TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

There is basically one deep state party, exemplified by figures like Victoria Nuland, who has influenced foreign policy across administrations for 30 years. This party's policies have remained consistent regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. Republicans and Democrats are like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, with the possible exception of former President Trump, who vowed to beat back the deep state but failed. The deep state refers to the administrative state, composed of bureaucrats in institutions like the Pentagon and State Department, who have a vested interest in pursuing a particular foreign policy. Putin noted that presidents enter office with ideas, but "men in dark suits and blue ties" explain the way the world is, and the ideas disappear. This entrenched foreign policy has been in place for decades, and even Trump hired deep state figures like John Bolton, who admitted to circumventing Trump's wishes.

One of the 8,376 Treasury Department employees launched an investigation into me on Christmas Eve, coinciding with my Twitter Files release. Months later, while I testified, they made an unannounced visit to my home, which they've since discontinued due to related issues. Ironically, they owed me money. A judge ruled that political appointees and special government employees can't access certain information, unlike those 8,376 employees. This raises concerns about trusting unelected bureaucrats over elected officials. USAID is implicated in censorship efforts, manipulating the perception of information, like the Hunter Biden laptop case. They're also training NGOs to demand censorship, secretly flagging information. This approach mirrors prebunking tactics used in the laptop story. Leaked intelligence is strategically manipulated through media outlets to control investigative news.

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.

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.

When people talk about the deep state, in a sense, this is the commanding control of a major part of the deep state. No. It is the commanding control of the deep state. Congress said, we want comprehensive oversight on both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and we want a plan for oversight and we're going to delegate this directly to the chair of the SIGI. I see. So you really worked for the chair of the SIGI. Well, this is the interesting piece. He in turn delegates it down to the IG at the DOD. Yeah. And I'm working for him. Yeah. So, you're working directly for the inspector general at DOD. But for the SIGI actually. But in effect You really were working for the SIGI. You bet. And who at the SIGI? Michael E Horowitz. Wow. Horowitz? Yes. One of the worst. Yes. One of the absolute worst. Horowitz of Russia collusion fame. Yes. Who now is at is not out of the government, who now is at the Federal Reserve. Right. Maybe. Ready to come back. Right. Still probably providing emeritus status on the SIGI. What was his position officially at the He was the DOJ IG. He was the inspector general at DOJ. And he replaced Glenn Fine who went to DOD. Wow. It's a really nice tightrope. And his deputy then went on to become the DODIG. And his deputy was spent thirty years over in The US Attorney's Office District Of Columbia. They really have it all sewn up, don't they? The assistant FBI director for integrity and ethics were for Glenn Fine and runs the DO runs the FBI. Yes. Think of the Siggy as an integrated command and control center. So, the buck stops with them. Yes. Because every complaint that is made. In any agency whatsoever goes to the Inspector General, and from those IGs report to the SIGI and it dies. And are investigated by the SIGI. And are investigated by the SIGI and it all dies. That's whistleblower complaints actually go to die. If it's against the members of the SIGI. Unless it's in their interest to prosecute it. Politically, yes. So, when people talk about the deep state, in a sense, this is the command and control of a major part of the deep state. No. It is the command and control of the deep state. It's in every bureau, every board, every agency, and every commission. One person, 2,300,000 people in the executive branch. I only need about 40 people to run the whole show. As long as you ensure that no one can foil my records, as long as everything I do is law enforcement sensitive, and as long as anybody that is a whistleblower can get collective punishment. Which is what you have seen with over 700 documented cases of people who've been Retaliated against. We see it every day. We see it every day.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Byron Cohen, a White House adviser, discusses the challenges Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would face if appointed to HHS, suggesting that the bureaucracy could undermine him. He explains that the administrative state can create deceptive commissions to delay decisions, such as studying vaccine safety, which can stall progress for years. Cohen acknowledges the existence of a "deep state" that operates in its own interests, often resisting directives from political appointees. He argues that blocking RFK's initiatives, particularly on vaccines, aligns with public sentiment, as many Americans do not support his views. Cohen emphasizes the complexities of navigating bureaucratic resistance and the potential for subverting the political process when necessary.

I'm in Washington DC outside an oyster restaurant to confront Robert Silvers, the undersecretary in the Biden administration, who was caught on hidden camera discussing Biden's cognitive decline. I'm dressed in a tuxedo after attending a gala. I approach Silvers, introduce myself as James O'Keefe, the investigative reporter, and show him the video where he talks about Biden's mental state. I ask why he isn't being honest with the American people about his comments. As the confrontation escalates, we are asked to leave the premises. I attempt to continue the conversation, but security intervenes.

Byron Cohen, a White House adviser, discusses the challenges RFK Jr. would face as HHS secretary, suggesting the bureaucracy could hinder his efforts. He explains that the administrative state can create deceptive commissions to delay decisions, such as studying vaccine safety, which can lead to years of inaction. Byron believes that subverting the will of the people is justified if it aligns with public sentiment, particularly regarding vaccines. He notes that while the American public may have elected Trump, many do not agree with RFK's views. Byron emphasizes that bureaucrats often resist changes that threaten their control, using tactics to slow down initiatives they oppose.

The piece discusses 'burrowing'—the process by which political appointees enter the permanent bureaucracy. It cites cases: individuals connected to Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, and Eric Holder ending up in Defense, FAA, and DOJ under Trump. Presidents appoint more than 3,000 political appointees, while the federal government employs roughly 2,300,000 in nonpolitical career roles. The series argues these burrowers may form part of a deep state and raises questions about their influence as the Trump administration seeks more accountability by reforming civil service protections. An RMG poll found that 75% of Washington DC based federal employees making $75 or more per year and who voted for Harris in November say they will not follow a lawful Trump order if they consider it bad policy. The project concludes that the series supports a goal to make permanent Washington more accountable to the people.

I caught a Pentagon advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, specializing in AI, coordinating a secret war room to counter Trump. This guy, Jamie Mannarino, worked for Hillary Clinton, then the FBI as a "spy hunter," and now advises on AI technologies that "don't yet exist." Mannarino was caught on hidden camera discussing these secret meetings and expressing his negative opinions about Trump. He even mentioned consulting with retired generals about what actions they could take to prevent certain potential presidential actions. Following this exposure, the Pentagon spokesperson stated they were not involved and that Mannarino was out of control and had been stopped. This is an example of the deep state attempting a coup.

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.

The deep state refers to career employees within the U.S. government and military who influence policy without being directly accountable to elected officials. Agencies like the FCC, CIA, SEC, and IRS have the power to enact regulations that can significantly impact our lives, often more than laws passed by Congress. These regulations, totaling 200,000 since 1975 and spanning 800,000 pages, demonstrate that the deep state is not a secret but a well-established reality. Unfortunately, these career employees cannot be easily fired, ensuring that political interests have limited influence over them. This situation highlights a concerning aspect of our governance that needs to be acknowledged.

I'm declining to be named in your story. I haven't given any quotes. My name is James O'Keefe. We have you on hidden camera talking about Elon Musk, Doge, and unlawful activities at Treasury. I encourage you to speak on the record. We have you on video saying government colleagues don't do much, and Doge targets us because it's easy. I'm a reporter. People deserve to know what you've said. Why did you share this with a stranger but not me? You specialize in foreign policy at the Treasury. What are you afraid of? It'll look bad when you won't speak to me, but you told a stranger everything. This is a major public policy issue. I'm running this story with or without you. I think the people need to know what's happening inside the government, including risks to national security.

The speaker discusses the concept of the deep state, explaining that it is not comprised of one individual but rather a machine or beast that goes beyond any single person. They use the example of the FBI to illustrate this point, stating that while many individuals who work there may be good people, they are part of a larger system that has its own culture and history of corruption. The speaker also discusses the decentralization of censorship, where the government delegates the task to administrative agencies, private sector executives, and AI algorithms. They argue that we are in a modern 1775 moment, where the real divide is between the managerial class and the citizen.

I'm a journalist investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent, now an advisor to the joint chiefs at the Pentagon, about his political activities and fundraising efforts with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and being a liar. He even claimed I needed his permission to record him, despite being in a one-party consent state. He denied saying things that I have on tape, including discussing plans after Trump wins. I questioned the ethics of his political involvement as a Pentagon advisor, and I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate to share sensitive information with strangers, even joking about whether I was a Russian spy.

We approached key figures in the investigation, but instead of helping us expose the truth, they launched an investigation against me. Five years later, Google informed me that the DOJ had surveilled me. The FBI and DOJ leadership lied during our meetings and later faced scrutiny for their actions. Gina Haspel, who oversaw the CIA during this period, allowed operations that fueled the Russiagate narrative. The deep state is extensive, involving many individuals across various sectors, not limited to one party. To dismantle it, we need to hold accountable those who lied and misused their positions, while also bringing in new leadership. The decline of mainstream media viewership reflects a growing public distrust, as people turn to alternative sources for information.

I'm a platform services manager for the Department of Homeland Security. I'm not thrilled about Kristi Noem's appointment. The truth is, we don't let political appointees get in our way. It's my job to filter things. By the time marching orders get to me and below, we can steady the ship. I feel bad for the GS fifteens because they have to deal with the crazy stuff. They have to kiss ass and re-word ideas. DHS could fall on Noem's head, and she wouldn't even know it. The secretaries can set priorities, but they can't tell us what to do. If we don't agree with the priorities, there's a lot of room for interpretation. We can filter the marching orders, like a septic tank. Also, my trans colleagues are freaking out because this administration is super anti-trans.

People often joke about the deep state, but it has real implications. Byron Cohen, a White House adviser, discusses how bureaucracy can slow down or block initiatives without notice. He suggests that creating deceptive commissions to study issues, like vaccine safety, can delay actions for years while giving the appearance of progress. He believes that subverting the will of the people can be justified if it aligns with the majority's views, particularly regarding controversial topics like vaccines. Byron Cohen, who has a PhD in population health sciences from Harvard, was recently involved in interagency research and development oversight at the White House. His LinkedIn profile was taken down just before this video was released.

Byron Cohen, a White House adviser, discusses the challenges RFK Jr. would face as HHS secretary, suggesting the bureaucracy could undermine him. He explains that the administrative state can create deceptive commissions to delay decisions, such as studying vaccine safety, which can lead to years of inaction. Byron acknowledges the existence of a "deep state," asserting that it acts in its own interests and can obstruct initiatives from political appointees. He believes that blocking RFK's policies, particularly on vaccines, aligns with public sentiment, even if it means subverting the political process. Byron emphasizes that the bureaucracy can resist directives, making it difficult for leaders like RFK to implement their agendas effectively.

I'm James O'Keefe, and I caught a White House advisor, Byron, on hidden camera discussing the "deep state." People joke about it, but it’s real to some degree. One way the bureaucracy slows things down is by creating commissions to study issues, which can delay progress for years. I also recorded him saying the bureaucracy could crush incoming leadership, like RFK Jr. Byron admitted the bureaucracy exists and should implement the policies of elected leaders while also advising them. He said he advises on research and development policy. To all the bureaucrats in Washington, you're on notice. Speak openly, or we'll record you. We're going to be recording you en masse.

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.