TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states they had no involvement with "the disgusting stuff" and blocked the person responsible from their club upon discovery. They question why this person isn't publicly refuting the allegations, asserting there's nothing incriminating about Donald Trump in the files, "as far as I know." The speaker claims to know the contents of the files and insists they contain no damaging information regarding Trump.

I did not like Jeffrey Epstein and never wanted anything to do with him. While others associated with him, went to his island and other places, I never did. I have good taste. James Patterson, a member of Mar-a-Lago, confirmed that I threw Epstein out many years ago. I am not a fan of him. Also, those who came into the country illegally must be deported.

Speaker 0 says that more than a decade ago, President Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago and was one of the few prominent people reportedly willing to help law enforcement go after Epstein, who is described as a disgusting child abuser and sex trafficker. They say this is common knowledge.

The speaker asserts that there are thousands of hours of tape that are child pornography, and the FBI is not releasing them because the tapes do not show underage people with third parties on Epstein Island; according to the speaker, “those tapes are just child porn,” and that is why they are not being released. Regarding the Epstein list, the speaker says sources in the federal government have seen documents and claim there is no Epstein list. Instead, there is a “black book of Jeffrey Epstein contact,” and most of the contacts are already public, with names such as Prince Andrew or Alan Dershowitz commonly mentioned. The speaker claims that, according to the DOJ and the FBI, there is no evidence that any of those third parties were trafficking girls to them. The speaker then references Tucker Carlson asserting that Mossad was involved, noting that this is a hot internet speculation without evidence. In addressing this, Naftali Bennett, the former Israeli prime minister, is cited as stating with 100% certainty that the accusation Epstein “worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false.” Bennett reportedly told the speaker that the Mossad has not been active in the United States since the Jonathan Pollard scandal of 1987, when a US army contractor working for the Navy revealed classified information to the Israeli government and was imprisoned for nearly thirty years. According to Bennett, Israel has not spied on the United States since then.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The speaker asserts that the effort to release the Epstein files came directly from President Trump. They acknowledge that many people may have a hard time with this claim, but state that it is the truth. The speaker also says that Trump fought the hardest to stop these files from being released.

The transcript centers on Amjed Fassisi, a CIA contractor who works with Deloitte and, at times, within the CIA’s China Mission Center on cyber operations. He describes a career path that includes time at the CIA starting in 2008, a stint at the NSA for two years, then a return to the CIA in 2011, where he managed about 80 cybersecurity practitioners and later helped stand up a threat program inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fassisi asserts that he holds a high-level clearance (top secret/SCIs) and that his role involves cross-agency work across the enterprise, though he does not disclose specific details. Key, repeated claims attributed to Fassisi: - The higher-ups in the intelligence community, including CIA directors Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, and the upper echelons of their staffs, colluded to withhold information from sitting President Donald Trump. Fassisi states, “We kept information from him,” and later explains “the executive staff” (the director and subordinates) were involved. - Fassisi contends that the CIA and other agencies monitored Trump and his inner circle, using human sources and surveillance. He mentions that Trump could be targeted or spied on, including claims that he would “call Vladimir Putin and tell him” secrets, and that “the intelligence agencies thought that president Trump was a, quote, fucking dumbass and would disclose information.” - He asserts that information about Trump’s activities was intentionally withheld from him by the intelligence community, and that this withholding involved high-level officials who would not share details with the president. - Fassisi suggests that the intelligence community engaged in surveillance of Trump and his team using methods such as human intelligence rather than only wiretaps, and that the FBI, NSA, and other agencies were involved, with implications that FISA-related processes were used to monitor Trump. - He asserts distrust and lack of information-sharing among agencies, stating “the NSA and CIA don’t share information” and describing internal fragmentation and territoriality between agencies as a problem. - Fassisi alleges that there was a broader pattern of weaponizing the CIA and collaborating with foreign partners to influence or monitor Trump associates, referencing the broader narrative around Trump and Russia and implying ongoing monitoring of Trump’s activities post-presidency as well. - He makes broad allegations about Israel and other allies, asserting distrust and claiming Israel “steals intelligence” from the U.S.; he frames relations with allies as fraught and unreliable. - Fassisi describes the reporting by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi as validated by his claims, and positions the ongoing investigation as exposing corruption within the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice, with a narrative that information was hidden from the public and from Trump. Supporting context around the interview: - The exchange includes tense moments where Fassisi is shown a CIA badge and discusses his role; the interviewer questions the plausibility and provenance of his claims, pressing for documentation or proof, while Fassisi provides limited responses about his clearance, division (China Mission Center), and contractor status. - The segment also includes editorial framing by the presenter, interjecting with external commentary and promotional content not directly related to Fassisi’s assertions. The interviewer promises follow-up coverage and frames Fassisi’s statements as part of a broader whistleblower narrative. - Throughout, the content repeatedly emphasizes claims of withheld information from Trump, surveillance of Trump and his associates, inter-agency distrust, and internal CIA culture, without providing verifiable documentation within the interview itself.

Speaker 0 questions the Mar-a-Lago raid, asking, “how is the FBI just gonna go and raid Mar A Lago at president's home,” and “would it happen again?” Speaker 1 replies that it was “a total weaponization and politicization by the FBI and DOJ and the Biden administration dating back to the Obama administration that led not only to Russiagate as you opened up with, but to the invasion of Donald Trump's private home in Mar A Lago.” He says “there was no constitutional basis to do so. There was no lawful predicate to open that investigation.” He says the FBI is “ridding this place of its former leadership structure” and that documents are being declassified for public viewing. He notes, “Every single person that has been found to have weaponized or participated in that process has been removed from leadership positions.” He states, “There was no crime. There was no predicate to go and invade Donald Trump's home.” On mortgage fraud: “it's a multi agency effort” and “we're going to route out any sort of corruption.”

Speaker 0: "I don't understand why it's a hostile act. I talked to president Clinton... I'm sorry, president, Trump back in 2009 and several times after that. He didn't think that it was a hoax then. In fact, he helped me. He got on the phone. He told me things that were helping our investigation." Speaker 1: "The only thing... Trump is the only person who, in 02/2009, picked up the phone and said, let's just talk. I'll give you as much time as you want. I'll tell you what you need to know and was very helpful in the information that he gave and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information that checked out and that helped us. And then we didn't have to take a deposition of him." "So Do you know if there's any truth to James Patterson's claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar A Lago?" Speaker 0: "I've definitely heard that." Speaker 2: "Epstein was inappropriate with the member's daughter. I went to mister Trump and he threw him right out." Speaker 3: "So it's your understanding then that president Trump didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to?" Speaker 0: "That is correct." Speaker 2: "Epstein liked stars... He loaned Clinton his plane at least on four occasions and it was, it had to do with the foundation." Speaker 4: "The pilot said Trump was on the plane; it was actually a trip from Mar A Lago to New York, not to the island." Speaker 0: "And our investigation wasn't looking into him, but he was helping us then. He didn't treat this as a hoax. I want transparency." Speaker 3: "Did anybody see or hear of the president himself doing anything inappropriate as it related to Jeffrey Epstein? No."

Epstein was banned from Mar-a-Lago by Trump after he flirted with someone's underage daughter. Trump made it clear that such behavior was not tolerated at his club. Epstein, a wealthy Palm Beach resident known for throwing parties, was a member at the time. However, once people discovered his true nature, they distanced themselves from him, including President Trump. Trump emphasized that he never associated with Epstein and took action to remove him from the club. This incident provides clear evidence that Trump was not involved in any illegal activities.

The speaker mentions that there have been accusations against President Trump regarding his involvement in certain activities, but Trump supporters tend to dismiss such claims. The speaker, who is a lawyer, states that they have no information or opinion on the validity of these claims. However, they do mention that in 2009, when they served subpoenas to various individuals, President Trump was the only person who cooperated and provided helpful information. The speaker is not aware of the truth behind James Patterson's claims about Trump kicking Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

Discussion centers on why Epstein files aren’t public and reluctance; Tucker Carlson is mentioned. Speaker 1 says the president views it as "this is all a trap" and that it "reminds him of Russiagate"; "He had nothing to do with Epstein," and transparency "would have helped the country" and "the administration a lot." The other host wonders why fear of exposure matters. Speaker 1 testifies, "I knew Epstein. He did creepy stuff at my club. I kicked him out." Epstein was "always around" with figures like "Ahud Barak is living there. He's got Stephen Hawking and he's got members of the British So Royal on that level," and "half the people on television hung out with Epstein." He notes Epstein had contact with Israeli, US, and "most critically British intelligence" and ends, "There's nothing bad that happens that doesn't have British intelligence involved in it, I have noticed a lot."

The speaker explains he is trying to navigate possible collaboration with federal authorities while maintaining personal integrity. He says he has a statement that is “completely true” that he’s “never been in contact with any federal authority,” and he’s torn about how to start working with DHS to address threats he faces as a national figure. He claims “the Yemenis, a million of them came out into the streets” and that they want to kill him, with a fatwa on his head. He asserts he would need DHS to make a statement that “the Houthis and their fatwa that they placed on my head will not be stood,” and that “American citizens exercising our rights will not be, you know, subject to to Muslim murder, rituals.” He describes hundreds of thousands of death threats in his DMs and says, to deal with them, he would need to walk into an FBI building and give them a printout, but he “don’t fucking trust the FBI.” He accuses the FBI of having “destroyed my life,” pointing to past raids on his and others’ homes and references to the Mar-a-Lago search, stating he is trying to figure out how to navigate this situation without claiming contact with Harmeet or making contacts he “don’t want to.” He notes that when he and others exercised their rights in Dearborn, he views it as a civil rights hate crime, saying “the Muslim oppression of Christians in Dearborn” was a civil rights hate violation and that “they punched me in the face because I’m white” and “they punched me in the face because I’m Christian, not for anything else.” Harmony Dillon is described as wanting to prosecute this as a hate crime, with others subjected to spit, food thrown, assaults, pepper spray, etc. He mentions the Trump administration’s purported interest in bringing these people to justice, but he expresses a wish not to feed into it, citing personal integrity and caution. He questions whether the rank-and-file FBI officer’s motives are aligned with his interests, contrasting a year ago with a “grandma that walked through the capital” to now a Muslim who punched a Christian, implying hypocrisy or moral decline. He asserts there are “deep state embedded figures in the DOJ, in the FBI, in DHS,” who were involved in actions like the raid on Mar-a-Lago and other “schemes.” He says he needs assurance that these agencies have “our best interest” and that they are not “deep state shills.” Ultimately, he states he has refused to make contact because it’s “too risky” and he cannot be associated with people he deems “un American.”

The speaker states they had no involvement with "the disgusting stuff" and blocked the person in question from their club upon learning about it. They question why this person isn't publicly refuting the allegations. The speaker claims to know the contents of the files and asserts there is nothing incriminating about Donald Trump in them, "as far as I know."

The speaker claims to have found documents related to Jim Comey that were not where they should have been. The speaker says these documents are unflattering to Comey. The speaker asserts that Comey disgraced the FBI numerous times with his role in crossfire hurricane and other abominations. The speaker finds it stunning that Comey continues to attack their leadership when they are cleaning up the mess Comey created and continue to find things from his era.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

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."

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

The transcript centers on a report from NBC News about the man charged with planting two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters on the eve of the January 6th attack. The speaker cites NBC’s article, which states that the suspect told the FBI he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter. The speaker notes that NBC provides no direct quote or further context beyond that single claim. The speaker asserts that their own sources indicate the word used by the suspect, Brian Cole Jr., in his FBI interview was that he believed the 2020 election was stolen. However, the speaker claims there is a widespread belief within the FBI that this comment was a legal maneuver rather than a genuine belief. According to the speaker, the FBI allegedly thinks the statement was coached by Cole’s lawyer to secure a pardon from President Trump, specifically a retroactive pardon because Trump had issued a pardon for individuals convicted of January 6–related crimes. The speaker emphasizes that there is no additional evidence in Cole Jr.’s background, as far as their sources can determine, indicating he is a Trump supporter. They remark that NBC is one of the few outlets making this claim, noting that the article contains several paragraphs but only repeats the initial sentence without further detail. The speaker suggests that even within liberal media, there is a belief that the comment was a legal maneuver rather than a reflection of genuine political conviction, and argues that NBC’s reporting is selectively presented to push a particular narrative. Throughout, the speaker contrasts this with a broader media portrayal, arguing that while Brian Cole Jr. did make the comment about the 2020 election being stolen, the context is missing, and the media narrative is being shaped by selective reporting. The speaker frames the situation as an instance of media cherry-picking intended to influence perceptions about the suspect’s political affiliations and the nature of his statements to the FBI, rather than providing a complete account.

I have a contact who can confirm what I'm about to say. The person I know has seen him wandering around the White House naked at night, completely out of his mind. He doesn't even know who he is. They have to give him drugs in the morning and at night to control his behavior. Sometimes he's out of it in the morning and then comes back to normal at night. This is a real problem. I can say with certainty that he is on drugs. I personally know someone who witnessed him taking amphetamines during the 2016-2020 election. This is huge.

One speaker questions why a "foremost pederist" is protected, calling it evil and saying everyone agrees on it. Another speaker says Bill Barr needs to give sworn testimony about what happened with Epstein at the Bureau of Prisons, because the story being told isn't the real one. The speaker believes a foreign government took Epstein out, not a domestic enterprise. They think it was a government-sponsored foreign operation in concert with people in the US government, not just a bribed guard, but at a state-to-state level. The speaker says weapon systems and global deals were at play, but admits they are just positing it as a theory. The conversation then shifts to UFOs.

Transcript centers on truth and why Epstein files should be public. They note both parties avoid real reasons. Speaker 1 says the president views it as “all a trap” and that it “reminds him of Russiagate”—an attempt by Democrats to ensnare him in a fake scandal; “he's not... never did anything creepy,” the speaker says. The speaker argues transparency would have helped “the country” and “the administration,” giving it credibility. They speculate why disclosure is feared: “could it be that Trump was there and he just doesn't wanna jeopardize his presidency even putting it out there?” Epstein is described as “the center of New York society for... decades.” The claim: “I don't think having dinner at his house or even necessarily going to his island is proof of a crime.” Finally, they note “Epstein had contact with Israeli intelligence” and “British intelligence”—“probably scarier than Mossad and CIA.”

Speaker 0: Do you agree with Candace Owens that the reason we are not going to see the client list is because Israel is implicated? Speaker 1: Israel is implicated. I’m just going to say that. Speaker 0: But what would Israel have to do with Epstein? Speaker 1: I mean, the former prime minister of Israel, he had Barack lived at Epstein's townhouse for years. I mean, the allegation is that Epstein was running a blackmail operation against powerful people where they would be videotaped having outside of marriage or illegally with underage women, that information will be used against them to get them to comply with whatever request that government wanted them to comply with. I think it's absolutely fair to ask to what extent was Epstein involved in a foreign intelligence operation on our show. This is our country. This country doesn't belong to any foreign country. Okay. This is our country. I was born here. I pay taxes here. So if some foreign country, I don't care if you claim it's our ally or not, is running an intel operation on my soil, I have a right to know what that was.

Speaker 0 states: "It's disruptive. It's ridiculous." "Obviously, it's to persecute an enemy, which I can't believe the FBI is being so politicized." "However, I will say, if he would have testified in the first impeachment hearing, maybe we wouldn't be here." "So there's a little bit of karma also."