TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I was at CPAC with Ben and Ted Cruz recently, and someone asked if the DOJ might release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, which is something Donald Trump has discussed. I can confirm that the review of the Epstein client list is ongoing. It's actually sitting on my desk right now as I speak. This was directed by President Trump. I'm also reviewing JFK and MLK files, as directed by the president. All of these agencies are currently working through the review process. Have I seen anything juicy yet? Not yet, but we'll see.

The White House must be responsive to Congress, which is representative of the people. This involves working with allies in Congress to apply pressure to the administration. The approach remains consistent across administrations. The speaker was referring to potential appointees for key positions.

I was asked about Trump becoming speaker and I answered honestly. I think "speaker Trump" sounds great.

I want him to return to the state department, also known as the deep state department.

The White House has to be responsive to Congress. The speaker discusses working with Democratic allies to pressure the administration. The speaker also mentions appointees to top-level positions.

Where is Cash Patel? Why didn't he obtain the files himself? I believe serious pressure is being applied to people. Who is exerting that pressure? I learned that a member of the Senate Intel Committee, Tom Cotton, said you can't appoint a certain person. I haven't asked him about it yet. Someone is applying massive pressure to elected officials. I want to know who that is. I have discussed this with Mike Pompeo previously. I am concerned that failing to disclose details, like those surrounding a president's murder, will make people think our system is fake. Sixty-two years later, Pompeo was working to prevent Americans from knowing who murdered their president. It's not the CIA. There's no one person calling the shots.

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.

The White House has to be responsive to Congress. The speaker discusses working with Democratic allies to pressure the administration. The speaker also mentions appointees to top-level positions.

Two interesting dynamics are unfolding in Washington. Some Republican senators are engaging in what can be described as quiet defiance. While they aren't publicly opposing controversial nominees like Matt Gaetz or Pete Hegseth, they are signaling to Trump's team that they will not support these individuals. Public opposition would be preferable for transparency, but this behind-the-scenes maneuvering could help eliminate some problematic nominees. Gaetz appears to be the first on the chopping block, and Hegseth's position seems precarious as well. There's speculation that someone like Tulsi Gabbard may be next in line for scrutiny.

We'll skip Trump's speech and move directly to RFK Jr.'s swearing-in. Following that, Dr. Drew Updike, a practicing physician with expertise in health systems management and hospital revenue cycles, will join us. He'll provide insights into RFK Jr.'s role, responsibilities, and overall scope within the administration. So, we're going to watch RFK Jr. get sworn in now, and then we'll get Dr. Updike's expert analysis.

On JFK’s inauguration day, 48% of all State Department political-section employees were not actually State Department employees at all; they were CIA operatives under diplomatic cover. While parked at a US embassy, they did not answer within the State Department chain of command and acted as covert operatives for organized political warfare conducted by the CIA. Because they dominated the political section, they could set their own political policy for the country. If the State Department did not want to overthrow a regime but the CIA did, the CIA could use the embassy’s political-section bandwidth to contact dissident groups, run money to them, provide logistical support, connect them, and run a parallel operation without observing the White House National Security Council chain of command. The speaker gave examples where in some embassies 80% of the political affairs staff were CIA, not State Department at all. The speaker then notes Joe Biden’s CIA director as Bill Burns, describing Burns as a buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. It is asserted that in the 1990s Burns was the head of the political section for the US embassy in Russia, and that Burns “never worked a day at the CIA in his whole life before he’d be handed the reins to be the CIA director.” The speaker emphasizes that Burns was a State Department figure the whole time, serving as the head of the political affairs section, and questions where he was positioned “at state” when he was the head of the political affairs section.

He recommended someone he knew and respected to run NASA, but the speaker didn't think it was appropriate because the person was a Democrat. The speaker stated, "We won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges, we don't have to appoint a democrat." The speaker said NASA is very important and that General Cain will be picking someone, and they will be checking them out. The speaker understands why the person who made the recommendation is upset, noting "he was here for a long time" and "was very happy when he stood behind the oval desk."

He recommended someone he knew and respected to run NASA, but the speaker didn't think it was appropriate because the person was a Democrat. The speaker stated, "We won. We get certain privileges. And one of the privileges, we don't have to appoint a democrat." The speaker said NASA is very important and that General Cain will be picking someone, and they will be checking them out. The speaker understands why the person who made the recommendation is upset, noting "he was here for a long time" and "was very happy when he stood behind the oval desk."

Paul and the vice president are present, but the speaker doesn't think anyone wants to hear them speak anymore. The speaker acknowledges the presence of cabinet members and praises the generals, stating they will keep us safe. The speaker mentions that the other side will have problems when they see these generals, referring to them as if they were chosen for a movie. The speaker specifically mentions General Mattis, who is doing well, and notes that even Chuck likes General Mattis and General Kelly.

I've appointed the VP to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle to help stem the migration of many individuals to our southern border.

I was the perfect person, like straight out of central casting. General Mattis, Vice President Pence, and Tom Emmer are all central casting material. Judge Kavanaugh, too. They all fit the bill. And let's not forget the master sergeant, who could be the star of a military movie. These guys are like a dream team for Hollywood.

The White House has to be responsive to Congress. The speaker discusses working with Democratic allies to apply pressure to the administration. The speaker also mentions appointees to top-level jobs.

The speaker expresses friendship with people they never expected, including Pam Bondi, Marco Rubio, Scott Turner, Sean, and Linda McMahon. Marco Rubio is described as the "funniest guy in the cabinet" who makes people laugh at every meeting. The speaker admits to previously disapproving of Rubio as a "neocon war hawk" but notes his "incredible transformation." The speaker believes Rubio is now aligned with them on most issues, particularly regarding Ukraine and the idea that the U.S. should no longer be the "policeman of the world."

Ron DeSantis may be our next president, but we are allowed to have Pete Strzok here to begin plotting the coup against the next horrible people? Too soon. Too maybe not soon enough. Too soon, but not soon enough. I don't know what the right answer is there to that.

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.”

Cory Booker was mentioned and the speaker was asked for their thoughts on him saying "kick them in the shins." The speaker mistakenly thought it was Eric Holder who said that, and made a comment about all of them looking alike.

Marco Rubio traveled to Germany for the Munich Security Conference and delivered what the program calls the most important American speech in the last thirty years, calling on Europe to join Trump's new world order or face the consequences. He told NATO allies that playtime is over and that a new world order is being written by the United States; Europe is asked to join, or face being left behind. Rubio framed NATO as a transaction between countries and said it is only worth defending if you are worth defending, accusing European leaders of managing Europe’s decline and warning that if Europe continues on a liberal, destructive path, the United States will be done with them. He criticized a liberal globalist agenda of a borderless world and mass immigration, and argued for reform of the existing international order rather than dismantling it. Rubio asserted that the old rules of the world are dead and that the West must adapt to a new era of geopolitics. He indicated that these are conversations he has been having with allies and other world leaders behind closed doors, and that these talks are accelerating. The speech conveyed a clear ultimatum: the US wants Europe with us, but is prepared to rebuild the global order alone if necessary. Rubio stated that the US would prefer to act with Europe, but would do so independently if Europe does not align. The discussion then ties these geopolitics to currency and economics. The US dollar’s role as the reserve currency and its strength are central to the old world order. The Trump administration is signaling that the strong dollar religion is over, with the dollar weakened in Trump’s second term to make US exports cheaper. Reuters is cited as reporting that China’s treasury holdings have dropped to their lowest level since 2008 as banks are urged to curb exposure to US treasuries, suggesting China is stepping back from funding America and that the burden may shift to US funding via domestic sources. The narrative contrasts this with China’s push for a stronger yuan and global reserve status, including potential expansion of currency use in trade, while Europe sits in the middle, invited to join the US-led shift or be sidelined. There is mention of a possible April Beijing trip by Trump to meet Xi Jinping. The segment also notes internal GOP dynamics, describing Rubio as a neocon favorite and predicting a contest between Rubio’s hawkish approach and JD Vance, who reportedly does not want broad war expansions. The speaker frames Rubio’s speech as a signal flare indicating a real-time reorganization of the West, with the dollar at the blast radius. The sponsor segment follows, tying the topics to critical minerals and a program named Project Vault, a $12 billion strategic reserve for precious minerals to protect the private sector from supply shocks. At a Critical Minerals Ministerial, JD Vance and Marco Rubio delivered a message to China about preventing market flooding from killing domestic projects. The sponsor promotes North American Niobium, a company exploring for niobium and two rare earths (neodymium and praseodymium), describing niobium as critical for aerospace and defense applications, with no domestic US production and 90% global supply controlled by Brazil. The company’s base includes Quebec, Canada, and it highlights leadership from Joseph Carrabas of Rio Tinto and Cliffs Natural Resources fame, and Carrie Lynn Findlay, a former Canadian cabinet minister. The ticker symbol NIOMF is provided, with notes that shares are tradable on major US brokerages, and a reminder for due diligence.

Pray for Trump's cabinet picks, as their lives have been threatened by the left. I don't trust the federal authorities to ensure their safety during these dangerous times.

The White House must be responsive to Congress, which is representative of the people. This involves working with allies in Congress to apply pressure to the administration. The approach remains consistent across administrations. The speaker was referring to potential appointees for key positions.