TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Two groups clash over who may be in the building and who is authorized to act as the governing authority of the institute. - The conflict centers on who is recognized as the president of the institute. Speaker 0 says, “The president of the first day is the right to be in the building,” and insists they have seen paperwork that supports Mister Jackson as president. Speaker 1 counters that he is “the president of this institute” and asks for the other side’s credentials and documents, signaling a challenge to Speaker 0’s claim. - The outside counselors (not employed by USIP) state they are there to address issues and note they do not work for the agency or institute being discussed. They say, “Are you all work for USIP? We are the outside counselors. You do not work for USIP.” This creates tension about authority and whose procedures apply. - The group inside, including Speaker 1, questions the motives and legality of the intruders, framing the situation as unauthorized access. Speaker 1 emphasizes control of the scene, saying, “I’m the president of this institute. I’m asking the questions, not you.” They propose to proceed with a judge’s decision regarding who has rightful access, noting, “According to news, sir. And how do we decide? You wanna talk about the second law and how the board goes off? No. We’re go over. It hasn’t been decided. It’s gonna be decided by a judge.” - There is a clear conflict about process and authority: the outsiders say they are present to facilitate a meeting but are unsure how long their involvement lasts and emphasize the need to identify who is authorized to be in the building. The outsiders insist on conducting a meeting inside first and indicate that certain individuals will not be allowed to come back in, stating, “You’re not allowed. I don’t know what I’m gonna have to let anyone pass you. So please don’t walk this way. Four of you are not coming back in today.” - Access to personal property and documents becomes a point of negotiation. The outsiders request to retrieve personal items, while inside personnel want to conduct their meeting inside first and control access, saying, “We need to have our meeting inside first. Thank you.” They offer to allow retrieval of personal belongings after the meeting but prioritize internal access. - The exchange ends with continued insistence on controlling entry and a directive to move toward a meeting inside, with the outsiders escorted away from certain areas and told to wait while the internal decision-making progresses.

The speakers discuss their concerns about authoritarian government and the refusal to accept election results. They mention Biden's vaccine mandate and Trump's refusal to concede the election. They debate the legitimacy of the election and the role of the electoral commission. The conversation touches on the 2000 election and the media's treatment of Trump. They express a desire for more balanced reporting and a need for trust in the electoral process.

Henry Appel, an adviser at the National Security Council, shared experiences about President Biden's confusion during calls and meetings. He recounted a time when Biden called looking for NSC adviser Jake Sullivan, not realizing Sullivan was on the same trip. Appel noted Biden struggled with basic words in briefings, leading to misunderstandings. He also mentioned the emotional impact of Trump's victory on his team, describing them as "trauma bonded." Appel expressed concerns among White House officials about potential repercussions from the incoming Trump administration. He humorously revealed that his dating profile highlights his tendency to overshare. In a meeting, he was confronted about sharing sensitive information with an undercover journalist, raising questions about his role in the NSC.

Speaker 0 believed that the ability to challenge the election results was over. Speaker 1 disagreed, stating that although Congress certified the results, they didn't want to say the election was completely over. Speaker 0 recounted a conversation where someone referred to President Trump as "the boss" and claimed they wouldn't leave power. Speaker 1 clarified that Congress had certified the results but didn't explicitly say the election was over. Speaker 0 pointed out that staying in power doesn't work that way. Speaker 1 concluded by saying they would accept the results of the presidential election.

The speaker discusses the Transition Integrity Project, a group that planned to forcibly transition Trump out of office if he won the 2020 election. The project involved prominent figures from both major political parties and the national security state. They ran simulations with different scenarios, including one where Trump wins but Biden is still sworn in as president. They even considered getting Black Lives Matter supporters to cause street havoc to make the country ungovernable. The speaker also mentions a deal between the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce to use union muscle to disrupt dictatorships. This is seen as a color revolution strategy to overthrow governments.

Shutting down a city could be a plan if Biden wins and Trump doesn't concede. If Trump narrowly wins, the strategy might pivot to targeting Democrats to ensure Biden doesn't concede. In DC, identifying Democratic leaders and players is key. Alternatively, if Biden narrowly wins and Trump doesn't concede, the focus shifts to targeting Republicans to pressure Trump to concede. The goal is to think through different scenarios, identify appropriate targets, and determine actions to enable people to organize and prepare.

Henry Appel, an adviser at the National Security Council, shared several encounters with President Biden, revealing moments of confusion and miscommunication. During a call, Biden mistakenly asked for NSC adviser Jake Sullivan, not realizing Sullivan was on the same trip. Appel noted Biden struggled with basic words in meetings, leading to misunderstandings. He also mentioned the emotional aftermath of Trump's victory, describing his team as "trauma bonded." Appel expressed concerns about the incoming Trump administration potentially targeting them for past actions. He humorously stated that his dating profile highlights his tendency to overshare. In a final interaction, Appel was approached by an undercover journalist, raising questions about his openness regarding sensitive information. The segment concluded with a call for whistleblowers to report corruption.

Exclusive footage reveals coordination among leftist groups, including Shutdown DC and BLM, planning a coup action with assistance from Democrats and federal employees. They aim to disrupt Washington, DC, and other major cities starting November 4th until inauguration day. Discussions include strategies for blockading the White House and shutting down larger areas of the city. Participants are encouraged to gather at BLM Plaza on election night and target key government buildings and police stations. The plan emphasizes creating a crisis to assert control, with a focus on supporting those willing to take decisive action. The left is determined to seize power, regardless of the election outcome.

The speaker discusses the potential aftermath of a hypothetical "blue wave" election following a "MAGA nightmare." They raise the issue of "putting it all back together again" and the need for "reeducating" people. The speaker acknowledges that the term "reeducation camp" is problematic and expresses a desire to find alternative terminology.

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.

Speaker 0 discusses a transcript of a call from President Trump trying to overturn the election. They play an audio clip where Trump mentions criminal events. Speaker 1 feels threatened by Trump's comments about overseas ballots. Speaker 2 thought Trump believed he won the race but had investigated all allegations.

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

Tomorrow is January 6th, an important constitutional date. The speaker expresses frustration that the United States does not have a clear election outcome yet. They mention their experience in other countries, where they have helped run elections and encouraged those countries to follow their example. The speaker finds it embarrassing that their own country is facing election challenges. Another speaker agrees and mentions that according to U.S. law, if there are no poll watchers, the election should be redone. They ask for suggestions on what President Trump and the people should do. The first speaker suggests a 10-day pause to allow for recounts in select states, ensuring that the ballots are constitutional and not fraudulent. They mention issues like backdated ballots, phony ballots, and dead voters.

The speakers discuss the importance of creating spaces for people to connect and have conversations. They encourage individuals to reach out to colleagues for information and support. They also address a question about mentioning the possibility of a change in administration as part of one's job, stating that it is not illegal but should be framed as a policy question. They emphasize the need to consider all aspects of a problem to avoid arbitrary and capricious decision-making. The topic of preparing for a scenario where Trump refuses to accept defeat is brought up, with one panelist admitting fear of him outright winning but refusing to accept the possibility.

There is a belief that the 2020 election was rigged, and task forces are working to educate the public about the military's potential involvement. The speaker is part of a task force monitoring public sentiment and barriers to acceptance. They aim to provide information to the Strategic Information Operations team. The goal is to understand why people support Biden and to predict the response if action is taken. The military's involvement is seen as a way to clean up corruption, but they want to avoid civil unrest. The speaker believes that more truths need to come out before the military can publicly intervene. They speculate on potential catalysts for military action.

There has been no transition since the speaker won the election. After the speaker won, people came after them trying to do a coup and spying on the campaign. From the day the speaker came down the escalator with the first lady, "they" were a disaster and a disgrace to the country. The speaker claims to have caught them all on tape. The speaker alleges that someone gave the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn and that President Obama knew about it too. Therefore, there was no free transition.

Henry Appel, an adviser at the National Security Council, shared anecdotes about President Biden's confusion during calls and meetings. In one instance, Biden mistakenly called the NSC office looking for Jake Sullivan, not realizing Sullivan was on the same trip. Appel noted Biden struggled with basic words in briefings, leading to misunderstandings. He mentioned the emotional impact of Trump's victory, stating his team felt "trauma bonded." Appel expressed concerns about the incoming Trump administration potentially targeting them for past actions. He humorously revealed that his dating profile highlights his tendency to overshare. Lastly, he discussed feelings of being sidelined by Kamala Harris during the campaign.

There has been no transition since the speaker won the election. After the speaker won, people came after them, attempting a coup and spying on the campaign. These actions began the day the speaker came down the escalator with the first lady. The speaker claims to have caught those responsible and has evidence on tape. The speaker accuses the listener of suggesting the Logan Act against General Flynn and alleges that President Obama was aware of the situation. Therefore, the speaker disputes the notion of a free transition.

Our cyber command and special forces have arrested over 400 individuals, including Pelosi, Biden, Hunter Biden, and Romney. We are in a military coup, arresting corrupt officials. The recent events at the Capitol were a sting operation to retrieve Pelosi's computer. Trump orchestrated this to expose Democrat corruption. Biden won't be president, there will be mass arrests and military tribunals due to lack of trust in government officials.

Cole notes that he purchased six galvanized pipes of this size on June 1, June 8, and November 16, and asks for receipts. The discussion shifts to what questions a point person in 2021 would face and to a theory of the case, with speculation about how individuals could be drawn into a plan to influence events, including the possibility of a “pipe bomb” plot and manipulation of associates. Speaker 1 explains that, as a federal investigator, one would use a speculative investigative lens to broaden the search to cover various permutations of the case, including the idea that there was a so-called Red Mirage Blue Shift scenario surrounding the 2020 election. They reference CNN’s 2020 reporting on deciphering red mirage and blue shift uncertainty, including pre censorship by DHS/CISA in June 2020 to suppress any social media criticism of mass mail-in ballots, so as to prevent questions about legitimacy of an upcoming Biden victory. The discussion asserts that the goal was to preempt perceptions of illegitimacy and manage the narrative around the election results. The conversation then turns to Rosa Brooks, a high-ranking Obama administration official who headed the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) and wrote about pathways to remove Trump from power. Speaker 1 cites Brooks’ article “Three ways to stop President Trump before the 2020 election” and notes an assertion, reportedly in a Diet of Lisa-like coverage, that she later discussed a fourth, insurrectionary possibility: a military coup. They claim TIP was a war game conducted in June 2020 and then in November 2020, involving senior military, intelligence, diplomatic, and political operatives, with participants from both parties including Michael Steele (former RNC head), Donna Brazile (former DNC head), John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager), Bill Kristol, and others. The summary asserts that TIP’s appendix, “Will Trumpism survive a Trump loss?” warned that Trumpism could persist even after a loss, necessitating a robust strategy to eliminate Trump supporters and networks that enabled Trump’s rise. It is claimed the document discusses how to mobilize mass street protests, especially via Black Lives Matter and allied groups, to pressure a Biden administration to act against Trump, including funding and resource provisioning of protest movements to ensure their alignment with Democratic objectives. The dialogue alleges that, in June 2020, TIP proposed measures to de- legitimize Trump, including not letting Trump use the National Guard or invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests. It is asserted that the plan contemplated mass demonstrations, the use of “street protests” as decisive leverage, and the establishment of communications infrastructure to support mass mobilization for street action if Trump won, or to counter him if he did not. The participants allegedly favored aligning with groups like Soros-funded Indivisible and Hold the Line, and urged resourcing new racial justice leaders and major philanthropic/foundation channels to fund these movements, including a claimed $50 billion in funding to Black Lives Matter. The transcript claims that TIP’s War Game included explicit scenarios about alternate electors, secession moves, and the potential for mass prosecutions of Trump and his associates, as well as strategic recommendations on how to proceed if Trump refused to concede. It is further asserted that a June 2020 war game considered provoking an “January 6” breakdown in Congress as a central move to prevent a contested inauguration, with participants pondering agent provocateurs and avenues to postpone certification. Throughout, the speakers connect the pipe-bomb purchases in June 2020 to the TIP war games and the broader plan to undermine Trump through street mobilization, legal maneuvers, and potential mass arrests of Trump supporters and networks, while noting the January 6 events as a focal point of these discussions.

Shut It Down DC discusses their plans for responding to a potential coup and contested election scenarios. They emphasize the need to take action in the streets and disrupt business as usual in Congress. There is talk of revolution and potential violence, with some suggesting breaking windows to enter government buildings. Leaking information to journalists and creating parallel structures are mentioned as tactics. Federal workers are encouraged to engage in noncooperation to undermine those in power. The importance of communication with grassroots groups and sustained organizing is highlighted. Practical examples of slowing down processes and exposing wrongdoing are shared. Overall, the focus is on taking decisive action to resist a potential coup.