TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You need to ask Yvonne. I haven't received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It's on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are many ways they could have known. Give me one example. Others in government could have known. So someone in your office knew about the letter. That’s faulty logic. You’re busy writing letters to journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country. Order your medical emergency kit now and save 15% by using code OMG at TWC.Health/omg.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

You refused to congratulate the president. I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. I'm just asking a simple question. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? I'm good. Are you optimistic he'll be a good president? I'm good. You seem resentful of the president. You're putting words in my mouth. Why not commend him for his victory? I need a QR code to get in. It seems stingy not to congratulate him. Go watch my Bloomberg interview. I think you're jealous of Trump. I'm just trying to navigate my emails. What are you doing at the World Economic Forum? There are reasons a Republican could be here. My questions weren’t obnoxious; they were straightforward. His refusal to congratulate Trump suggests bitterness. For more reports from the World Economic Forum, visit wefreports.com. If you want to help fund our coverage, I’d appreciate it. Unlike Paul Ryan, we don’t have lobbyist support.

Have you said thank you at all during this entire meeting today? You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Can you offer some appreciation for the United States of America and the president who is trying to save your country?

I sense that the mainstream press doesn't want us here, but I don't really care what they think. When you see MSNBC melting down about inspector generals being fired or certain DOJ people being removed, remember these people have failed for decades, and certainly for the last four years. If the mainstream press has an issue with me or Warren being here, remember that they covered up for a president who wasn't making any decisions and wasn't reachable even by his own vice president. If you think you were doing a wonderful job, I point to that Wall Street Journal report as evidence of why we need a new era of media and reporting here, coming from the White House.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

Is it standard for your department to meet with dark money groups secretly? I can't speak to actions taken by the former deputy secretary, who is no longer with us. But you are the secretary of the interior, correct? Yes, I am. Do the people here work for you? They work with me. So you're not in charge? I provide vision and direction. Do you take responsibility for the department? Yes, I do. Then why are your leaders meeting with dark money groups off the books? This is the first I've heard of this. I can't comment on my deputy's actions. What did they gain from canceling leases at their request? I don't know who that individual is. You seem unaware of your department's issues. We have a corruption problem in your department.

I'm here investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent and current advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. I questioned him about potential ethical conflicts, including fundraising activities and his work with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and lying. I'm operating within my First Amendment rights as a journalist, but he claimed I needed his permission to record him, which isn't true in Washington D.C. He was visibly upset, and at one point even cried. I believe he lied about his activities and shared sensitive information. It's concerning to see such political behavior from government officials.

The speaker asks for a response to the "seashell on the seashore messaging, 8647, and now open criminal investigations" regarding Comey and Brennan. The respondent says that in their opinion, neither Comey nor Brennan should attempt more than six of the ten commandments, because they are not nice or ethical people. They claim that people who have worked with Comey and Brennan closely would say they are about as popular as male pattern baldness.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

With all due respect, it's inappropriate to come to the Oval Office and criticize efforts to prevent your country's destruction, especially when you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower issues. I've seen the situation firsthand and know that you bring people on propaganda tours. Do you disagree that you're having problems bringing people into your military? It is disrespectful to attack the administration that's trying to save your country. During war, everyone faces problems, but don't dictate what we're going to feel. You're not in a position to do so. We will feel very good and very strong. You are gambling with World War III and it is very disrespectful to this country. Have you said thank you once? You campaigned for the opposition. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

I believe they were being bribed. Joe Biden giving away $1 billion in exchange for my firing, isn't that corruption?

The speaker criticized someone for making inappropriate and false personal comments. They mentioned that meeting with President Biden is challenging because he is intelligent, curious, and pays attention to details.

What bothers me even more than that guy are the Republican senators and congressmen who blindly follow along. They don't believe in any of it. They're just scared he'll trash them on Truth Social and they'll lose their jobs. They're doing whatever he says, which is a dictatorship. After everything I've done for you over the last two years, standing up for you, you're going to treat me with disrespect? If I could take back your letter of recommendation, I would. Don't ever talk to me like that again, personally. You disrespect me like that after I stood up for you? You got your letter, your grade, so now you can treat me like that?

You refused to congratulate the president. I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. I'm just asking a simple question. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? I'm good. Are you optimistic he'll be a good president? I'm good. It sounds like you're resentful of the president. You're putting words in my mouth. Why not at least commend him for his victory? I need a QR code to get in. It seems stingy not to congratulate him. Look at my interview on Bloomberg. I think you're jealous of Trump. I'm navigating my emails. What are you doing at the World Economic Forum? There are reasons a Republican could be here, but I think you're here for rhino reasons. My questions were straightforward. His refusal to congratulate Trump suggests bitterness. For more reports from the World Economic Forum, visit wefreports.com. Please consider contributing to our crowdfunding efforts.

Speaker 0: I was impressed by the questions, and I think it helped him understand how I think and how we run the White House and how we deal with threats. Speaker 1: Mister president, critics suggested you wanted to appear jointly with the vice president so you could keep your story straight. Could you tell us what you think of the value of appearing together and how you would answer those critics? Speaker 2: First of all, look, if we had something to hide, we wouldn't have met with them in the first place. We answered all their questions. I came away good about the session. Speaker 3: And even the president and vice president agreed to meet with the commission, but with a catch. They insisted on meeting together behind closed doors and not under oath. Speaker 2: Mister president, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the nine eleven commission? Speaker 0: Because the nine eleven commission wants to ask us questions. That's why we're meeting, and I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions

One must question why his staff wants him to hide away. Are they afraid people will see that he is too weak and unstable to lead America?

The new press secretary is described as being very prepared. It is asserted that it's ridiculous to suggest President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit. He supposedly left a life of luxury and a successful real estate empire for public service, not just once but twice, and the American public reelected him because they trust he acts in the best interest of the country and puts the American public first. It is claimed that this president has actually lost money for being president. The speaker doesn't remember these types of questions being asked of the previous president, described as a career politician who was clearly profiting.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You should ask Yvonne. But you're part of the government working with the media to target journalists. I haven’t received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It’s on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are other ways they could have known. Like who? Many people in government could have been aware. So someone in your office knew about the letter? Sure. Then how did the Washington Post find out? That’s faulty logic. You've been busy writing letters threatening journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country.

I overheard two CNN reporters saying they only trust Trump, which surprised me. When I saw their CNN credentials, I was shocked they would report things they don't believe in. It made me question their integrity.

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.

You continuously discussed the Russia investigation as if it were undeniable truth, leading viewers to believe in a conspiracy between Trump and Putin in 2016, which was completely false. President Trump has taken significant steps to keep his meetings with Putin secret, even from his own administration. When asked if he ever worked for Russia, he found the question insulting and did not provide a direct answer. This situation raises concerns about whether the President has acted against American interests.

They offered serious subjects of conversation about cabinet positions, lower positions, and paying off campaign debt. These conversations could lead toward some real "gotcha" moments.