TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

This conversation centers on Israel, lobbying, and US policy. Speaker 0 says he’s been very pro Israel and defender of its right to defend itself, but has 'no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group,' and has declined repeated invitations to go to Israel. He notes mounting pressure to stay aligned and that he’s not on Hamas’ side, though his views have shifted since 10/08/23. Speaker 1 explains APAC is 'not registered under FARA' and describes freshman trips to Israel, meetings with government members. He notes that '3.8, billion dollars in funding for Israel' is an annual decision, that Israel is 'less than 400,000,000,000 in debt,' and that Israelis have 'government funded health care' and 'government funded college.' He questions why the US funds this given its own economic strain, citing that 'we buy money from your defense contractors' and that Israel can buy from Israeli defense contractors.

Two speakers present political grievances. The transcript centers on funding to Israel, veterans’ welfare, and oath fidelity. Speaker 0: "Sending billions of dollars to Israel. Meanwhile, veterans are homeless and committing suicide. You heard that right. I am deemed a threat to national security because I don't support Israel's genocide." Speaker 1: "I swore an oath to the constitution. I didn't swear an oath to the president, to the congress. 20% skill. 15% concentrated power of will. 5% pleasure."

"DOJ wants to keep secret the names of two Epstein associates who wired a $102,150 k in 2018 right after the whole story blew up." "Follow the money because that can expose a lot of the characters." "Epstein has a trust, and it's controlled in offshore bank accounts." "Look into Ghislain Maxwell's trust, what's happening there." "Hats off to Israel. They're doing the right things in their best interest." "The concern is when it comes to The US and we're talking about APAC, Americans vote for you to represent them in America's interests." "There is a two-tier justice system." "We are 37,000,000,000,000 in debt. America is broke. We can't afford it anymore." "Transparency from the United States government." "I don't take donations from big pharma. I don't take donations from the Military Industrial Complex. I don't take donations from APAC." "we just can't fucking afford it anymore." "defund the foreign aid and foreign funding out of our own military funding bill." "I'll have amendments to defund Ukraine $600,000,000 and Israel $500,000,000 and another 105,000,000 for drones and tunnels." "APAC registering under FARA is one example." "America first." "Ukraine is not a NATO member nation." "Defunding Israel is on the table."

“If their government came out and said, we have a five year plan to decouple from USAID, would that help people's view of Israel if they said, hey, we want to be self reliant? Absolutely.” “We're now gonna decouple over the next five years and and basically transition.” “319,000,000,000 being sent to Israel over all these years, that's comparable to the amount we've sent to Ukraine.” “I believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe that they are the only state in that region with the right to exist.” “But why are we treating them differently than any other ally? Should we not be judging them, holding them to the same standard?” “Do you find it persuasive when the Israeli tourism board is bragging about how many gay pride parades they have in Tel Aviv?” “No.”

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

The speaker raises several connected points about accountability and messaging around major U.S. foreign and domestic issues. First, they highlight the perceived urgency of a rapid twenty-hour response from a country the size of New Jersey, noting that such a response begs for a big explanation. They then point to what they describe as America underwriting the Israeli government to the tune of $4,000,000,000 annually, arguing that American taxpayers deserve answers about what they are buying with that funding. A central concern voiced is the possibility of a regional or world war arising from an intelligence failure, and the speaker asks for clarity on how the U.S. is funding or supporting actions in the region in light of that risk. They emphasize that they and others deserve to know what the financial backing is achieving. The speaker also recounts personal experience with being smeared for their views, including being labeled a Jew hater, an anti-Semite, and a conspiracy theorist because of what they have said. They insist on not backing down in the face of such smears. Drawing on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, the speaker references multiple narratives they say they encountered: the claim that the virus originated from a bat in the Himalayas, the assertion that the vaccine was safe and effective, and the insistence that ivermectin was “horse-paced.” They express a belief in the importance of asking questions, framing it as the thing that keeps people free. In sum, the speaker calls for transparency about large-scale U.S. financial support to Israel, questions about the potential consequences of intelligence failures leading to broader conflict, and a sustained commitment to inquiry in the face of public criticism, tying these to broader lessons they took from the COVID era.

Speaker 0 argues that "Israel's our greatest ally. We should never ask anything of them." They echo: "Protecting Israel's most important thing. They're our only real ally." They question, "If they're our only real ally, why does Israel have a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology to China? To China?" and ask, "Why is China running the Port Of Haifa, Israel's biggest port?" They claim "From Israel's perspective, we're not a close ally" and "The loyalty is not requited. It's one way." They say Netanyahu "has pushed it too far" and that "the governor of Israel, in particular, the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far." They add "I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control The United States." They cite Trump on West Bank annexation: "No. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen." and "I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank." The speaker concludes "It's been enough. It's time to stop" and that "This is why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence in US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of singling out Israel and implying Jewish control over foreign policy, labeling it an antisemitic trope. Speaker 0 denies antisemitism, stating the concern is about a foreign government's influence, not Jews or Judaism. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0 to provide another reason for focusing on Israel. Speaker 0 cites the potential for war with Iran and Speaker 1's stated goal of defending Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend any foreign government's interests, regardless of ancestry, and condemns the antisemitism accusation.

Speaker 1 stated that the Congress of the United States is like an Israeli occupied territory because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. They believe that the automatic votes for aid to Israel may not always be in the national interest of the United States. Speaker 1 also mentioned that members of Congress often vote in favor of powerful lobbies because they cannot withstand the pressure. When asked why they singled out the pro-Israel lobby, Speaker 1 explained that it was in response to a specific question about Israeli aid.

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

Speaker 0 asks if Ron DeSantis has ever denounced them, to which Speaker 1 replies that he hasn't. They claim to be his biggest supporters and if he were to denounce them, they would say he's lying because he's trying to secure the presidency. Speaker 1 mentions that politicians in the US have to support Israel and that DeSantis is just pretending to be a friend of the Jewish people while actually being a friend of white America. They bring up HB 269, a bill DeSantis signed in Israel, and criticize it for not achieving its intended goals. They conclude that DeSantis is focused on the best interests of white America.

Speaker 0 believes the American government is trapped by the Israelis and that Jeffrey Epstein is one of their tools to trap them. He says Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat met in the nineties and there was no peace deal because of Epstein, claiming Epstein was blackmailing them. He adds that Ehud Barak, then the prime minister of Israel, was also a friend of Epstein but was blackmailed by the Israeli right wing as well, and that this blackmail prevented an agreement with Arafat for a two-state solution. He asserts Epstein was used to change the course of history in the region and that Epstein’s influence trapped a number of US presidents, encompassing not only sexual matters but money as well, questioning where the money came from. Speaker 1 asks what he thinks of Dershowitz’s denial. Speaker 0 continues, stating that Epstein’s influence affected US policy and that “everything is stuck over Gazelle.” He claims Israelis have the American government captive due to Epstein’s past actions. He accuses Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal of publishing a card or birthday card Trump allegedly sent to Epstein, asking where they obtained it. He asserts Trump does not want to continue the war or genocide and suggests Israelis are holding him back, given Trump’s power to forge peace in places like South Korea and Palestine, and questions why they would need Epstein if they could simply assassinate Trump. He references speculation about John F. Kennedy’s assassination with Israeli intelligence help and notes that attempts on Trump’s life have occurred before elections, acknowledging sensitivity around such claims. He mentions the influence of bereaved or starving children imagery and the political pressure on leaders to act, predicting Israelis might ultimately face a reckoning or “harakiri.” Speaker 1 offers a geopolitical angle, suggesting GCC countries could leverage financial power to replace APAC lobbying and asks if Trump can leverage Arab world, Global South, and BRICS power to end the genocide. Speaker 0 responds that Trump can end the genocide if he stops fearing the Israelis, asserting that leaders will face accusations of abuses and billions of dollars taken, but morality should prevail and Trump should stop the genocide at any price. He mentions Robert Maxwell as an intelligent man who supposedly tried to leverage against the Israeli state with financial deals, noting that people can still be killed if they challenge Israel. He concludes that he cannot comment further but hopes Trump will have the United States and Middle East interests at heart and do the right thing.

Jeffrey Epstein's wealth and connections raise questions about who he was working for, possibly foreign intelligence services. It's acceptable to ask if he worked for a foreign government, such as Israel, without it being considered hateful or anti-Semitic. Criticizing a government's actions is a right of citizenship, not an act of disloyalty. Many in Washington believe Epstein had connections to Mossad and ran a blackmail operation for a foreign government. The speaker questions why this can't be openly discussed. The speaker believes avoiding the topic creates resentment and hate. The Israeli government should be asked directly if they were involved, and their refusal to answer is unacceptable. As long as the U.S. provides financial aid, citizens have a right to know if crimes were committed on U.S. soil.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence over US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of obsessing over Israel and implying Jewish control of foreign policy, which Speaker 0 denies. Speaker 0 refutes being antisemitic, stating the concern is with a foreign government's influence, not Jewish people. Speaker 0 points out Speaker 1's stated goal to defend Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend foreign governments, and accuses Speaker 1 of being "sleazy" for implying antisemitism. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 0 is only asking about Israel. Speaker 0 reiterates that the issue concerns a foreign government, not Jewish people.

Speaker 0 criticizes the hypocrisy of the speech, accusing President Joe Biden of warmongering by allocating $100 billion in funding for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Speaker 1 interrupts, urging Speaker 0 to sit down and accusing them of disrupting the conversation. Speaker 0 argues that the American people's voices should be heard, claiming that the president and Speaker 1 do not represent them. Speaker 1 dismisses Speaker 0's opinion and asks them to stop speaking. The argument continues with Speaker 0 mentioning historical events involving John Foster Dulles and the Pinochet regime. Speaker 1 tries to move on and discusses Uganda's anti-LGBT laws. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the issue is not about Israel or Palestine but about war. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 telling Speaker 0 to leave.

The speaker believes 95-99% of Congress should be tried for treason for allowing Israel and its money to control everything in the United States. They claim the U.S. does not have control over itself because Congress is controlled by a foreign nation that does not have America's best interests in mind. The speaker cites a vote to cut $500 million from going to Israel, alleging it goes towards bombing kids, and claims 455 people voted to keep it, while only six voted against it. Marjorie Taylor Greene is praised for opposing the funding. The speaker asserts Israel controls the United States 100% and suggests people should investigate how much money each congressperson has taken from APAC, which they describe as an Israeli funding service. They also allege most members of Congress are probably on the Epstein list.

Speaker claims: "Israel has an overwhelming lobby over the United States government, and we have unconditionally supported them." He cites "BB Netanyahu came to our congress in the nineties, told us a list of countries that we need to take out. Some were Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, etcetera." He adds "Through those wars, we have lost trillions of dollars" and "We have lost American servicemen." He asserts "They don't teach about the USS Liberty, where Israel literally came, blew up an American ship because they want us to get in their war with, Egypt and they don't teach that in school." He asks "Why is there this societal taboo around criticisms of Israel? For example, APAC doesn't have to register as a foreign lobby, but like the Australia lobby does. And the it just That should be changed. I That should be corrected." Finally, "Look. I I am not gonna say Israel should have any special privileges. None."

Speaker 0: "I'm very pro Israel" and "defensive of their right to defend themselves," but "I have absolutely no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group, including AIPAC" and asks, "what they do to get the loyalty of politicians." She refuses outreach to visit Israel, wanting to "cover this conflict from here" and insisting she is not "on Hamas" side. Speaker 1: "'APAC is not registered under FARA' and explains lobbying tactics: taking freshmen on 'a very special trip to Israel,' inviting 'influencers,' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel.' He notes 'Israel is the only democracy in The Middle East' and says Israel can 'use that money to buy from Israeli defense contractors' instead of American ones. He cites Judge McFadden on flag-burning and says, 'We don't have time to fund what you're doing.' Ad: 'text m k to the number 989898.'

The discussion centers on US support for Israel, with Speaker 0 stating that the US provides Israel with $3 billion annually in military aid, which benefits US national security through intelligence sharing, particularly from Mossad. Speaker 1 questions the cost of military actions to protect Israel and whether Israel spies on the US, including the president. Speaker 0 acknowledges that allies spy on each other and defends the alliance with Israel as beneficial for the US. The conversation shifts to AIPAC, with Speaker 1 questioning whether it lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government and why it isn't registered as a foreign lobby. Speaker 0 denies this, stating that AIPAC is an American lobby that promotes a strong US-Israeli relationship. Speaker 1 suggests AIPAC's goals are shaped by the Israeli government, while Speaker 0 denies coordination and accuses Speaker 1 of being obsessed with Israel. Speaker 1 denies being anti-Semitic and defends their right to question foreign influence on US politics.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

The speaker discusses various connections between Jeffrey Epstein, Israel, and influential individuals. They mention Epstein's ties to Mossad, Ghislaine Maxwell's connections to Israel, and the involvement of Jewish individuals in Epstein's circle. The speaker emphasizes that not all Jewish people support Israel's actions and condemns any hatred towards all Jews. They also mention the influence of Israel on discussions about Epstein and the financial support received by US politicians from Israel. The speaker raises questions about the motivations behind the recent escalation of violence between Israel and Palestine and criticizes the support for Israel despite allegations of human trafficking and the killing of innocent civilians. They urge people to think critically and not blindly follow their party's beliefs.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.

Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of Intel Services, likely not American, and it's valid to question on whose behalf he operated. How did he go from a math teacher to owning multiple airplanes, a private island, and a large Manhattan house without a college degree? Epstein had direct connections to a foreign government, and while people avoid naming Israel, there's nothing wrong, hateful, antisemitic, or anti-Israel about asking if he worked for Mossad, running a blackmail operation. Everyone in Washington D.C. suspects this, but feels unable to voice it. The speaker believes open discussion is better than suppressed resentment and hate. The question of whether this happened has been posed to the Israeli government, who declined to answer. The speaker argues that as long as the U.S. sends Israel money, the U.S. has a right to know if Israel committed crimes on U.S. soil.

Speaker 0: Do you agree with Candace Owens that the reason we are not going to see the client list is because Israel is implicated? Speaker 1: Israel is implicated. I’m just going to say that. Speaker 0: But what would Israel have to do with Epstein? Speaker 1: I mean, the former prime minister of Israel, he had Barack lived at Epstein's townhouse for years. I mean, the allegation is that Epstein was running a blackmail operation against powerful people where they would be videotaped having outside of marriage or illegally with underage women, that information will be used against them to get them to comply with whatever request that government wanted them to comply with. I think it's absolutely fair to ask to what extent was Epstein involved in a foreign intelligence operation on our show. This is our country. This country doesn't belong to any foreign country. Okay. This is our country. I was born here. I pay taxes here. So if some foreign country, I don't care if you claim it's our ally or not, is running an intel operation on my soil, I have a right to know what that was.