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.

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

I was at CPAC with Ben and Ted Cruz recently, and someone asked if the DOJ might release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, which is something Donald Trump has discussed. I can confirm that the review of the Epstein client list is ongoing. It's actually sitting on my desk right now as I speak. This was directed by President Trump. I'm also reviewing JFK and MLK files, as directed by the president. All of these agencies are currently working through the review process. Have I seen anything juicy yet? Not yet, but we'll see.

A lot of everybody knows where John Bolton lives because this is a main drag, especially for commuters. And, you know, I was a few minutes away, so I thought, wow, I just wanna see what's going on. We'll have to see what the search warrant affidavit says. I mean, if he's got classified documents, my view as well, he has to answer for that if he's got them the way Trump should have. On the other hand, if it's just about harassment because he said on complimentary things about Trump, many of them in his book, about Trump's mental capacity and ability to understand foreign affairs and very simple things. That's not legit, and that would seem to be the real concern that Donald Trump has since he doesn't clearly clearly doesn't care about what's classified and what isn't.

You're being considered for FBI director, yet you didn't check if your associates, including the president, were involved in attacking police officers. Look at the Capitol Police behind you. Are you proud of raising money from those who assaulted them? You claim to support law enforcement, but your actions tell a different story. Did you ever publicly state that Donald Trump declassified all documents at Mar-a-Lago? You mentioned a declassification order, but did you confirm it included all those documents? Shouldn't we consider the potential risks to sources before declaring documents declassified? Did Trump consult agencies about the risks? You say you support transparency; will you back the release of your grand jury testimony and relevant sections of the special counsel's report? Your time is up.

The nation cannot move forward unless senior people are held accountable, starting with Obama. While a former president may not be imprisoned, John Brennan, Jim Clapper, and Susan Rice should be questioned under oath about who directed them, with the threat of prison for treason. Treason is the only thing that cannot overcome a pardon. The speaker claims the outgoing Obama administration committed treason through a conspiracy to undermine a duly elected president, which hasn't stopped. Mueller and Weisman would have charged the speaker with treason if it were true. The speaker claims treason was committed against him, as a national security advisor, by the outgoing administration.

Recently, in January, a member of the Senate Intel Committee tried to block someone from getting a job in the intel world because this person would push for the release of the JFK files. This senator's main goal is to keep those files secret, but I don't understand why they would be protecting the CIA, especially after the Church Committee hearings already discredited them. I know that a member of the Senate Intel Committee made that call to block the appointment. Someone asked if it was Tom Cotton from Arkansas, but I haven't asked him directly for an interview, even though I probably should.

Speaker 0: Did you hear Trump's take on the JFK assassination, why he didn't release the files? Yeah. I know what Trump's take is. He said that if you knew what I know, you wouldn't tell people either, which is crazy. Well, and What does that mean? That's his position on the UAP thing as well Yeah. Actually. And that's a lot of people's position on it. I mean, you know, Trump is saying, of course, the CIA had knowledge of it. That is known. I mean, I mean, the whole it sounds like it's so funny. There's so many levels and there's so much I don't understand. But the whole JFK conspiracy industry, and it really is an industry, more books written on that than almost any historical topic, is is filled with wackos. Right? There are a lot of wackos in there. But it obscures that fact obscures the larger fact which is the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. Yeah. And so whatever. I could get into it at great length. But yeah. Yeah. They're they're still classifying documents sixty one years later. Both Trump and Joe Biden have, in violation of my read of federal law, kept those documents secret. There's no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination. It was a couple generations ago. There's no one person whose whose secrets are being protected. It's an institution or maybe countries. There may have been countries involved too. I mean, don't know the answer, but there's clearly something worth protecting. And I know that when I I spoke to someone who'd seen the documents, okay, two years ago and I got I got one fact out of him, which is, yes, the CIA was involved. And by CIA, CIA is a huge organization, but James Jesus Angleton, the head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this, which I think is well known. But that that's the view of someone who saw the documents. So I thought that was news, so I went on TV and said that. The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting, and I was driving back and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was the Secretary of State, but before then he was the Director of the CIA. And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange, so he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. But his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. It's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to me. I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime? What about the actual crime which is murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all. And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo was a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that. He was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Issachoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in The United States as CIA director. That's illegal. You're not allowed federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay? Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is, but he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay. That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a republican pooh bah in good standing. He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is like completely insane. Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view. And like he goes to fundraisers and dinners and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo. It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw. You are the bad guy. But no. He's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.

Donald Trump's questioning of his attorney is not a crime, as it is allowed. The documents being discussed are photocopies generated by computers, not the only copies. The president still holds the same security clearances as when he was in office, unlike the vice president.

He laundered Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign talking points through the American intelligence services. That's a violation of the people's trust. That's a violation of what our intelligence services should be doing, and I absolutely think they broke the law. You're gonna see a lot of people get indicted for that. Here's the thing that should really bother the American people. What do you want our intelligence community to be doing? I want them to be catching bad guys. I want them to be making sure that terrorists aren't gonna kill innocent American civilians. I don't want them laundering Hillary Clinton's campaign talking points into the American media and giving them this air of legitimacy. It is sick and it's disgusting. It hurt the intelligence community. It hurt the American people, and it hurt the first Trump administration. We've gotta have consequences for it.

I am deeply troubled by your responses today. You need to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You avoided answering that question when asked by Senator Durbin. Additionally, you should clearly state that those involved in the January 6th insurrection who committed violence should not be pardoned. I don’t have to say what you want me to say. I speak the truth and won’t say anything just to gain confirmation. I will answer questions to the best of my ability.

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.

Because you're in the same position in a way that Pete Hegstaff is in Yeah. Where people underneath you appear to be leaking even top secret information that you could go to jail for leaking. That's right. But they clearly have such an agenda, it's worth it to them. Yeah. that there is an investigation that's underway to try to figure out the source of this leak around that specific incident. it makes things much harder in constantly questioning and looking over your shoulder. These things being leaked, either by people who are just trying to show a reporter that they're important or chasing clout of some sort or the most dangerous of which is those who are trying to ultimately undermine the president's policies. Really, what is happening when they do that is they're undermining our democracy. the majority, the vast majority of the American people who chose this duly elected president, Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 believes that the person in question lied to the justice department. They also think that this person is mischaracterizing the Presidential Records Act by claiming certain privileges and rights. Speaker 1 finds it absurd that this person can consider battle plans and national security information as personal papers. The Presidential Records Act was created to prevent presidents from taking official documents out of the White House, and it restricts what a president can take. Speaker 1 argues that these documents are not purely private and that the president's argument is absurd.

Trump having access to classified information and sharing it at his resort is concerning. This should worry all Americans. He needs to be stopped.

Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government. Translation: Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government.

The speaker was asked if they would get rid of the Tesla and Starlink service at the White House. The speaker responded no, stating they may move the Tesla around a little bit, but that Starlink is a good service. When asked where they would move the Tesla, the speaker said they have a lot of locations. The speaker was then asked if they ever saw Elon Musk get physical with the treasury secretary. The speaker responded no, stating they had an argument, but didn't see any physicality. The speaker was then asked about a New York Times report alleging that Elon Musk was blurring the lines between recreational use of drugs and medicinal use towards the end of his time in the White House, and whether the speaker thought Musk ever had drugs at the White House. The speaker responded that they didn't know, and hoped not, wishing Musk well and stating they had a good relationship.

Trump having had the codes and now possessing classified information for Americans, potentially sharing it at his resort with anyone, should be terrifying to all Americans. He needs to be stopped.

We've just reviewed the Epstein client release, a 20-plus page dump made public by the DOJ or FBI, but it's a huge disappointment. It's mostly procedural jargon, heavily redacted, with no significant new information. I spoke with Liz Wheeler, and she reports that Pam Bondi and the President expected the release to contain everything Kash Patel had previously seen. However, the Southern District of New York FBI and Department of Justice may be withholding tapes and other information from the White House. If this is true, it signifies an internal civil war, with departments rebelling against the president. I still trust that President Trump, Cash Patel and Pam Bondi are committed to exposing this evil. If these agencies are in rebellion, President Trump should personally go to New York, fire everyone involved, and padlock the doors.

I won't discuss any private conversations the president has with his family, including any talks with Hunter.

Speaker 0 (John) explains that the other side “got tired of me winning, so he joined our side,” and asserts he has no animosity toward him, only regret that it became personal for some people, not for him, because it’s always about the survivors. He describes a reversal: after months of fighting, the speaker, the attorney general, the FBI director, the president, and the vice president could save everyone if they’d done the right thing four months ago. He questions whether Congressman Greene truly supports the release now, suggesting he’s only backing it because the president told him to support it, and attributes this to Mike Johnson. Speaker 1 asks if John believes the president’s current stance, given weeks of opposition and now support. John says he is concerned the president is opening a flurry of investigations and fears they may use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files. He believes they will try to use a legal provision allowing withholding materials if they are the subject of an ongoing investigation and would harm that investigation. Speaker 2 notes that the focus is on President Trump: he initially blocked the release and now has the power to release the full files anyway. Speaker 0 summarizes that for four months the president thought secrecy was best, but someone convinced him the releases are better; if serious, they should release them now. Speaker 1 asks why John thinks the president has resisted for so long. John contends the files implicate billionaires and friends of Trump and his donors, plus Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies, which is why there’s effort to stop the release. He predicts attempts to stop it will occur elsewhere and that this will backfire. Speaker 1 asks if the president will sign the bill; John says he thinks he will sign and would like to be at the signing party, joking about being invited to sign his own bill. John addresses personal attacks: the president attacked his wife, calling Margie Taylor Greene a traitor. John says the attack was a new low for him, but he laughs it off; his wife joked about inviting Trump to their wedding, and she blames him for not inviting him, which she says led to the anger. John remains optimistic the bill will pass tomorrow, with a veto-proof majority, and thinks the speaker will begrudgingly support it. Speaker 1 asks about the public breakup with Marjorie Taylor Greene over the Epstein files. John says Greene represents the base—the populist movement that brought Trump to the White House—and when Trump told supporters they are no longer his supporters if they want the Epstein files released, Trump lost many supporters, but Greene did not, and she remains in favor of seeking justice for the survivors. Speaker 1 asks if Trump has lost touch with the MAGA base. John believes Trump has strayed on fiscal responsibility, starting wars overseas and regime change, and on releasing the death steam files, away from the campaign promises that defined the MAGA base.

"Ultimately, all we can do at the FBI is make sure that we stay focused on doing the work in the right way, following our rules and not letting preferences, partisan or otherwise, drive or taint the approach." "A Trump lawyer certified that all classified papers had been returned to the government, but the FBI said later it found 72 documents marked top secret or secret, at least one about US military strength." "I haven't had any interaction with the Biden White House, about investigations into the former president." "This is a hard job. You're inevitably going to make different people angry, often very powerful people. But part of the essence of the rule of law is to make sure that facts and the law and proper predication drive investigations. Not who's in power, not who wants it to be so or not so"

I want to discuss the JFK files. When I partially opened them, I was advised by well-meaning people, including Mike Pompeo, not to proceed. They expressed concerns about living individuals and potential national security issues. I agreed to hold off for now, but if I win, I plan to release them soon. I believe it’s time for a cleansing, and I think the files will be fine to open. I’ve already reviewed about 50% of the documents, but I was asked to delay further access. Now, I’m committed to releasing them shortly.

I disagree with the ruling that the justice department's process for picking special counsels is illegal. We believe it is constitutional and have appealed the decision. This process has been used for decades, including in previous administrations, and has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it, including the Supreme Court.

My team found evidence that former Vice President Biden kept classified materials after leaving office. In an audio recording, Biden told his ghostwriter he found classified documents in his home as a private citizen in Virginia.