TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Senator Alex Padilla is questioning the secretary about the protection of criminals. He also wants to know how many ICE agents have been doxxed and targeted for performing their duties.

A man confronts a congressman, questioning his prior support for Kilmar Braco Garcia, who has been charged with facilitating the transport of illegal immigrants. He asks if the congressman still supports Garcia and whether he believes Garcia is entitled to due process, given his alleged illegal status. The man repeatedly asks if Garcia entered the country legally and accuses the congressman of being made a fool. He references accusations that Garcia beat his wife and questions whether the congressman supports "illegal gangbangers" in Maryland. He asks the congressman to condemn human smuggling and accuses him of being a "fascist." He questions whether the congressman believes in due process and demands to know how Garcia was allowed into the United States. He asks if the congressman is retracting his support for Garcia. The man then asks if the congressman supports deporting criminal illegal immigrants, referencing Elon Musk. He presses the congressman on whether he supports removing criminal illegal immigrants from the country.

A reporter asks a congresswoman if her promise of "hell to pay" if representatives MacIver, Amededez, and Coleman are prosecuted constitutes a threat to Tom Hellman and Kristen Young. The congresswoman denies any personal threat of violence, stating she has been an effective advocate and there are political consequences to actions. The reporter asks why the congresswoman thinks Democrats are above the law, and if she will incite a riot if the representatives are found guilty of a crime. The reporter states that Coleman assaulted a police officer while doing her constitutional oversight duties. The congresswoman states Republicans are not above the law. The reporter accuses the congresswoman of blocking his phone and touching him, which she denies.

The speaker criticizes the Secretary for allowing a criminal into the country illegally, giving him a work permit, and not prosecuting him for a crime against a child. The speaker accuses the Secretary of lying to Congress and the public. The Secretary responds by expressing confidence in justice prevailing in the criminal case. The speaker implies that the Secretary may not receive a fair trial.

Congressman Raskin was confronted by a journalist named Nick about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom Raskin had initially supported. Nick asked about Garcia's entry into the United States and whether it was illegal. Raskin did not answer the questions, calling Nick a moron and a fascist. Speaker 0 stated that Raskin conducted himself poorly, noting that "they" had a love affair with Garcia until Chuck Schumer stopped the visits. Speaker 0 criticized the lack of opposition research, citing court documents about Garcia's interactions with his wife and domestic violence. Speaker 1 stated that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

A person says they had a good time. A Republican congressman appears and says that now that they're in charge, they're rounding up illegals. He is told that a woman he is targeting was born in the US and is a citizen, but he says he doesn't care because she looks like one of them. He says she'll have lots of company when she's in prison in El Salvador.

My district is really suffering under the pressure of the border crisis. Why won't you address it? Get out of my way. Get your hands off me. What is wrong with you? Are you talking to the Biden administration about fixing the border? Get off of me. You asked her to touch me on the stairs. I did not touch you, I have it on video.

Speaker 0 asks if Democrats risk playing into the president's hands by focusing on the Kilmaro Burgo Garcia case. Speaker 1 responds that they don't know of any Democrat who defended Garcia. They claim Garcia was falsely arrested and removed from the country. They allege "they" are making up things about Garcia, such as associating him with MS 13 or claiming he coordinated the January 6 attack, even though he has never been prosecuted or convicted of any crime.

The speaker believes Carrie Lake will be the next senator from Arizona. Lake is running against Ruben Gallejo, who the speaker describes as horrible, an open borders maniac, and a defund the police maniac. The speaker claims Gallejo shouldn't be allowed to run against Lake because she is incredible, tough, smart, and has heart. The speaker says Lake is running against someone who cannot carry her shoes and predicts a big victory for her. The speaker states that if they win Arizona, which they are expected to do, they will win the presidency, and Carrie Lake has to be part of that victory. The speaker adds that Lake has been a newscaster for 22 years and is solid as a rock, while her opponent is a loser.

The video features a confrontation between a speaker, Ben Berkowitz, and members of the organization No More Deaths. Berkowitz accuses them of aiding and abetting cartel members and inviting an invasion into the country. He also criticizes Catholic Charities for profiting from human suffering. The conversation becomes heated, with insults exchanged between Berkowitz and the organization members. The video ends with Berkowitz expressing his mission to save the country from left-wing communists.

Congresswoman Crockett is questioned about using taxpayer-funded private security. The questioner alleges that Crockett initiated a physical altercation and asks for an apology. Crockett does not respond or apologize.

Senator Alex Padilla is questioning the secretary about the protection of criminals. He also wants to know how many ICE agents have been doxxed and targeted for performing their duties.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 and the mainstream media of covering for a "vicious gang" that has taken the lives of American women. Speaker 1 claims individuals can be classified based on tattoos and streetwear, leading to deportation to El Salvador. Speaker 0 refutes this, stating the Department of Homeland Security and its agents use a "litany of criteria" to ensure individuals qualify as "foreign terrorists" for deportation. Speaker 0 asserts the president authorized a mass deportation campaign targeting "illegal criminal aliens" and defends the credibility of agents risking their lives, while Speaker 1 questions their credibility. Speaker 0 repeats the accusation of covering for a "vicious gang."

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 is on Fresno Mountain near the border wall, which they say would have been completed under President Trump but was halted by Joe Biden, allowing cartels to exploit the openings. Border patrol agents are present due to armed cartel scouts on the mountain, carrying long guns, possibly AK-47s. The speaker claims to be positioned between the border patrol and Mexico, with armed cartel members nearby. They believe the cartels are getting desperate and testing limits, operating in areas without a wall. The speaker alleges the cartels have been given $12 billion per year by Joe Biden and the Democrats and are ready to fight. They advocate for military intervention to combat the cartels and hold accountable those aiding them.

A congressman is asked if he filed impeachment articles against President Trump to get out of nearly $800,000 of campaign debt, given his history of scamming people. He is asked if he is scamming the American people. The congressman responds that there have been unconstitutional activities that need to be addressed. He is then questioned again about his history of scamming people and his campaign debt. Finally, he is told that if he hates President Trump so much, he should go back to India.

The speaker states that, according to the Trump administration, cartels have been labeled a foreign terrorist organization. The speaker then asks for a response to this designation and a message for Donald Trump.

Congresswoman Crockett is questioned about using taxpayer-funded private security. The questioner claims Crockett initiated physical contact and asks for an apology. Crockett does not respond or apologize.

First speaker: Calls the indictment unjust and says intimidation tactics have been pervasive, with weeks showing different members seeking sanctuary in hopes of intimidating and distracting from the Epstein files. They look forward to their day in court to prove themselves and state the truth. If Congress becomes about intimidation and scare tactics, especially attacking minorities, they will keep fighting for the district. They have received much support and will continue fighting until the district gets fair prices, housing, and fair representation in Congress. They note that those who hate the fight will come for them. They urge some colleagues to step down or resign, arguing they weren’t elected by those who are in the district. They insist they will keep fighting for the people and work to ensure only those who elected them make decisions. They reiterate that they are here for the people. Second speaker: Questions about the investigation into the congresswoman’s families, stating that this is part of congressional duties. They say the congresswoman is under investigation for congressional ethics regarding violations of campaign finances and assert that she must answer to the people of her district.

The speaker believes Carrie Lake will be the next senator from Arizona. He says Lake is running against Ruben Gallejo, who he describes as a "rubber stamp" and an "open borders maniac" who wants to defund the police. The speaker claims Gallejo shouldn't even be allowed to run against Lake because she is "incredible," "tough," "smart," and has "heart." He says Lake is running against someone who "cannot carry your shoes" and predicts a big victory. He states that if they win Arizona, which he expects, they will win the presidency, and Carrie Lake needs to be part of that victory. He adds that Lake has been a newscaster for 22 years and is "solid as a rock," while her opponent is a "freaking loser."

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

Congresswoman Crockett is asked about a "Tesla takedown call" where she allegedly called for violence on the 29th. The interviewer asks her to clarify her comments. The interviewer then asks if Congresswoman Crockett will condemn violence.

Senator Alex Padilla stated he has questions for the secretary regarding violent criminals. Another speaker is concerned about ICE agents being targeted and doxxed for doing their job. They specifically asked how many ICE agents have been doxxed.

Congressman Raskin was confronted by a journalist named Nick about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom Raskin had previously supported. Nick asked about Garcia's entry into the United States and whether it was illegal. Raskin did not answer the questions, calling Nick a moron and a fascist. Speaker 0 stated that Raskin conducted himself poorly, noting that "they" had a love affair with Garcia until Chuck Schumer stopped the visits. Speaker 0 added that "they" chose Garcia without doing opposition research, citing court documents about domestic violence. Speaker 1 stated that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.