TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In November 2022, the speaker investigated a Muslims-only mosque and migrant shelter near the Tijuana wall. They discovered individuals from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other countries known for terrorist activities. These individuals, referred to as special interest aliens, were brought in without proper vetting. The speaker believes that the government is not conducting thorough screenings for these people. They also mention the recent influx of Haitians. Another report reveals that over 220,000 immigrants have been allowed to fly directly into the US from their home countries. The speakers express their frustration and call for criminal charges against those responsible, referring to the situation as an invasion and an act of treason against the country.

The speaker states the U.S. federal government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization. They claim that under President Biden's open border policies, the U.S. has experienced the largest mass invasion in history, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and resulting in a significant demographic shift. The speaker asserts that Biden, Harris, and Mayorkas intentionally weaponized illegal immigration to transform America, leading to a surge in child trafficking. They state that over 550,000 unaccompanied alien children (UACs) will have been lost by the end of the current administration, compared to 30,557 UACs accounted for during President Trump's last year. The speaker claims that HHS and ORR admitted to losing contact with over 85,000 UACs in 2023, a number that an inspector general later revised to over 320,000. They allege that DHS, HHS, and ORR created policies to expedite the movement of UACs to unvetted sponsors, resulting in children disappearing into labor and sex trafficking. The speaker's research indicates the federal government knowingly facilitated these criminal acts.

Speaker 0: The seventy six day period is the time between when President Trump was elected and President Biden left office. Is that right? Speaker 1: Correct. During that period, from the loan program office in loans and commitments, $93,000,000,000 went out the door—well over twice as much as in the previous fifteen years. There were funds that went out the door and commitments made from businesses that provided no business plan and no numbers about their own financial solvency or how this project... Speaker 0: So you’re telling me that the Department of Energy, in the seventy six day period, before their boss was going to leave office, gave our loan money to entities that had no business plan? Correct. No financials? Speaker 1: Correct. I’ve come in with great concern about how this institution, Speaker 0: this great American institution has been run and how American taxpayer money has been handled. You’re going back through and checking each one of these loans and these grants to make sure there was no stealing, aren’t you? Speaker 1: We’re looking at that, and yes, my blood pressure is rising right now just thinking about what we have seen and what did happen at the moment. Gonna tell some of these boondoggles no, aren’t you? Speaker 0: That’s correct. I am. It’s rare that I’m speechless, but I want to be sure I understood. The people running the Department of Energy for President Biden’s administration shoveled $93,000,000,000 out the door in seventy six days, and it just happened to be the time between when President Trump was elected and President Biden, their boss, was leaving. Is that right? Speaker 1: It is correct and distasteful. Confidence undermining. My god.

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

The speaker claims the U.S. has given close to $5 billion to the Taliban via NGOs, and this continues. They allege this money cycles back to Washington, with a paper trail that Elon Musk has alluded to. The speaker believes USAID money goes "almost a %" right back to Democrat campaign coffers, with some Republicans also possibly benefiting. They state that Republican leadership is upset about these claims but acknowledges their truth. The speaker also questions how Joe Biden could have reviewed 8,000 pardon files, suggesting "payola" and shadiness in Washington D.C., particularly across various departments.

Speaker 0 asked how many Afghans have been admitted to the United States through parole since the fall of Kabul, and whether the administration will review each individual’s status on a case-by-case basis as the two-year parole period expires. Speaker 1 replied that he would be pleased to provide the data but does not have it at the moment. Speaker 0 asserted that 70,192 Afghans were brought to the United States and placed on parole for two years, and again pressed the question of whether each individual’s status would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as parole periods come to an end. Speaker 1 described the program as Operation Allies Welcome, a government initiative designed to provide refuge for many individuals. He stated that they were screened and vetted by government personnel and that they were brought in on categorical parole. When parole periods are subject to renewal, he said, they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Speaker 0 then referenced Fort McCoy in his state, noting that two years earlier the commander there said individuals were not interviewed on a case-by-case basis. He argued that Afghanistan, a region described as a terror hotbed, should have used the Special Immigrant Visa process, but the previous administration did not route those who came in from Afghanistan through the SIV. He asked about the damage caused at Fort McCoy during the period when more than 12,000 Afghans arrived. Speaker 1 responded by reiterating that the individuals who benefited from Operation Allies Welcome were indeed screened and vetted by government personnel and were brought in on categorical parole, not through the Special Immigrant Visa process. He then stated that Fort McCoy sustained $145,600,000 in damage and that the place was virtually destroyed. He concluded the exchange with a brief transition, signaling a move to another topic.

Children were sent to addresses flagged for sexual abuse without proper vetting. A whistleblower revealed that the Office of Refugee Resettlement repeatedly placed a child identified as a victim of sex trafficking with abusers. During a recent hearing, the secretary admitted they do not verify the legal status of these children, stating that extensive vetting slows down the process. The priority seems to be moving a large number of children quickly, rather than ensuring their safety.

During a hearing, Senator questions Mr. Morant from Homeland Security about the number of non-American citizens who have entered the country illegally or claimed asylum since President Biden took office. Mr. Morant and others admit they do not know the exact numbers. The Senator suggests there may be around 8 million individuals, with potentially half of them being children. However, the exact figures remain unknown. The Senator continues to inquire about how many of these individuals are still in the country, how many have claimed asylum but failed to attend their hearings, and how many have been deported. No one has the answers to these questions.

The speaker discusses a conspiracy involving the US government and NGOs bringing illegal immigrants into the country. A DHS employee reveals how NGOs receive millions of dollars to facilitate this operation. The employee mentions Jewish Family Services receiving $600 million for a few months, with subcontractors requesting more funds. The partnership between NGOs and the government is described as a massive money laundering scheme.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

The transcript records a contentious exchange in a congressional hearing focused on fraud allegations in Minnesota tied to Somali immigrant communities, with aggressive rhetoric and several pointed questions from Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. Key points and sequence: - Speaker 0 decries what they call “insane” behavior regarding Rep. Nancy Mace’s simple question and references a “cover up.” - Speaker 1 asserts a “tr breathtaking” amount of fraud allegedly perpetrated against Americans by Somalis in Minnesota, accusing Democrats of avoiding discussion and calling for accountability, suggesting the fraud could exceed Somalia’s GDP. - Speaker 1 asks the witness (Mr. Balu) whether Somali-Americans should be required to speak English if they are American citizens, pressing for a yes/no answer. The question is deemed “inappropriate” by Speaker 2, who says the question is not appropriate, while Speaker 1 insists on a simple yes/no. A point of inquiry is raised about whether English is the official language of the United States. - Repeated interruptions occur as Speaker 1 seeks to reclaim time, with a back-and-forth over the validity of the questions. - Speaker 1 asks whether Somalians who committed fraud should be denaturalized and deported; Speaker 2 replies that most Somali Minnesotans are citizens, and he attempts to answer under US law. The exchange continues with insistence on yes/no answers, including a question about denaturalization for those who commit immigration fraud or marry a relative (brother) in relation to immigration fraud—viewed as inappropriate by Speaker 2. - Speaker 1 asks for a significant contribution to Minnesota from a Somali immigrant who cannot speak English; Speaker 2 begins to respond but the question remains unresolved. - The discussion shifts to Robbins, who is asked about Al Shabaab and whether money defrauded from the US went to Al Shabaab. Robbins explains that while there is no specific amount in general remittance fraud, a portion is taken as “tax” or corruption by Al Shabaab when funds enter the country. - Speaker 1 asks for clarification about who Al Shabaab is; Robbins identifies it as a terrorist organization in Somalia, affiliated with Al Qaeda in the speaker’s view. - The DNI is cited by Speaker 1 as stating that since 2014 Al Shabaab has killed more US citizens than any other Al Qaeda affiliate and, as of 2025, is Al Qaeda’s wealthiest component. The transfer of this claim is linked to debates about US tax dollars and Minnesota governance, including criticism of Governor Tim Walz (referred to as Tim Walls) and a mention of his resignation, with credit given to a YouTuber for highlighting Minnesota fraud. The discussion also involves Keith Ellison and questions about their roles and awareness of fraud within Minnesota. - Robbins details how the administration allegedly hindered internal controls and investigations by the OIG and DHS. - Speaker 0 concludes with a reiteration that residents seeking citizenship or asylum should learn English, asserting that many Somali immigrants in Minnesota did not speak English and questioning how they perpetrated such large fraud, and asks what questions should be asked moving forward. Overall, the transcript captures a highly charged exchange blending accusations of widespread fraud, language policy questions, denaturalization debates, and allegations concerning the funding of extremist organizations, with references to specific political figures and agencies.

An Afghan national, who worked for the CIA in Afghanistan, was arrested for allegedly planning an election day terror plot. He was brought to the US after the collapse of Afghanistan. The reporter states that the agency claims it was through the SIV program, but the State Department denies this, stating he was never issued an SIV or immigrant visa and was paroled into the US by DHS. The reporter asks the secretary how the man was brought to the US, what screening he underwent, and what he applied for. The secretary declines to answer, stating he is there to discuss disaster relief efforts. The reporter presses, noting conflicting information from the agency and State Department. The reporter asks for assurance that appropriate steps have been taken to secure the country against threats, questioning whether the man was radicalized before or after entering the US.

The speakers investigated the Institute of Peace and found it to be the least peaceful agency they'd worked with. The agency spent money on private jets and had a $130,000 contract with a former member of the Taliban for generic services with no clear description. Since the country's founding, the number of agencies has increased 100x. The team found weapons in the Institute's armory and evidence of payments to the Taliban. Shortly after the investigation began, the chief accountant deleted over a terabyte of accounting records, which the team recovered. The Institute received $55 million a year from Congress, and unspent money was swept into a private bank account without congressional oversight, which funded events and private jets. The speakers allege the agencies are hiding money and sending it to the Taliban, and that the Institute of Peace was attempting a cover-up by deleting financial information. The evidence in the accounting example was referred to the FBI and DOJ.

What the Biden administration did with respect to child trafficking is one of the great crimes in human history. Over 500,000 children were illegally trafficked into the country under the previous administration. When we've gone and looked for these children, Martha, the addresses that the US government provided, in other words, the records that the government kept under Joe Biden, are all fake. Nobody ever checked if the addresses were real. Nobody ever checked if the sponsors were real. Nobody ever checked if they were really even relatives or parents or relations or safe. We we recently recovered a a young illegal alien, for example, who had been raped repeatedly by the adult male that the Biden administration handed to her. She was under constant video surveillance and was coached exactly what to say if an officer ever knocked on her door so that she would never be rescued.

Was the withdrawal from Afghanistan successful? The evacuation led by the Department of Defense and State was historic in scale. However, when asked how many evacuees were vetted before boarding flights to the U.S., the response was unclear. It was stated that 100% of individuals arriving in the U.S. had been screened, but specific numbers for those boarding planes in Afghanistan were not provided. The claim was made that over 99% were fully vetted before boarding, but the speaker could not confirm details about the vetting process at Kabul Airport. Ultimately, there was a lack of clarity on the exact vetting numbers prior to boarding.

The discussion centers on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the vetting of evacuees who boarded planes. The opening exchange frames the withdrawal as a historic evacuation led by the Department of Defense and the Department of State. The senator asks specifically how many of the evacuees were vetted before they got on the plane. The official responds by stating it is the policy to vet and screen evacuees for the United States. When the senator presses for a numerical figure, the official first indicates uncertainty about Afghanistan-specific cases but reiterates the policy. The senator clarifies the question: for those who got on the C-17s and other planes, how many were vetted before they boarded, by American officials? The official replies that for those brought to the United States, it is their policy to vet and screen 100% of them. The senator pushes for a precise, testable number, asking if the answer is a sworn 100%. The official reiterates the policy and adds that all of the individuals who arrived in the United States have been screened. The senator presses further, asking for the exact percentage, and the official begins to provide a quantified estimate: well over 99% of them were fully screened and vetted before they boarded a flight. The senator seeks sources for that information, but the official continues, noting that if any were not screened before boarding, they would have been screened and vetted while in flight, and if any derogatory information was found, they would be placed in immigration enforcement proceedings and removal. The senator then asks directly, under oath, whether the 99% figure refers to all people who got on the planes in Afghanistan. The official clarifies that precision is important and notes that the question being asked concerns planes from transit countries, the third country scenario, rather than the specific Afghan departures being discussed at that moment. The senator emphasizes the focus on people who got on the planes and left the chaotic airport, asking again for the percentage vetted before they got on those planes. The official ultimately asserts that he cannot speak to those planes from transit countries, but reiterates that the discussion about those who arrived in the United States involves screening and vetting, and that those arrivals have been screened. The exchange ends with the senator acknowledging the limitation, and the official indicating that he cannot provide a detailed accounting for the transpiring circumstances of planes from transit countries, while maintaining that those who arrived in the United States were screened.

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.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Discussion centers on alleged leakage of U.S. foreign aid to terrorist groups. 'we are sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban,' 'We have assisted Al Shabaab in Somalia' with 'Hamzee network in Sudan, Hamas, Islamic Jihad Hezbollah' and 'Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from US foreign aid.' In Gaza, '$2,100,000,000 in American taxpayers money to Gaza since October 7 when Hamas invaded Southern Israel.' USAID money was used under an 'emergency use authorization' to reach parties 'USAID formerly had a relationship with in the Gaza Strip,' with waivers; '90% of aid ... ended up in Hamas controlled areas' and there was 'no strategic thought' or screening; 'Samantha Powers ... was intent on having Israel not be able to defend itself.' NGOs/UN agencies lobby against vetting; USAID funds its own private lobby; HR 160 would increase transparency. A regulation naming terrorists in databases was 'overturned by Biden.'

Secretary Mayorkas has put national security at risk, allowing terrorists and enemies to flood across the border. There's been a surge in Chinese nationals, many military-age men with ties to the PLA and CCP, released into the U.S. by Secretary Mayorkas. It's likely China is using Russia's template of sending military personnel into the U.S. There are 10,000 Chinese nationals illegally crossing into the U.S. being released into the country this fiscal year. Today's hearing will investigate the details and effects of Mayorkas' dereliction of duty. The speaker hopes the American people, the press, and the President will take note of these failures.

The first speaker contends that Congress is trying to give $5,000,000,000 of your money for refugee resettlement programs, and that money ends up in places like this. The second speaker identifies the International Rescue Committee as the largest refugee NGO in the country, noting that they get government funds and subcontract the work out to places like this. The first speaker describes the Somali American Community Center as a location that receives grants from the IRC in order to help refugees resettle in America. The second speaker reports that when they went in, they found this: an almost completely abandoned retail space that hasn’t filed taxes in almost ten years. The first speaker states that almost every business in the area is focused on getting refugees on taxpayer funded welfare programs. The second speaker asserts that this is how the largest refugee city in the country is funded. The first speaker adds that this is how over 87% of Somali immigrants end up on taxpayer funded public assistance. The second speaker notes that they spent three days in Little Somalia in Atlanta, Georgia. The first speaker concludes by saying that in the largest refugee center in the entire country, this is what they found.

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

The speaker stated to the committee that the Biden administration let unaccompanied minors into the country without keeping track of them. The administration provided these children with a hotline to call if they had trouble with their sponsor families. The speaker claimed that 65,000 calls to this hotline, which was designated to protect these children, went unanswered.

"I state without reservation that the United States federal government is the world's largest child sex trafficking organization in modern history." "The probability that thousands of these UACs are being raped at this very moment is 100%." "Biden, through Department of Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, created policy out of thin air, ignored federal immigration law, and facilitated the largest mass invasion into America that the world has ever seen." "What did DHS, HHS, and ORR do to correct this humanitarian disaster? Nothing." "In August 2024, the inspector general with oversight over over DHS issued a report stating that number lost UACs was not 85,000, it was over 320,000." "However, after conducting numerous interviews with officers, agents, and whistleblowers from every alphabet agency and department, it was made clear to us that the federal government knowingly and actively facilitated these criminal acts."

The speaker references CHNV parole programs from the previous administration and says organizations here sponsored many individuals from certain countries, sometimes without knowing who they were sponsoring: 'They did not know necessarily the individuals they were sponsoring.' He states, 'They were doing almost a blanket sponsorship.' 'That is fraud.' 'That's something that should have been caught.' He says, 'I know the previous administration was aware of how the sponsorships were happening, and, no action was taken.' 'I'm glad to see that we're taking action.' The speaker indicates there was knowledge of the sponsorships and lack of action, and asserts that action is underway.