TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses suing Media Matters for targeting conservative voices through market manipulation to silence opposition. They mention a blueprint from 2016 outlining tactics to suppress conservative voices. They highlight the importance of protecting free speech rights and fighting against market manipulation to undermine these rights. The speaker emphasizes the need for vigilance among attorneys general in upholding the first amendment.

In this testimony, the speaker raises several concerns regarding the treatment of January 6th protest defendants. They criticize the formation of the House Select Committee, claiming it lacks due process and is one-sided. The committee's hearings are described as scripted and biased, with the media amplifying a false insurrection narrative. The speaker argues that the defendants' Fourth Amendment rights were violated through geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants. They also highlight the unequal treatment of January 6th defendants compared to Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020. The speaker concludes by criticizing the judges' decisions and the disproportionate sentences given to January 6th defendants.

I have been accused, and it's been a paid campaign, of being a federal agent because I was at January 6 and did not get charged. However, despite being at January 6 and not trespassing, which is the crime that everybody was charged with, despite not being charged, not having committed a crime, I only had my bank account frozen for six months, I only was placed on the federal no fly list for a year, and I was only subpoenaed by Congress. I testified under oath when I was deposed as part of the subpoena last year, or I think that was rather in 2022, that I did not ever have contact with federal law enforcement at any time during or after any of the election riots or protests. This was a narrative that was cooked up. Nobody was saying this in 2021 or 2022 because all of my legal problems were publicized. I was on the no fly list, I had my money taken, I was banned from everything. It was only after Joe Kent was defeated in 2022 in the midterms that Max Blumenthal, Joe Kent's best friend, wrote a three part hit piece about me with his wife, Anya Parampol, accusing me of being a fed. They paid people, someone paid people, on Influencible to spread this article and the narrative that I'm a Fed. The claim grew that I gave a speech outside the Capitol and I said, we're taking the Capitol back, keep moving. They say I incited people to go in the building. The report says that none of their confidential sources on the ground were encouraging people to go in the building. There were undercover operatives or informants tasked to do that, but there were no undercover agents and out of 26 informants none of them were doing that. If the claim was I was entrapping people, that wasn't happening. The report also says that all the confidential sources were known to law enforcement before and were interviewed afterward. If I were one of the confidential sources, why would they make the mistake of freezing my money and putting me on the no fly list? The New York Times said they did charge me. I testified under oath that I never talked to law enforcement under penalty of perjury. So if anything, they’ve been saying Trump is gonna get in and blow the whistle. I wish he would on January 6 because if anything comes out, they could arrest me for perjury. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending myself from the feds; lawyers aren’t cheap. My lawyers, not cheap. I probably spent over 200,000, close to 250,000 in legal fees. All the money that I was given by the mysterious French donor, nearly all of it after it was unfrozen, I wound up spending on legal fees. I had to borrow money from people because my bank account was frozen for six months. I missed weddings of my best friends, funerals of my best friends because I was on the federal no fly list. I haven’t had banking services for four years. I haven’t been able to process a credit card for my business. I’ve been banned from everything—Facebook, Instagram; Twitter until May, not even a year ago. For years I spent defending myself from attacks as a racist and a Nazi and a Holocaust denier, then the tactic switched to accusing me of law enforcement, then gay, pedophile, the usual. The grand irony is that Tucker Carlson, a close friend of Max Blumenthal, collaborated on the piece; Tucker Carlson’s father is a federal agent, and during January 6 Tucker Carlson was not talking about election fraud and said he hated Trump. I’m pulling the veil back a little bit, because this is politics. The election was stolen, and there are these dynamics with Blumenthal, Kent, Tucker, and Max Blumenthal’s wife’s article in The Grey Zone.

The speaker makes several points about the treatment of January 6th protester defendants. They criticize the formation of the January 6th committee, claiming it was one-sided and lacked due process. The committee's hearings were described as scripted and cherry-picked. The speaker also accuses the committee of working with media outlets to spread a fake insurrection narrative. They argue that this poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC. The speaker believes that many defendants were unfairly targeted through geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants. They also mention that some protesters were unaware that certain areas were closed, leading to trespassing charges.

- "Do you know who Ray Epps is, and where is he? And, is he sitting behind bars like some of these other, protesters who've been sitting there without bail for so long?" - "And what we need to know is whether or not that cooperation existed on January 5 and January 6 to get people to do things that they might otherwise not do, like enter the capital." - "We already know as a consequence of reporting in revolver.news and in re really, that was confirmed by the New York Times that there were people texting their handlers from the crowd in January 5 and January 6." - "Now we just need to know whether the folks being controlled by the federal government were, in fact, the very people that were doing the worst things on January 6."

I just did a Fox News appearance in Washington DC, where I talked about digital currency and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). I had a revelation about CBDCs during the truckers protest in Canada. The protesters were peacefully asking for their rights, but the government took pictures of their license plates, used news stories to identify them, and then shut down their bank accounts and credit cards. This left them unable to work, pay their bills, or support their families. This made me realize that freedom of currency is as important as freedom of speech. If the government can starve you financially for dissenting, we are living in a concerning situation.

The speakers discuss the case of the shaman involved in the January 6th incident. They mention that he received a 31-month prison sentence, while Nancy Pelosi's daughter questions what he actually did. They suggest that the incident was a setup by the establishment to make a political movement illegal. They also mention the possibility of rigging the jury system for political purposes. Overall, they criticize the overprosecution of the protesters and highlight the hypocrisy of accusing Trump of the same actions.

Speaker 0: I began my journey into chronicling the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 1: Some of the most terrifying conversations I've had with some of my dear friends who work inside CIA, and their jobs is to go to other countries, get involved in elections, protests that will help overthrow a regime. It's no secret at this point. The CIA has been doing that for years, for decades. But the most terrifying conversations I've had are the ones where they would look to me and say, my god. Like, the twenty twenty election? We're doing to our people what we do to others. Speaker 2: CIA, the other intelligence agencies were exposed with projects like Operation Mockingbird. Speaker 0: The State Department, USAID, the Central Intelligence Agency went from free speech diplomacy to promoting censorship. Speaker 2: They created, purchased, controlled assets at the New York Times, the Washington Post, all of these top down media structures that used to control the information that Americans got. Speaker 3: I pulled into the driveway, opened up my garage door, these two gentlemen come out of a blue sedan with government license plates. And they came up to me and said, you're mister Solomon? And I said, yes. And they said, you're at the tip of a very large and dangerous iceberg. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. The the FBI sent agents over to my home to serve a subpoena. They're questioning me about my tweets. How is that not chilling? Speaker 2: Our whole page on Facebook for the world Seventh day Adventist World Church was removed. Speaker 5: The level of censorship that we experienced from publishing this documentary was beyond anything I could have imagined, and we really didn't even understand why. Speaker 3: We are going to win back the White House. The Russian collusion started broken '16. That's where the big lie first erupted. Speaker 6: Russian operatives used social media to rile up the American electorate and boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. Speaker 0: That's why they went after Trump with the Russia gate and with the FBI probes and with the CIA impeachments and things like that. Speaker 3: My FBI sources told me there's nothing there. And I kept wondering to myself, how could it be that something that's not true be taken so seriously and be portrayed as true? Speaker 7: How do you expand sort of top down control in this society? How do we flip? How do we invert America? Speaker 6: The evidence that the Supreme Court recounts is bone chilling. The federal government would call a private media company and say, cancel this speaker or take down this post. Speaker 3: I mean, just think about this. A sitting president of The United States had his Twitter and Facebook accounts frozen. Our founding fathers could not possibly have imagined that. Is there a chance that this documentary will be censored? Speaker 1: I think there's a huge chance this documentary gets censored. Speaker 2: Yeah. So it's interesting when you look at so many of the big censorship cases in The United States involving COVID, Hunter Biden's laptop. They all go back to a common thread. What is that thread? National security. Speaker 0: Google Jigsaw produced world's first AI censorship product. Things the model were trained on, support for Donald Trump, Brexit referendum that the State Department tried very desperately to stop. These are all these sort Speaker 5: of component pieces of what you called the censorship industrial complex. Speaker 3: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Speaker 2: Industrial Complex. Speaker 7: Censorship Industrial Complex. Censorship Industrial Complex. Speaker 1: I've long felt that it was a bubbling god complex.

Devin and Maria discuss the Arctic Frost investigation and its impact on Trump Media and Technology Group and Truth Social. - Devin asserts that Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) would not have been involved in Arctic Frost, since TMTG became a public company in 2024 and “we were nowhere around in 2021 on January 6,” questioning why Trump Media was subpoenaed during the investigation. - He questions JPMorgan Chase’s actions, asking why the bank would comply with Arctic Frost targeting TMTG’s bank records if the company did not exist in January 2021, noting that TMTG was never notified. - Devin explains that when Arctic Frost targeted their bank records, TMTG did not exist as a public or private entity at that time. He asks what reason JPMorgan had to pursue them, and he questions whether JPMorgan targeted TMTG and did not inform them, suggesting potential Florida law implications and possible federal law implications. - He recounts that during the period when they were private and preparing to go public, JPMorgan “debanked” TMTG at a critical moment in early 2024, during the campaign, even though they were seeking to deposit $250,000,000. Devin notes they had other banks in line (Citizens), but JPMorgan acted at that time. - Devin claims JPMorgan later indicated they do not close accounts for political reasons, citing a statement they gave to Fox News in August that they do not debank for political reasons and that regulatory change is needed, but he questions whether that policy held true at the time TMTG was debanked. - He states that now it is clear TMTG was caught up in Arctic Frost and emphasizes that they were a company going public with hundreds of thousands of shareholders worldwide and no debt, with an SEC approval, and therefore questions why JPMorgan would debank a company entering the market. - Devin says they will pursue all legal avenues under Florida and federal law to determine what JPMorgan knew, when they knew it, and whether there was coordination with anyone within the administration or the Justice Department, insisting that all communications JPMorgan had regarding their account be disclosed. - He adds that the Department of Justice and the dragnet affected hundreds of Americans, noting the broader scope of people wrapped up in these investigations. - The conversation highlights the overarching concern about potential political influence on financial institutions and the transparency of actions taken by JPMorgan during the Arctic Frost investigation.

After leaving the White House and starting a business, the speaker's bank informed them they could no longer do business together. A prominent email distribution service provider terminated their agreement. A university revoked its agreement to accept donations for foster students after learning the donations were from the speaker. The speaker believes these actions were due to their political affiliation and beliefs, calling it one of the "canceling projects." While some people have gained courage to speak out against cancel culture, the speaker believes it is still ongoing.

This account describes a deeply personal experience tied to the January 6 events and the author’s broader concerns about government overreach and the persecution of dissent. The speaker asserts that their journey is real and not abstract, detailing actions taken against them by federal authorities. Key points include: - The speaker was arrested by the FBI, placed in a cell, and branded a terrorist by their own government. - Their teenage son, who was sleeping in Los Angeles, was followed by TSA agents and placed on a watch list. - The speaker’s bank accounts were flagged, their reputation attacked, and they were effectively sentenced by a system that allegedly knew the accusations were false but did not correct them. - The speaker references recent media coverage to claim a shift in official acknowledgment: news reports allegedly confirm that there were hundreds of undercover FBI informants present on January 6, contradicting earlier statements that there were none, and even later statements suggesting only a few. - The speaker insists on recounting these events in their book, “Selective Persecution, the Legalization of American Fascism,” not as a pundit but as a witness, arguing that what happened to them could happen to anyone. The speaker emphasizes the breadth and seriousness of what they describe as state actions: targeting an individual with legal and reputational damage, coupled with surveillance and coercive measures affecting family members and financial standing. The narrative frames these experiences as part of a broader pattern of government behavior surrounding January 6, asserting that the claims are supported by new reporting about FBI informants on the scene. Overall, the account centers on personal testimony of alleged misconduct by federal authorities, the collateral impact on family members, and a broader claim about systemic abuse and misinformation surrounding January 6, framed within the author’s critique of American political dynamics as described in their book.

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

The speaker filed their first lawsuit against the Biden administration after discovering their name in briefings created by Stanford, funded by the Bill Gates Foundation, as part of the Virality Project. This project analyzed information to identify sources of COVID vaccine hesitancy, monitoring social and mainstream media. The speaker claims these briefings were sent to the White House, which then directed social media companies to censor specific content. Following a press conference with Senator Ron Johnson in July 2021, support groups were shut down. The speaker's activities in June and July 2021 were documented, noting the impact of "unverified claims of vaccine injury." The speaker believes the timing of this report and the subsequent censorship was not coincidental, preventing them from speaking on social and mainstream media. The speaker was shocked to find their legal and ethical actions tracked and relevant to the White House, even by their own political party.

The speaker claims they are being prosecuted for reporting Bill Barr and Armstrong Williams. They have notes from meetings about topics ranging from visas to January 6 and RICO cases. Barr allegedly believed the FBI would soon raid Trump's house and was focused on preventing Trump from holding office again. Barr allegedly suggested pursuing a recall charge against Trump because it is difficult to defend. Williams is described as having powerful friends like Barr and Ben Carson, using his connections to resolve issues. The speaker recalls a meeting with Fani Willis, who presented herself as close to Williams. Meetings allegedly focused on preventing Trump from regaining power. One meeting at Sinclair Broadcast introduced the speaker to Jack Smith and the January 6 investigation. Facebook allegedly provided direction on creating anti-Trump content. A meeting including Barr discussed investigating January 6, targeting figures like Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Roger Stone. Williams, despite portraying himself as a patriotic Republican, allegedly met with Barr to plan against Trump and those involved in January 6. The speaker alleges Williams was inside Capitol Hill on January 6 but was protected due to his connections.

Speaker 1 describes being blacklisted by various platforms and services following the events of January 6th. They mention being permanently banned by PayPal, Venmo, Stripe, Patreon, and donor portals. Their organization, the WalkAway Foundation and Walkaway campaign pack, were also permanently banned. Speaker 1 expresses concern over Bank of America turning over records of individuals who bought coffee in DC on January 6th, violating privacy. They mention a fellow defendant who had their bank mortgage canceled. Speaker 1 believes that legal reforms are needed to prevent people from being barred from the financial world based on their nonviolent politics. They discuss being put on a terrorism watch list and facing extensive screening at airports. Speaker 2 emphasizes the importance of venue reform to ensure fair trials. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 2 believes they were framed by the January 6th select committee, to which Speaker 2 responds affirmatively and criticizes the suppression of evidence of election fraud.

JPMorgan Chase allegedly told the speaker they had 20 days to move their hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, despite a 35-40 year relationship with the bank and no loan defaults. Bank of America also showed no interest in opening accounts for the speaker, even after previously being very cordial. As a result, the speaker deposited funds in smaller banks, $5-12 million at a time. The speaker believes banks discriminated against them and other conservatives/Trump supporters. They claim the Biden administration directed banking regulators to target them, but despite this, the speaker became president.

The speaker, Erin Elizabeth, discusses a controversial Etsy shop called Yung Pizza that sells questionable items. She mentions a picture of a girl who paid $10,000 for something called "young pizza assorted" and questions why people would buy insurance or chat room access from the shop. Erin talks about being banned on various social media platforms and mentions other individuals who have also faced censorship. She expresses concern about election interference and hopes to regain her followers. Erin concludes by discussing search and block bans on Twitter and the difficulties in fixing them. The speaker hints at seeking legal assistance to address the censorship issue.

Speaker 0 believes crypto should follow the same rules as everyone else. Speaker 1 wishes Senator Warren would focus on inflation and border security as much as she focuses on crypto. Speaker 1 claims Warren questioned the CEO of JPMorgan Chase but didn't ask about their alleged financing of a child sex trafficking operation with Jeffrey Epstein. Speaker 1 suggests Warren avoided the topic because a former Democrat president, her donors, and people she knows are involved. Speaker 1, a survivor of childhood rape, wants transparency and asks why Warren didn't question JPMorgan Chase, which settled for $290 million with rape victims and the US Virgin Islands. Speaker 0 claims to have pursued banks and regulators to bring fairness to the financial system.

The January 6 committee was unlawfully formed by Speaker Pelosi and acted without due process, using cherry-picked and doctored video. The committee worked with regime media to blast the fake narrative of an insurrection. Secretly recorded video reveals Nancy Pelosi's documentary admitting no insurrection occurred. The shameful proceedings and media blitz poisoned the jury pool in DC. Many defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet violating the Fourth Amendment via geofencing and cellphone data warrants. The Justice Department didn't respect the protesters' First Amendment rights, unlike the kid gloves treatment of Antifa and BLM agitators in Portland. January 6 defendants haven't been dealt with in the same fashion as Antifa and BLM protesters, violating equal protection. Widespread Brady violations exist, including concealed footage around the Capitol and 800+ unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts potentially containing exculpatory evidence. Judges in DC seem to have come under the spell of the January 6 committee's original sin, allowing the mainstream media narrative to influence their decisions. A statute designed to close an obstruction of justice loophole is being misapplied. Antifa and BLM revolutionaries largely got off scot-free, while January 6 defendants' sentences are wildly disproportionate.

The speaker presents seven core points about the January 6 investigations and related prosecutions. 1) Original sins of government and due process concerns - The lawless formation of the House Select Committee on January 6 led to a one-sided, due process-free process. - The committee was gerrymandered by Speaker Pelosi, operated without a ranking member or counsel for the ranking member, and Liz Cheney was granted vice chair status to cover that up. - The committee conducted scripted hearings with prewritten Q&A paths and cherry-picked, highly edited audio and video. 2) Collaboration with mainstream media and narrative shaping - The committee worked with major outlets (The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC) to blast a narrative of an insurrection. - The speaker claims secretly recorded video shows Nancy Pelosi, her daughter, and friends admitting no real insurrection occurred. - The combined effect of the committee’s conduct and the media blitz allegedly poisoned the jury pool in Washington, DC, and suggested that venue transfers should have been permitted. 3) Fourth Amendment concerns and the dragnet - Many defendants were swept up in a broad dragnet that the speaker believes resembled a general warrant violating the Fourth Amendment. - This involved geofencing technology and cell phone data warrants to telecom providers. - People arriving after the speech and the ellipse allegedly did not see that areas normally open to the public were closed, creating a trespass trap for the unwary. 4) First Amendment rights and unequal treatment - The Department of Justice did not treat First Amendment rights of the protesters with appropriate respect. - The speaker contrasts the January 6 cases with the 2020 Portland protests, where nightly attacks on federal courthouses and antifa/BLM activity were characterized differently. - The speaker asserts that insurrection labeling in Portland was more applicable to those actions than to the largely spontaneous January 6 crowd, implying selective enforcement. 5) Selective prosecution and unequal treatment - The January 6 defendants have not been treated the same as Antifa and BLM protesters in 2020 who damaged property and threatened the White House. - The speaker calls this a flat violation of equal protection of the laws and suggests broad public belief in selective prosecution. 6) Brady violations and exculpatory evidence - Widespread Brady violations are alleged, focusing on two areas: concealed or underreported footage of the Capitol, and the large number of unreleased January 6 committee deposition transcripts (over 800), with the possibility that exculpatory evidence remains unseen by defendants and their lawyers. - The committee allegedly acted like a star chamber, and there is concern that not all exculpatory material has been made available. 7) Judicial influence and misapplication of obstruction statutes - DC federal judges are said to have been influenced by the January 6 committee’s narrative and the mainstream media. - A statute designed to close an obstruction-of-justice loophole from Arthur Andersen/Enron is claimed to be applied to activity that in many instances is protected by the First Amendment, with unequal sentencing: Antifa and BLM defendants allegedly receiving lighter outcomes or settlements, while January 6 defendants face disproportionate sentences. - The speaker concludes by expressing disagreement with the overall approach and intention to speak on these concerns.

The speaker outlines seven points regarding the treatment of January 6 defendants. First, the House Select Committee was lawlessly formed and acted in a one-sided way. Second, the committee worked with regime media to blast the narrative that an insurrection occurred. Nancy Pelosi's documentary allegedly admits no real insurrection occurred. Third, many defendants were swept up in a vast dragnet violating the fourth amendment via geofencing and cell phone data warrants. Fourth, the Justice Department didn't respect the protesters' first amendment rights, unlike how they treated Antifa. Fifth, January 6 defendants haven't been dealt with in the same fashion as Antifa and BLM protesters, violating equal protection. Sixth, there are widespread Brady violations, including concealed footage and unreleased deposition transcripts. Seventh, DC judges are under the spell of the January 6 committee and are misapplying a statute, leading to disproportionate sentences compared to Antifa and BLM, who largely got off scot-free.

I'm a free speech absolutist, yet my account was suspended and my verification removed. Subscribers can no longer support my work because Elon Musk disagrees with my statements. I didn't dox anyone; I shared publicly available FEC records. My intention was to warn the Trump administration about a significant issue that could lead to impeachment if the Democrats regain control and frame it as big tech buying influence. This is a serious concern that needs attention, especially since the MAGA base is reacting strongly to it.

The speaker claims they are being prosecuted for reporting Bill Barr and Armstrong Williams. They have notes from meetings about visas, January 6, and a RICO case. Barr allegedly said the FBI would go to Trump's house and discussed ways to prevent Trump from holding office again. Barr allegedly suggested using a recall charge against Trump because it's difficult to defend. Armstrong is described as having powerful friends like Barr and Ben Carson, and he allegedly calls Barr to resolve issues, such as visa approvals or lobbying for Turkish Airlines. The speaker claims meetings occurred with Fani Willis, who presented herself as close to Armstrong. The speaker alleges Barr, Armstrong, and other politicians were focused on stopping Trump. Meetings discussed Jack Smith's investigation into January 6 and creating content against Trump with help from someone at Facebook named Daniele. A meeting in September 2021 included discussions about the January 6 committee and targeting individuals like Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and Roger Stone. Armstrong, despite portraying himself as a patriotic Republican, allegedly attended meetings with Barr to plan against Trump and those involved in January 6. The speaker claims Armstrong was inside Capitol Hill on January 6 but was never caught due to his connections.