TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 respects the right of people to vote for the president. However, it is questioned why, for the first time in American history, a president won every swing state while also being best friends with and having their largest donation from a man who owns and runs the Internet. It is hoped that this will be investigated to determine if it was an anomaly. It is curious, especially since Kamala Harris was filling up stadiums with supporters, while Donald Trump was not. As an American and believer in democracy, Speaker 1 hopes to look at all the reasons why this happened in the country.

The speaker admits to being scared to cover two specific topics: the 2020 election and the UFO story. They acknowledge that there may be some merit to the claims made about the election and that some of the ideas about UFOs are dark and difficult to understand. The speaker believes that the government has known about non-human entities for a long time and that there is evidence to support this. They also discuss the government's reluctance to disclose this information due to fear of scaring people. The speaker understands the impulse to hide such radical and heavy truths but still believes in the importance of truth and disclosure.

Do you have any doubts that Joe Biden had the necessary electoral votes to be elected president in 2020? I accept the results and acknowledge Joe Biden as president. However, from my experience as an advocate in Pennsylvania, I witnessed various issues. While I accept the outcome, I believe we should all prioritize election integrity and ensure our elections are free and fair, adhering to the rules and laws. I think that question deserves a simple yes or no, and your lengthy response suggests you weren't prepared to answer directly.

Denial of election results is common, with examples like Hillary Clinton calling the 2016 election illegitimate despite conceding. Many Democrats continue to deny the legitimacy of that election. The topic of election fraud is often taboo, leading to labels like "election denier," similar to being called an "anti-vaxxer" for questioning vaccine safety. There's a consensus that election fraud exists; no one believes it's completely absent. Concerns arose during the 2020 election, particularly with mail-in ballots and unauthorized legislative actions. Instances of ballot tampering and irregularities were reported. Comparisons to historical figures like Hitler are being made in political rhetoric, highlighting the extreme nature of current discourse.

The speaker claims to have won the 2020 election "by a lot." They suggest reviewing tapes and "truth to vote" which allegedly shows ballot box stuffing. They also mention "51 agents" and "FBI Twitter." The speaker alleges cheating in the election, citing "all of the stuff ballots" and the "51 intelligence agents." They claim recounts were not "real recounts." They state Wisconsin "practically admitted it was rigged" and that other states are doing the same. When told a case review found fewer than 475 cases of voter fraud in six battleground states, the speaker claims "they didn't look at the right things," alleging fake ballots. They maintain the election was "very rigged." The speaker believes they are "winning very well" in the upcoming election, citing a recent poll.

Speaker 1 hesitates when covering government cover-ups because they can be dangerous, unlike topics like Bigfoot or UFOs. Speaker 1 considers themself a patriot, pro-military, and pro-law enforcement, but also anti-war and pro-criminal justice reform. They value fairness and transparency and would like to think the government is good. However, their journey has shown them that it is mostly not, as it is made of flawed and selfish men. Justifications can be made for doing terrible things to stay ahead of terrible people. Speaker 1 says collateral damage is just part of it, such as giving settlements to people to stay quiet for national security.

I was advised early in my political career to avoid discussing the forensic audit, the 2020 election, distancing myself from Trump, and questioning COVID vaccines or mandates. I disregarded that advice, visited the forensic audit site, and began addressing election corruption. Now, more evidence is emerging daily, and people are starting to catch up with these issues.

The speaker discusses the risks surrounding the upcoming election. They highlight Donald Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power and his fear mongering about mail-in ballots. The speaker mentions that the election results may not be finalized on November 3rd, leading to potential disagreements and court cases. They emphasize the importance of taking Trump's statements seriously, particularly his comments about getting rid of ballots and questioning their manipulation. The speaker concludes by mentioning the significance of believing authoritarian figures when they make statements.

The transcript presents a series of claims about foreign interference, voting-system vulnerabilities, and alleged cover-ups related to the 2020 U.S. elections. - A 2020 FBI intelligence memo warned that China might have been sending fake driver’s licenses into the U.S. to produce fake mail-in ballots to help Joe Biden win. The memo’s integrity was questioned because the FBI reportedly called the intelligence back, and the agencies were asked to destroy the report, allegedly to avoid negative optics for Trump and Biden. The claim is that the licenses intercepted by Customs and Border Protection in Chicago corroborated the intel, yet no investigation followed. It is further stated that the FBI’s handling was intended to prevent leak before the election that China preferred Biden. - A 60 Minutes segment featuring Chris Krebs, then head of Homeland Security Cybersecurity Division, purportedly stated there were no foreign intrusions in the 2020 election and that it was a perfectly clean election. The transcript asserts this was later shown to be false, noting: - A 2021 indictment of Iranians in Manhattan for interfering with the election and hacking a state database to obtain voter IDs for an influence operation against the U.S. election. - Colorado-specific allegations include: - From June onward, passwords (seventy-six of them) from 63 of 64 Colorado counties’ secretary of state bios/passwords were publicly accessible on a site, implying broad exposure. The speaker accuses Secretary of State Jenna Griswold of knowing about the leak during a trial and not informing clerks, and asserts she should be held to account. - The speaker asserts ongoing concerns about leaked passwords for Dominion machines, suggesting potential compromises across other states and tying this to a broader cartel narrative involving Arizona, Michigan, and Dominion’s Colorado headquarters in Denver, with a note that Dominion is also connected to Serbia. - Mentions a video by Gary Brunson and references to a 30-year CIA whistleblower, linking the events back to Venezuela (Hugo Chávez) and to Patrick Byrne, suggesting a broader international corruption thread. - The transcript then asserts a second, explicit foreign operation: - In August 2020, three and a half months before the votes, the FBI believed China had begun a mass operation to produce fake U.S. driver’s licenses, arrange to bring Chinese citizens into the U.S. with the intent of obtaining fake mail-in ballots to vote for Joe Biden. The intelligence purportedly came from a Chinese intelligence source handled by the FBI, and the operation aimed to help Biden beat Trump. The claim emphasizes that the operation’s intention was to assist Biden. - Additionally, there are various related claims and items: - A claim of sensational evidence about a factory in Guangdong producing 500,000 blank American ballots, with an asserted link to a source (Vanessa Olivarez, claimed as a third-generation member of the Chinese Communist Party) and a purported translated phone recording between a caller and a ballot-printing company, circulated by Gateway Pundit. - An assertion that 20,000 fake driver’s IDs were intercepted by Customs and Border Protection, corroborating the intelligence, while the Biden administration and FBI (Chris Ray) allegedly covered this up, with the information sent to Chuck Grassley by Kash Patel. - An assertion that, since 2020, tightening voting laws in several states increased voter confidence, but China viewed mail-in voting as a vulnerability to exploit. - Individual testimonies and incidents: - Arrests reported by Speaker 5 (HSI Miami and partners) of a permanent resident Haitian national convicted felon for unlawful voting and casting a false ballot. - Speaker 6 claims 130,000 to 280,000 completed ballots were shipped from Bethpage, New York to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, with the trailer disappearing. - Speaker 7 describes witnessing thousands of ballots with return addresses loaded onto a trailer in New York headed for Pennsylvania, and questions the purpose. - Speaker 8 notes tens of thousands of fake voters and illegally cast ballots in the November election, asserting impacts across down-ballot races. - The speakers reference broader connections among Venezuela, U.S. election irregularities, and international actors, tying together various claims about foreign interference, domestic vulnerabilities, and alleged concealment or delay of intelligence reports.

There are two things that scare the speakers: the 2020 election and the UFO story. The UFO story is particularly dark and has a spiritual component that they don't fully understand. They haven't shared this information with their wives or families because it is deeply disturbing. The implications of the UFO story are profound and the public may not be able to handle it. The speakers agree that it is too disturbing to share with their children.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

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

President, people are concerned about whether the Trump team has taken the necessary steps to prevent cheating in future elections. They also wonder if the cheating that occurred during the last election will happen again. I received these questions frequently. I campaigned vigorously, holding seven large rallies in one day, traveling from Florida to Iowa. Despite this effort, things changed late in the evening when numerous ballots appeared, and at 3:02 in the morning, something bad happened. I believe we won by a significant margin and have evidence to support it, which we will release in the coming months.

Everyone is eager to hear your story, especially regarding the 2024 election. You have firsthand experience, which gives you authority on the matter. Can you share what's causing you to lose sleep? I received a text from a lawyer who previously tried to remove me from the ballot ten years ago. He threatened to send a cease and desist if I don’t stop speaking out. This has caused me significant anxiety. Courage is about facing fear, so I'm trying to push through it. It's concerning that individuals within the system are legally threatening you. I reached out to him to clarify what I said that was untrue, and we discussed it. Ultimately, everything I stated was accurate; he just didn't want it presented in a clear way.

I was advised not to discuss the forensic audit, the 2020 election, or to distance myself from Trump, and to avoid questioning COVID, vaccines, and mandates. I rejected this advice and chose to focus on these issues instead. I visited the forensic audit site and began speaking out about election corruption. Now, more evidence is emerging daily, and people are starting to catch on.

I ignored advice to avoid discussing the forensic audit, 2020 election, Trump, COVID, vaccines, and mandates. Instead, I visited the audit site, talked about corrupt elections, and people are now seeing more evidence daily.

I ignored advice from a politician to avoid discussing the forensic audit, the 2020 election, distancing myself from President Trump, and questioning COVID vaccines and mandates. Instead, I visited the forensic audit site and openly talked about our corrupt elections. Now, more evidence is emerging every day.

Speaker 0: I want to ask about what if you've changed position on what happened in the twenty twenty election. Speaker 1: Oh, I think it was rigged. Speaker 0: You think it was rigged? Speaker 1: Yeah. I know more now than I did then. What you'd have to do is in February 2021, was a Time Magazine article that was published, it was about Mark Zuckerberg investing $500,000,000 in a get out the Democrat vote campaign. And they focused on the swing states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona. And they focused in what they did is they basically did what I would refer to as agency capture. And they went in and they captured the, the county clerks and the secretaries of states in these states. They basically said, we have a get out the vote campaign program, and if you will implement it exactly the way that we say that you must implement it, we will give you massive amounts of money to run your elections. But if you do not run it the way that we say, then we can claw all that money back. Well, think about it. If you're a small county in Wisconsin and you get $300,000 from Mark Zuckerberg's foundation to make sure that there are drop boxes in your, in your Democrat heavy areas, that there are, that you've got a, an RV going around and hauling people into the, into the polling places to vote. When you do that, if, if you do not carry out, you take that money, you sign that contract and you do not do exactly what that foundation said, you were gonna have to use public money to pay it back. You most likely would have ended up in prison. I mean, that's just one example of the way that the election was rigged. The Mark Zuckerberg money was huge. $500,000,000 concentrated in Democrat counties for the purpose of getting out the Democrat vote. Speaker 0: How do you know it was to get the Democrat vote out? Because how does exactly do what are the mechanics of that? Of how it was You Speaker 1: I have to read the article. And what the article does is it lays it out, and the title is something along the lines of how a secret group of people were able to save the twenty twenty election, meaning how were they able to get Joe Biden elected.

We should acknowledge that Biden won the 2020 election, but there's a significant cover-up regarding his condition. Many Democrats were aware and misled the public about it. This situation is one of the worst instances of political misinformation in our lifetime. While I wish I had known more about Biden's health, the events of January 6th should not be minimized either. Both issues deserve accountability. After experiencing four years of Trump, January 6th, and then Biden's presidency, many Americans are reconsidering leadership. It's essential to address both the cover-up and the events of January 6th without downplaying their significance. Let’s wrap up this important discussion. Thank you, Bakari Sellers and Scott Denny. Back to you, Caitlin, at the rally.

There are numerous reasons why our elections need to be secure. People who dedicate their lives to this cause are often dismissed as conspiracy theorists and technophobes. The vendors responsible for election systems are dishonest about the state of security. This is deeply concerning, and it brings me to tears. As someone I know once said, our country is pretending to be something it's not.

Around 80-90% of the votes seemed to be going to Joe Biden, which made me increasingly uneasy as the day went on. Every time I saw another batch of votes, it was all for Biden. This seemed statistically impossible to me.

I ignored advice to avoid discussing the forensic audit, 2020 election, Trump, COVID, vaccines, and mandates. Instead, I visited the audit site, talked about corrupt elections, and people are now seeing more evidence daily.

I'm embarrassed that the US presidential election wasn't conducted properly. We had more dead voters than soldiers buried in historic battlefields. The election on November 3rd was not free, fair, or transparent. Everyone knows that Donald Trump won.

Speaker 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.

Was there massive fraud affecting the 2020 election results? The response focused on observations in Pennsylvania, but did not directly answer the question. The inquiry about massive fraud was met with a refusal to provide a straightforward yes or no. Instead, the discussion shifted to other topics, indicating an inability to address the question clearly.