TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about the person in the White House who can cut off the President's speaking ability. Speaker 1 denies the existence of such a person and states that the President speaks for himself. Speaker 0 insists that it has happened before and asks if Speaker 1 is unaware of it. Speaker 1 maintains that it did not happen and expresses confusion about what Speaker 0 is referring to. The conversation ends without a clear resolution.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

The speaker mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

- Speaker 0: "There you go. No. You're doing that. Can't talk. I'm not allowed." - Speaker 0: "Okay. Yeah. Thank you. We'll give it a try later." - Speaker 0: "I'll get on and take a phone call and see if she's going."

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

The authenticity of a recorded conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Piatt is not confirmed by Speaker 1. They refuse to discuss the details of the private diplomatic conversation. However, Speaker 1 does not deny that the recording is authentic. Speaker 2 argues that the conversation reveals the US actively influencing the formation of a future government in Ukraine. Speaker 1 defends this as normal diplomatic behavior. Speaker 2 insists that publicly claiming the decision is up to Ukrainians while privately arranging a deal is contradictory. Speaker 1 downplays the significance of the recorded phone call. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 declaring they are finished.

Speaker 0 questions going in, Speaker 1 hesitant. Speaker 0 distracted by rock, Speaker 1 reminds of interview. Speaker 0 defensive, claims talking on phone. Speaker 1 reassures, conversation ends positively.

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.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

Speaker 1 calls for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police and Speaker Pelosi confirms that Mr. Irving will be resigning. Speaker Pelosi claims she hadn't spoken to Speaker 1 since the breach, but Speaker 1 clarifies that they spoke three times. The first call was to brief Vice President Pence, the second call was when Speaker 1 left the location and met with Mr. Stenger, and the third call was to brief all the leadership on the plans to get back into chambers. Speaker 1 acknowledges the bravery of the Capitol Police.

Speaker 0 acknowledges that Speaker 1 was right about something. Speaker 1 expresses excitement about a film they made and asks if Speaker 0 agrees. Speaker 0 confirms their enthusiasm. Speaker 1 asks if they were being recorded and offers to delete any recording, but clarifies that they didn't actually record Speaker 0.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about a testimony where their son claims they were frequently on speaker phone discussing business with a business associate. Speaker 1 denies ever speaking to the gentleman and dismisses the question as lousy. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1, addressing them as Mr. President.

Speaker 0 asks about the location of hard evidence recorded on telemetry tapes. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't seen any indication that the telemetry data even exists, and even if it did, they don't have the machines to play it back. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1's research has shown the telemetry data is missing, which Speaker 1 confirms.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker Pelosi claimed on national television that she had not spoken to the individual since the initial breach of the Capitol and that there had been no communications with him that evening. The individual, referred to as Speaker 1, confirmed that he spoke to Speaker Pelosi three times that evening, contradicting her statement. First call (approximately 05:34 PM): The individual went to brief Vice President Pence at a secure location and to conduct a personal assessment of the Capitol, with House Sergeant at Arms Irving informed that he was going over to brief the Vice President. Irving wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. The first call to Speaker Pelosi occurred during this briefing, establishing direct contact while the briefing was underway. Second call (during departure from the initial location): As the individual left the area and was walking toward the Senate with Mr. Stenger, Jennifer Hemingway handed him Emily Barrett’s cell phone, and it was Speaker Pelosi on the line. This second call concerned the information provided to Vice President Pence about when the Capitol could be returned to the chambers, and the individual reassured Pelosi that the information was correct and that they could get back into the chambers by 7:00 PM. The call ended after this confirmation. Third call (06:25 PM): While at the Senate, away from the initial secure location, using Robert Karam’s cell phone, the individual dialed leadership who were off-site at a secure location to brief them. He briefed all of the leadership on the plans to get them back into the chambers, which constituted the third call with Speaker Pelosi. In summary, Speaker 1 asserts that there were three separate conversations with Speaker Pelosi on January 7, each addressing the situation and the plan to restore operations in the chambers, including confirmation of the timeline to return by 7:00 PM. He states that Pelosi’s claim of not speaking with him is inaccurate, affirming that he did indeed have three conversations with her that evening.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 2 about how they obtained confidential information. Speaker 2 refuses to disclose their source, citing attorney-client privilege. Speaker 0 threatens contempt if Speaker 2 does not reveal the source within 5 minutes. Speaker 2 mentions statements made by Mr. Copeland regarding a murder. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 demanding answers and Speaker 2 maintaining their stance. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 insisting on knowing the source of the information.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

Speaker 0 denies something, stating "She did not. That is not what happened." This is repeated for emphasis. Speaker 0 then abruptly demands the contact information of an unidentified person, but immediately retracts the request. Finally, Speaker 0 declares an intention to provide a "sign" to someone.

Speaker 0 asks if Cameron McDonald has a cottage, but Speaker 1 is unsure. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever met with government officials outside of office hours, to which Speaker 1 initially says no, but later admits to meeting with them in private residences. Speaker 0 wants to know the nature of these meetings, but Speaker 1 claims not to know which specific meeting is being referred to. Speaker 1 suggests receiving the question in writing for a more accurate response. Speaker 0 points out that Speaker 1 is providing oral answers to oral questions and criticizes the inconsistency in Speaker 1's responses.

Speaker 1 denies being warned about potential conflicts of interest by former White House aides. Speaker 0 mentions that State Department official Mr. Kent testified about raising the issue, but Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 1 claims that the warning was never communicated to their staff and suggests that it may have been due to their son's critical condition at the time.

Speaker 0: Good morning, mister president. How did your call go? How did your call go, mister president? President's voice.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

Speaker 0 asks what you are here to talk about, says “Thank you very much,” and asks, “Any votes in the prime minister?”

Speaker 0 requests unanimous consent. Speaker 1 acknowledges the official opposition leader. Confusion arises regarding the request.