TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts: it's a terrible, unspeakable evil, and he believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. The president knows.

A person in the audience accused Professor Weissman of lying about not knowing Felix Sater, claiming Weissman signed agreements with Sater in 1998 and 2017. The speaker stated that Sater, the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow, was recommended to Robert Mueller by Weissman. The speaker accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against President Trump and called Weissman a fraud who should be in jail. The moderator defended the person's right to speak freely, characterizing it as a good example of free speech. Another panelist clarified that while they wouldn't stop someone from asking a question, they would draw the line if it disrupted the gathering or repeated questions already answered.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

A person in the audience thanked the panel and then questioned Andrew Weissman about his relationship with Felix Sater. The questioner claimed that John Conyers admonished Weissman's predecessor at the FBI for breaking the law with national security letters. The audience member asked if the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence knew about Weissman's alleged 25-year relationship with Sater when Sater testified in 2017. The questioner stated Weissman signed agreements with Sater in 1998 and 2017, and accused Weissman of lying to NYU students. The questioner further claimed Weissman recommended Sater to Robert Mueller, and that Weissman stated in his book that Mueller lied about not knowing Sater. The questioner identified Sater as the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow and accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against President Trump, calling Weissman a fraud who should be in jail.

A person in the audience questioned Andrew Weissman about his relationship with Felix Sater, claiming Weissman had a 25-year secret relationship with Sater and signed agreements with him in 1998 and 2017. The individual alleged that Weissman recommended Sater to Robert Mueller, despite Mueller claiming not to know Sater. The questioner stated Sater was the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow. They accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against the former president and called him a fraud who should be in jail. The person stated that Weissman lied about knowing Sater, despite writing about him in his book.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with the hypocrisy of bundling Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine together as potential triggers for World War 3. Speaker 1 interrupts, urging Speaker 0 to sit down and have a proper conversation. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that the American people's voices need to be heard and that the President and Speaker 1 do not speak for them. Speaker 1 dismisses this as Speaker 0's opinion and asks them to sit down. Speaker 0 refuses, claiming it is their right to exercise free speech. Speaker 1 argues that it is not free speech when it disrupts others. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 0 bringing up historical events and Speaker 1 defending America. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 asking Hillary Clinton to denounce the President's warmongering speech.

A speaker was asked to apologize to Trump or Republicans for sharing a picture of a sign put up in Tucson. The speaker said they would acknowledge wrongdoing when Trump apologizes for racist, misogynistic, sexist, and inflammatory comments about women, people of color, LGBTQ, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with him. The speaker committed to pausing before sharing posts that might incite harassment. Another speaker, a legal immigrant from Cuba, stated that what the first speaker said constitutes fighting words and hate speech. They claimed the speaker is protected by corporate media and that former President Trump has been attempted suicide twice because the corporate media promotes it.

Speaker 1 responds to accusations of antisemitism, stating that criticizing the Israeli government or supporting justice for the Palestinian people does not equate to antisemitism. They mention that a former president campaigned against the power of finance without being labeled antisemitic. The speaker questions the motives behind the questions being asked, suggesting that the goal is to silence them. They highlight past tragedies involving the Jewish community and argue against linking financial dominance to antisemitism. The speaker warns against limiting freedom of expression and compares the situation to the United States, where they claim a fraud is occurring regarding Israel within the Democratic Party and a growing opposition within the Jewish community due to the connection between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu.

In response to questions about Republicans denouncing his True Social post after Rob Reiner’s murder, Speaker 1 said: "I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned." He asserted, "He said, he liked he knew it was false. In fact, it's the exact opposite that I was, a friend of Russia controlled by Russia. You know, it was the Russia hoax." He claimed Reiner "was one of the people behind it" and that Reiner "hurt himself in, career wise." He described Reiner as "a deranged person, Trump derangement syndrome," and stated, "I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all in any way, shape, or form." The exchange closed with Speaker 0 saying, "Loose lips, mister president."

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.

A person in the audience questioned Andrew Weissman about his relationship with Felix Sater. The questioner claimed that Weissman had a 25-year secret relationship with Sater, an intelligence asset, and signed agreements with him in 1998 and 2017. The questioner accused Weissman of lying to NYU students, alleging that Weissman recommended Sater to Robert Mueller, despite claiming he didn't know Sater. The questioner stated that Sater is the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow. The questioner accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against the "rightly elected forty fifth president of The United States" and called Weissman a fraud who should be in jail. The questioner stated that Weissman lied on camera and that he wrote about Sater in his book.

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

An individual believes Caldwell is a person of integrity and intelligence who is committed to the country, but is being attacked by people who have a track record of "destroying America." The tactic is to get a headline out there, call someone a "naughty word," or say they are "anti-country" or "radical." The hope is that someone will hand this to Trump and try to trick him into thinking he's stupid. The speaker says this is actual disinformation and asks what publications and people are involved in this campaign of lies. The "big story" going around on both individuals is from Jewish Insider, which is running headlines against people and attacking them by stripping the context.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

A person in the audience accused Professor Weissman of lying to NYU students. They claimed Weissman had a 25-year secret relationship with intelligence asset Felix Sater, beginning with an agreement in 1998. The speaker referenced a 2019 report by The Intercept and alleged Weissman recommended Sater to Robert Mueller. They stated Sater was the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow. The speaker accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against President Trump and called him a fraud who should be in jail. They referenced Weissman's book, claiming he stated that Mueller lied about knowing Sater. The speaker expressed satisfaction at embarrassing Weissman.

Speaker 0 claims the Department of Government Efficiency found hundreds of billions in fraud, but Speaker 1 denies any fraud was found. Speaker 0 alleges Social Security is paying people over 220 years old, which Speaker 1 disputes. Speaker 1 criticizes Trump's anti-immigrant stance and calls Musk a "thug." Speaker 0 defends Trump, suggesting he might be the greatest president in modern American history. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 "deluded" for supporting Trump, characterizing Trump as rude, nasty, and racist. Speaker 0 accuses others of being in a cult, claiming they try to stop people from talking to those with different ideas. Speaker 0 says things got "hot" and troopers asked him to leave. Speaker 0 then shares the speech he planned to give, emphasizing that all are Americans with First Amendment rights and should unite to eliminate corruption.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

An individual accuses another of repeatedly presenting unnamed FBI agents' words as truth on their network, leading viewers to believe Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin conspired in 2016, which they claim is false. The other individual denies the accusation. They then state that President Trump went to extraordinary lengths to keep specifics about his meetings with Vladimir Putin secret, even from his own administration. They play a clip of President Trump responding to a question about whether he ever worked for Russia, where he calls it insulting but does not directly answer. The individual then asks if the president of the United States ever worked on behalf of the Russians against American interests.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

The speaker sued the Biden administration and won. According to the speaker, discovery revealed that 37 hours after Biden's inauguration, a White House group was appointed to censor the speaker and others. The speaker claims to have emails between this group and Mark Zuckerberg, as well as people at Twitter. The speaker credits Elon Musk with making these emails public and believes Musk is essential to free speech in the U.S. because he opened up Twitter. The speaker states that Musk released these documents to journalists against the advice of his attorneys.

During the debate, Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of lying about a Russian plan and claims that there is overwhelming evidence of Russian engagement. Speaker 1 denies these allegations, stating that intelligence agencies and former heads of the CIA have called it garbage. Speaker 0 also accuses the FBI of cheating by telling Facebook and Twitter what to do. Speaker 2 believes that the objective is to stop Donald Trump and what he represents in the political process. Speaker 0 concludes by accusing Joe Biden of lying about a major scandal, calling it cheating and election interference on an unprecedented scale.

The speaker claims Felix Sater, a Russian real estate developer who worked on the Trump Tower Moscow deal and had an office in Trump Tower, is an FBI informant since 1998. They allege Sater has two secret agreements with Andrew Weissman, one from 1998 when Weissman was a US attorney, and another when Weissman was lead prosecutor for the Mueller investigation. The speaker says Weissman mentioned Sater 11 times in his book and claimed he told Robert Mueller to bring Sater in as a cooperating witness. The speaker alleges that when they asked Weissman about his relationship with Sater, Weissman denied knowing him. The speaker believes Michael Cohen is also an FBI informant and that there is a setup between Sater, Cohen, and Stormy Daniels. They suggest Cohen may have used Stormy Daniels' lawsuit, filled with lies, to extort Trump. The speaker claims that when they asked Norm Eisen and Andrew Weissman about the relationship between Sater and Cohen, Eisen hung up and Weissman lied.

Speaker 0 claims Netanyahu was responsible for 9/11, which helped him get into Iraq and Afghanistan. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks who bought the World Trade Center two months before the attack, accusing Speaker 1, Brian, of being paid off and a Mossad agent for not answering. Speaker 1 denies Israel was behind 9/11 and denies being Mossad. Speaker 0 calls Brian a fed and refuses to speak to him. Speaker 2 asks Brian why he won't answer the simple question and accuses him of dodging. Speaker 2 suggests Brian is inflating the situation and acting like a toddler. Speaker 0 calls Brian a shill for not answering. Speaker 0 gives Brian three seconds to answer who bought the building or be considered a paid-off shill. Speaker 1 refuses to answer.

Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of Intel Services, likely not American, and it's valid to question on whose behalf he operated. How did he go from a math teacher to owning multiple airplanes, a private island, and a large Manhattan house without a college degree? Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government, and while people avoid naming Israel, there's nothing wrong, hateful, antisemitic, or anti-Israel about asking if he worked for Mossad, running a blackmail operation. Everyone in Washington D.C. suspects this, but feels unable to voice it. The speaker believes open discussion is better than suppressed resentment and hate. The question of whether this happened has been posed to the Israeli government, who declined to answer. The speaker argues that as long as the U.S. sends Israel money, the U.S. has a right to know if Israel committed crimes on U.S. soil.

During a Q&A session, an individual accused Professor Weissman of lying about not knowing Felix Sater, citing agreements signed in 1998 and 2017. The individual claimed Sater, identified as the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow, was recommended to Robert Mueller by Weissman. They alleged Weissman planted an intelligence asset to testify against the "rightly elected" 45th President and called Weissman a fraud who should be jailed. In response, another speaker defended the individual's right to free speech, clarifying that while such questions are permitted, repeated questions that disrupt the gathering would not be.