TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 gave the FBI a thumb drive containing 29 minutes of high-definition video showing two men attacking a building. As of this morning, neither man has been arrested. Speaker 0 states that despite going through over 725 indictments, none of their video or even a single still picture of either man has appeared on the Internet. The FBI is allegedly refusing to take Speaker 0's calls, return emails, or accept an offer to meet. Speaker 0 believes the FBI is hiding these men. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to inquire about the identities of these men. Speaker 0 confirms that Ben Grundler has all this information and that they have been in contact for over a year.

Speaker 1, who identifies as Russia, says: We did not break in. We did not broke shit. They were Antifa. We told the DC police, there's Antifa. Go get them. They did not move. They use on a pepper spray, mace, rubber palette. They treat us like we're animals. From beginning, when we start going down the steps up way before we enter the shit building. And then they start with the pack. They hit two woman in the head. There's three kids, probably 17, 18. They were bleeding in the head. There's two elderly people. One of them in a cave, got maced. So we did not break shit. The woman the police shot her, and then they throw her by the stairs. We did not break shit. We told DC police, those are Antifa. Go get them. We wear mega hat. We don't have much shoes. We don't look like we're in a crack. Those antifa, you tell them, they're in a fucking crack. Filthy disgusting. DC did not do nothing. They just stand up. They just stand up. Speaker 0 asks: So it wasn't it wasn't the MAGA people that that get that... Speaker 1, Russia, responds: It wasn't MAGA inside the city, whatever my brain froze. Capitol all day. The doors are open. There's Antifa has a black chair, folding chair. The cops seen him. Whether it's us or Antifa, you see somebody with a metal chair fold it. That means it's a fucking weapon. You will stop him. We go and tell them. There's probably people were taking video of me telling the police. Go get Antifa. We catch two. And the woman that there was a woman talking to them, and I told her, don't bother the police. Leave the police alone. They need to choose a side. If they lost us, they have no support. And then they start with pushing back back and hitting people. So it's not us. It's not us. Speaker 0 clarifies: Antifa It was... Speaker 1: The DC police saw them with a fucking black metal folding chair. They saw them. We pointed at them. They saw the brat boy following Antifa guy, and they did not do shit. One of Antifa could have a fucking knife to get one of us inside. No one did shit. Don't tell us we broke in. We did not break a glass. So you got in, but it wasn't you guys. The doors are open. The door. And guess what? It's a federal building. The police has no power on us. It's a federal building. It's our building. Speaker 0: Right. Okay. So it wasn't it wasn't the MAGA people that broke in. Speaker 1: Nope. We told DC police, those fucking antifa go get them. Okay. Speaker 0 asks: What's your name? Speaker 1: Russia. Speaker 0: Russia? Where are you from? Speaker 1 explains: I can't. It's a I'm under the state No. No. No. I came from Lebanon. I run from Lebanon because of this shit. And I'm not gonna raise my kids in that shit. Speaker 0 thanks Asha and says: Thank you. You need to do a testimonial of what happened. Put it on Twitter. Put it on every news channel because What? Speaker 1 completes: Fist this off. Black Lives Matter burned the country. Burned the city. They were ordered the police to back back, standby. They were not allowed to use tear gas. They were not allowed to use maze. They were not allowed to use rubber bullets. On us, they're. When they went in the White House and burned the church, all the fucking congress went and told Trump, you let your people pepper spray them. Meanwhile, BLM came there with a fucking weapons. Screw the police. They lost our support. Yes. Amen. They begin they're all gonna follow order. When we stand up in the front of Black Lives Matter to protect a cop I'm a woman and I did it numerous time in New Jersey. I didn't ever say we go in a rally and sadness know. But now, if I see a cop get shot, I would kill myself before I save him and mark my words on it. Speaker 0 closes: Thank you, Asha. Good to see you.

The speaker claims the Israeli war room is trying to get the FBI after them. This follows the speaker's video arguing that Elias Rodriguez's elimination of two Zionist officials was an act of resistance, not an antisemitic terrorist attack. The speaker anticipates the FBI's involvement, recalling a previous incident in November when someone smeared them by sending false bomb threats to synagogues in their city, attributed to the speaker. The speaker expresses disdain for the FBI, federal authorities, the Israeli war room, and accuses them of being traitors to humanity.

An individual filming a weekly Palestinian march in Ottawa alleges being assaulted and expresses frustration with police inaction. The march proceeds down Elgin Street towards the National War Memorial, with demonstrators chanting and carrying flags, including communist and Che Guevara flags. The person filming reports witnessing smoke being set off and accuses police of ignoring the assault and the smoke. They claim officers are harassing them instead of addressing the alleged assault. The individual states that a sergeant ordered them to be calmed down and prevented them from filing a report for their own safety. They express outrage at the situation and criticize the police response, noting the arrival of news media after the alleged incidents. The person also mentions an illegal mushroom store being destroyed.

A man from Palestine, with his face covered, was saying "free Palestine." The speaker identified him, and the police apprehended him. The speaker claims the man tried to bomb something, and so did the lady he was with. The lady left with a red bruise on her face.

We found the thug who allegedly smoke bombed a Christian worship service and he appears to be linked to an antifossil operating within Canada's Department of National Defense.

Paola Lorigio from The Canadian Press questions the speaker's decision to label the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge as terrorism, despite no official confirmation. The speaker defends their statement, citing media reports and claiming that the government of Canada presumed it to be a terror-related event. They also criticize The Canadian Press for issuing three corrections in one article. When asked if they think CTV was irresponsible for reporting the incident as terrorism, the speaker redirects the question. The conversation ends with the speaker pointing out the contradiction in the reporter's comment.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Speaker 0 asserts, 'I mean, Hezbollah, you know, bombed the embassy in, in Beirut and, including many Americans. So, I just feel it's quite inappropriate.' In response, Speaker 1 says, 'You are an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know as mayor, you are not welcome here. And the day you move out of the city will be the day that I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of the city because you are not somebody who believe in coexistence.' The exchange shows a clash over international violence, perceived bigotry, and threats tied to political leadership.

The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.

The speaker watches a video and shares their thoughts. They believe that the person throwing chemical bombs in the crowd was not a federal agent. They discuss the ongoing arrests and court cases related to the incident. They criticize the use of crowd control methods that agitate people and mention the presence of unruly individuals in every crowd. They express the importance of democracy and police presence, but argue for better crowd control measures. The speaker also comments on the actions of certain police officers and their use of explosive devices. They mention their own experience in crowd control and express frustration with the lack of proper barricades. The speaker concludes by discussing the significance of the event and the consequences faced by those involved.

A person is filming near a courthouse in downtown Ottawa, near Ottawa's busiest mall. The person filming moved across the street after noticing a man with a bandana holding a smoke canister. The person filming states that the man is setting off smoke. The person filming is recording the man setting off smoke. The person filming asks where the lunatics are and if this is what they are doing.

Speaker 1 attempts to interview Speaker 2, who claims Speaker 1 says lies. Speaker 2 says they founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is there to take from them, while they stand as a community. Speaker 1 asks why pictures of children are being taken, citing trans flags and condoms on a table as inappropriate for children. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of touching and stepping on them. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is not welcome. Speaker 1 claims they are being assaulted and asks why they were hit. Speaker 2 denies violence and asks for personal space. Speaker 1 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why coffee was thrown at them while covering the event.

Justin Trudeau's office has been the target of protests by individuals who believe that showing up in front of a terrorist's office is necessary. The speaker questions how many times this needs to happen before they can move on.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically referencing Rebel News and Ford Canada, both allegedly owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of using third-party advertising trucks. The reporter claims the truck is for Canada, a separate entity. Accusations of lying and emotional outbursts are exchanged, with the reporter telling the individual to control their emotions and calling them "tantrum boy." The individual defends their facts and questions the reporter's journalistic integrity.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, despite no official confirmation. Speaker 1 defends their statement, citing media reports and corrections made by CP. Speaker 0 argues that it was irresponsible to make such a statement without proper evidence. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that CTV reported the incident as terror-related, based on information from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 avoids answering the question and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0: Hello Mr. Trudeau, Alexandre from Rebel News. I want to quickly address what happened yesterday. You demonized one of the few media outlets that doesn't receive government funding. You expressed your opinion that we spread misinformation. If that were true, the Supreme Court wouldn't have allowed us to be here today. Will you kindly answer my question as the Prime Minister, or will you continue to demonize my profession? I shared my perspective on your organization last night, and I have nothing more to say. It makes one wonder who you really are. Thank you.

The speaker expresses outrage over a debate commission event, claiming right-wing "incel asswipes" turned it into a "clown show" by exploiting Michelle Cormier's weakness. They allege the commission allowed Ezra Levant and "arsonists" into the room and provided them with opportunities to record everything. The speaker, along with Corey, Kathleen, and others, were kicked out of the media filing room while The Rebel was allowed to remain. This led to "pandemonium" where the Rebel harassed media and provoked people, then ran to the police claiming assault when challenged. The situation escalated to the point where CBC's Dave Cochran and Rosie Barton required security escorts due to concerns about their physical safety. The speaker asserts these individuals disrupted a democratic process, profited from it, and that Michelle Cormier and the commission were unable to manage the situation, resulting in a "complete fuck show."

We found the thug who allegedly smoke bombed a Christian worship service and he appears to be linked to an anti fossil operating within Canada's Department of National Defense. The alleged smoke bomber is Gabriel Le Page, an employee at the Long Point military base, working under the Department of National Defense. Antifa is not just a fringe ideology. It's a dangerous network of extremists willing to engage in violence. That's why president Donald Trump declared Antifa a terrorist organization. Tips we received suggest that Lepage colleagues were well aware of the viral videos showing the Church attack. Yet no one contacted the police. Gabrielle LePage allegedly threw two smoke bombs into a church, an act that could constitute both hate crimes and mischief under the Criminal Code. The SPVM investigation is still ongoing and they have received our statement.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

Speaker 0: I mean, Hezbollah, you know, bombed the embassy in, in Beirut and, including many Americans. So, I just feel that's quite inappropriate. Speaker 1: You are an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know as mayor, you are not welcome here. And the day you move out of the city will be the day that I launch a parade celebrating the fact that you moved out of the city because you are not somebody who believe in coexistence.

An individual questions a reporter about third-party advertising spending in the election, specifically by Rebel News and Ford Canada, alleging both are owned by Ezra Levant. The reporter denies any spending and accuses the individual of lying and not doing their homework. The individual insists that Rebel News Network Limited is registered with Elections Canada under Ezra Levant's name and accuses the reporter of being a disgrace to journalism. The reporter counters that the individual is out of control emotionally and that their facts are wrong. The exchange escalates, with accusations of lying and being an embarrassment. The individual defends their ability to do the work of multiple reporters, while the reporter suggests they don't understand what they're looking at.

This week on Straight to the Point, Harmit Dillon, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, discusses a federal investigation into what she calls an attack on a Minnesota church, detailing charges and potential future arrests. Key points on the Minnesota church protest and related federal charges: - The 14-page indictment centers on violations of the FACE Act, which criminalizes disrupting a religious service or invading a house of worship, and also covers abortion clinics and crisis pregnancy centers. The case includes conspiracy to violate federal civil rights in connection with these offenses. - The accusation describes a two-stage attack rather than a simple protest: a first wave of participants, primarily white allies, sat in pews to appear as a church service, followed by a second wave that disrupted the sermon and caused fear among congregants. - The church scene included statements like “this isn’t God’s house, this is the house of the devil.” Nine individuals have been indicted so far; prosecutors say the broader group involved could number about 40 based on video evidence. - The DOJ is pursuing all individuals who invaded the church with the intent to disrupt prayer and deprive parishioners of First Amendment rights. Some suspects claimed to be journalists, though the government notes the content shows pregame activities, tailgating with donuts and coffee, and coordinated actions that support a conspiracy theory. Reaction to media and journalists: - Don Lemon’s remarks on late-night TV about overreach are addressed. Dillon emphasizes that the mic and camera do not grant a license to break the law, and prosecutors have pursued arrests with search warrants and evidence, while acknowledging that journalism status is not decisive in determining liability in this case. - The DOJ references specific individuals who claimed journalism status, noting that several arrested individuals made such claims. Investigations, scope, and law-enforcement context: - Dillon states the DOJ is examining all participants who invaded the church; the universe could extend beyond the nine indicted to roughly 40 people based on the video evidence. - The incident raised safety concerns for law enforcement and parishioners; she cites prior related church attacks and a fatal shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic church as context for a zero-tolerance stance on disrupting houses of worship. Other ongoing civil rights matters: - A separate civil rights review into the January shooting death of ICU nurse Alex Preti by Homeland Security agents is mentioned. The process involves evidence preservation, ballistic analysis, and collaboration with the FBI and DHS; it remains general and non-specific about current investigative steps. Anti-ICE activism and security measures: - Reports of anti-ICE activists setting up roadblocks and using license plate readers are described as a criminal matter—obstruction of federal law enforcement—and are framed against broader safety concerns for federal agents facing threats. - Tom Holman’s push to deploy full body cameras for Homeland Security agents, starting with ICE, is welcomed as a transparency measure to protect civil rights and assess potential violations. Georgia 2020 election ballots and civil/criminal proceedings: - Dillon outlines a timeline of two tracks: a civil suit to obtain Georgia’s voter rolls for a comprehensive review, and a parallel criminal investigation operation leading to a search warrant at an election hub in Fulton County. - The civil case sought ballots because of concerns about irregularities in Fulton County processing; the criminal case took precedence due to implications for Fifth Amendment rights and ongoing investigations. - There is mention of ongoing debates about the handling of ballots, with some Georgia officials acknowledging mishandling, though not framed as systemic fraud; the department may seek ballots in other swing states if appropriate, subject to legal preservation periods and evolving facts. - The timeline hints at potential action ahead of the midterms, with involvement from DNI Tulsi Gabbard on election-security matters. The interview emphasizes that the indictment details a wide-ranging, premeditated conspiracy to disrupt a church service, the DOJ’s commitment to pursuing all involved, and the broader context of civil rights investigations related to use of force, protest rights, and election integrity.

A man from Palestine, with his face covered, was saying "free Palestine." The speaker identified him, and the police apprehended him. The speaker claims the man tried to bomb something, and so did the lady he was with. The lady left with a red bruise on her face.

The speaker claims the Israeli war room is trying to get the FBI after them. This follows the speaker's video arguing that Elias Rodriguez's elimination of two Zionist officials was an act of resistance, not an antisemitic terrorist attack. The speaker anticipates the FBI's involvement, referencing a prior incident in November when someone smeared them by sending false bomb threats to synagogues in their city, attributed to the speaker. The speaker expresses disdain for the FBI, federal authorities, the Israeli war room, and accuses them of being traitors to humanity.