TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker was asked if they misspoke about carrying weapons in war, despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years in uniform and their service in public education. They believe people know them and that their record speaks for itself. Regarding the alleged misstatement, the speaker said they were discussing carrying weapons of war after a school shooting. They acknowledged their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated that they will never demean another member's service.

Tim Walz served in the National Guard for 24 years, enlisting at 17. No military service is known for JD Vance. The comparison is clear. Mention of George Floyd's killing and the resulting unrest. Apologies for the interruption.

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.

Speaker 0 expresses gratitude towards the President and a Navy SEAL for their service. Speaker 1 acknowledges the Navy SEAL's pride and thanks him for his contributions to the country. Speaker 0 shares a heartfelt message from the Navy SEAL, who hoped to be remembered. Speaker 1 assures that they will honor his memory. Speaker 0, a marine and mother of a marine, expresses how much it would mean to her. Speaker 1 reassures Speaker 0 and they exchange thanks. The conversation ends with multiple expressions of gratitude.

Speaker 0 asks Navarro if he has caught any good fish lately. Navarro seems upset and mentions something about a page 23. The speaker questions the educational value of discussing a certain topic and whether it would help someone's SAT score. They mention someone needing to put down their sign and express frustration with the rules. They believe there is corruption within the government system.

Speaker 0: The officer tells him to get a life, but the journalist insists that investigative reports are important for the country. Speaker 0 questions the journalist's credentials, but the journalist continues to ask questions. The journalist offers to provide all the material via email.

这是我的领导。我们要讨论一下PRT和FREAD。学生们的进步很明显，有的甚至能达到10万。现在的挑战是，随着年龄的增长，加入海军的难度也在增加。你在美国生活了六年，祝你一切顺利。你选择加入海军的原因是什么？我已经写好了我的目标，想从事航空火控工作，主要是监控雷达。你今年多大了？35岁。海军的招收年龄上限是40岁，很多人都有机会参与相关工作，尤其是在防空领域。 --- This is my leader. We will discuss PRT and FREAD. Students are showing significant progress, with some reaching up to 100,000. The challenge now is that as age increases, joining the Navy becomes more difficult. You've been in the U.S. for six years; I wish you all the best. Why did you choose to join the Navy? I've outlined my goal to work in aviation fire control, mainly monitoring radar. How old are you? 35. The age limit for Navy recruitment is 40, and many have opportunities in related fields, especially in air defense.

An individual questions the presence of the army at a public hotel. They ask if the army has taken over the hotel and inquire about the reason for their presence. An individual states the army is there at the request of the state of New York. The questioner expresses disbelief that the state of New York would place the army in hotels. They attempt to record the interaction but are told they cannot. The individual then questions whether the army's presence is beneficial to the public.

Hello? This is an officer with ICE conducting a routine check. Are you an American citizen? Yes, I am. We have some questions to verify that. How many points are scored in a football game? Six. What’s your stance on making America great again? We want to make America great again. Who’s the best female artist? Taylor Swift. Last question: can you say Walmart? Yes, I can say Walmart. Alright, thank you.

How many genders are there? Two. What is the diameter of an M4A1 rifle round? It's 5.56. How many push-ups can you do? I did 5 sets of 47 this morning. What's the most important strategic base? Guam is significant. How many rounds fit in an M4 magazine? Standard is 30. What does the M9 Beretta fire? A 9 millimeter. What batteries for night vision goggles? Duracell. Your qualifications show you understand the battlefield. Decisions made here can lead to the deaths of young Americans, often from lower middle-income families. When they join the military, they do so for various reasons, and when mistakes happen, they don’t come home. My priority is ensuring you support the warfighters. That’s what matters most to me, and you have my support despite the process.

Hey, I'm Adam Gillette with Accuracy and Media. I heard you were coaching a parent on how to break laws regarding biological boys and girls in sports. Is that true? No response. Is there someone else we should talk to? You can check with security downstairs. We're fine waiting here to possibly speak with her further. No? Okay, great.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The speaker asks for insights into the Pentagon, referencing reports of a "meltdown" and concerns about seriousness within the organization. The interviewee responds that people are bothered by a lack of seriousness, citing "signal gate" as an example of amateurish behavior. The interviewee states that the Pentagon claimed the information shared wasn't classified, but it was. The interviewee believes the real problem is that "they knew it was" and still wanted people to believe them. The interviewee emphasizes the seriousness of the Pentagon's mission to defend the nation, requiring all of America's capabilities. The interviewee states that the Pentagon is now locked in an argument about DEI.

I went into a military building for dental work and arrived early. A stern-looking sergeant told me to get a haircut and not return until I did. I acknowledged his command and headed out to get my hair cut. The encounter was intimidating, and now I feel like I'm about to go to war with my new look. That's all for now.

The speaker discusses the issue of parents who refuse to listen and keep secrets, leading to teenage suicides. They question the Navy's policy, which seems to prioritize the rights of minor children over their parents. The speaker asks for clarification on whether the policy circumvents a parent's right to know, to which the response confirms that it is indeed the Navy's official policy. The conversation ends with the speaker asking if there are any other questions.

The speaker expresses their desire to become an astronaut and mentions the need to study flying or science. However, another person interrupts, claiming that the first moon landing was fake due to the Cold War rivalry with Russia. They point out the lack of windows and a pod-like structure in the footage, as well as the absence of plane wreckage on the ground. The speaker ends abruptly, stating that they no longer wish to pursue a career as an astronaut.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

Nick receives a message about a marine carrying out a code to blow up the world. He questions if it involves nuclear weapons.

The speaker was asked about a statement where they said they carried weapons in war despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years of service and their record speaks for itself. They speak candidly and passionately, especially about children being shot in schools. When asked if they misspoke about being in war, the speaker said the conversation was about carrying weapons of war after a school shooting, and their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated they will never demean another member's service.

The speaker expresses frustration that the other person brought up the "Marine doubt article." They feel they are being attacked and that the other person is going to use information against them regarding state support, which they believe is not the norm. The speaker is hesitant to provide information because of this fear. They suggest scheduling a visit and talking with a therapist, as they do not want to continue arguing or make things worse.

Nick receives a message about a marine carrying out a code to blow up the world. He questions if it involves nuclear weapons.

Hey guys, can I pause for a moment? Are there any armed individuals here? Yes, the police. Law enforcement. Can you please provide your credentials? Okay. What was the reason for your call? You need to do...

The speaker recounts an encounter with high-ranking naval officers during an incident investigation. They were boarded by Captain Ward Boston and Admiral Isaac Kidd. The admiral “came in through the stars on his on the table,” a striking image of his presence, and he spoke to them as if he were a father figure, saying, “talk to me just like I'm your dad.” The speaker describes it as a great relief, feeling reassured by the admiral’s demeanor. The group shared their account in detail, telling the admiral exactly what they saw and believed. They described torpedoes and torpedo boats being shot up, and they mentioned Dave Palm dropping on their slip ships, among other specific observations. The admiral appeared to understand the situation, looking at the speaker and acknowledging that he “could see that he knew it.” This acknowledgment seemed to convey that the admiral grasped the gravity of what had occurred. After listening, the admiral spoke again, delivering a stern warning. He put his “best stars back on me” and said, “listen. Don’t you ever breathe a word to anybody about that.” The warning emphasized severe consequences for disclosure, with the speaker noting that “you many of the guys got fines, but I they they told me fines, imprisonment, or worse.” The exchange underscored the sensitivity and potential repercussions of discussing the events, even as the officers appeared to understand and validate their observations.

Speaker 0 questions the General about the number of white officers in the Air Force, referencing a memo that suggests a reduction of white officers. Speaker 1 explains that the memo is based on application goals and demographic representation. Speaker 0 challenges this, asking about specific percentages for different racial groups. Speaker 1 clarifies that the goal is to provide opportunities for anyone who wants to serve. Speaker 0 criticizes the administration for injecting race-based politics into the military and argues against the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. They express concern about racial quotas and advocate for a merit-based approach. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 questioning the leadership's support for divisive policies.

An individual questions the army's presence at a New York hotel, asking why they are there. The response indicates the army is present at the request of the state of New York. The individual expresses disbelief that the state is using the army in hotels and questions if the army has taken over the civilian hotel. They are told they cannot record. The individual questions the army's purpose and implies they are not there to help the public.