TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I am here to correct errors in the record of the January 6th events, focusing on the delayed National Guard response. The Inspector General's report contains inaccuracies, including false denials of key officials' involvement in decision-making. Despite requests to deploy, the Guard was held back, arriving too late to prevent violence. The delayed response was due to paralyzed decision-making by Pentagon leaders, causing a 3-hour delay. I hope to clarify the facts and answer any questions.

The speakers discuss the importance of taking time to consult with other services. They mention that a separate meeting was unrelated to the referendum, and an official explicitly states that the report cannot be sent before the referendum, so it will be done afterwards. The speakers disagree on the interpretation of the sentence, with one saying it means they want to do it after the referendum because it can no longer be done well before, while the other argues it means they want to do it after the referendum if it cannot be done well before. They clarify that the time was needed to consult with other countries regarding their services and supervision. Translation: The speakers emphasize the need for time to consult with other services. They discuss a separate meeting that was not related to the referendum. An official states that the report cannot be sent before the referendum and will be done afterwards. They debate the interpretation of a sentence, with one saying it means doing it after the referendum because it can no longer be done well before, while the other argues it means doing it after the referendum if it cannot be done well before. They clarify that the time was needed to consult with other countries regarding their services and supervision.

Speaker 0 recalls writing a resignation email. Speaker 1 states: "That report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on a Biden administration report on whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. "I was shocked to see that it said in very clear terms, it is our determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance." The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. "We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." And after reading, she said: "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again, and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that."

The speaker acknowledges that people will be hurt by a vote. They state that they worked hard to achieve a budget deal that would exclude the provision that caused the harm.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

The speaker asserts that the investigation was conducted properly and according to protocol. They claim that regardless of high-level decisions regarding public statements, the investigative work itself was done correctly by the men and women involved. The speaker encourages listeners to be assured that both investigations followed proper procedure.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government responds by stating that public consultations are a way to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of the population does not participate in these consultations, so it may not be reflective of public opinion. They also mention that submissions are often organized by campaign groups. The speaker then asks why hold the consultation if the results will be disregarded. The government explains that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the reasons behind removing a video for a period and why it was both important and wise to do so. Speaker 0 opens by recalling that the decision to take the video down followed a recent call, and the two of them reflect on why delaying or withholding certain content made sense given the current circumstances. The conversation centers on preserving strategic and personal boundaries while navigating public content and legal considerations. Speaker 1 explains that she knows her husband and can read when he is being guided and what he wants to say, contrasting that with when the hurt Tim is speaking. She emphasizes that she is protective of the “hurt Tim” and acknowledges that he has endured a great deal. She notes that some people might want to see the hurt side, but she asserts that nobody gets to see that hurt side. The emphasis is on controlling which aspects of their situation are shared publicly, especially in light of ongoing developments. She connects this sensitivity to larger ongoing processes, pointing out that there is significant activity with the court system and related events. The core idea is to avoid giving away any information that could be unfavorable or harmful to their position in those proceedings. This concern about potential disclosures informs their decision to moderate what is publicly discussed. Speaker 0 adds that the attorneys also weighed in on the matter, indicating professional guidance influenced the decision. The attorneys’ assessment acknowledged that the situation was not entirely dire or disastrous, but it was not optimal to release certain details. This professional input supports a cautious approach to what is shared publicly. Speaker 1 reiterates the conclusion: the plan is to “do this right” by articulating what they want to say while avoiding what they shouldn’t say. The exchange underscores a collaborative strategy between the spouses and their legal counsel to ensure that their communications align with their goals and protect their ongoing legal and personal interests. They agree on the principle of saying what they want to say and not saying what they should refrain from saying, effectively balancing transparency with prudence.

Speaker 0 argues that the premise is disgusting and cites CBS admitting that sixty percent of those arrested had criminal charges or convictions, while noting the majority were non-violent. They question what “non-violent” includes, listing drug trafficking, child porn, fraud, DUI, and human smuggling, and mock the idea of those as harmless offenses. They accuse CBS of trying to influence public perception and claim, “What are you trying to do here? It’s like you want more people to die.” They proceed to highlight CBS’s claim that forty percent of ICE arrestees had no criminal past, arguing the distinction should be about status in The US. They counter with examples: an MS-13 member who shot, tortured, and murdered five people but “forget it, in El Salvador,” suggesting he’s nonviolent because he wasn’t convicted in the US. They compare this to other cases where alleged criminals killed in the US had no prior US criminal history, and to scammers running fake day cares who haven’t been prosecuted yet. The speaker contends that crimes committed outside The US do not count, and posits that we should owe Nicolas Maduro an apology. They note that this is coming from “the same media that lectures one death is too many, which is used to justify insane regulations in public health policies,” referencing the pandemic and the claim that “a single death is a tragedy,” contrasted with a later statement about a jogger being killed during lunch. They frame the report as an effort to stop deporting bad people by portraying the target as peaceful illegals and by saying they lied when they claimed to do “the worst first.” They argue that resisting the goal of deporting the worst first forced ICE to use a wider net that included all illegals. They claim that if Waltz or Fry had cooperated, the issue would never have arisen, and state that their goal was to prevent deporting criminals so ICE would be forced to sift through all illegals, which would be a political win for those who would say, “They’re not going after the worst after all.” The speaker concludes it’s moronic, not to protect people but to protect political power, and that this allows the narrative to say a murderous felon came here looking for a better life, when in fact, it was a better knife.

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 speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

People reacted strongly, demanding action, but the speaker says they have sacrificed for two years, facing ostracization, harassment, and threats. The speaker states that while others lived normal lives, they risked everything. The speaker emphasizes that nobody got hurt on their watch, and the allegation concerns something from six years ago that was hidden from them. The speaker also claims the alleged victim wasn't even harmed.

The speaker was asked why not blame Hamas for the atrocities. They explained their mission was to gather information, not assign blame. The speaker acknowledged the frustration of the people of Israel and emphasized the need for the government to provide access for further investigation.

What’s in the rules is that you shouldn’t prejudice an investigation when declining to prosecute. You included language that would be politically useful, which was a deliberate choice. You could have simply stated that the president did not recall the documents found at the university, a common response from witnesses. This choice was political and inappropriate. I yield back. Did the special counsel wish to respond? What you’re suggesting is that I altered my reasoning for political reasons. No, I suggest you shouldn’t shape your report for political reasons. That did not happen.

Mister Secretary, considering the immigration situation over the past four years and the resulting national dialogue, do you think you would have approached things differently? Yes, it's important to recognize that in any large organization, including government, there are varying opinions on policies and operational measures. These differing views are expressed, decisions are made, and then everyone works together towards the common goal. Are you implying that your personal views on handling immigration differed from your superiors'? I prefer not to discuss the internal decision-making process. However, it’s a common reality that diverse opinions exist when many people are involved in making decisions.

The speaker expressed disappointment that questions from reporters have been avoided for 17 days. They urged the person in question to be more transparent with the American people and address the changes in their positions. The speaker criticized the individual for portraying themselves as tough on crime while also being critical of law enforcement and opening up old wounds. Despite the lack of attention from the person in question, the speaker thanked the reporters and left to attend their event.

In a 21-day program, there was distrust towards vaccinations. The speaker emphasized the importance of trust in the scientific process and how betraying that trust can lead to skepticism. Despite personal experiences with vaccinations, they urge people to trust credible information. They highlight the effort put into a specific report and aim to spread its valuable information.

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 mentioned that there were several steps that were intentionally delayed by the Department of Justice. When asked if they had encountered this situation before, they replied that they had not.

The speaker clarifies that the paperwork they signed was not done in secrecy and was publicly explained on their Facebook page. Another speaker points out that intent and beliefs do matter, citing an attorney's interpretation of the law. The first speaker agrees, stating that the attorney general seems to have no idea what she's doing and suggests that this is political persecution, not a criminal prosecution.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government explains that public consultations are done to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of people do not participate in these consultations, so it may not reflect public opinion accurately. They also mention that organized campaign groups often submit responses. The speaker asks why hold the consultation if the results are disregarded. The government responds that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

The speaker acknowledges that people will be hurt by a particular vote. They state that they worked hard to achieve a budget deal that would avoid the provision that led to the negative impact.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.