TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff, right? I’m James O’Keefe. You’re friends with the reporter, Yvonne Wingate Sanchez. Did you leak the letter? No, there was no leak. How did the Washington Post get it before I did? I don’t know how they knew. The letter was released under public records law. I haven’t received it yet. Your office seems to be working with the media to target journalists. It was released legally. But how did the Washington Post know to request it? There are many ways they could have found out. So someone in your office leaked it? No, that’s faulty logic. You’re saying someone knew about the letter and told them? I have other matters to attend to. You’re busy writing letters threatening journalists. This is about good versus evil in this country. The Wellness Company offers a first aid emergency kit to help you take control of your health. Order now and save 15% with code OMG.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

Congresswoman Pelosi asks, “Are you at all concerned that the new January 6 committee will find you liable for that day? Right here.” The other participant replies, “I can.” Pelosi then asks, “Are you at all concerned about the new January 6 committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you re refuse the National Guard on January 6?” The respondent retorts, “Shut up. I did not refuse the National Guard. The president didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist?” Pelosi concludes, “The American people wanna know. We still have questions. Thank you.”

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The speaker questions the witness about mixing personal and professional emails, expressing confusion and concern. The witness explains his actions were to protect a friend under threat. The speaker challenges the witness on ethics and reporting to the ethics office. The witness struggles to provide clear answers, leading to frustration from the speaker. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt and yielding back their time.

Should there be a criminal investigation into Liz Cheney? If she broke the law, she shouldn't be exempt. If she manipulated evidence or coached witnesses, then accountability is necessary. The ethics committee is considering a report recommending her investigation, but some argue there's no solid evidence against her. If there are findings from the investigation, they should be revealed; if not, Cheney is in the clear. The focus should be on whether anyone, regardless of political affiliation, broke the law. There's a perception of a double standard in justice, with claims that the current administration is releasing criminals without consequence. The January 6 committee's investigation is questioned, as some feel it was politically motivated and didn't include all relevant voices. Ultimately, the call for justice should apply equally to everyone involved.

The speaker is asked if the SEC will review Ethereum's ICO and if there is a double standard. The speaker responds that they cannot discuss potential investigations or rumors. They are then asked if they are aware of anything at the SEC that they could be a whistleblower for, to which they reply that they cannot comment on that question.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

James O’Keefe confronts Garcia’s office over Epstein photos. O’Keefe says, “You guys said that you you had Epstein photos that you you broke, and we actually broke it already. You redacted some of the stuff on the chalkboard. We we broke the story in May.” Garcia staff counters, “We stand by our story. We put out information that is not included in your photo, so we did include photos that were not. But thank you so much for coming.” O’Keefe asks why the words on the chalkboard were redacted; staff replies they “go above and beyond to make sure that we protect any victims or potential victims.” O’Keefe notes they “broke the exact same photo.” The staff asserts they have many photos O’Keefe did not, and they “included photos that did not have” what O’Keefe released. O’Keefe presses for credit; staff says, “Absolutely not,” and claims, “we put out photos that were never before seen.” The source allegedly is the US Virgin Islands, “with response to a request from Congress.” O’Keefe says he has his own sources and asks for attribution. The staff accuses O’Keefe of “selectively editing videos” and of a broader reputation for filming people without their permission, stating, “That’s your reputation, and that’s why people don’t trust you.” O’Keefe challenges with, “Can you give me an example of how I’ve edited a video selectively?” The staff responds that Project Veritas’ reputation preceded him and declines to provide an example, saying they don’t want to speak to his audience and that he has a “reputation for filming people without consent selectively editing.” The exchange grows heated; O’Keefe asserts he is here as a member of Congress in Garcia’s office and asks for fair treatment. The staff reiterates, “Photos that you haven't put out. We said we were putting out photos that are never before seen. We did that. We did not lie at all.” O’Keefe highlights that he and Garcia’s office have “kicked out here” and describes the interaction as elitist and condescending. He references a quote idea about perception versus reality, then notes they “broke” an image where Democrats in House Oversight claim they broke it, and mentions that one word redacted was “dank or dark brain,” questioning which victim that protects. He promises to seek a retraction and signs off: “This is James O’Keeffe. You know me for exposing the truth and holding the corrupt elite responsible and accountable.” The interaction ends with the two sides firm in their positions, and O’Keefe walks away after being asked to leave, with Garcia’s staff maintaining their reporting and accuracy, while O’Keefe frames the encounter as a confrontation over credibility and transparency.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

First speaker: Calls the indictment unjust and says intimidation tactics have been pervasive, with weeks showing different members seeking sanctuary in hopes of intimidating and distracting from the Epstein files. They look forward to their day in court to prove themselves and state the truth. If Congress becomes about intimidation and scare tactics, especially attacking minorities, they will keep fighting for the district. They have received much support and will continue fighting until the district gets fair prices, housing, and fair representation in Congress. They note that those who hate the fight will come for them. They urge some colleagues to step down or resign, arguing they weren’t elected by those who are in the district. They insist they will keep fighting for the people and work to ensure only those who elected them make decisions. They reiterate that they are here for the people. Second speaker: Questions about the investigation into the congresswoman’s families, stating that this is part of congressional duties. They say the congresswoman is under investigation for congressional ethics regarding violations of campaign finances and assert that she must answer to the people of her district.

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to have no knowledge or interest in the issue, stating that it has never been raised to him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals potentially involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the question and thanks Fox News for their time. Speaker 0 persists in asking if Senator Durbin will take action, but the conversation abruptly ends with Speaker 1 calling Durbin a liar.

Speaker is asked if they agree with congressional Republicans' call for resignation, but does not respond when pressed by the speaker of the house.

The speaker states that Pam Bondi claimed to have ten thousand hours of video. The speaker had dinner with the Vice President who told them that the video was commercial pornography. According to the Vice President, the videos do not show any powerful person in a compromising position, which is the party line. The speaker questions why Pam Bondi would call it evidence if that is the case.

Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

A speaker questioned why a congressperson believes President Trump is above the law and why they haven't spoken out against the dismantling of the federal government by President Trump and Elon Musk. The speaker urged the congressperson to stand up for what's right and do their job. The congressperson responded that journalists constantly ask questions, but their answers are not published. To address this, the congressperson publishes statements and speeches on their website, "the scoop," because they cannot rely on news outlets to report what they say.

Speaker 1 questions why House Republicans haven't released Jeffrey Epstein's Black Book, which is under the FBI director's control, to expose alleged pedophiles. When asked if he would declassify the Epstein files, Speaker 1 says he would, but expresses concern about potentially affecting people's lives if the information is phony. Speaker 0 says the issue is bigger than Epstein, 9/11, JFK, or RFK, and asks who is on the Epstein tapes and in the black books, questioning why this information has been hidden. Speaker 3 mentions Donald Trump has discussed the DOJ potentially releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Speaker 2 claims that the release is under review, following a directive by President Trump, stating that everything will come out to the public because Americans have a right to know.

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to know nothing about the issue and says it has never been raised with him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals who may be involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the topic, stating it's the first time anyone has brought it up. Speaker 0 asks if Senator Durbin is interested in pursuing the matter, but there is no clear response.

A CBS12 reporter, Tory, attempts to question a congresswoman at a ribbon-cutting event about an investigation into her family. Tory also asks the congresswoman about a congressional ethics investigation into potential campaign finance violations. The reporter repeats the question about the ethics investigation and asks what the congresswoman has to say to her constituents, implying she is obligated to answer as this is her district. The congresswoman does not respond.

Congressman, why did the J6 committee delete their files? I have no idea. It's all in the bipartisan report by Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who chairs the Republican conference. Do you think Liz Cheney is a true Republican? Well, you tell me. You seem to be a true Republican. And what about Governor DeSantis? He was a Democrat, then a Reform Party member, and independent, but he's a con man and your boss. Thank you for your input. Are you sure you don't want to answer about the committee's handling of Donald Trump? Thank you, congressman.

The speaker claims the biggest scandal was spying on their campaign, insisting it's verified despite lack of evidence. They urge to air it for Biden's detriment. The interviewer refuses, citing the need for verification. The speaker insists they were spied on and caught, challenging the interviewer to check the papers. The interviewer remains skeptical.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.