TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions the witness about the FBI's history of violating people's rights, including fraud in forensic testimony, improper searches of US officials, and spying on activists. The witness claims to be unaware of these incidents and dismisses them as irrelevant. The speaker argues that the witness's initial reaction to the allegations against the FBI was biased and asks if she could have investigated the matter further. The witness defends her belief in a broad conspiracy involving multiple agencies but admits to not conducting any investigation.

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

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

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

The speaker questions the credibility of the individual, pointing out their attendance at a press conference and debate related to Donald Trump. The individual struggles to recall details of their involvement, including who invited them and how they arrived. Despite being pressed for answers, the individual maintains that their lawyers handled arrangements. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt in the individual's testimony.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

This is unbelievable. You want to be the archivist of the United States, yet you lied under oath and in your QFRs. Just moments ago, you lied to me again and are now stonewalling, refusing to answer questions about your own public posts. Mister chairman, this is the most extraordinary situation I have encountered in my time in the Senate. I have never witnessed a witness so blatantly lie under oath as Dr. Shogan has done today, consistently avoiding questions from this committee.

The conversation covers a mix of topics centered on political connections and accountability. It begins with a reference to Barack Obama, noting he “was president of The United States,” followed by a remark about his time in Chicago and a comment attributed to him: “only black people could live that way.” Attorney Klein is brought into the discussion, and there is a transition to turnover of questions and answers. A committee issue is raised: Speaker 2 accuses the person addressed of misleading the committee, including a contradictory written submission. The person responds that they will review the matter “in our next break to correct the record,” answering “Yes” to whether they will review it. The dialogue then addresses political campaign involvement. Speaker 2 asks whether the person helped out the president’s campaign, acted as a representative or spokesman, and whether it was their idea for the campaign dating back to 2011; the response given is “Yes.” Speaker 3 asks for identification of individuals associated with the Trump organization. The person confirms several individuals: Alan Weisenberg as the Chief Financial Officer, and Miss Rona Graf as the executive assistant to Mr. Trump. The request is for as many names as possible so the committee can meet them. The person confirms Rona Graf’s position and explains that she is the executive assistant, with her office directly next to Mr. Trump’s, and notes that she has been involved in a lot of what went on. There is a reflective aside from Speaker 1 about the difficulty of following the proceedings in real time, and a critical observation regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement: questions are raised about why Epstein would have the contact information of the executive assistant and why she would feel comfortable texting him back during a congressional hearing. Speaker 4 adds commentary on hierarchy and motivation, suggesting that Epstein’s influence is reflected in the assistant’s actions: “Epstein's clearly paying her… she's just following her marching orders for her paycheck.” The exchange ends with the implication that the hierarchy and payoffs influence the responses and behavior of those connected to the Trump organization.

Joe Biden has denied involvement in his family's business deals, but witnesses claim otherwise. They believe he lied about interacting with Hunter Biden's associates and is the closer for their business dealings with foreign interests. The speaker challenges the left to prove otherwise before yielding the floor.

The speaker questions a senator's qualifications to vote against Pete Hegseth, given the senator allegedly lied about their own military service. The speaker directly asks the senator if they would like to answer the question.

The senator questions the speaker about their firm's client selection policy, specifically regarding their clients who are state-owned Chinese corporations. The speaker defends their rigorous selection process and claims to primarily work with multinational and private sector companies. However, the senator highlights that the firm has advised state-owned enterprises involved in activities contrary to US security interests. The speaker denies advising these specific companies but fails to provide satisfactory answers. The senator criticizes the firm for making substantial profits from both US enemies and the American taxpayer. The senator proposes a law to prohibit such activities and vows to push for a vote on it.

A senator questioned a State Department official about an email detailing alleged discriminatory hiring practices. The email stated that certain candidates could not be hired because they have a disability, are white men, are straight white men, or are not of the "right religion." The senator asked the official, appointed in April 2021 and responsible for introducing fundamental changes to State Department hiring, if they were aware of these practices. The official stated they could not comment. The senator then asked if the official, as chief diversity officer, was arguing that discrimination was not happening at the State Department.

The speaker questions the credibility of the person testifying, mentioning past accusations of lying. The speaker also brings up payments made to the testifier's attorney by a political action committee. The speaker criticizes the testifier for calling various individuals, including the FBI and colleagues, liars. The speaker expresses skepticism towards the testifier's claims of truthfulness.

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

The speaker claims, in sworn testimony, to have admitted to lying to the US government about a UN policy. According to the speaker, the UN admits in court filings that this is an ongoing policy. The speaker states they were not fired for lying, but for objecting to the Secretary General's policy, specifically for informing the US delegation and Congress about it. The speaker asserts the UN believes it has the right to lie to the US government, its largest donor, about providing names of US citizens to the Chinese Communist Party. The speaker says they were fired for revealing the truth about this policy.

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

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

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

The speaker expresses their disagreement with the chairman's statement, denying that those who questioned Mr. Mongi were prejudiced. They find it outrageous to be labeled as anti-Muslim or racist. They mention their positive experiences working with Senator Booker and the chairman but emphasize the difficulty caused by such accusations. The speaker reiterates their concern about Mr. Mongi's affiliation with a center that supported Hamas and questions his lack of concern for Jewish students who faced threats.

The speaker questions the attorney general about pardons for January 6th offenders and asks if she advised the president on this. The attorney general refuses to discuss conversations with the president. The speaker accuses the administration of incompetence, corruption, and cruelty, focusing on corruption. She asks if the attorney general was ever registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The attorney general acknowledges representing Qatar for anti-human trafficking efforts related to the World Cup. The speaker accuses her of being a registered lobbyist for Qatar and not disclosing this during her Senate confirmation. The attorney general claims it was discussed in detail. The speaker asks if the attorney general advised that President Trump could accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar. The attorney general refuses to discuss advice given to the president. The speaker asks if she recused herself from that issue, and the attorney general questions the speaker's claim that the president wanted the jet because it was "pretty."

I'm confirming that Tulsi Gabbard has appointed someone with a history of being untrustworthy, potentially aiding adversarial nations. In Connecticut, the leading Democratic candidate in a major US Senate race is facing scrutiny after being caught misrepresenting his military service. Richard Blumenthal, the state attorney general, previously stated he served in Vietnam, but reports indicate he received five wartime deferments and served stateside in the Marine Reserves. I misspoke, and I won't let a few misplaced words tarnish my record of service to our country. However, video evidence exists of Blumenthal claiming he was in Vietnam.

A woman asked a congresswoman if she would condemn the Hamas flag being flown outside the White House during a free Palestine protest last week. The congresswoman responded, "What are you talking about?" and "That sounds ridiculous." The woman then asked again if the congresswoman would like to condemn it.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.