TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During my time at the CIA, I was responsible for briefing the press and circulating disinformation. Disinformation is not necessarily a lie, but rather a half truth. We would select influential journalists and provide them with information that we wanted to convey to the American public. We targeted respected journalists like Robert Chaplin, Kais Beach, Bud Merrick, Malcolm Brown, and Maynard Parker. I would cultivate their trust by sharing valid information and then slip in the data we wanted to spread, which may not have been true. We would also create an environment where journalists couldn't fact-check by briefing diplomats who would confirm our false information. Personally, I am opposed to these disinformation activities as they serve no useful purpose for the CIA.

I'm here to ask Anderson Cooper about Operation Mockingbird and the CIA's influence on mainstream media. A German reporter claimed the CIA bribed and extorted him to publish stories. Why is there a pro-government slant in Western media, like biased coverage of Putin and Assad compared to Saudi Arabia? Cooper is surrounded by security, preventing conversation on important issues like government manipulation of news. Is he avoiding the question because of his CIA past during college? A prominent German journalist recently revealed that the CIA is still manipulating the media, writing scripts for them. The media is just another branch of the government, a mouthpiece for propaganda, unable to face real questions. Cooper is hiding behind his security.

The CIA's main function is gathering intelligence, but it also engages in covert actions and propaganda. We disseminate propaganda to influence public opinion, sometimes working with journalists. This involves planting false stories, sometimes by using compromised journalists or even creating false narratives with fabricated evidence. This practice isn't limited to foreign countries; we've also planted false stories in the US press. For example, during the Angolan war, we used false stories about Cuban atrocities, including fake photos, which were then spread internationally. We've also sponsored the publication of numerous propaganda books in English, influencing public opinion about Vietnam. While the CIA admits to some propaganda efforts abroad, they deny similar activities within the United States. However, this is untrue, as we planted false stories in the Washington Post.

The speaker discusses the CIA's desire for an official secrets act to protect their operations. They mention that Americans often overlook the impact of CIA covert actions on citizens of other countries. The speaker recalls their realization of the CIA's main function, which is to intervene secretly in the affairs of other nations. They explain that the Covert Action Information Bulletin was founded to shed light on these activities, prompted by revelations from Watergate and various committee reports. The speaker emphasizes that the CIA's goal is to keep their actions hidden from the American people, while those affected by their operations are often aware of them.

There are functions of the CIA that include running secret wars and disseminating propaganda to influence people's minds, a major function that overlaps with information gathering. You have contact with a journalist; you will give him true stories and you’ll get information from him, and you will also give him false stories. You also work on human vulnerabilities to recruit journalists as agents to control what they do, so you don’t have to set them up by deception. You can tell them to plant stories on a schedule. Concrete evidence of using the press this way was highlighted by the church committee in 1975, and later by Woodward and Bernstein in Rolling Stone, noting that about 400 journalists cooperated with the CIA to consciously introduce stories in the press. A concrete example from Angola: one third of the staff was propaganda. There were propagandists around the world, principally in London, Kinshasa, and Zambia. They would take stories they wrote and put them in the Zambia Times, then pull them out and send them to a journalist on payroll in Europe. But the cover story was that the journalist had gotten them from his stringer in Lusaka who had gotten them from the Zambia Times, and after that point, the journalists, Reuters, and AFP, the management was not witting of it. The contact man in Europe was used to pump dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists, but there was not a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists, you know, eating babies for breakfast.

I was concerned that planted stories meant for foreign audiences were being circulated and believed here at home. This would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through another country. We are looking into this very carefully. We do have people who submit pieces to American journals. I think that getting into the details of whether we have people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks should be handled in a closed session. By 1954, relationships with the CIA had been established at CBS. I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them. We will evaluate the information we have, and we will include any evidence of wrongdoing in our final report and make recommendations. Whether we name the news organizations in our final report remains to be decided.

Planted stories intended for foreign countries were circulated in the US, raising concerns about CIA manipulation of news. CIA involvement with American journals and TV networks was discussed, with details kept confidential. CBS had contacts with the CIA, and the investigation will assess any wrongdoing. The use of CIA sources by reporters was considered acceptable in the past but requires caution now due to public scrutiny.

The discussion revolves around the CIA and allegations of withholding information from Trump. A reporter questions an individual about their statements regarding CIA operations and their employment status. The individual denies making certain claims and avoids confirming their top-secret clearance. Despite being confronted with video evidence, they maintain that everything is speculation and refuse to provide clear answers about their role at the CIA or any connections to a Chinese Mission Center. The reporter emphasizes the importance of the story regarding intelligence agencies being potentially weaponized for political purposes. The individual expresses frustration about being followed and insists they cannot disclose specific information. The interaction highlights the tension between the reporter's inquiries and the individual's evasive responses.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

The CIA has various functions, some more legitimate than others. One function is to run secret wars, while another is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds. They use journalists to spread both true and false stories, exploiting their vulnerabilities to control them. In the past, the CIA had around 400 journalists cooperating with them, including well-known names. An example of their manipulation is seen in the Angola war, where they planted false stories about Cuban atrocities to create an illusion of communist brutality. This shows how the CIA uses the press to further their agenda.

The transcript centers on Amjed Fassisi, a CIA contractor who works with Deloitte and, at times, within the CIA’s China Mission Center on cyber operations. He describes a career path that includes time at the CIA starting in 2008, a stint at the NSA for two years, then a return to the CIA in 2011, where he managed about 80 cybersecurity practitioners and later helped stand up a threat program inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fassisi asserts that he holds a high-level clearance (top secret/SCIs) and that his role involves cross-agency work across the enterprise, though he does not disclose specific details. Key, repeated claims attributed to Fassisi: - The higher-ups in the intelligence community, including CIA directors Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, and the upper echelons of their staffs, colluded to withhold information from sitting President Donald Trump. Fassisi states, “We kept information from him,” and later explains “the executive staff” (the director and subordinates) were involved. - Fassisi contends that the CIA and other agencies monitored Trump and his inner circle, using human sources and surveillance. He mentions that Trump could be targeted or spied on, including claims that he would “call Vladimir Putin and tell him” secrets, and that “the intelligence agencies thought that president Trump was a, quote, fucking dumbass and would disclose information.” - He asserts that information about Trump’s activities was intentionally withheld from him by the intelligence community, and that this withholding involved high-level officials who would not share details with the president. - Fassisi suggests that the intelligence community engaged in surveillance of Trump and his team using methods such as human intelligence rather than only wiretaps, and that the FBI, NSA, and other agencies were involved, with implications that FISA-related processes were used to monitor Trump. - He asserts distrust and lack of information-sharing among agencies, stating “the NSA and CIA don’t share information” and describing internal fragmentation and territoriality between agencies as a problem. - Fassisi alleges that there was a broader pattern of weaponizing the CIA and collaborating with foreign partners to influence or monitor Trump associates, referencing the broader narrative around Trump and Russia and implying ongoing monitoring of Trump’s activities post-presidency as well. - He makes broad allegations about Israel and other allies, asserting distrust and claiming Israel “steals intelligence” from the U.S.; he frames relations with allies as fraught and unreliable. - Fassisi describes the reporting by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi as validated by his claims, and positions the ongoing investigation as exposing corruption within the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice, with a narrative that information was hidden from the public and from Trump. Supporting context around the interview: - The exchange includes tense moments where Fassisi is shown a CIA badge and discusses his role; the interviewer questions the plausibility and provenance of his claims, pressing for documentation or proof, while Fassisi provides limited responses about his clearance, division (China Mission Center), and contractor status. - The segment also includes editorial framing by the presenter, interjecting with external commentary and promotional content not directly related to Fassisi’s assertions. The interviewer promises follow-up coverage and frames Fassisi’s statements as part of a broader whistleblower narrative. - Throughout, the content repeatedly emphasizes claims of withheld information from Trump, surveillance of Trump and his associates, inter-agency distrust, and internal CIA culture, without providing verifiable documentation within the interview itself.

I was wondering if you had a chance to look into Operation Mockingbird, the declassified program from the 1970s where the CIA infiltrated the mainstream media. Do you think it could be happening today? I find it concerning that domestic American coverage of world events focuses on Russia and Iran, but not Saudi Arabia. Why aren't human rights violations in Saudi Arabia covered as extensively as they should be? Go to Saudi Arabia and do it yourself. I don't mean to be rude, but Anderson Cooper's Wikipedia page states he received CIA training in college but no journalism training.

Speaker 1 discusses the possibility of a CIA conspiracy to remove them from office, citing CIA's advanced knowledge of the break-in and their dissatisfaction with the agency. They express a belief that the CIA feared them due to plans to reform the organization. While unsure about a conspiracy, they suggest it would be an intriguing topic for investigative reporting. They doubt the CIA would resort to eliminating those who expose their operations in the present day.

The CIA has admitted to having operatives embedded in major media outlets to influence stories for their benefit. Reports indicate that they have relationships with reporters from various national news organizations, persuading them to alter or withhold stories that could threaten national security. Evidence from the Pike Committee revealed that 42 CIA employees were placed in key media centers, often as national security reporters. A Time Life board member remarked that journalists are merely taking dictation from powerful entities, indicating a loss of journalistic integrity. Some reporters have shared experiences of their stories being spiked by editors, and payments to these operatives were made discreetly, often without proper reporting to tax authorities.

We spoke to someone with access to hidden CIA documents about their involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The response was clear: yes, the CIA was involved. This revelation suggests that there are powerful forces within the U.S. government that operate beyond democratic control, capable of influencing elections and concealing their actions, including the murder of a president. This undermines the very concept of democracy. Trust in the government has declined since Kennedy's assassination, and those in the know, including every CIA director since 1963, have been aware of this troubling reality.

The discussion centers on concerns that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back and be circulated in the United States, potentially allowing the CIA to manipulate U.S. news by channeling it through a foreign country. There is emphasis on looking at this very carefully. Questions were raised about whether any people paid by the CIA contribute to major American journals or to television networks. One speaker notes that some individuals submit pieces to American journals, and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who work for television networks. The response indicates that this is a level of detail better addressed in executive session. It is stated that at CBS, the CIA had contacted the organization, and that by the time the head of the news and public affairs operation was appointed in 1954, “the ships had been established,” and he was told about them and asked to carry on with them. Regarding final reporting, there is a commitment to evaluate all the detailed information and to include any evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety in the final report and to make recommendations. The question is raised again about whether there are people paid by the CIA contributing to national news services such as AP and UPI, with the response again preferring to handle those details in executive session. When asked whether the new organization’s final report would be named, the speaker indicates that this remains to be decided. It is asserted that correspondents at that time were allowed to make use of CIA agent chiefs of station and other CIA executive staff as sources of information useful in their assessments of world conditions. The question is asked whether this continues today. The response acknowledges that it probably does for a reporter, but notes that due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter would need to be much more circumspect now, and must be careful not to be viewed with considerable disfavor by the public.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

Speaker 1 discusses government interference in news coverage at CBS, citing pressure from political officials to shape stories. They mention feeling pressure from employers to withhold stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 suggests a policy where officials must submit objections in writing rather than through phone calls. They express concern about intelligence agencies violating rights without sufficient oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their input. Translation: Speaker 1 talks about government influence on news coverage at CBS, highlighting pressure from political officials to manipulate stories. They mention feeling pressured by employers to hold back stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 proposes a policy where officials must submit objections in writing instead of through phone calls. They express worry about intelligence agencies violating rights without proper oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their insights.

Speaker 0 asks if there are people paid by the CIA who contribute to American journals, television networks, and national news services. Speaker 1 prefers to discuss these details in an executive session. Speaker 2, from CBS, confirms that they were contacted by the CIA and continued working with them. Speaker 1 again defers to executive session when asked about specific news organizations. Speaker 2 believes it was acceptable for reporters to use CIA sources in the past, but acknowledges the need for caution due to public disfavor.