TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Every time I do an investigative report, they call the police. It happened recently in Livingston, New Jersey and in Palisades, New York. They're calling the cops on me, even though I'm a journalist. I had a conversation with someone who didn't initially share their name, but I persisted and eventually got their business card. This experience taught me the importance of being relentless in seeking information. The public needs to be informed.

Is your name Mohammed Daniel? We're from a team called Leisure Child Protection. We stop people like you from grooming children online. You’ve been communicating with someone you believe is a 14-year-old in a sexual and coercive manner. I have a few questions for you. Is this your chat log? Is this your number? Do you know the age of sexual consent in the UK? Do you have any children living with you? You mentioned you've been contacting children online for about a month. How many children are you speaking to?

I received a call from a grandfather in Rotherham about his 13-year-old granddaughter. She went missing after going to school, and the police were notified. However, the police didn't seem too concerned. At 2:30 AM, a neighbor called 999 after hearing a young girl screaming. The police found the missing girl at the house, along with another young girl, seven adult Pakistani men, and she was almost naked and drunk. Instead of questioning the men, Southampton Police arrested the 13-year-old for being drunk and disorderly, put her in a cell, charged her, and she was convicted. The police didn't even question the men about why a 13-year-old, nearly naked girl was in their house in the early hours.

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker admits to not knowing anything about it until it came out publicly. They mention that there were many names on the list, but the press only focused on a few. The speaker reiterates that they had no knowledge of the situation.

Speaker 0 says they got all their advice from the police after sharing a link they thought was funny, but it was terrorist content. They fear a criminal record and not being able to go to college. They emphasize that it’s not a game, it’s real life, and their mom couldn’t believe it.

I angered many people on TikTok, including someone named Thomas. We discovered Thomas' identity and reported his threatening videos to the police, along with his personal information and social media accounts. We also obtained contact information for the local police department and the chief and deputy chief. I have already shared this information. The police were not impressed with Thomas' videos and expressed concern about his inappropriate fetishes on TikTok. This was an interesting experience.

Speaker explains contacting a friend through the NCA about information tied to names on the list and avoiding putting this in through the front door: "not putting this in through the front door because of the names on the list." The friend said, "somebody's gonna come and see you." Nothing happened; after another contact, they were told they'd be in touch but never were. A source from one of the big three suggested going directly to the police; the person feared for her life because of the names on the list, though she didn't have the evidence. Gloucestershire Police have an undercover trafficking unit. Two weeks later, the inquiry began: "Are you Mandy Smith? Yes, I am. You've sent us this information. How did you get my details?" "Are you suffering from mental health issues?" "There's nothing on the record." I put the phone down on me.

Hello, I'm Sean, a senior nurse with the NHS. Can I have your name and number? PT Green, Echo Bravo 428. What’s this about? I have some concerns. It’s a bit smelly here. What’s the issue? I believe this is religious discrimination. You wouldn’t be here if I were Muslim. Why do you think we’re here? I know why. We’ve received concerns about your views. I’m an Orthodox Christian, and I’m filming this for my solicitor. What are your concerns? I don’t mean to be abrupt, but why are you here? We’re here to listen and help if you have any well-being concerns. I’m fine, thank you. You’re here because I questioned the church’s actions. No assumptions are being made. That’s fine.

Speaker 1 recounts an incident where “eleven police officers” arrived at their house, which they describe as completely ridiculous. The speaker explains they had left the front door open and were waiting for their dad, actually being in the bath at the time the officers entered. They recall hearing their name called, noticing one female officer among the group of ten male officers. They initially thought the name might belong to their sister because they were upstairs in the bath. The officers then came up the stairs without giving them any privacy, and the speaker confirms they were naked. The speaker describes feeling disgusted and very upset, crying their eyes out. They asked that the female officer stay downstairs and that the male officers be the ones to handle the situation, expressing that they were upset about the lack of privacy and the presence of officers while exposed. Despite this, the males were sent downstairs, and the female officer sat with the speaker, who was crying and very distressed. When asked what the officers were there for, the speaker says they asked for clarification. The female officer explained that the police were there for “malicious communications. Hate crime and malicious communications.” The speaker pressed for more information about the reason behind the visit, and the officer indicated they would discuss the details “when we get to the police station” or “to the” authorities, but the exact phrasing in the transcript cuts off here.

Nick Shirley initiates the exchange by stating his name and pressing for permission to record, noting that the other person “doesn’t have any permission to record me, period.” He proposes, “Can we talk outside? Permission to record.” The other person counters that there is no permission from either party, saying, “She doesn’t either have she doesn’t have permission or … for me. You cannot stop people on the street and question them.” Nick states, “We can ask them,” and the other person repeats, “Have any permission.” The dialogue shifts to a concern about the whereabouts of children. Nick asks, “Where are the children?” The other person responds, “I will sue you. You don't have any permission. We have nothing to do with this. Okay, sir? And are there … So leave.” Nick persists, asking again, “Are there children here?” The other person repeats, “Please leave.” Nick inquires, “Where are the children?” and the other person insists, “Leave. Leave.” Nick questions, “We’re wondering what's happening. Tell us what's happening here then.” The other person commands, “I said leave.” Nick clarifies, “We're wondering what's happening.” The other person states, “We are not a childcare. We have nothing to do with it. We're the common people walking. Yes. We're not … we're not accusing you. We're asking where the children are at.” The other person repeats, “Don't ask me anything.” Nick emphasizes his intent: “We're not accusing you. We're asking the daycare centers.” The other person refuses to answer, “I am not gonna answer. You have.” Nick presses, “Where are the children … who do you work for? My name is Nick Shirley.” The other person asks, “Who do you work for?” Nick responds, “I work for myself. Nick Shirley.” The other person inquires, “Okay what are you recording?” Nick answers, “We're wondering where are the children $2,660,000 for the Minnesota child care center. You're not talking to the right person. Are there children that come here?” The other person demands, “Answer the question. Are there children?” Nick states, “There's no children inside the building.”

CSIS came to my home while I was cooking for my child and approached me in an uncomfortable manner. Since then, I have faced harassment and stalking from them. Despite telling them I didn’t want to talk, they repeatedly called and even found my gym. They implied that if I didn’t become an informant, my safety and ability to care for my child could be at risk. I’m not impressed with law enforcement in this country. I have not been asked to reimburse any money, but CSIS has applied significant psychological pressure on me to cooperate. I declined their offer, as I refuse to be an asset for any government, and I want to know how much this has cost Canadians.

The speaker tries to contact the state and local police departments but struggles to get assistance. They mention filing complaints in the past and receiving threats due to their involvement in politics. They express frustration with not receiving police reports and describe a recent threat from a woman named Linda Waterman. The speaker wants the police to take their threats seriously but refuses to provide their address. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker insisting on knowing the names of the officers they would meet. The call ends abruptly without a resolution.

I went on TV to talk about grooming gangs in Telford, and police suddenly showed up at my door, claiming it was their duty to follow up. They had done nothing about the abuse for decades but decided to intimidate me after my interview. They said they were trying to make a difference, but it seemed like they were targeting a victim instead of the perpetrators. It's pathetic that criticizing them on TV drove them into action. I have no idea who ordered this "raid."

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant and hope that they are still available. The whistleblower is described as credible. When questioned about the informant's whereabouts, the speaker clarifies that they are hopeful of finding them. They explain that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen frequently or being in the public eye.

I'm declining to be named in your story. I haven't given any quotes. My name is James O'Keefe. We have you on hidden camera talking about Elon Musk, Doge, and unlawful activities at Treasury. I encourage you to speak on the record. We have you on video saying government colleagues don't do much, and Doge targets us because it's easy. I'm a reporter. People deserve to know what you've said. Why did you share this with a stranger but not me? You specialize in foreign policy at the Treasury. What are you afraid of? It'll look bad when you won't speak to me, but you told a stranger everything. This is a major public policy issue. I'm running this story with or without you. I think the people need to know what's happening inside the government, including risks to national security.

A person asks why the speaker called the police on two men at CVS. The speaker explains that it is CVS policy to call the police if someone shoplifts. The person questions if it's worth risking someone's life for a low salary. The speaker believes there was no risk and ends the conversation. The person asks for the speaker's name, but the speaker refuses to give it due to being recorded. The person accuses the speaker of inciting violence against the two black men. The speaker mentions that one of the men had a warrant but was let go by the police. The person reminds the speaker that they work with black people.

I received a persistent message on Instagram from a burner account urging me to check my DMs. The sender claimed to have information that could "change the course of humanity." After some back and forth, he sent a detailed manifesto about alleged military operations and war crimes, insisting I connect him with media outlets like Fox News. He claimed to be an active duty Special Forces member with knowledge of advanced drone technology and a history of war crimes cover-ups. Despite checking his LinkedIn and finding credible credentials, I couldn't verify his claims. He requested anonymity and warned of a potential attack, but I felt unable to share this without evidence. Ultimately, I informed the FBI about the situation, recognizing its seriousness.

I appeared on a show discussing the abuse of girls in Telford, which sparked significant public support. The next day, police officers knocked on my door, claiming they needed to follow up on my interview about grooming gangs. They had tracked me down, visiting my previous addresses, and their approach felt intimidating, almost like they were treating me as a suspect. I pointed out that while they had done nothing to pursue my abusers, they were suddenly active after my TV appearance. I was surprised by the presence of 22 officers from the Child Sexual Exploitation team, who claimed they wanted to make a difference, yet they were targeting a victim instead of the perpetrators who have been abusing girls for decades.

David from the Sacramento FBI is approached for an interview about someone he met online. He refuses to speak on camera and declines to answer questions about his activities.

I want to show you something. I was going to let this go, but I can't. Hello. I don't know how to do this, but I want to tell you all that I have been pressured by government officials to do and say things to harm others. They even hacked my phone and I received a tracking notification. This happened after meeting with government officials who, besides that, offered me everything and a large sum of money. They also tried to persuade me to lie and arrange a meeting with the president if I caused harm.

I had access to a large amount of mailing records, victim records, internet protocol records, and emails. I used this information to track down criminals in Russia. I reached out to the Russian Embassy in Washington and asked for the Russian FSB Liaison Officer. After a few conversations, they introduced me to Sergei Mikhailov, the Deputy Head of the Information Security Center for the Russian FSB. It was an interesting experience.

The speaker recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

I exposed the names and companies involved in trafficking children into the UK for pedophilia to the police, MI5, the National Crime Agency, and the government. Instead of investigating, Leicestershire Police accused me of pedophilia and investigated me for four months, alleging I was a Freemason involved in ritualized child abuse, which was false. This was my punishment for raising the issue. The evidence came from two Ukrainian secret service agents who provided the same information about 9,000 missing children from Donbas. After passing this information to the National Crime Agency, someone at a company we implicated checked out my associate's LinkedIn profile. Car bombs were planted under the cars of both Ukrainian agents; one died, and the other is in hiding. We will have to go public with the evidence. Next week, I should be able to make a very important announcement about holding those responsible for crimes against the people to account legally.

"you're under arrest currently, right, on suspicion of harassment." "the grounds of the arrest are that from the March 10, you've made apparently a number of posts online and on social media harassing an individual who came making serious allegations." "Someone from the church." "We've got serious safeguarding concerns." "But we need to interview you in relation to that investigation have been made." "My children are 12, 13, and eight." "First of all, there's three things that we need to do." "I've got three young children here on the property." "They don't I don't know where they are."