TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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

I sense that the mainstream press doesn't want us here, but I don't really care what they think. When you see MSNBC melting down about inspector generals being fired or certain DOJ people being removed, remember these people have failed for decades, and certainly for the last four years. If the mainstream press has an issue with me or Warren being here, remember that they covered up for a president who wasn't making any decisions and wasn't reachable even by his own vice president. If you think you were doing a wonderful job, I point to that Wall Street Journal report as evidence of why we need a new era of media and reporting here, coming from the White House.

I want to clarify that Jake Sullivan and I have had discussions and met. For our adversaries who believe they can exploit this transition between administrations, they are mistaken. We are united and working closely together as one team with the United States during this transition.

I will bring back free speech in America because it's been taken away. The fake news is a threat to this country; most of them are terrible human beings. They will write that I spoke before a small crowd of people, even though that's not true. They write the opposite of the facts, and people lose faith in the press. I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech, and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.

Hundreds of intelligence community members work at social media companies. Mainstream news outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. The censorship was due to the truth being a threat to power. The US government's influence on corporations undermines the first amendment. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you. Translation: Many intelligence community members work at social media companies. News outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. Censorship was due to the truth being a threat. The US government's influence on corporations undermines freedom of speech. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you.

It's a privilege to cover the White House, and no one has the right to ask the President questions in the Oval Office. We decide who gets invited, and many outlets don't have that privilege. Regarding the AP being barred, we reserve the right to hold outlets accountable for pushing lies. The body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf Of America. The Secretary of Interior has made it the official designation, and Apple, Google, and most other outlets recognize it as such. It's important for this administration to get it right for people here and the rest of the world.

Speaker 0: The officer tells him to get a life, but the journalist insists that investigative reports are important for the country. Speaker 0 questions the journalist's credentials, but the journalist continues to ask questions. The journalist offers to provide all the material via email.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US doesn't dictate to any country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room.

We have a network of citizen journalists who have taken control of information through social media. The American people have committed to this plan and stood firm. Our loyalty remains unchanged since day one, and we’ve faced challenges together. We address issues collectively, and as we grow, we continue to follow the same principles. Now, please take your seats as the show is about to begin.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I spoke with Byron, a White House adviser, who acknowledged that the deep state exists. He explained that bureaucracies often create commissions to delay action, which can hinder incoming leadership, citing RFK Jr. as a potential target for bureaucratic resistance. Byron mentioned that the bureaucracy should implement elected leaders' policies while also advising them. Our conversation revealed insights into how the bureaucracy operates, and I recorded it all. Byron seemed surprised but engaged. This highlights the importance of transparency in government, and we will continue to investigate and report on these matters.

Speaker describes an unprecedented situation where "the president authorized secretary of state Marco Rubio to fire this guy." The Chinese government is responding to an undercover video of the State Department official talking about sleeping with a Chinese spy, and mainstream media like "The New York Times is even covering it." The State Department says the foreign service officer "failed to disclose his contact with the woman, the daughter of a Chinese Communist Party official." It's a developing story, and the presenter says his team was in shock to see the Chinese government responding. They seek to understand the officer's day-to-day role; "we're not entirely clear what he did," though ethical guidelines "prevent our government officials from being blackmailed or" possessing compromising material. The officer is "Daniel Choi." The speaker notes such things "do happen in Washington DC" and ends with "Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next."

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

We, as US officials and diplomats, engage in discussions on global issues, especially those we're closely involved in. These private diplomatic conversations happen all the time and include discussions about potential UN involvement. It shouldn't be a surprise that we discuss these things. There's a difference between private discussions within the interagency process and what we convey publicly as the US government. Publicly, we convey our official position. Saying privately that we're "cooking up a deal" while publicly stating it's up to Ukrainians to decide presents two different positions. However, these internal discussions are a normal part of diplomacy. I disagree with the characterization of a "deal" based on a few minutes from a private phone call; it's an overstatement.

It's a privilege to cover the White House, and no one has the right to demand access to the Oval Office. We decide who gets invited, considering that many outlets don't have daily access. We reserve the right to hold outlets accountable for pushing lies. The body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf of America. I'm not sure why news outlets don't want to call it that, but that is what it is. The Secretary of Interior has made that the official designation and Apple and Google have recognized that. It's important for this administration to get it right, both for people here and globally.

Mister Secretary, considering the immigration situation over the past four years and the resulting national dialogue, do you think you would have approached things differently? Yes, it's important to recognize that in any large organization, including government, there are varying opinions on policies and operational measures. These differing views are expressed, decisions are made, and then everyone works together towards the common goal. Are you implying that your personal views on handling immigration differed from your superiors'? I prefer not to discuss the internal decision-making process. However, it’s a common reality that diverse opinions exist when many people are involved in making decisions.

The discussion centers on OCCRP (the Corruption Reporting Project), its funding, and how it operates as “mercenary media” for state interests, particularly the U.S. State Department and USAID. The speakers argue that OCCRP is not independent journalism but a State Department–funded operation that produces hit pieces to seize assets, indict officials, and press regime change across multiple countries. Key findings and claims discussed - OCCRP’s funding and control: The group is described as receiving substantial funding from the United States government through USAID and the State Department, with other sources including Open Society (Soros), Microsoft, and NED. A recurring claim is that half of OCCRP’s funding comes from the U.S. government, that USAID and the State Department actually control hiring and firing decisions of top personnel, and that a “cooperative agreement” structure channels editorial direction through government-approved annual work plans and key personnel (including the editor‑in‑chief or chief of party). - Financial returns and impact: It is claimed that USAID boasted in internal documents that paying $20 million to independent journalists yielded $4.5 billion in fines and assets seized, and that mercenary reporting led to 548 policy changes, 21 resignations or removals (including a president and a prime minister), 456 arrests or indictments, and roughly $10 billion in assets returned to government coffers across various countries (Central Europe, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans, etc.). A related claim is that total spending over OCCRP’s history amounts to about $50 million, with returns rising from $4.5 billion in 2022 to about $10 billion by 2024. - Geographic scope and targets: The reporting funded or influenced by the State Department covered broad regions—Germany, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, and the Western Balkans—extending to the Eastern Partnership and beyond. The pieces are described as having led to investigations and asset seizures that targeted political enemies of state authorities. - The role of “mercenary media” and independence claims: The speakers repeatedly contrast the claimed editorial independence of OCCRP with the reality of donor influence. They describe OCCRP as “mercenary media for the state,” funded to generate narratives and political outcomes favorable to U.S. foreign policy. They challenge the notion of independent journalism by noting the requirement that key personnel and annual work plans be approved or vetoed by USAID, and that there are “strings attached” to cooperative agreements that go beyond simple gifts. - Editorial process and donor influence: The conversation scrutinizes how the annual work plan, subgrants, and editor-level appointments are subject to USAID oversight. It is noted that, even when OCCRP claims editorial independence, the top editors must navigate donor influence, and in practice, the content may be shaped to align with funders’ interests. The argument is that without donor influence, OCCRP would not exist or would not continue to receive large sums of money. - The rhetoric of independence: Several speakers underscore the paradox of insisting on “independent media” while acknowledging that funding, governance, and personnel decisions are shaped by U.S. government agencies, with additional support from Soros/Open Society and corporate donors like Microsoft. They juxtapose “independence” rhetoric with admissions of entanglement with government and intelligence entities, and their discussions touch on the historical context of U.S. public diplomacy, the U.S. Information Agency, and the evolution of state-driven media influence. - Historical funding trajectory and organizations: The first funds reportedly came from sources such as the United Nations Democracy Fund, with later support from INL (the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement) and a transition to USAID administration. The participants discuss the possibility that multiple U.S. government agencies (State Department, USAID, NED, INL) and private sponsors (Open Society, Microsoft) contribute to OCCRP’s budget, with the U.S. government described as the largest donor at various points, though not always claimed as the single dominating donor. - “Capacity building” and the machinery of influence: The conversation highlights “capacity building” as a common label for donor-driven expansion of media assets, civil society groups, and investigative journalism networks. They connect these efforts to broader U.S. democracy promotion programs and to the use of investigative reporting as a tool for law enforcement and political leverage—where journalists may gather information and feed it to prosecutors and foreign policy objectives. - Individual positions and disclosures: Several speakers identify named individuals (e.g., Drew Sullivan, Shannon McGuire) and discuss their roles, funding pathways, and concerns about editorial control. The dialogue reveals tensions between the journalists’ professional aims and the political-economic machinery enabling their work. Cumulative impression - The transcript presents a frontal, highly confrontational critique of OCCRP as a state-funded, state-influenced enterprise that positions itself as independent journalism while enabling significant political and legal actions abroad. The speakers claim conspicuously high returns on investment for government funding (billions of dollars in assets seized and numerous political changes) and describe the cooperative funding structure as funneling editorial output toward U.S. foreign policy objectives. They argue that independence is a veneer masking a structured, donor-driven process with formal approval channels for personnel and plans, and with direct implications for how narratives are shaped and which targets are pursued. They also connect OCCRP’s practices to broader historical patterns of U.S. public diplomacy, intelligence collaboration, and the global propaganda ecosystem.

The discussion centers on how US officials handle diplomacy publicly and privately, particularly in relation to Ukraine. Speaker 0 notes that US officials talk about world issues because that's part of diplomatic work, and mentions that the secretary met with the opposition and stopped by a meeting with the foreign minister. He says it’s up to the people of Ukraine, including officials from both sides, to determine the path forward, but indicates that there should be no surprise that discussions about events on the ground are taking place. Speaker 1 counters that this is more than discussions, describing it as “two top US officials that are on the ground discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the UN to kind of seal the deal.” They suggest this signals that the US is “midwifing the process,” not merely offering suggestions, and imply private diplomacy is aiming to shape a post-conflict outcome with UN involvement. Speaker 0 acknowledges that private diplomatic conversations happen and involve deliberations about what involvement the UN can have and what engagement should occur on the ground. He says such discussions shouldn’t be surprising and that there is a range of options under consideration, including private interagency process discussions and what is conveyed publicly as US policy. Speaker 2 challenges this by arguing it’s not honest to claim there is no opinion and that the process is entirely up to the people of Ukraine. They point to Egypt as a counterexample, asserting that there is a public stance that differs from private discussions. Speaker 0 distinguishes between private conversations within the interagency process and what is publicly conveyed as US policy. He asserts a responsibility to convey the government’s position while also noting that a range of options are being discussed. Speaker 1 presses the distinction further, asking what happens behind closed doors when private deals are discussed versus publicly stating that the decision lies with Ukrainians. They emphasize the perceived difference between privately “cooking up a deal” and publicly acknowledging Ukrainian decision-making. Speaker 0 concludes by saying they would disagree with Speaker 1, arguing that they are overstating and overqualifying a few minutes of a privately recorded phone call.

The president has done over 40 unscripted interviews and more than 500 gaggles this year. He likes engaging with the public and will keep doing so.

There’s a clear sense that mainstream media, like MSNBC, is dismissive of us, but I’m unfazed by their opinions. When I see reactions to the firing of the inspector general or DOJ officials, it highlights the failures of these media outlets over the past four years. If they have a problem with our presence, they should reflect on their coverage of a president who was largely absent and unresponsive, even to his vice president. The Wall Street Journal report underscores the need for a new era in media and reporting from the White House. This is about creating a more accountable and transparent media landscape.

I met with the opposition and the foreign minister this weekend. It's up to the Ukrainian people to decide the path forward, but discussions are happening. These are more than discussions. Top US officials are on the ground, discussing a plan to broker a future government, involving the UN. The US is midwifing the process. These are private diplomatic conversations where we discuss UN involvement. It's dishonest to say we don't have an opinion. There's a difference between private discussions and our public position. As diplomats, we discuss a range of options. Saying privately you're cooking up a deal, then saying publicly it's up to Ukrainians, those are different positions. Diplomatic discussions are sensitive, but those are totally different positions. You're overstating a private phone call.

It's a privilege to cover this White House, and no one has the right to demand access to the Oval Office. We decide who gets invited. You all have credentials to be here. We reserve the right to hold outlets accountable for pushing lies. The body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the Gulf Of America. I'm not sure why news outlets don't want to call it that, but that is what it is. The Secretary of Interior has made that the official designation in the geographical identification name server. Apple and Google have recognized that. It's very important to this administration that we get that right for the people here at home and for the rest of the world.

Israel, like other countries, makes its own decisions. The US does not dictate to Israel or any other country. We present what we believe are the good options. We stand up for what we believe in the briefing room. Translation: Israel and other countries have sovereignty to make their own decisions. The US does not impose its will on Israel or any other country. We present what we believe are the best options and stand up for them in the briefing room.

It's a privilege to cover this White House and to be the White House press secretary. No one has the right to enter the Oval Office and question the President; it's by invitation only. We decide who enters the Oval Office. If outlets push lies, we will hold them accountable. The body of water off Louisiana is the Gulf Of America. The Secretary of Interior has made that the official designation in the geographical identification name server. Apple, Google, and most other outlets recognize it as the Gulf Of America. Getting the name right is very important to this administration, both domestically and internationally.

The White House hosted a group of podcasters for "podcast row," where they engaged with cabinet and White House officials to discuss the president and his agenda. The White House team believes these podcasters have a larger audience than CNN and other legacy media outlets. The White House is proud to welcome them.