TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1, who identifies as Russia, says: We did not break in. We did not broke shit. They were Antifa. We told the DC police, there's Antifa. Go get them. They did not move. They use on a pepper spray, mace, rubber palette. They treat us like we're animals. From beginning, when we start going down the steps up way before we enter the shit building. And then they start with the pack. They hit two woman in the head. There's three kids, probably 17, 18. They were bleeding in the head. There's two elderly people. One of them in a cave, got maced. So we did not break shit. The woman the police shot her, and then they throw her by the stairs. We did not break shit. We told DC police, those are Antifa. Go get them. We wear mega hat. We don't have much shoes. We don't look like we're in a crack. Those antifa, you tell them, they're in a fucking crack. Filthy disgusting. DC did not do nothing. They just stand up. They just stand up. Speaker 0 asks: So it wasn't it wasn't the MAGA people that that get that... Speaker 1, Russia, responds: It wasn't MAGA inside the city, whatever my brain froze. Capitol all day. The doors are open. There's Antifa has a black chair, folding chair. The cops seen him. Whether it's us or Antifa, you see somebody with a metal chair fold it. That means it's a fucking weapon. You will stop him. We go and tell them. There's probably people were taking video of me telling the police. Go get Antifa. We catch two. And the woman that there was a woman talking to them, and I told her, don't bother the police. Leave the police alone. They need to choose a side. If they lost us, they have no support. And then they start with pushing back back and hitting people. So it's not us. It's not us. Speaker 0 clarifies: Antifa It was... Speaker 1: The DC police saw them with a fucking black metal folding chair. They saw them. We pointed at them. They saw the brat boy following Antifa guy, and they did not do shit. One of Antifa could have a fucking knife to get one of us inside. No one did shit. Don't tell us we broke in. We did not break a glass. So you got in, but it wasn't you guys. The doors are open. The door. And guess what? It's a federal building. The police has no power on us. It's a federal building. It's our building. Speaker 0: Right. Okay. So it wasn't it wasn't the MAGA people that broke in. Speaker 1: Nope. We told DC police, those fucking antifa go get them. Okay. Speaker 0 asks: What's your name? Speaker 1: Russia. Speaker 0: Russia? Where are you from? Speaker 1 explains: I can't. It's a I'm under the state No. No. No. I came from Lebanon. I run from Lebanon because of this shit. And I'm not gonna raise my kids in that shit. Speaker 0 thanks Asha and says: Thank you. You need to do a testimonial of what happened. Put it on Twitter. Put it on every news channel because What? Speaker 1 completes: Fist this off. Black Lives Matter burned the country. Burned the city. They were ordered the police to back back, standby. They were not allowed to use tear gas. They were not allowed to use maze. They were not allowed to use rubber bullets. On us, they're. When they went in the White House and burned the church, all the fucking congress went and told Trump, you let your people pepper spray them. Meanwhile, BLM came there with a fucking weapons. Screw the police. They lost our support. Yes. Amen. They begin they're all gonna follow order. When we stand up in the front of Black Lives Matter to protect a cop I'm a woman and I did it numerous time in New Jersey. I didn't ever say we go in a rally and sadness know. But now, if I see a cop get shot, I would kill myself before I save him and mark my words on it. Speaker 0 closes: Thank you, Asha. Good to see you.

Speaker 0 expresses surprise and sympathy for the audience. They encourage them to go home and live for another day, suggesting they should support their side in the future.

The speaker greets the audience and mentions something about achieving a beautiful mode. They ask if the audience is afraid and then says "En. Kadar." They then say "Hadi hadi bir. Mi benim Yani selamün."

Speaker 0 is checking in with someone and expresses that they have accomplished something. The other person asks if they are leaving, to which Speaker 0 confirms. Speaker 0 then asks for some information, but the other person refuses. Both speakers clarify that they are not suicidal and enjoy life.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

The speaker states they attempted to communicate something and acknowledges the other person's job. They claim to be looking out for everyone.

The speaker thanks the audience for coming and asks what they think of the speaker's hat. The speaker states they are going to sign the hat and throw it out.

The speaker briefly greets the audience and mentions that they are currently conducting an investigation. They ask if anyone else is present, specifically law enforcement. They request the credentials of the person they are speaking to and express their appreciation. The speaker concludes by saying that the person they are speaking to needs to improve their ability to hide.

Speaker 0: Get get get your Do we not? What's up? Sure. And good night. Good night. Set the side, Con. You're done

The speaker briefly mentions going undercover to investigate antiques. They ask someone to put something back and express gratitude. They also mention something about feeling better and getting sprayed.

The speaker thanks everyone present and acknowledges a message indicating the event has run long. They express gratitude and shift focus to Chicago, expressing a desire to win there.

The speaker observes something diminishing rapidly. They note the speed of its disappearance, remarking that it quickly went from being present to almost completely gone. They point out a small remaining portion at the end, but emphasize that the majority has vanished.

Speaker 0: Who has been arrested 111 times since August 2023. Arrests included 55 car thefts, instilling from cars 45 times. At one point, police found multiple guns on the teen and took a phone as evidence. They say they found various Google searches on it, including what is the charge for killing an officer? Is police murder a charge? And what is capital murder? Police say the 15 year old was most released again in September. You just can't just say we're going to let you back out to your mom or to your home if the home is broken without holding the home accountable. There's no accountability, right? Speaker 1: Yeah, this is a problem. They're focusing on rehabilitation over accountability. But I love that he used the word accountability because that's what's needed. But on top of that, what are we gonna do? Are gonna wait until this kid kills somebody and then decide that enough's enough? Him getting arrested a 100 times wasn't enough to seriously do something about it. Not a 101, not a 110, not even a 111. He's back out. This is a problem and something needs to be done about this problem before this individual seriously harms someone. There is no way someone should be getting arrested 111 times and still be able just to be walking around free. No. Governments need to start doing something about this now. We've already had individuals die at the hands of people who should not have been free. Again, there needs to be something done about this. Absolutely wild to see that a 111 times. That's crazy. You need to start bringing attention to this and working to do something about it. Also just a reminder I have a free email newsletter where I give you morning updates about what's going on. It's a great place to get direct information from me and I cannot be censored there. The link's in my profile, just go there click the link you'll see the screen right here drop your email in hit subscribe and you'll be good to go. Anyway that's all I got for now. We'll see you in the next one.

The speaker criticizes the audience for being boring and unresponsive. He expresses surprise that they didn't react when he mentioned the Navy.

In August 2014, Bill Thompson admitted that the CDC lied and hid the fact that the MMR vaccine was associated with autism. The conversation with Thompson felt like a spy movie and led to a secret recording of phone conversations with doctor William Thompson, made in Oregon to avoid California’s ban on secret recordings. Thompson freely admitted that he had covered up the association, and that his associates at the CDC had also covered it up. Simerosal was described as causing autism-like features, and the speaker expressed personal shame, stating that higher-ups wanted to do certain things and that they went along with it. The individuals named as being higher up are Colleen (the center director), Frank (the director of immunization safety), and Marshall (the branch chief), all described as much more senior than the speaker. Julie Gerberding, who was head of the CDC at the time, is mentioned as coincidentally moving on to a lucrative career at Merck, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine. The speaker concludes with a strong emotional reaction, saying, “I cannot believe we did what we did, but we did.”

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

Speaker 0 opens with a moment of disbelief, saying “What?” as if reacting to something unexpected or unresolved. The speaker then shifts to a hopeful note, stating that they are “just hoping that it is over,” indicating a desire for closure or an end to the situation at hand. Amid that hope, there is a sense of reassurance or confidence in the outcome, as the speaker adds, “I feel good about it.” Following this, the speaker turns to inquiry, prompting curiosity about the forces or circumstances behind what has occurred by asking, “What’s behind this?” This question suggests a search for underlying causes, motivations, or explanations that might lie beneath the surface of the current situation. The speaker continues to probe emotionally and perceptually with another question, “What does this feel like?” which invites reflection on the subjective experience or sensation associated with whatever is transpiring. This line of inquiry emphasizes a desire to understand the tangible or experiential aspects of the event or process. Toward the end, the speaker conveys uncertainty about their own expressive capacity, declaring, “I don’t know that I have a word today.” This admission implies a momentary lack of vocabulary, speech, or perhaps certainty about how to articulate their thoughts or feelings in that moment. Throughout these lines, Speaker 0 conveys a blend of anticipation, optimism, curiosity, and a momentary hesitance in expressing themselves. The progression moves from a reaction to a hoped-for ending, to a confident feeling about the outcome, to a deeper inquiry into causes and experiences, and finally to a brief incapacity to express precisely how they feel in words at that moment.

Speaker 0 notices someone and expresses relief that they found him. They mention that the person next to him will be able to determine what he did.

The speaker repeats the phrase "That's a bingo," questioning if it's the correct way to say it, then affirms that one simply says "bingo." The speaker concludes by saying, "Have fun."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 bid farewell to the audience from the top of the fox. They express their gratitude and say good night.

The speaker states it is a great honor to vote and that they've done a fantastic job. They believe they are doing very well, citing a poll as evidence. They anticipate an interesting couple of months ahead.

Speaker 0 greets the audience multiple times and asks how they are doing. They also ask for the audience's names and say goodbye. The speaker then asks someone if they have an English name and what they do for fun.

The speaker asks if the audience knows what something represents, but doesn't provide an answer. He mentions a possible "con before the storm" and says they will find out what storm is being referred to. He thanks everyone for their participation.