TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss a scandal involving their father, a magistrate, who was involved in a secret group that engaged in extreme sexual practices and rituals. They reveal that their father was threatened and eventually killed because of his knowledge of the group's activities. They express their frustration with the justice system and call for the truth to be revealed to the public. They believe that their father's death was not natural and that there is a larger corruption within the system. They express hope that by exposing the truth, they can bring about change and hold those responsible accountable.

Speaker 0 states they are going to Washington D.C. to meet with senators and representatives, after which they will sell Avery's books. Avery (Speaker 1) expresses reluctance about the book, stating it has ruined their life and its publication will worsen it. Speaker 0 reminds Avery that they previously wanted people to know about the book. Avery acknowledges this, but now considers it a "stupid, silly mistake" and no longer wants the book published.

Speaker 0 demands answers and truth, claiming that people cannot handle it. Speaker 1 questions the purpose of pretending and inventing. Speaker 0 asserts that everyone's history is a fabrication and illusion. They mention living in a world with guarded walls, questioning who will protect them. The transcript abruptly ends.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

Speaker 0 explains that the couple’s ruse may seem odd to some people and does not fit into any “white handbook” about keeping the kingdom orderly. There is no section on how to rescue children from sex traffickers. Speaker 1 interrupts to say they want to explain something. Speaker 0 continues that, using his team, they have had to figure things out on their own. He acknowledges that people may dismiss it, but he emphasizes gratitude for the opportunity to publicly state a principle: he will never confess to something he did not do, no matter who asks, unless God himself and an angel or some divine directive instructs him to lie to protect Elder Ballard’s name from defamation. He asserts clearly that he will not lie or confess to a false wrongdoing unless there is a divine instruction to do so. He reiterates that there is not one person on the planet for whom he would deviate from this principle, unless a direct message from God or a celestial being instructs him otherwise. Speaker 1 closes with a brief interjection: “But by the way, folks.”

Speaker 0: No. No. Shame. Shame. Oh my fucking god. What the fuck? What the fuck? You just fucking what the fuck did you do? You are fucking criminals. You're fucking criminals. What the fuck? What the fuck are you guys doing? What the What the actual fuck? What are you doing? You are fucking insane. What did you do? What did you do? Speaker 1: You. Shame. Shame. Speaker 0: Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Did that Shame. Shame. Speaker 1: Dude, you shot her. I'm trying to help. No. No. You fucking shot someone in the Speaker 0: fucking face. You fucking someone in the fucking face. Do Speaker 1: you have a conscience? Speaker 0: Do you have a conscience? Don't let the murderer leave. Don't let the murderer leave. You Speaker 1: guys are the fucking criminals. You don't get to tell us what to do. Fucking criminals. Don't let him leave. Speaker 0: Don't let him leave. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's a fucking crime. Speaker 0: We fucking knew it. We're here. Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, what the absolute fuck, man? What the absolute fuck? Do you have Speaker 0: a Speaker 1: conscience? Do you have a conscience? Do you have a conscience? This is the time, man. This is the time to have a conscience. This is not okay. This is not okay. Speaker 0: Get Speaker 1: a fucking conscience. You okay, mommy?

The speaker believes a woman is hiding him from her husband. He says this is the only reason women hide someone. He believes the husband doesn't know about him at all. He says she leaves the house and changes his name to conceal him. He also believes the delay when she answers calls, followed by her calling back quickly and repeatedly, indicates something is going on. He mentions that in part two, her excuse for having the account was to give it to her husband.

The speaker talks about confronting those who betray and deceive, warning to protect loved ones. They criticize others for their behavior and question their motives. The speaker challenges societal norms and calls out hypocrisy, urging listeners to recognize the truth. The message emphasizes the importance of standing up against falsehoods and running from danger.

The speaker asserts that communications are corrupted and declares that they are wrong. They repeat statements of being found out, saying “You got me now,” and “You figured me out.” They also emphasize being caught, with “You got me red handed.” The passage ends with “God allowed.”

I falsely accused others of rape, which was wrong. I betrayed the trust of many who believed in me and created a false story for validation from people instead of seeking it from God. I acknowledge my wrongdoing and hope for forgiveness.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

Speaker 0 questions if the person is their partner and accuses them of always lying. They express frustration but also acknowledge that they find the person's lies entertaining.

Speaker 0 asks, "Did you rape the student?" and "Why? Help us understand." Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to grab whatever she needs, like her phone or purse. Speaker 1 asks if she is going somewhere. Speaker 0 says they will explain everything and asks her to turn around. Speaker 1 asks if her husband is coming with her. Speaker 0 confirms he is and that they are staying in touch with him, adding they are just going down the road, ten minutes away. Speaker 1 says she would prefer her husband with her and asks if she is in trouble, stating she is lost. Speaker 0 asks if she wants a tissue or a bag because she feels like she is going to throw up.

The teacher stands before the class, struggling to recall the lesson plan. The students sense the deception in the air. The atmosphere is tense, as the teacher seems to be playing the fool, sharing outdated and untruthful information. The call for honesty is clear: no more lies.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

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.

On September 6, 2023, the speaker expresses gratitude to Tucker Carlson and others for making them realize that it's time to reveal the truth. After 15 years of lies and distortions, they plan to share their story in detail. They will address the false statements and demonstrate their falsehood. Despite knowing that some people won't accept it, the speaker remains committed to owning their actions and words. After the interview, they plan to relax and have a few drinks before scheduling surgery on their right arm and hand. They acknowledge the need for recovery before addressing the left arm. The speaker concludes by stating that September 6, 2023, will be a memorable day.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they told Penley that they had informed Ken about his authority. Speaker 1 confirms that they told everyone on the phone call, including Penley. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1, as the chief of staff of the Attorney General's office, advised Paxton that it was okay to sign an outside counsel contract. Speaker 1 agrees and mentions being honest with Paxton's executive staff. Speaker 0 points out that despite this, they still went to the FBI. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 about their personal beliefs and mentions the implications of an affair. Speaker 1 responds cautiously. Speaker 0 brings up the idea of perfection and sin, and suggests that having an affair doesn't make someone a criminal. Speaker 1 agrees and Speaker 0 concludes by highlighting the hypocrisy of labeling someone a criminal for a marital indiscretion.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about planning to meet a 14-year-old boy for sex, revealing he has all the information and can report it. Speaker 1 admits wrongdoing and expresses feeling horrible. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's motivations, especially considering his position as a professor. Speaker 1 admits to bringing lube and a douche. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and seeks understanding. Speaker 1 acknowledges he "fucked up" and may need help. Speaker 0 emphasizes the seriousness of the situation. Later, law enforcement arrives. Speaker 2 explains they cannot make an arrest because Speaker 0 isn't law enforcement. The phone will be taken as evidence, and the case will be referred to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Speaker 0 questions why the same evidence leads to arrests in Orange County but not San Diego County. Speaker 2 refuses to debate the issue. Speaker 0 suggests this will look bad.

The speaker believes a woman is hiding him from her husband. According to the speaker, women only hide someone when they want to keep them secret from their significant others. The speaker believes the woman's husband doesn't know about him at all. He says this is why she leaves the house, changes his name in her phone, and initially claims to be busy when he calls. The speaker also references a "part two," where the woman's excuse for having the account was to give it to her husband.

Speaker 0 apologizes and admits to breaking all the rules. Speaker 1 reassures them that it's perfect and mistakes are possible. Speaker 0 believes that the egos of people in DC are a major issue. Speaker 1 expresses a preference for having no titles and being true to themselves. They both agree to proceed.

This is a bombshell revelation with huge implications. The issue at hand is not about a consensual relationship, but rather about lying to the court and potential financial gain. The speaker emphasizes that the credibility of the person in question is severely damaged. If she submitted false and inaccurate information to the court, what else has she lied about? This situation looks very bad for her, and the speaker believes the case is unlikely to succeed.

Speaker 0: Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long? "It wasn't a lie. It was I it was my imagination." Speaker 1: "In my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now," Rosenblatt says he made the story up to give people hope and to promote understanding about the holocaust. But members of his own family say his real motivation was money. "No. This is from your son." He said that he knew you were lying for years, and he couldn't get you to stop. "It was always hurtful. My father is a man who I don't know." Speaker 0: "Why did your wife agree to go along with this? Did she ever express any regret?" "Because she loves me."