TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The former FBI director found a hidden room in the Hoover Building containing documents and computer hard drives that James Comey and others concealed. The room was locked, and access was restricted to prevent discovery. The speaker's team is currently investigating the contents of the room. The speaker says people want them to make arrests, but the speaker wants to run a methodical investigation.

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

The speaker mentioned that the defense attorney was upset about having to listen to a defense motion in court. The judge had to ask the attorney to calm down as he was losing control. The speaker believes that the unveiling of evidence, including details about the Mar a Lago raid and an operations order, has angered those involved in the case. They feel that Judge Cannon is exposing the corruption and misconduct in the investigation from the beginning.

Attorney General Garland was questioned about overruling FBI agents in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He stated he approved the decision but did not make it. The senator cited a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents were against the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland deflected the accusations, questioning the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired. Translation: Attorney General Garland was questioned about his involvement in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He approved the decision but did not make it. The senator referenced a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents opposed the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland questioned the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired.

In this video, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their testimony in court regarding a memo outlining potential investigations. Speaker 0 argues that it was misleading and wrong to testify about possibilities and maybes. Speaker 1 defends their answers, stating that they were discussing the memo and its purpose. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's claims, suggesting that the Democrat district attorney was excited about pursuing investigations against Ken Paxton. Speaker 1 disagrees with the characterization and explains that the feds waved them off. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's credibility and suggests they would never engage in criminal activity. Speaker 1 denies this and clarifies their stance. The video ends with Speaker 0 highlighting that Speaker 1 applied for a job at the AG's office after writing the memo, with a letter of recommendation from Margaret Moore.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

According to the speaker, Barr stated he personally watched a videotape and concluded a death was a suicide because nobody went in or out of the room. The speaker believes Barr is covering something up, questioning why the Attorney General would personally watch the tape instead of delegating. The speaker also argues it's illogical to assume someone could enter, kill someone, and exit undetected due to the high levels of security. Furthermore, the speaker claims that investigators would say 7 to 14 people on the other side of the door could have been responsible.

The speaker asked for evidence of Steve's innocence, and a call between two individuals was provided. In the call, one person thanks the other for their support and expresses excitement for the future. The second person mentions a request for tokens and ETH worth a certain amount, but offers to give even more. The first person apologizes for being on their first cup of coffee. The speaker explains that this call is the alleged extortion incident, where the government claims Steve extorted the other person despite being offered more than he asked for.

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.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

James O'Keefe stated that a girl who works for him recorded someone. The person recorded was at Meta and was talking to someone else. After O'Keefe said "oh," the person hung up the phone.

The speaker repeatedly questions why the FBI is always referenced for information. They press the other speaker, who claims to have communicated with the FBI, about details of an investigation. Despite being asked about shell casings and explosives, the speaker deflects, insisting on referring to the FBI for answers. The questioning becomes more intense, with accusations of withholding information and covering up. The speaker continues to evade direct answers, emphasizing the ongoing criminal investigation.

The witness testified that they were at the Justice Department when Bill Barr, who was the attorney general at the time, called Tony Schafer. The call was on speakerphone, and about six or seven other people were able to hear the conversation. Barr was described as irate and told Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response was described as sufficiently strong, stating that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The conversation was not long but was agitated.

Speaker 1, Julie Kelly, asserts that the new leadership at the DOJ and FBI may not be aware of who Jocelyn Ballantyne is, describing her as lead prosecutor who "led the team of government lawyers, DOJ lawyers, who went after the Proud Boys" and labeling her as "among the worst of the worst." Kelly references her experience covering the Proud Boys trial in 2023 and states that Ballantyne was near the top of Kelly’s list of j-six prosecutors who should be fired. Kelly recounts a scandal from the Proud Boys trial involving a spreadsheet of FBI correspondence in which agents discussed destroying evidence, surveilling, and eavesdropping on communications between Proud Boys who were in pretrial detention federal prison and their attorneys. She notes that the defense, during the trial, discovered this spreadsheet accidentally and intended to use the information as evidence. According to Kelly, the defense attempted to question an FBI agent who was a government witness and planned to present what they found in the spreadsheet. She describes that, as the defense began to present this evidence, Judge Tim Kelly—who, she says, is good friends with Jocelyn Ballantyne and had worked with her in the DC U.S. attorney’s office on cases—abruptly cut off the questioning. A day or two later, Ballantyne went into court and claimed that the communication represented classified secrets and should be withheld from the jury, a move Kelly characterizes as being aligned with Ballantyne’s actions. Kelly asserts that Judge Kelly went along with this claim to withhold the information. Kelly emphasizes that Ballantyne led the team of prosecutors against the Proud Boys, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. She notes that Ballantyne then pursued severe sentences, including some defendants receiving life terms, such as Lindsay Attario, who Kelly says ended up with a twenty-two year prison sentence before those sentences were commuted by the president. Speaker 0 interjects multiple times with questions and expressions of disbelief, urging Julie Kelly to explain how such actions could be true and challenging the notion that Ballantyne’s conduct was inappropriate, while Kelly maintains that the described conduct and the actions taken by Ballantyne and the DOJ were part of the Proud Boys prosecutions and related cases.

I was told that Mr. Kopin admitted to killing Donovan Thomas. The speaker refused to reveal the source of this information, leading to a heated exchange about attorney-client privilege. The speaker was given 5 minutes to disclose the source but continued to withhold it, resulting in a threat of contempt. The conversation revolved around concerns of coercion, witness intimidation, and ex parte communications. The speaker's refusal to cooperate led to escalating tension and accusations.

Speaker 0: "What I'm saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents. There's a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. Alright? Mhmm. You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen." Speaker 1: "I'll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI's most wanted list. There are only two ways that happens. You die or your informant." Speaker 1: "Put that aside. Under congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when senator Cruz asked her, flat out, were there federal agents involved with January 6? And she said, quote, senator, I can't answer that at this time." Speaker 1: "The reason she said I can't answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russergate with Christopher Steelehauper and everybody else. It's the same narrative, and and I'm telling you they were there." Speaker 0: "You're so you're saying that she said I can't answer that because the answer is yes Yeah. And that would compromise whatever their operation was. Exactly."

The witness testified that they were present when Tony Schafer received a phone call from then-Attorney General Bill Barr. The call was on speakerphone, and 6 or 7 other people were able to hear the conversation. According to the witness, Barr was irate and told Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response indicated that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The witness characterized the conversation as agitated.

The speaker mentioned that there were several steps that were intentionally delayed by the Department of Justice. When asked if they had encountered this situation before, they replied that they had not.

Speaker discussed frustration with Judge Cannon during hearings related to special counsel Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump. Prosecutor David Harbach got visibly upset, pounding on podium and clapping hands in anger. Judge had to ask him to calm down. The special counsel team is upset that evidence is being unveiled, revealing details about the Mar a Lago raid. They are angry at Judge Cannon for making this information public, showing the investigation's corruption. One of the prosecutors usually keeps a cooler head.

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

The speaker states that the FBI settled two lawsuits, agreeing to give Peter Strzok $1,200,000 and Lisa Page $800,000. The other speaker believes the Department of Justice was involved, not the FBI, but will confirm if the FBI had to sign off on the settlement. The speaker references Lisa Page saying to Peter Strzok, "Trump's not ever going to become president," to which Strzok replied, "No. He won't. We will stop it." The speaker wants to know if the FBI signed off on the settlement and who signed off on it. The speaker asks if the other speaker or Chris Ray signed off on it. The speaker states that Merrick Garland must have agreed to the settlement. The other speaker will direct the Department of Justice to answer these questions.

The speaker can't explain why Attorney General Barr used the word "spying" to describe the FBI's actions, suggesting Barr may have used it because the president does, which is disappointing. The speaker defends sending an investigator undercover to meet with Papadopoulos, who was connected to the Trump campaign, as a reasonable step based on information from the Australians about Papadopoulos's contact with the Russians. The speaker doesn't recall specifically approving the undercover operation but knew the team was trying to verify the information. As director, the speaker was regularly briefed on the investigation but didn't run it. The speaker wanted to keep it closely held and authorized the team to use their authorities to investigate. The speaker neither confirms nor denies knowing about the undercover operation targeting Papadopoulos, deferring to the FBI for confirmation and questioning the source of the news article reporting it.

Senator Chuck Grassley alleged on the Senate floor that there are 17 recordings of an informant from Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company. He claimed that 15 of these recordings are of the informant talking to Hunter Biden, while 2 are of him talking to Joe Biden. When questioned, the FBI representative refused to comment on the recordings. Senator Grassley accused the FBI of damaging the institution by not disclosing whether there is credible evidence of the president taking a $5,000,000 bribe. He also criticized the lack of hearings on these allegations and accused the FBI of stonewalling. The FBI representative maintained that they are operating within their parameters and denied stonewalling. Senator Grassley concluded by stating that the FBI believes it is unaccountable to Congress and the American people.

A senator questions Deputy Director Abadi about allegations of a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abadi refuses to comment on the existence of a report or 17 voice recordings related to the allegations. The senator accuses the FBI of stonewalling and damaging its reputation. Abadi maintains that they operate within established parameters and will work with the committee to provide information. The senator criticizes the FBI for not being accountable and demands the release of the report and recordings. Abadi avoids directly answering questions about the investigation and the informant's reliability. The senator expresses concern that the evidence is being covered up by Democrats and the media. The exchange becomes heated and ends with the senator calling Abadi's behavior disgraceful.