TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Robbie Starbuck is suing Meta for multi-millions, alleging its AI falsely claimed he pled guilty to disorderly conduct and was at the January 6th Capitol riot, which he denies. He says Meta's AI also linked him to extremist groups, advised against hiring him or advertising on his show, and suggested authorities should consider removing his parental rights due to his views on DEI and transgenderism. Starbuck claims this began in August 2024 after a Harley Davidson dealership posted a screenshot of Meta's AI falsely accusing him of being at the Capitol and linked to QAnon. He says Meta's AI also falsely stated he was arrested, is a white nationalist supporter, supports Nick Fuentes, and denies the Holocaust. Starbuck says Meta's AI admitted that these lies could be considered malicious. After he contacted Meta, they blacklisted his name on their AI, but it still defames him if his name isn't directly used in the initial query. He believes Meta's actions have led to increased threats against him and his family, including a recent arrest of a man who wanted to kill him.

Host: You mentioned at one point that CDC management actually prevented you from interviewing Conservative leader Pierre Pauli on your show. Can you describe what happened there? Guest: Well we I mean I basically wasn't allowed to pick the phone and and talk to conservatives. I have some g chats here which I just want to you know read you part of this. I'm talking to my senior producer I'm saying okay, you know this is an editorial discussion. Can we get a Conservative perspective on this is essentially what I'm saying. It is a no to the Conservatives I'm told. We can't chase anyone from the entire party. The chase is with P and P. So if power and politics is not able to secure a conservative, or, you know, somebody that presents an alternate perspective, then we are not allowed to. I'm told at one point we're sure that there's a myriad of other types of interesting guests that you can chase outside of the Conservatives. Can I be included on conversations with power and politics? That's not how we work. I say to management by playing petty office politics we feed into Conservative narratives that we have a bias against them. Canada tonight is a melting pot of news of the day and politics and decisions, from it largely impact Canadians. So we need flexibility to to respond to emerging stories. So yes, I wasn't even allowed to pick up the phone and call to request Pierre Pauliev. Host: Look at what happened when I had Melissa Lanceman on my show, right? That I was threatened to be pulled off the air which CBC then said in a news statement they didn't threaten to do that. There are recordings of them trying to do this. Why Guest: I mean there's an effort to essentially, protect those in Ottawa in in terms of their perspectives on these things, in terms of who they want on the show. It should be about you know, we did an interview with Karen Johnson, my cohost on the new podcast I'm doing. She's another former CBC employee that is talking about the toxic culture. She said that she alleges that she was called a brown Barbie, a bimbo, but she says that it's it's a very high school culture. And these are things that this is fine if you if you have hosts doing that it's not fine but it okay but management you are responsible for dealing with that and so if management is not going to do anything, if the President of the CBC is going to come here and expect a tongue lashing and then be able to go back to the CBC and continue to get funding without accountability, these practices will continue. So shame is clearly not enough to get the CBC to a place where they will hold themselves accountable so it's incumbent upon this committee to do that.

The speaker announces plans to start a GoFundMe on November 2 to raise money for severance pay that they declined, acknowledging that nobody owes them anything for their actions but asserting that many people are tired of tyranny and censorship from corporate America. They express a belief that supporters will back them in showing corporate America that this fatigue exists. The speaker claims that in December 2021, T-Mobile censored text messages by blocking customers from sharing links related to vaccine efficacy from the gateway pundit. They state that T-Mobile blamed the action on a content filter, but they view that explanation as a convenient cover-up, especially given that Twitter and Facebook were censoring the same information at the same time. The speaker notes that nearly every statement they have made about T-Mobile in this video and on their X account would likely put them in breach of contract. They anticipate potential backlash for initiating a GoFundMe but emphasize that they are fully transparent and believe being upfront about their actions is important. The speaker frames the move as part of a broader stance against what they see as censorship by large corporations and signals a desire to mobilize supporters to challenge such practices. They acknowledge the potential criticism they may receive for the fundraising effort while reiterating their commitment to openness regarding their decisions and actions. The underlying message highlights a personal choice to publicize grievances against corporate censorship and to seek financial backing to address consequences they perceive from severance-related actions. The overall narrative combines a claim about past censorship by a major telecom, a call for collective action against perceived corporate tyranny, and a transparent, upfront approach to pursuing support through a GoFundMe. The speaker emphasizes transparency about their motives and actions and anticipates scrutiny from others while presenting the fundraising as a response to censorship and a broader fight against corporate control of information.

We just wrapped up a four-hour legal battle suing David Lemenyi, Trudeau's former Justice Minister, for illegally deleting his Twitter account after he was found to have invoked the Emergencies Act unconstitutionally. The government is trying to argue that it's a private account and they have no control over it, but we believe it's a public record. The Chief Justice presided over the hearing, which was surprising, and it lasted four hours, covering various acts and charter submissions. We argued that Lametti broke the law and the government is trying to let him off easy with just a "pinky swear" not to do it again. Despite contradictory arguments from their counsel, we feel our arguments were consistent. Even if we don't win the injunction, we've already moved from deleted records to promises of preservation. We're concerned about deleted direct messages that could reveal more about Lametti's conduct as a minister. This legal fight is costly, but we're committed to holding the government accountable.

I'm in a taxi heading to the federal court of appeal in Toronto for a hearing regarding my book, "The Libranos," published during the 2019 election. Elections Canada has been prosecuting me for five years, spending over $1 million on this case, while ignoring serious foreign interference in our elections. My book, critical of Justin Trudeau, is the only one among 24 published that has faced legal scrutiny. I'll be live tweeting the proceedings, and I'm likely to be alone in court without support from civil liberties or journalism groups. If you believe in defending free speech, please consider helping with legal costs at thelibranos.com. I'm fighting against Trudeau's government, and I appreciate any support. I'll update you soon on Twitter.

Speaker 0 describes his previous online behavior and now presents it on video. He has been trolling T-Mobile CEO Mike Sievert and John Ledger, the CEO prior to the merger, for over a month to ensure they knew his name and who he was. He claims they lied to him and America about the T-Mobile merger. He states that the promises made in front of Congress—to lower prices and add jobs—were lies. He asserts that T-Mobile raised the prices of rate plans and has completed multiple layoffs since the merger went live in 2020. He notes that last week, T-Mobile told customers on certain plans that they would automatically transition to a more expensive plan if they did not call into customer service and opt out. He mentions that Mike Sievert launched Price Lock last year, which was him promising to never raise the price on customers. He criticizes CNN for naming Mike Sievert “CEO of the Year” for 2022, saying that liars support liars. He asserts that T-Mobile and the parent company Deutsche Telekom are not who people think they are, and that T-Mobile US should be thought of as the German government and the World Economic Forum. He states he is cool with gay and trans people, but argues that T-Mobile is on a different level, distinguishing between being cool with gay and trans versus shoving it down society’s throat and forcing people to believe in it. He claims T-Mobile doesn’t care about gay or trans people and argues the company used the agenda to divide people. He questions a discrepancy in corporate spending, asking why the company would pay $25 for gender reassignment but only $12 for in vitro fertilization, concluding that the company “thinks gender assignments are twice as cool.”

Today in The Netherlands, outside the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, a landmark case brings senior government officials, major media figures, pharmaceutical leadership, and global policy actors together as defendants in a single COVID response case. Among those ordered to appear are Albert Baller, the CEO of Pfizer, the former Dutch prime minister, senior Dutch health ministers, leading figures from the Dutch media, and Bill Gates. This makes the case extraordinary. On March 9, an important step is happening at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. This hearing is not the main trial. The main trial is proceeding, and Bill Gates, if not appearing in person, must have representation and offer a defense. Today’s hearing concerns a procedural question: should the court allow an appeal against an earlier decision that blocked a request for preliminary evidence? In simple terms, the claimants ask the court for permission to present and examine expert evidence early before the trial, to have experts testify, documents examined, and key scientific and legal claims tested through cross examination. The lower court refused that request. The Amsterdam Court Of Appeal is being asked to decide whether that refusal should itself be reviewed. This hinges on the right to have evidence examined in public. If the appeal is allowed, expert testimony and scrutiny of the evidence could proceed; if refused, the claimants must continue without that preliminary examination. The reason for this hearing traces to the main lawsuit, begun in July 2023. Seven Dutch citizens filed a civil case in a district court, claiming they were misled about the nature of the COVID threat and about the safety and necessity of COVID vaccines. They argue that government officials, public health authorities, pharmaceutical executives, and major media figures promoted a narrative that induced fear and compliance based on unscientific claims of a novel pathogen called COVID nineteen. They claim these representations caused them to take vaccines and to suffer psychological and physical harm. The claimants describe a tort claim: the defendants breached a duty of care owed to the public by providing false or misleading information that resulted in damage. They seek two things: a declaration that the defendants acted unlawfully and compensation for the harm. Before the trial proceeds, the claimants asked for the evidence behind those claims to be examined in court, hence the provisional evidence request and today’s appeal. Central to the request are expert witnesses from multiple disciplines addressing scientific, legal, psychological, and institutional dimensions. The experts include Catherine Watt (legal researcher in public health law), Sasha Latipova (pharmaceutical regulatory processes), Doctor Joseph Sansone (psychologist studying crisis messaging and behavioral compliance), Catherine Austin Fitz (financial analyst on institutional power structures and global policy networks), and Doctor Mike Yeadon (English pharmacologist, former Pfizer VP). Yeadon has argued that the safety narrative surrounding the vaccines is challenged, claiming inadequate testing and concerns about toxicity. The point of a court is that such claims should be tested under cross examination, not dismissed without scrutiny. Allowing this appeal would enable the evidence to be heard and tested in public, with broader implications beyond the Netherlands, potentially influencing accountability, transparency, and public trust in other jurisdictions. What happens here may influence debates about open scrutiny of evidence in courts elsewhere. The speaker closes with a personal note, recalling six years spent fighting misinformation and supporting the truth be told campaign for COVID jabbed, injured, and bereaved, and underscoring that this case concerns justice in action, public scrutiny, and accountability for powerful institutions.

We sued CNN for defamation after they falsely reported that Twitter suspended Project Veritas for spreading misinformation, when it was actually for publishing private information. CNN argued in court that there's no difference between promoting misinformation and revealing private information, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. A circuit judge even noted his disbelief that a major news organization would downplay the importance of truth. This legal victory is overshadowed by Project Veritas firing me, in part, for spending the money to fight these battles. It's difficult when the organization is now celebrating a victory that they were against, and suing me for the actions that led to it.

Michael Koury raised a question about Ravi Javi's IP patent related to the domain name system and restricted channels, noting a significant change in the filing attorney to Perkins Coie after the 2016 election. This prompted a discussion about Rodney Joffe, who billed Perkins Coie over $1 million in 2016 and 2017 for his work with NuStar Technologies. There is interest in understanding the nature of that work and the reasons behind Joffe's termination from the FBI. However, the technical details of the patent remain unclear.

In this video, the speakers discuss an IP patent by Inter Ravi Jaffi related to the domain name system and operating using restricted channels. They find it interesting that after the 2016 election, the filing attorney changed to Perkins Coie. They also mention that during a testimony, it was revealed that Rodney Joffe billed Perkins Coie over $3 million for work done by his firm, NuStar Technologies. They express curiosity about the nature of that work and how the money was spent. Additionally, they mention that Joffe was terminated from the FBI, but they don't provide any details about why.

Robbie Starbuck is suing Meta for multi-millions, alleging its AI falsely claimed he pled guilty to disorderly conduct and was at the January 6th Capitol riot, which he denies. He says the AI also linked him to extremism, advised against hiring him or advertising on his show, and suggested authorities remove his parental rights due to his views on DEI and transgenderism. Starbuck claims Meta's AI has been defaming him since August 2024, after a Harley Davidson dealership posted a screenshot of the AI's false claims. He says the AI falsely stated he was arrested, is a white nationalist supporter, supports Nick Fuentes, and is a holocaust denier. Starbuck says Meta's AI admitted its statements could be seen as malicious. After he contacted Meta, Starbuck says the company blacklisted his name on its AI, but it still defames him if his name isn't directly mentioned. He believes Meta's actions have led to physical threats against him and his family, including an arrest in Oregon of a man who wanted to kill him. He is asking for an apology and for Meta to fix the biased training of its AI.

On February 5th, a board member asked me to come to his house. He told me that I had nothing to do with the Pfizer story. I showed him a video of me confronting a Pfizer executive, which had 11 million views on YouTube. He said that the video was made after the undercover video had already been done.

Breaking: FBI has delivered my phone back after three years of nonsense. They took my livelihood, the phone, the stuff in there. I had pictures of my grandkids when my dad passed away. I’ll do a show when I get back to Minnesota; it’s right there in the box like it never left back in the day. I brought it all the way up to the supreme court, the supreme court in one week. No. We're not gonna look at that. In Minnesota, the eighth circuit there. And those judges even asked the FBI and the government, why why don't you just make a copy of his phone? Why do you need the physical doubt the physical phone? And they also asked him, well, what do if you're looking for evidence, you're looking for stuff in there, where's the attorney client privilege? And they go, well, we're looking at that. So what do you look at it and say, uh-oh. We shouldn't have seen that. It's like being in a being in a courtroom and going, strike that, your honor. The jury already heard it. It’ll be interesting, but it’s interesting enough getting that back. We’re bringing Dennis Montgomery back to recount my original evidence; they suppress him and suppressing I think we're gonna get him on my show. Did Mike Lindell ever get his phone back? Nope. So now we can tell him, yes, he did. It's not so much it's Vanessa. It's more of how they took it and what they were really planning.

Professor Alfio Dusso provides an affidavit stating that Arturo De Lighe, a former IT department head at Leonardo Espia, has been charged with manipulating technology and data, and implanting viruses in Leonardo Spard's main computers in December 2020. Allegedly, under the direction of US individuals from the US Embassy in Rome, De Lighe switched data from the November 3rd, 2020 US election, favoring Joe Biden over Donald Trump in states where Biden was losing. De Lighe claims to have used military-grade encryption to transmit the switched votes via a military satellite to Frankfurt, Germany. He is willing to testify against all involved parties in exchange for protection for himself and his family. De Lighe also claims to possess the original and switched data as evidence.

A journalist ("iTV") confronts another journalist about an upcoming court case. The journalist ("iTV") is being taken to court for allegedly harassing a couple of Germans after they endangered his family by photographing them. He questions why the reporter hasn't watched his documentary, which had 67 million views and details his seven months in solitary confinement. He accuses the reporter of being a "propaganda machine" who will publish a pre-written, biased article implying he caused fear of violence. He asks if he should be allowed to contact journalists and ask them questions on camera, and criticizes the Daily Mail for endangering his family. He believes he is facing ten years in jail for wanting to ask a question on camera. He claims he is being targeted with "lawfare" because he is an "uncontrollable journalist" who is ahead of the population on important issues.

Silicon Valley is trying to destroy evidence of their misdeeds related to election fraud. Tech billionaires are claiming there was no fraud, despite allegedly perpetuating it. Harmeet Dillon suggests big tech companies like Google have been using algorithms for years to treat different content differently, citing leaked evidence from YouTube programmers. For example, anti-Semitic videos are treated differently than anti-Muslim videos. These companies have allegedly allowed false information regarding the 2016 election to flourish for years.

Mike Lindell claims Fox News was presented with evidence of 2020 election fraud, including information from Dennis Montgomery, but shut it down. He questions who paid Fox's $787 million settlement with Dominion, speculating about China, BlackRock, or the Murdochs' involvement. Lindell alleges that the timing of his $5 million loss in court was suspicious, coinciding with the Fox/Dominion settlement, and that this was used to discredit his election fraud evidence. Lindell insists he possesses extensive evidence, including voter rolls and cast vote records, available on lindelltv.com. He believes Tucker Carlson was "benched" by Fox because Carlson began to believe in the voting machine fraud claims and advocated for eliminating electronic voting machines. Lindell is appealing the $5 million arbitration loss, despite being told it's unlikely to be overturned, and is taking it to federal court.

Robbie Starbuck is suing Meta for multi-millions, alleging its AI falsely claimed he pled guilty to disorderly conduct and was at the January 6th Capitol riot, which he denies. He says the AI claimed he was linked to extremism, anti-Semitism, and Holocaust denial, advising against hiring or advertising on his show. Starbuck says the AI's false claims began in August 2024 after a Harley Davidson dealership posted a screenshot of Meta's AI accusing him of being at the Capitol and linked to QAnon. He says Meta's AI also falsely stated he was arrested, is a white nationalist supporter, and has been sued for defamation. Starbuck claims Meta's AI admitted its statements could be considered malicious. Starbuck says Meta blacklisted his name on its AI, but it still defames him if his name isn't directly mentioned. He says the AI suggested authorities should consider removing his parental rights. Starbuck says a Meta official asked him to promote Meta's ending of fact-checking. He believes biased AI is a weapon that threatens reputations and elections.

Robbie Starbuck is suing Meta for multi-millions, alleging its AI falsely claimed he pled guilty to disorderly conduct and was at the January 6th Capitol riot, which he denies. He says the AI falsely linked him to extremism, advised against hiring him or advertising on his show, and suggested authorities should consider removing his parental rights due to his views on DEI and transgenderism. Starbuck claims Meta's AI stated he filmed inside the Capitol on January 6th and that his footage was used by the House Select Committee, which he also denies. He says Meta's AI admitted that spreading such lies could be seen as evidence of actual malice. Starbuck alleges that after he reported the issue, Meta blacklisted his name on its AI, but it still defames him if his name isn't directly used in the initial query. He also claims a Meta official asked him to promote their ending of fact-checking. Starbuck believes biased AI is a weapon that threatens reputations and could manipulate elections.

The speaker claims to have been publicly criticizing T-Mobile, CEO Mike Sievert, and former CEO John Legere for over a month. They allege that Sievert and Legere lied to Congress and the American public about the T-Mobile merger, specifically regarding promises to lower prices and add jobs. The speaker states that T-Mobile has raised prices, conducted layoffs since April 2020, and is automatically switching customers to more expensive plans unless they opt out. The speaker further accuses T-Mobile and its parent company, Deutsche Telekom, of being aligned with the German government and the World Economic Forum. They also claim that T-Mobile uses LGBTQ+ agendas to divide people, suggesting the company's priorities are misaligned by citing the disparity in coverage for gender reassignment versus in vitro fertilization.

During my time in the Senate's oversight committee, we examined Dominion. The proceedings were recorded and are available online. The president of Dominion and his software engineer testified, primarily addressing whether their machines had Internet access. The president claimed there was no Internet access, which I believe was false.

The Parler CEO, John Matzey, was terminated by the board, and the narrative surrounding his departure is misleading. The board was committed to a free speech platform, while Matzey's vision diverged from that. The decision to make this public was his, not the board's. The board fought to restore Parler after it was taken down by major companies, refusing to compromise on their principles. Claims about Matzey being a strong advocate for free speech and product stability are false. The board's commitment to free speech remains unwavering, and they are working tirelessly to bring the platform back. Matzey's statements are inaccurate, and the truth will emerge over time. For more details, tune into the Dan Bongino Show.