TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

- 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.

Speaker 0 is asked if he accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

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 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Speaker 0 claims to have recordings and documents exposing malfeasance within a nonprofit, alleging board members took money from donors and used children to further an agenda. Speaker 1 denies knowledge and deflects, objecting to questions about investments in companies, some potentially in the medical field and possibly sold to big pharma like Pfizer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of conflicts of interest. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being a cheat and a liar. Speaker 0 vows to get justice, not revenge. The timing of events is deemed suspicious, and a board statement is considered a critical turning point.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about a testimony where their son claims they were frequently on speaker phone discussing business with a business associate. Speaker 1 denies ever speaking to the gentleman and dismisses the question as lousy. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1, addressing them as Mr. President.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

Speaker 0 asks if Democrats risk playing into the president's hands by focusing on the Kilmaro Burgo Garcia case. Speaker 1 responds that they don't know of any Democrat who defended Garcia. They claim Garcia was falsely arrested and removed from the country. They allege "they" are making up things about Garcia, such as associating him with MS 13 or claiming he coordinated the January 6 attack, even though he has never been prosecuted or convicted of any crime.

Speaker 0 denies any knowledge or discussion about his business or his family's business with his son or anyone else. Speaker 1 reveals that Stephanie, who was vice president, approved a response to a 2015 story about Hunter Biden's connection to Burisma Energy Company. It is also mentioned that Biden's family received less than $1,000,000 from a Chinese firm.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.

The speaker questions someone about their involvement in questionable donations made through ActBlue. They mention talking to people in Maryland who denied making the donations listed on ActBlue's website. The speaker is asked to leave and threatened with arrest for trespassing at a location in Massachusetts.

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

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 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

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 speaker questions the amount of money that went from USAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina. The other speaker rejects the accusation and doesn't have the specific details about USAID funding. The first speaker asks if they are certain that no USAID money went to Wuhan, but the second speaker avoids answering and asks for respectful questions. The first speaker insists on a denial, but the second speaker dismisses it as a non-denial denial.

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.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

Speaker 0 asks if there is concern about retribution for opposing McCarthy. Speaker 1, not worried, says he is not a political person but believes they will work through it. He dismisses the idea of retribution, stating he is from New York and has faced worse. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 facilitated payment for the Steele dossier as Hillary Clinton's CFO. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it and states it was not something he was aware of.