this call that hasn't been disclosed. Speaker 0 clarifies that there is a record of the call but not the content. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 remembers what was said, to which Speaker 0 affirms.

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, despite no official confirmation. Speaker 1 defends their statement, citing media reports and corrections made by CP. Speaker 0 argues that it was irresponsible to make such a statement without proper evidence. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that CTV reported the incident as terror-related, based on information from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 avoids answering the question and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

The discussion centers on how US officials handle diplomacy publicly and privately, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Speaker 0 notes that US officials talk about world issues because that's part of diplomatic work, and mentions that the secretary met with the opposition and stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. He says it’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but indicates that there should be no surprise that discussions about events on the ground are taking place. Speaker 1 counters that this is more than discussions, describing it as “two top US officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal.” They suggest this signals that the US is “midwifing the process,” not merely offering suggestions, and imply private diplomacy is aiming to shape a post-conflict outcome with UN involvement. Speaker 0 acknowledges that private diplomatic conversations happen and involve deliberations about what involvement the UN can have and what engagement should occur on the ground. He says such discussions shouldn’t be surprising and that there is a range of options under consideration, including private interagency process discussions and what is conveyed publicly as US policy. Speaker 2 challenges this by arguing it’s not honest to claim there is no opinion and that the process is entirely up to the people of Ukraine. They point to Egypt as a counterexample, asserting that there is a public stance that differs from private discussions. Speaker 0 distinguishes between private conversations within the interagency process and what is publicly conveyed as US policy. He asserts a responsibility to convey the government’s position while also noting that a range of options are being discussed. Speaker 1 presses the distinction further, asking what happens behind closed doors when private deals are discussed versus publicly stating that the decision lies with Ukrainians. They emphasize the perceived difference between privately “cooking up a deal” and publicly acknowledging Ukrainian decision-making. Speaker 0 concludes by saying they would disagree with Speaker 1, arguing that they are overstating and overqualifying a few minutes of a privately recorded phone call.

The speaker is unsure if those making violent anti-Semitic threats in the country are considered domestic terrorists. They believe that this classification is a matter for law enforcement and are not aware of any official characterization of these individuals as such.

The speaker states they were asked how they could smuggle a terrorist into the United States or return one to the United States. The speaker finds the question preposterous. They claim they don't know how they could smuggle someone into the U.S. and assert they lack the power to return anyone to the United States. The speaker states they are not going to do it.