TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The inspector general for the intelligence community cannot provide information about contacts between the Hipsey majority and the whistleblower before his involvement. The only way to obtain that information is from the Hipsey majority themselves, who are fact witnesses in the investigation they are running. It is claimed that nowhere else in the United States can someone be both a fact witness and the investigator, especially in an investigation to remove a president. Therefore, Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses about contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

The speaker discusses the ongoing investigation into former President Trump and expresses concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department. They argue that the department is filled with partisan Democrats and questions the transparency and accountability of the investigations. The speaker highlights the importance of knowing who is working on these investigations and criticizes the department for withholding this information. They mention previous investigations into Special Counsel Mueller's team, which revealed anti-Trump bias. The speaker concludes by stating their intention to sue for the release of the requested information and emphasizes the need for oversight and accountability in upholding the rule of law.

The speaker questions the appointment of a special counsel, suggesting that it may give him the power to charge in different locations. They mention that the special counsel previously claimed to have the authority to do as he pleased, but whistleblowers contradicted this, stating that he was unable to do so. The Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. However, the speaker believes that the recent move implies that the whistleblowers may have been correct. They express concerns about the political implications raised by Republicans.

In this video, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their testimony in court regarding a memo outlining potential investigations. Speaker 0 argues that it was misleading and wrong to testify about possibilities and maybes. Speaker 1 defends their answers, stating that they were discussing the memo and its purpose. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's claims, suggesting that the Democrat district attorney was excited about pursuing investigations against Ken Paxton. Speaker 1 disagrees with the characterization and explains that the feds waved them off. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's credibility and suggests they would never engage in criminal activity. Speaker 1 denies this and clarifies their stance. The video ends with Speaker 0 highlighting that Speaker 1 applied for a job at the AG's office after writing the memo, with a letter of recommendation from Margaret Moore.

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 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

The speaker asserts that the investigation was conducted properly and according to protocol. They claim that regardless of high-level decisions regarding public statements, the investigative work itself was done correctly by the men and women involved. The speaker encourages listeners to be assured that both investigations followed proper procedure.

Speaker 1 mentions waiting for Bonnie Willis to respond. They discuss a whistleblower in her office who raised concerns about misuse of funds. Willis fired the whistleblower, prompting a subpoena for related documents. Willis made US Marshals serve the subpoena. They joke about Willis' behavior and mention CPAC. They express appreciation for CPAC's support of conservative principles. Translation: The speakers discuss Bonnie Willis not responding, a whistleblower's concerns, a subpoena for documents, and Willis' behavior. They joke about CPAC and express gratitude for its support of conservative principles.

The inspector general for the intelligence community cannot provide information about contacts between the "Hipsey majority" and the whistleblower before the whistleblower's involvement. Therefore, that information can only come from the "Hipsey majority" themselves. These individuals are fact witnesses in the same investigation they are running. It is claimed that nowhere else in the United States can someone be both a fact witness and the investigator, especially in an investigation to remove a president. It is asserted that Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.

Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation because his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process. The speaker has not spoken directly with the whistleblower but would like to. Acclaimed Republican Intelligence Committee members question this.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Speaker 0 claims 120,000 fake ballots were scanned in Delaware County, and observers were kept out of canvassing rooms. She alleges 47 USB sticks were "lost" and then found, containing the necessary votes. Delaware County was the last to provide its information to the state. Speaker 1 states Bill Barr said there was no voter fraud based on reports from US attorneys and testified similarly to the January 6th committee. Speaker 1 asks if Bill McSwain knew about the Delaware County information from Greg Stentrum and wanted to hold a press conference about it. Speaker 0 confirms Greg contacted McSwain on November 7th, and they sent a certified letter to McSwain, Josh Shapiro, and Jack Stohlzheimer demanding an investigation into Delaware County. Shapiro allegedly sent special agents to their homes on November 17, 2020, to investigate them, not election fraud.

Jacqueline Greger testifies to a preliminary finding report on activities impacting Arizona’s election integrity, focusing on the 2020 and 2022 general elections. She outlines a multi-year pattern beginning in 2017, alleging that “accents points” were used to change vote totals and election results, with illegal transfers moving money to candidates through phantom entities and for-profit and non-profit PACs created by Brittany Ray Chavez. She claims that during the 2022 election, ballot scanners and printers at 70 precincts had their printer settings changed through computer infiltration after being tested the night before the election, leading to uncontrollable ballots being placed in Box 3 and allegedly driven to Runbeck’s office. Witness information from October 2020 is cited, including more than 100,000 filed-in ballots and more than 13,000,000 identified in two unmarked rental cars used to move ballots and cash to Runbeck’s office. Runbeck is described as operated by Robert Runbeck, with deeds for Runbeck provided in the materials. Greger asserts a planned strategy involving Hobbs and Fontes: Hobbs would receive the Democratic nomination for governor, Fontes would run for secretary of state to replace Hobbs, and both would be bribe recipients evidenced by “Britney deeds.” She argues the fix for 2020 and 2022 started in 2017 with appointments to election positions of individuals bribed through a mortgage scheme and money laundering via phantom appointments. She emphasizes “the problems with these documents are many” and connects money laundering to drug cartel activity and human trafficking, arguing cartel investment aims to place reliable figures in key positions to advance their objectives. The report titled Preliminary Findings of Activities Impacting Arizona’s Election Integrity with specific focus on the 2020 and 2022 general elections is introduced by Greger, who provides her background: she has a master’s in marketing and honors degrees in finance, accounting, statistics, economics, and business strategy; resident of Scottsdale since 1997; owner of Finebreder Insurance Agency; principal investigator with Harris Thaler Law Firm since 2019. The team, led by John Harris Thaler (a 32-year attorney), investigates racketeering and corruption across multiple states. Thaler’s past work includes uncovering laundering of cartel money through real estate in Illinois, Idaho, and Iowa; real estate agents, escrow companies, and title insurers indicted for racketeering; investigations into money laundering through Arizona real estate; and a broader operation intertwining narcotics trafficking, tax evasion, payroll theft, bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud, and election fraud. Greger states that more than 120,000 documents have been reviewed and that 47 filings exist in the report. She outlines a pattern of money laundering through single-family residences, inflated construction invoices, fake charitable donations, fictitious students in private schools, and fake bankruptcies. Wells Fargo and other banks are alleged to have opened accounts for phantom people; municipal and state systems in Mesa, including a private police force, are said to be compromised to support racketeering. She claims numerous forged or altered documents, including falsified deeds of trust and notary acts, with signatures forged or copied, often associated with Brittany Chavez and Donna Chavez. Key individuals and entities are named as bribe recipients and conspirators: Kathleen M. Hobbs and Patrick T. Goodman appear in a series of deeds with signatures and notarizations that Greger says are fraudulent; Brittany and Donna Chavez are identified as principal preparers of documents; the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and relevant courts are alleged to have been infiltrated to upload falsified documents and remove legitimate ones. Greger discusses targeted election service providers, including Runbeck, and asserts that “the county database” has “no integrity whatsoever,” with backdoor access enabling document upload or deletion. She describes bribes to judges, prosecutors, and public officials across the state, including 25% of active judges in certain jurisdictions, and claims that elections including the governor, attorney general, and other offices were affected. Greger notes investigations are not limited to Arizona; FBI, IRS, US attorneys’ offices, and attorney generals in California and New Mexico have engaged with the findings. She emphasizes that the final report will be a 300-page book with about 3,000 attachments, to be published as Report to the Governor, and that excerpts and documentation will be available at reporttothegovernor.com. She clarifies that she and Thaler do not represent political candidates or parties, and that Thaler had not voted or donated in 2022. She closes by describing the data’s potential utility for enforcement agencies and asks for questions; a constituent video is requested to be played.

The speaker mentions that an investigator's work was compromised due to political considerations. The investigator, referred to as Michael, does not provide specific details about his client or the target of the investigation. However, it is revealed that the investigation is related to Hunter Biden. The speaker also mentions that two years ago, Biden claimed to be cooperative when the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into his finances. The FBI collected evidence to potentially charge Biden with tax crimes and shared their findings with the US attorney in Delaware. Since then, there has been no further information or updates.

The speaker questions why the FBI paid Christopher Steele $1 million to verify a dossier on Trump and offered $3 million to Twitter to suppress a story on Hunter Biden. They express concern over the FBI's actions being politically motivated. The FBI director responds by explaining the payments to social media companies are for legal process costs. The speaker accuses the FBI of damaging its reputation and questions if the FBI requested financial institutions to provide customer data. The FBI director is unsure and the speaker presents an email from Bank of America as evidence.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust over a folder's contents, questioning Speaker 2, the president of a company, about potentially embarrassing material. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of investigating legislators for doing their jobs for Texans, implying the intent was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts. Speaker 1 suggests the actions could be illegal and calls for the attorney general to investigate. Speaker 1 is "appalled and disgusted" that Speaker 2 would investigate legislators and claims that Speaker 2 was gathering information to use it. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge of individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 disputes this, suggesting Speaker 2 sought specific information for other purposes. Speaker 1 concludes that Speaker 2's actions are "despicable" and that the legislators are like "family."

An IRS supervisory special agent is willing to testify before Congress about an investigation he believes received special treatment. Attorney Mark Lytle represents the whistleblower but did not disclose his identity or the target of the investigation. However, CBS News reports that the investigation is related to Hunter Biden. The whistleblower's lawyer sent a letter to Congress claiming his client could provide information contradicting sworn testimony by a senior political appointee. Lytle stated that his client is not motivated by politics and has extensive documentation to support his allegations. The whistleblower has expressed concerns to superiors before seeking whistleblower status. The IRS, Department of Justice, and Hunter Biden's lawyer declined to comment.

A Congressman questions a witness about bias at NPR, citing an article by a former NPR editor who worked there for 25 years. The article stated that 87 registered Democrats and zero Republicans were in editorial positions at NPR. The witness said she doesn't track those numbers but finds them concerning if accurate. The Congressman then references the editor's claims that NPR heavily covered the Trump-Russia story, interviewing Adam Schiff 25 times, but coverage faded after the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion. The witness couldn't confirm this, as she wasn't at NPR at the time. The Congressman also brought up the Hunter Biden laptop story, where an NPR editor dismissed it. The witness stated that current editorial leadership believes that was a mistake. Finally, the Congressman noted that the former editor said NPR declared the lab leak theory debunked. The Congressman concludes that NPR was "0 for 3" on major stories, but the witness maintains that NPR is nonpartisan and not politically biased.

The speaker announced a state-level investigation into potential violations of state law, despite federal involvement. The speaker believes it's necessary to ensure the truth emerges credibly. The speaker expressed concern that the same federal agencies prosecuting Trump are now investigating this matter, suggesting this may not be ideal for the country. However, the speaker acknowledged the federal prerogative while asserting the state's prerogative to conduct its own investigation. Further announcements regarding the state investigation will be made in the coming days.

Director Wray, the speaker expresses concern about the politicization of the Department of Justice and the FBI during the Biden administration. They believe that senior officials have allowed these institutions to be politicized. The speaker mentions FBI agents who are unhappy with the weakening of institutional integrity due to the DOJ being treated as a political weapon. They focus on the investigation into corruption allegations involving Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. The speaker presents a WhatsApp text message from Hunter Biden to a senior Chinese communist, suggesting that Joe Biden would retaliate if a commitment was not fulfilled. They mention an IRS whistleblower who testified that the DOJ blocked attempts to obtain GPS data on Joe Biden's phone. The speaker questions whether the FBI tried to determine the locations of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden when the text was sent. Director Wray defers to the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Weiss. The speaker accuses the DOJ and underlings of trying to stop the investigation and allowing the statute of limitations to expire. They mention another testimony from the IRS whistleblower, alleging that an Assistant US attorney stated that a search warrant would not be approved due to political optics. The speaker questions whether the FBI allows political optics to hinder corruption investigations. Director Wray reiterates that they follow the facts and cannot discuss ongoing investigations. The speaker criticizes Director Wray for not doing the work and hiding behind the attorney general.

Speaker 0 asks if Joe Biden received payments from Burisma or any other foreign companies while he was vice president, president, or a private citizen. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing investigation led by the US attorney in Delaware, appointed by President Trump. Speaker 1 suggests referring to the US attorney for any information that can be shared. Speaker 0 then asks if the president is under investigation, to which Speaker 1 refuses to confirm or deny, following department policy. The conversation ends without a clear answer regarding Biden's involvement with foreign payments or the president's investigation.

Speaker 0 mentions that an investigation has been started regarding a recent issue, which Speaker 1 questions. Speaker 2 suggests asking the Party Board members for more information. Speaker 0 asks if there will be an investigation into what happened and the victims' experiences. Speaker 2 explains that the investigation is complicated since the person involved is no longer a member of the parliament. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the victims and their stories. Speaker 2 says everything can be read about it and didn't expect to discuss it. Speaker 0 understands it's a sensitive topic. Speaker 1 mentions going to Afghanistan and having lunch. Speaker 0 points out that an investigation should have been conducted. Speaker 1 explains that the person can only return when there is a vacancy. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 suggesting asking the same question later.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.