TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In November 2022, the speaker investigated a Muslims-only mosque and migrant shelter near the Tijuana wall. They discovered individuals from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other countries known for terrorist activities. These individuals, referred to as special interest aliens, were brought in without proper vetting. The speaker believes that the government is not conducting thorough screenings for these people. They also mention the recent influx of Haitians. Another report reveals that over 220,000 immigrants have been allowed to fly directly into the US from their home countries. The speakers express their frustration and call for criminal charges against those responsible, referring to the situation as an invasion and an act of treason against the country.

The speaker addressed the House Republicans' report on the Afghanistan withdrawal, calling it a partisan report that says little new. According to the speaker, the Trump administration's Doha Agreement mandated a complete U.S. withdrawal, including from Bagram Air Base, and released 5,000 Taliban fighters. This agreement demoralized the Afghan government and military. President Trump ordered a rushed exit by Christmas 2020. President Biden chose to abide by the agreement to end the war. The speaker refuted several claims in the report, stating that the Department of Defense prepositioned military units, the rapid collapse of Afghan forces was unanticipated, securing Bagram Air Base was impractical, U.S. equipment was not handed over to the Taliban but left behind by Afghan forces, and there was no deception from the current administration. The speaker stated that ending wars is difficult, but the withdrawal was conducted professionally. The speaker acknowledged the tragic loss of life, especially at Abbey Gate, and honored those who served in Afghanistan. The speaker concluded that with the war over, the nation can focus on other security interests.

Official A states that in 2022, the office found that president Biden's DHS allowed some Afghans into the country before they were fully vetted, including one who had been liberated from prison by the Taliban. Official A notes that over 50 known or suspected terrorists had entered the United States as a result of Biden administration screening or lack thereof, and that last month the director of national intelligence said that 2,000 Afghans in America may have ties to terrorism. Official A asks whether a formal vetting process was in place, and asserts that the department did not have a formal process at the start of the OAW. Official A repeats the figure and corrects it to 36,000, calling it astounding. Official B replies that CARE, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is the organization in question, stating that CARE was founded at a 1993 meeting and that they specifically state they are going to present themselves as a legitimate civil rights organization while furthering the mission of Hamas. Official A asks how much money CARE received from the federal government to shepherd Afghan parolees. Official B responds that CARE received $15,000,000 in California and more than $1,000,000 in Washington. Official A adds that when they check federal databases for CARE, they find nothing, and Official B explains that the money did not go directly from the federal government to CARE, but rather through an intermediary, and that this is how they’ve hidden the money. Official A states, “We need to find out where this money has gone. This is a scandal. This is corruption, and we've gotta figure out how taxpayer money has ended up in the hands of yet another organization terrorized.”

Speaker 0 describes the situation as not a lone incident but an intentional design to start an internal component of what he calls a color revolution, one among many to expect. Speaker 1 asks for clarification on what is meant by a color revolution, who is driving it against the United States, and who is in charge. Speaker 0 replies that a hard look back to 2016 under Obama is necessary and believes Obama is still in the mix, with John Brennan as the operational commander on the battlefield in the United States. He says there are indicators from Brennan’s statements and actions, and that Obama is part of the command structure. He mentions an international component he calls the axis of resistance, consisting of communists emanating from the CCP’s control and communists inside the United States, arguing that there are communists in Congress who voted in 1992 not to vote against socialism. He adds Islamists, narco cartels, and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, FARC, and the Cartel del Sol as part of this axis, with people at the “pincer” of it organizing and controlling the activities. He asserts the color revolutions in Ukraine as an example and claims the war there is a “total loser war” that must end. He says Trump must tell his team to ensure executive orders are implemented at all levels and emphasizes the phrase, “lawyers advise, leaders decide,” urging President Trump to gather all relevant agencies (CIA, DNI, Sec War, Sec State, Sec Commerce, and especially the Secretary of Homeland Security) and make a decision. He states that the color revolution is a long-term effort that accelerated after Trump’s 2016 victory, with ongoing actions described as economic warfare, cyber warfare, and political interference. He cites the New Virginia Majority, a communist movement inside the United States aiming to place communists in local government and school boards, and mentions contrived cultural shifts including Islamification in various parts of the country, including Florida, Dearborn, and Houston. He asserts Islam is not compatible with Christianity and Sharia law is not compatible with constitutional law. Speaker 1 agrees there were people who served their country; she supports removing those who served but opposes letting any of them into the United States, emphasizing a different culture. Speaker 2 agrees. Speaker 1 notes the large Muslim population spread across many regions, suggesting others could have taken Afghan refugees, but questions the appropriateness of bringing them in. Speaker 2 states it is not surprising that a CIA-trained individual who previously appeared untroubled could appear in Washington, D.C. to shoot at troops, and explains a broader pattern: old-school descendants became part of a strike force, loyal at one time but funded and equipped by the U.S., who were later abandoned during the Obama–Biden period. He describes withdrawal from bases and overnight equipment removal, followed by a lack of transition to self-sufficiency, leading to brought-in desperate fighters who may be paid to kill National Guard members. He asserts these events demonstrate a deep state pattern involving Biden, Obama, and Brennan.

In November 2022, the speaker visited a mosque and migrant shelter in Tijuana near the border wall. They met people from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and other countries. These individuals are known as special interest aliens and are not supposed to cross the border without proper screening. The speaker believes that the government is not effectively vetting these individuals. They also criticize the administration for allowing immigrants to fly directly from their home countries to the US. Another speaker calls for criminal charges against those responsible, referring to the situation as an invasion and treason against the country.

The speaker states that an historic flood of undocumented immigrants crossed the border during the first three years of the administration, with arrivals quadrupling from the last year of President Trump. The speaker asks if it was a mistake to loosen immigration policies. The other speaker responds that the policies proposed are about fixing a problem, not promoting one. The first speaker reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The other speaker claims that they have cut the flow of illegal immigration by half, as well as the flow of fentanyl by half, but that Congress needs to act to fix the problem.

As president, the speaker instituted national security travel bans to keep terrorists, jihadists, and violent extremists out of the country. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden revoked the travel ban immediately on their first day in office, and they have let terrorists pour across the borders like never before. The speaker claims to have never seen numbers like this. The speaker states they will keep America safe and keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the country.

During a hearing, Senator questions Mr. Morant from Homeland Security about the number of non-American citizens who have entered the country illegally or claimed asylum since President Biden took office. Mr. Morant and others admit they do not know the exact numbers. The Senator suggests there may be around 8 million individuals, with potentially half of them being children. However, the exact figures remain unknown. The Senator continues to inquire about how many of these individuals are still in the country, how many have claimed asylum but failed to attend their hearings, and how many have been deported. No one has the answers to these questions.

An Afghan national, who worked for the CIA in Afghanistan, was arrested for allegedly planning an election day terror plot. He was brought to the US after the collapse of Afghanistan. The reporter states that the agency claims it was through the SIV program, but the State Department denies this, stating he was never issued an SIV or immigrant visa and was paroled into the US by DHS. The reporter asks the secretary how the man was brought to the US, what screening he underwent, and what he applied for. The secretary declines to answer, stating he is there to discuss disaster relief efforts. The reporter presses, noting conflicting information from the agency and State Department. The reporter asks for assurance that appropriate steps have been taken to secure the country against threats, questioning whether the man was radicalized before or after entering the US.

Speaker 1: Mentions there are many things she wishes people knew, but mostly with the administration she wishes people knew that “we're letting in criminals daily.” Speaker 2: States the big issue for the region is migration, noting “we poured a lot of money into Central America,” amounting to “4,000,000,000 over four years,” but migrants are now coming from elsewhere, including Venezuela. Speaker 3: Asks, “So what is the end goal?” Speaker 1: Asks why aren’t they allowing children, noting “a lot of children travel to The United States, David.” Speaker 2: Explains aid goes to female presence in Mexico, training women, and mentions working with gender issues in Pakistan, aiming to recruit, retain, and advance more women in law enforcement. Asks whether US taxpayers’ money should be spent in “our country on this issue,” implying women may not care about certain aspects. Speaker 2: Asks how close Secretary Lincoln is to him, “five degrees separation,” and notes migration is a niche industry that flies under the radar; the average American doesn’t know what they do. Speaker 1: Thanks the chairman, ranking member, and members for the opportunity to testify. Speaker 2: Mentions upcoming briefings in two weeks on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill. Speaker 0: States migration is the big issue for the Hill and asks, “Stop migration. What are we doing to stop migration?” Speaker 1: Responds that he’s not accountable for that and says, “We do stuff,” referencing the root causes strategy, which is about giving money to support and help people at the origins of migrants so they feel they can stay there instead of migrating. It’s “Central America, basically.” He says they poured a lot of money into Central America, and again mentions “4,000,000,000 over four years.” Speaker 2: Asks if it’s doing anything; response: yes, for them, but migrants are now coming from elsewhere like Venezuela, and acknowledges that outcome looks bad for the administration and for politics in general. Speaker 3: Seeks the end goal and asks again why there’s a limit on who’s allowed in. Speaker 1: Cites changes in demographics in the United States; notes that Nebraskans are traditional Americans not leftists, while Latin Americans are described as leftists, framing it as a system to try to change demographics.

The speaker claims the Biden administration allowed people from prisons, jails, and mental institutions worldwide to enter the U.S. They allege these individuals included gang leaders and drug lords who were expelled from their home countries and sent to the U.S. border. The speaker applauds the troops for protecting federal property and personnel, and for upholding federal law. They state the troops are protecting ICE agents and the police in Los Angeles. The speaker says the head of the Los Angeles police acknowledged needing the help provided.

Was the withdrawal from Afghanistan successful? The evacuation led by the Department of Defense and State was historic in scale. However, when asked how many evacuees were vetted before boarding flights to the U.S., the response was unclear. It was stated that 100% of individuals arriving in the U.S. had been screened, but specific numbers for those boarding planes in Afghanistan were not provided. The claim was made that over 99% were fully vetted before boarding, but the speaker could not confirm details about the vetting process at Kabul Airport. Ultimately, there was a lack of clarity on the exact vetting numbers prior to boarding.

The discussion centers on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the vetting of evacuees who boarded planes. The opening exchange frames the withdrawal as a historic evacuation led by the Department of Defense and the Department of State. The senator asks specifically how many of the evacuees were vetted before they got on the plane. The official responds by stating it is the policy to vet and screen evacuees for the United States. When the senator presses for a numerical figure, the official first indicates uncertainty about Afghanistan-specific cases but reiterates the policy. The senator clarifies the question: for those who got on the C-17s and other planes, how many were vetted before they boarded, by American officials? The official replies that for those brought to the United States, it is their policy to vet and screen 100% of them. The senator pushes for a precise, testable number, asking if the answer is a sworn 100%. The official reiterates the policy and adds that all of the individuals who arrived in the United States have been screened. The senator presses further, asking for the exact percentage, and the official begins to provide a quantified estimate: well over 99% of them were fully screened and vetted before they boarded a flight. The senator seeks sources for that information, but the official continues, noting that if any were not screened before boarding, they would have been screened and vetted while in flight, and if any derogatory information was found, they would be placed in immigration enforcement proceedings and removal. The senator then asks directly, under oath, whether the 99% figure refers to all people who got on the planes in Afghanistan. The official clarifies that precision is important and notes that the question being asked concerns planes from transit countries, the third country scenario, rather than the specific Afghan departures being discussed at that moment. The senator emphasizes the focus on people who got on the planes and left the chaotic airport, asking again for the percentage vetted before they got on those planes. The official ultimately asserts that he cannot speak to those planes from transit countries, but reiterates that the discussion about those who arrived in the United States involves screening and vetting, and that those arrivals have been screened. The exchange ends with the senator acknowledging the limitation, and the official indicating that he cannot provide a detailed accounting for the transpiring circumstances of planes from transit countries, while maintaining that those who arrived in the United States were screened.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Speaker 0 states that voters in Pennsylvania and across the country consider immigration a key election issue, specifically the influx of illegal immigrants from over 150 countries. Speaker 0 asks how many illegal immigrants Speaker 1's administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years, suggesting a number like 1,000,000 or 3,000,000. Speaker 1 agrees immigration is a topic of discussion. Speaker 1 states that the U.S. has a broken immigration system that needs repair. Speaker 0 claims that 6,000,000 people have been released into the country.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on leadership and promises, noting that public faith is essential to recover in the polls. They reference Speaker 1’s pledge to “smash the gangs” and point out that small boat crossings and the use of asylum hotels have continued to rise, asking if the mission is succeeding and whether the promise to end asylum hotels by the end of the parliament (2029) will be met. Speaker 1 responds that asylum hotels peaked at 400 and are now about 197, with some of that decline occurring before they came to power. The criticization centers on the previous government failing to process asylum claims, which allowed tens of thousands to arrive without determination. This, Speaker 1 argues, created a growing pool needing accommodation, making the hotel system “absurd.” The only long-term solution, he says, is to process those claims and determine who should stay and who should be removed. He claims they have removed 50,000 since taking office—the largest number in the best part of a decade—and reiterates a commitment to ending asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, though he notes it was not a fulfilled part of the manifesto. Speaker 0 presses again, asking for progress and whether the target will be met this year, emphasizing taxpayer frustration due to the last government’s mess and the tens of thousands in limbo awaiting decisions. Speaker 1 clarifies that there is no fixed date yet; he wants the timeline brought forward and accelerated, but he does not want to set a date until the team is confident it can be met. He asserts that the evidence of progress will appear in coming months, and, as they move into 2026, there will be visible steps toward closing the hotels. He stresses that the only lasting reduction in asylum hotels will come from swift processing of claims, ensuring those without a right to be here are removed, and that the pursuit of this objective must be brought forward, not delayed.

Chair recognizes the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Has there been a parole program of this magnitude recently? There have been many parole uses historically, some large and some small. This is not unique; the parole authority has existed for decades. The CHNV process is part of a broader border management strategy that includes enforcement and lawful immigration pathways. Why this specific program for four countries? There was a need for meaningful lawful pathways for certain populations. Can someone paroled under this program sponsor another? Yes, 86% of participants are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, but a migrant can also sponsor someone else. This approach is part of a comprehensive strategy for enduring border management, which requires collaboration between various immigration systems.

Speaker 0 raises a concern about a security risk and asks what reassurances can be given about screening and efforts to prevent such individuals from entering. The speaker then asserts that no one is coming into the United States who has not been through a thorough screening and background check process. They note that there are many individuals who have not been through that process and have gone to lily pad countries as that process has been completed. The statement adds that this does not mean there is a flag attached to those cases; it means they have not completed their...

An interviewer states that undocumented immigrant arrivals quadrupled during the first three years of the speaker's administration compared to the last year of President Trump's term and asks if loosening immigration policies was a mistake. The speaker responds that the problem is long-standing and that solutions have been offered since day one. The interviewer asks again if allowing the increase was a mistake. The speaker says the proposed policies are about fixing, not promoting, the problem. The interviewer reiterates that the numbers quadrupled. The speaker claims that due to their actions, they have cut the flow of illegal immigration and fentanyl by half, but congressional action is needed to fix the problem.

We spent $9 billion to resettle around 90,000 Afghan refugees since the fall of Afghanistan, averaging about $100,000 per person, which seems excessive. My question is, why are we providing any funds when we don't even have an embassy or diplomats in Afghanistan? The funds we provide come through partners like UN agencies and NGOs. We could apply that reasoning to all foreign aid, including funds going to foreign adversaries.

The speaker stated to the committee that the Biden administration let unaccompanied minors into the country without keeping track of them. The administration provided these children with a hotline to call if they had trouble with their sponsor families. The speaker claimed that 65,000 calls to this hotline, which was designated to protect these children, went unanswered.

According to Speaker 1, the open border is the biggest national security vulnerability the country has ever seen. CBP data indicates that 1,272 Iranian nationals were released into the country under Joe Biden, compared to zero under the Trump administration. Speaker 1 claims that under President Trump, the U.S. had the most secure border in history, preventing the release of special interest aliens. While over 10,000,000 people crossed the border under Joe Biden, the biggest concern is the 2,000,000 known gotaways. Speaker 1 states that these individuals crossed undetected because Border Patrol was overwhelmed, creating a significant national security vulnerability.

In the video, Speaker 0 states that around 1.4 million people without legal basis were expelled from the US last year, the highest number in recent history. Speaker 1 challenges this by pointing out that only 72,000 illegal migrants were removed in 2022, compared to 267,000 in 2019. Speaker 1 also highlights that border encounters have increased from 458,000 in 2019 to 2.3 million under the current administration. Speaker 0 responds by mentioning the success of their approach in providing lawful pathways and consequences for irregular border arrivals. They also mention that the public health authority in 2020 limited removals.

The speaker references CHNV parole programs from the previous administration and says organizations here sponsored many individuals from certain countries, sometimes without knowing who they were sponsoring: 'They did not know necessarily the individuals they were sponsoring.' He states, 'They were doing almost a blanket sponsorship.' 'That is fraud.' 'That's something that should have been caught.' He says, 'I know the previous administration was aware of how the sponsorships were happening, and, no action was taken.' 'I'm glad to see that we're taking action.' The speaker indicates there was knowledge of the sponsorships and lack of action, and asserts that action is underway.

Speaker 0 explains that transparency has been lacking and that tracking money through organizations is difficult. He says there is now at least a parameter for opacity, and that this parameter must be solidified to understand how money moves internally—through contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and networks of friends and associates. He predicts that over the next five years criminal activity will be uncovered as these money flows are examined more closely. Speaker 1 adds that there is a distinction between the border situation and how funds were dispersed north and south. As NGOs realize their federal funding is drying up, he questions whether there is enough momentum or private-sector money to sustain them, and what will happen to groups that no longer receive taxpayer dollars. Speaker 0 responds that hundreds of NGOs will close, noting that hundreds were created specifically for the mass migration crisis—serving as bus companies or as handlers at the border to assist migrants. He implies these organizations were established to address a surge and suggests their disappearance will follow as government funding wanes. Speaker 2 raises the issue of blanket preemptive pardons and asks if there should be an investigation into how the large influx of people—10 to 15 million—came about, characterizing the situation as not chaotic but well thought through. He asks if a thorough investigation is warranted. Speaker 0 calls for a full-throated investigation, including a presidential committee if needed, targeted at the DOJ under the new FBI director and the Attorney General. He argues there should be a focus on the political appointee class rather than only high-level officials like Mayorkas. He references his book, Overrun, Chapter Four, asserting that the situation was orchestrated and engineered at the political appointee level within the Domestic Policy Council, the DOJ, and all DHS agencies. He identifies people brought in from the NGO world, such as Tyler Moran, Esther Olavaria, Lucas Guten Tag, and Amy Pope, claiming they orchestrated the effort and undermined federal law and statutes that require faithful execution of laws. Speaker 2 adds that hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to the former NGO employers, implying a link between the orchestration and financial rewards. The dialogue ends with a continued assertion of movement toward an expansive influx, described as an invasion, and a call for accountability at the administrative and policy-making levels.