TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I categorically deny all allegations of engaging in sexual conversations or discussing pornographic material with Anita Hill. This hearing is a disgrace and should never have taken place. The leaked information was a result of staffers' actions, which is deeply troubling. This whole situation is a circus and a national disgrace. As a black American, I see this as a high-tech lynching, a message that anyone who dares to think and act independently will be destroyed and caricatured. This committee's actions resemble a lynching, rather than a fair process.

Speaker 0: I know a little about human trafficking. The human trafficking portfolio fell underneath me in the counterterrorism shop where I was ahead. I worked with Tim Ballard at the White House to stamp out human and child sex trafficking. He was doing incredible work back then. Speaker 1: I'm the bad guy in the story. Last week, I got a call from some of the accusers, and what they're accusing him of is really not just—they're just really bad stuff. Really, really bad things. At first, because I've been friends with Tim for so long, I thought, that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Blew by them. Ridiculous. Until they persisted, and I started hearing more. I just heard somebody had filed in the HR complaints or something. Like, that's not possible. Well, the more the complaints come out, the worse it gets. These women called last week, and they wanted to do a show with me. That's not something I've even offered Tim. And I don't want to be the one making the calls on this. I'm not a journalist, and I'm also involved. Tim has been a friend of mine. OUR is a great organization, but I also stand up for victims. And I don't feel remaining silent on this or neutral if I know is acceptable. I don't know what they've done, but I've passed the women's number onto Leon Wolf, our news director, and said, put a journalist on this if you want. And I told him at the time, take it where it leads. I just want the truth. I just want the truth. So he put our best investigative reporter on it, and I heard last night that they are close to finishing the story. I was hoping that it was gonna be released today because this is yeah. If if if if it's true, I can't believe how many of us were duped. Speaker 2: Got pearlized. But it's still some guy who got fried and cried by the side. We gonna steal, slide, slide, slide until they all die. These niggas ain't seeing me because these niggas be small fry. I got big dude status, k l

We can't air unverified information. You mentioned before that discrediting me helps when I say negative things about you. But you’ve discredited yourself by focusing on trivial matters instead of serious questions about Hunter Biden's financial dealings. The story about Hunter's laptop, linked to Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, is being treated as a major issue. It's crucial to investigate whether a presidential candidate is corrupt, especially regarding money from foreign entities. You dismiss this as unverified, but the laptop exists. Why not discuss the significant allegations instead of insignificant topics?

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

I unequivocally deny all allegations of sexual misconduct. This hearing is a travesty, a national disgrace orchestrated to destroy my reputation. It's a high-tech lynching for independent-thinking black Americans who don't conform to the old order. This process is unfair and disrespectful.

In all your years in the industry, have you ever sexually harassed anyone by grabbing them against their will? No, never. But there were some hesitant individuals. Have you sexually harassed anyone? What are you implying, Howard? Could it be that you persuaded someone who was hesitant by giving them a gentle squeeze? More than gentle. Translation: Have you ever sexually harassed someone by grabbing them against their will in all your years in the industry? No, never. But there were some hesitant individuals. Have you sexually harassed anyone? What are you implying, Howard? Could it be that you persuaded someone who was hesitant by giving them a gentle squeeze? More than gentle.

I want to discuss your recent comment comparing the Trump rally to a Nazi rally, along with past remarks like Obama's "bitter clingers" comment and Hillary Clinton's "deplorables." These statements contribute to the perception that some Democrats disrespect certain voters. Does this affect your campaign's message of unity? No, it does not.

I'm here to expose Ariel, who I believe is involved in serious wrongdoing, including child pornography. I see Dustin caught in the middle of this controversy, and while I don't defend him, I think he deserves a chance to speak without being interrupted. It's frustrating to see others, like Stew, dominate the conversation and dismiss Dustin. This behavior is counterproductive and undermines genuine discourse. I also question the integrity of those involved, especially regarding past movements that have been sabotaged. Instead of focusing on personal attacks, we should address the real issues at hand, including Ariel's alleged actions. I'm just sharing my perspective, and I know it may upset some, but it's important to speak out against these serious allegations.

George Stephanopoulos reportedly ignored warnings from his executive producer not to use the word "rape" when discussing a jury's finding that Trump was civilly liable. According to the New York Post, the producer advised him multiple times before the segment aired, but Stephanopoulos proceeded to use the term anyway. A second source confirmed this via a text message viewed by the Post. Despite ABC's spokesperson denying the claims, two sources within the network assert that Stephanopoulos was indeed warned. This raises questions about ABC News's credibility and their decision to settle in related matters, especially since the jury did not find Trump civilly liable for rape.

"He decided to insinuate that I am a pedophile." "You don't like Trump? You're a pedophile." "It's their go to move, and it shows you how much they actually care about pedophilia." "We say a lot of things on this show. We don't make up lies." "In fact, we have a team of people who work very hard to sift through facts and reputable sources before I make a joke." "Even he deserves that consideration, and we give it to him because the truth still matters." "And when I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize for it, which is what Aaron Rogers should do, which is what a decent person would do." "But saying someone is a pedophile is not an opinion, nor is it trash talk. Sorry, Pat McAfee." "And wanted to make false and very damaging statements like that, that we should do it in court so he could share his proof with like a judge because, you know, when you hear a guy who won a Super Bowl and did the all the State Farm commercials say something like this, a lot of people believe, hopefully, many many decent people out there who vote conservative or whatever you wanna call what goes on now. I don't see anything conservative about any of it, but to those of you who are part of that, I want to say this and I hope you will listen and give it a little bit of consideration. If you are a member of a group that think it's okay to randomly call someone a child molester because you don't like what that person has to say, maybe you should rethink being a part of that group."

It's incredible how some people either don't think or just want to hate me. Usually, when a famous person faces these accusations, many victims appear. Name anyone, and you'll find hundreds of victims, new lawsuits, and countless stories. But here I am, three and a half years into this, with the most media spin ever, and not a single girl has come forward. Every girl they contact says I'm nice. They like me, even defend me. No one's against me.

So, you called Elon Musk a fascist and implied he's a national security threat. But is that really more of a threat than, say, sleeping with a Chinese spy? What's fascistic about exposing government corruption? I know you just had dinner with lobbyists, and I heard you like to be with only attractive people. So, do you want to comment on any of this? You think Elon Musk is a national security threat, but you sleeping with a Chinese spy isn't? You don't want to comment on that at all? Looks like guilty is charged.

George Stephanopoulos is criticized for defending Bill Clinton against sexual assault allegations while questioning others' support for individuals accused of similar behavior. The transcript highlights Stephanopoulos' role in discrediting Clinton's accusers and his involvement in a smear campaign. The speaker questions Stephanopoulos' double standards and lack of consistency in his approach to sexual assault allegations.

Senator, I deny every allegation against me today that suggests I had sexual conversations or harassed anyone. This hearing is a travesty and should never occur in America. Staffers searched for sleaze and leaked it to the media, and this committee validated and displayed it at prime time. No one would want dirt dredged up and displayed in this manner. The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I'm here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. Something is dreadfully wrong when any person is subjected to this circus and national disgrace. As a Black American, this is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who think for themselves. It's a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, and caricatured by a committee of the US Senate.

The speaker states they will be politically incorrect and issues a trigger warning. They question the claim that a wealthy man, married to a supermodel, would sexually assault E. Jean Carroll in a Tiffany's store. The speaker highlights that the alleged incident occurred at the height of the man's career, with no prior accusations for twenty years, and only surfaced when he ran for president. The speaker dismisses the accusation as "complete rubbish and political nonsense."

George, your concern for victims of sexual assault is noted, but it's hard to overlook your history. You helped create a war room to discredit Bill Clinton's accusers, like Juanita Broderick and Paula Jones, at Hillary's direction. You admitted to enabling Clinton despite numerous allegations against him. When Paula Jones came forward, you and your team attacked her character instead of defending her. You compared her to Tonya Harding and dismissed her claims as a cash grab. Despite Clinton settling with Jones for nearly $1 million, you remained loyal to him. Now, you question Nancy Mace's support for a man found liable for sexual assault in a civil trial. How is this line of questioning appropriate for you?

At age 59, I walked off the bus as a different man. Although I'm not proud of it, what I said was just locker room talk. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has done far worse things to women. He has a history of abusive behavior towards women, and Hillary Clinton has attacked those same women. One of them, Kathy Shelton, was raped at 12 years old, and Hillary represented her rapist and laughed at her. Bill Clinton was impeached, lost his law license, and had to pay a fine to Paula Jones. So, when Hillary brings up my words from 11 years ago, it's disgraceful and she should be ashamed of herself.

I want to address the lawsuit that has been brought to my attention. I want to make it clear that it did not happen. I don't remember ever meeting this person, and I would never harm anyone. This is not who I am. The credibility of the person filing the lawsuit is questionable, as they have filed many lawsuits and written a book on how to win them. I have been in public life for almost 40 years, and people know my character. I would never do anything to harm someone. Right now, we need to stay focused and let go of distractions.

I understand the concern about ties to Jeffrey Epstein, but where are radical feminists when it comes to Hamas' crimes against Jewish girls? The hypocrisy of the Me Too movement is evident in their silence on this issue. I want a list of feminists who condemned Hamas for their rapes and murders, and how many stayed silent or even supported them. Let's consider this context.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

Why did you shout at me in public? What language did you use? I use English. What insult did you use? I asked why America needed to be great again, mentioning serious issues like 12-year-old girls being raped. You laughed and used a profanity. Do you find that funny? I'm recording this for my show tonight, where I’ll have millions of viewers. Your actions are why we won; your DEI hire was rejected, and the popular vote turned against you and your hateful ideology. You are part of the reason Donald Trump is president. Thank you.

I think we should remove the homicide from the White House for a fresh start, we don't want any more murderers. Next question. Who are the murderers? Oh, Clinton, he murdered a guy. We're not making accusations without proof. That's too far, let's move on. This is not my week. Do you know where you heard that? We don't need this. I don't want to hear it, this isn't the place for accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. This is a live show. I thought it was a matter of record. You won't be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Manslaughter! Let's talk football.

We get this text message from Glenn Prager to my phone personally, and then we get a statement from the Department of Justice. This individual worked at the Department of Justice as a program analyst over fifteen years ago. He has no understanding of our access to the underlying facts of this investigation. His statement should not be considered accurate. It is disgusting that someone would further exploit victims of sexual abuse by fabricating stories for their personal benefit. The DOJ's reaction is super revealing here because it actually almost validates his claims, particularly when they say fabricating stories for their benefit. "Personal benefit? How does Prager stand to benefit?" "How does Glenn Prager stand to benefit?" "We've come to learn that this man actually was a W two employee, or officially employed by the Department of Justice in 02/2009, and has been a contractor. That's how they cover tracks."

I think we should get the homicide out of the White House and get a fresh start, because we don't want any more murderers. Clinton murdered a guy. That's going a little too far. This is not the place to make those accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. I thought it was a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Where did you ever hear that? Maybe George or Bill Clinton would be your hero. His career is over after this. Anyway, who cares? We're on the millionaire today. People always told me Hollywood was incredibly liberal and biased, and I thought it was untrue about it.

I think we should get the homicide out of the White House, we don't want any more murderers. Let's just go on to the next question. You're not talking about losing accusations. That's a little too far, let's just go on to the next question. This is not the place to make those accusations and you're supposed to be funny. I thought it was a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Where did you ever hear the word, bonus raise, he's my hero, you know, just like you. There's no stopping you, is there? His career is over after this. We're on the millionaire today. People always told me Hollywood was incredibly liberal and biased and I thought it was untrue about it. You have 10 sons, you're not allowed to tell anything like that. He doesn't answer anything anyway. He's on the millionaire tonight.