TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 notes that the last administration was not transparent on the issue, but with the task force created, they have guided members within what they're cleared for. He asserts that they have encountered alien beings and recovered vehicles, with physical proof, and that he was partially cleared into those activities, having read intelligence reports from those programs. Speaker 1 reflects that online discourse about encounters and videos is plentiful, and asks if there is belief that the US government knows about alien beings coming to Earth. Speaker 0 responds that he doesn’t like to characterize where they came from, but they are definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. He claims to have recovered vehicles and physical proof and says he had partial access to the data and to intelligence reports. He confirms seeing with his own eyes according to his account. Speaker 2 says NASA speaks for itself and claims transparency with data, and asks whether to believe David Crush or if he is lying, and where the evidence is. Speaker 0 asserts that members of the current administration are very aware of this reality and the current president is knowledgeable on the subject. He trusts the president’s leadership and believes the president has assembled a team; he says if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3 says he has access and has had meetings with very smart people who believe there is something out there, and it makes sense there could be. He is not convinced himself. He asks if the person believes one, that he knows, and two, that he’s open to transparency on UAPs. Speaker 0 reiterates that the president is very well informed on the issue, and avoids revealing more than the president might want to reveal. He notes a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 1 asks about years of threat and testimony. Speaker 0 says he was physically threatened even before submitting his intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration, and sought legal protection because of professional and personal fear. Speaker 1 asks about recovering pilots or remains and whether that was seen with his own eyes. Speaker 0 confirms there were pictures and says yes, there were remains. Speaker 1 questions whether the origin is from another planet or outer space, and if it is interdimensional, seeking clarification. Speaker 0 explains he has talked to many veterans of the program and keeps an open mind on origin. He acknowledges an extraterrestrial hypothesis but does not usually go there because he did not see the data, and he is not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government has. He is not aware of any remains or signs of extraterrestrial beings or technology by his department. Speaker 3 says the US government knows, but asks whether other governments know. Speaker 0 says they know and have their own programs, and notes that two and a half years ago the US has been in an arms race with peer competitors like Russia and China, who have their own programs. He says he was able to view intelligence discussing adversarial programs and will leave it at that. Speaker 3 states that they’ve recovered things, and Speaker 0 confirms, noting there were bodies and physical remains. They discuss whether the motive or intent of the visitors was peaceful or not, acknowledging a mixed bag of activity and motive. They consider whether Earth’s genetic material could be a reason for visits, even jokingly proposing Jurassic Park as a tourist attraction for genetic material on Earth.

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 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The speaker recounts a sequence starting from a Catholic Mass for the Immaculate Conception, describing how a purposeful prayer led him to receive a piece of evidence he believes will help complete the story of a controversial assassination. An email arrives in his tips box from a young woman urging him to contact her friend, whom he calls Harry, who then shares a story the speaker says he has since fact-checked in parts and that is "legit" in its core elements. The speaker asserts Harry is honest about where he was and what he did, while descriptions of people come from Harry’s memory. Harry Myers, 35 years earlier, was a 20-year-old at the bottom of the military ladder attached to a brand-new command, Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6), created along the U.S.–Mexico border under President George H. W. Bush and promoted as a war on drugs. The context includes the Iran-Contra era scandals (1981–1986) and the presidency of Reagan, with George H. W. Bush as VP and later as president who emphasized drug enforcement at the border. Harry describes himself as a lowly “military sensor guy” assigned to Operation Catacomb, which covered half of Arizona and Mexico. He claims that within six days he planted sensors, translated data, and “skipped the chain of command” to provide proof of the first discovered Sinaloa Cartel underground rail tunnel, enabling a raid by a border patrol agent who could obtain a warrant without tipping off compromised commanders. Harry asserts that US and Mexican authorities discovered a tunnel 30 feet underground with equipment like an air compressor, a sump pump, a trolley, and a hydraulic jack; the tunnel connected a house in Agua Prieta to the U.S. side. He alleges that upper-level commanders were pictured with El Chapo and Felipe in the Mexican house, suggesting corruption. He says his information led to the tunnel bust, but afterward his superiors took credit, and he received only a small army medal. He claims that, after the bust, his information was fed to the cartels, and he and a Border Patrol agent were targeted. He alleges his ID was compromised, and he was placed in witness protection, under an NDA, but the protection was never followed up—“the ball got dropped.” Fast forward to May 2025, Harry, now using a new name, leaves his home in Washington to confront his past at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He stays at a Candlewood Suites on the base on September 8. On September 9, he travels off-base for coffee in Sierra Vista and encounters soldiers from his old unit; they tell him the Joint Task Force Six has continued as JTF Southern Border. He enters the new JTF headquarters around 7:37 a.m. and notices many high-ranking officers (lieutenant colonels). Three men exit a meeting; one is identified by the speaker as Brian Harpole. The speaker claims the other two in the room accuse him of spying and conduct a seven-hour interrogation, attempting to gaslight him into admitting national-security wrongdoing. He recounts being accused of threats and being told to consider a bomb-threat scenario, then being escorted off post after base command involvement. Harry provides an incident report number (8612025-Dash-MPC446) and says Captain Neff led the interrogation; he suspects Neff may have military ties to another media figure’s connection. Afterward, Harry returns home via flight, stopping in Salt Lake City where Charlie Kirk’s name comes up, as the speaker was coincidentally hearing about Kirk during the trip. Harry insists he did the right thing by uncovering possible government involvement with cartels and claims extensive documentation—military records, police records, NDAs, judges—that support his testimony. The presenter links Harry’s story to a broader discussion of global trafficking and cartel-government collusion at high levels, while noting that Harry is now speaking publicly after 35 years of silence and believes there are more people who know something that could be FOIA-requested. The speaker suggests a personal, spiritual sense of movement and fate surrounding these revelations and expresses a desire for further investigation and potential meetings with others in the field.

Speaker 0 raises the question of CIA involvement in drug trafficking, referencing a past discussion with former Tel Aviv CIA chief of station Susan Miller and noting a reminder about Iran-Contra. They ask why the CIA would be intimately involved with drug trafficking, and mention Candace Owens discussing it in relation to the Charlie Kirk assassination. Speaker 1 answers that trafficking in drugs allows the CIA to get closer to the targets they want to reach. They point to a popular Netflix series, Narcos, which follows the hunt for Pablo Escobar, the Cali cartel, and other major cartels. They claim that, in the show, and in real life, every time the Drug Enforcement Administration gets close to its primary target, the CIA station chief steps in and ruins the investigation. They state that this happens because the CIA doesn’t care about drugs. Speaker 1 continues that the CIA cares about terrorism and communism, implying there are always some other bigger ideological concerns. Therefore, the CIA is “perfectly happy” to allow cocaine to flood into the United States in the 1980s during the Iran-Contra period, just as it was “perfectly happy” to allow Afghanistan to provide 93% of the world’s heroin once the United States began its occupation of Afghanistan.

Speaker 0: Did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: I saw information intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation of conclusion was taking place. Speaker 0: That doesn't help us a lot. What was the nature of the information? Speaker 1: As I said, mister Gowdy, I think this committee now has access to the type of information that I'm alluding to here. It's classified and I'm happy to talk about it in classified session. Speaker 0: And that would have been directly between the candidate and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: That's not what I said. I'm not going to talk about any individual's But Speaker 0: that was my question.

The speakers discuss allegations about Brian Gamble and his wife in relation to Project Veritas. Speaker 0 says Reba claimed that Brian Gamble's wife worked with Project Veritas and that she was a honeypot with them, along with Brian Gamble. Speaker 1 confirms, stating, “Oh, yes, she does. 100%. She works with Project Veritas. She's a honeypot with them. Her and Brian Gamble.” He also mentions a social media reference: Vincent Kennedy posted a picture of a pineapple upside down getting eaten by a gorilla, and notes that Loco Lobo posted about it, adding, “the upside upside down pineapple signifies that somebody's a swinger.” He then says, “Brian Gamble's okay with his wife going out on dates with these guys to obtain information from Project Veritas. Is that kosher? Like, would you let your wife do that? And Brian Gamble, as we all know, wants to have parties and get with the babes, you know, the fucking Botox babes and their plastic faces. Fuck them.” Speaker 2 adds, “Well, the record show that Brian Gamble, who was the CIO of the America Project with Joe Flynn and Mike Flynn, his wife, is a honeypot for Project Veritas. Okay. Just let the record show.” Speaker 0 says, “I will.”

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

- Kibbe on Liberty hosts Congressman Thomas Massey for part one of a mega episode focusing on the FBI-identified pipe bomber in the January 6 events and the anomalies in the official narrative; Massey argues he does not believe one loner acted alone. - Massey discusses prior coverage and context, noting a Steve Baker interview that documented inconsistencies in the official narrative. He points to fallout from that interview: a Capitol Hill Police official, who was third in command, resigned the day after the interview; another whistleblower contacted Massey about that officer, suggesting misconduct unrelated to the pipe bomb but part of a larger pattern of investigations. - Massey argues that the FBI’s announcement of a suspect came about a week after that interview and after reporting by The Blaze, and suggests the timing is suspicious. He says this coincidence is surprising and potentially a red flag, given that the investigation had been deemed inconclusive or dormant for years. - Massey emphasizes his own context: his staffer on the Hill watched hours of video to identify who found the second pipe bomb; he asserts that the individuals who found the second bomb should be considered suspects, and that the FBI admitted this to him. He recounts efforts with Kevin McCarthy to release video showing how the second pipe bomb was found, noting that those who found it were very lucky to locate it quickly. - He describes other connections and leads: his staffer now works for Kash Patel; Massey has spoken with a counter-surveillance officer who found the pipe bomb and with the officer’s handler, a Capitol Hill Police member who had previously worked for the ATF and later for Metro Police and Capitol Hill Police. He also mentions conversing with the assistant FBI director in charge of the Washington field office, in a transcribed interview with Jim Jordan about why cell phone data wasn’t used to geolocate the suspect (the provider allegedly corrupted data, which the judiciary committee and Barry Loudermilk’s committee disputed). - Massey references a 100-page report from Barry Loudermilk’s committee on the pipe bomb investigation, noting leads the FBI did not follow. He mentions a lead about an individual in Falls Church, Virginia (a former military man now in government service) whose metro card was used on January 5 and January 6; this person’s childhood friend allegedly used the metro card to approach the RNC/Capitol Hill Club area and take photographs near the pipe bomb sites. Massey asserts this person of interest, plus a neighbor who shared a wall with him, could be connected to others the FBI has not fully explored. - He contends that the arrest appears to derail other investigations and interviews that were being planned. He asserts that a “pro-Trump” motive has not been established for the suspect, contrasting the media’s framing with details such as the suspect’s My Little Pony interest and parental political donations. - Massey criticizes the prosecutor in the case, Jocelyn Ballantine, and recounts concerns about her track record (including involvement in the Flynn case, the Proud Boys case, and alleged attempts to obtain confessions implicating Trump). He questions why she remains at the DOJ. - They discuss broader concerns about FBI politicization and surveillance: Massey references reporters and contact with Kash Patel’s team to argue for cleaning house at the FBI, but notes Ballantine remains in place. He describes eight senators discovering they had been spied on, leading to a legislative push: in the last continuing resolution, lawmakers added a half-million-dollar payout and standing to sue the government for surveillance abuses, a provision he characterizes as carving exemptions out of the law; he says this was supported by most lawmakers, who voted for the CR due to Trump concerns. - They debate possible explanations for the pipe bomber case: the possibility that the FBI identified the suspect and cleared him, prompting no arrest due to exonerating information; or the possibility of a false narrative crafted by others to preserve the January 6 prosecution framework; or the involvement of a patsy or rogue actor. - Massey reiterates his three things he said on Twitter: the bomber was a lone wolf (which he disputes); the FBI was unwittingly incompetent for four years (which he says he questions and calls a cover-up); and it was not a Trump supporter. He stresses the need for more transcribed interviews and explanations from the FBI and ongoing oversight to uncover the full truth. - The discussion shifts toward Epstein files coverage and the broader goal of maintaining public pressure for transparency. They indicate a plan to release a separate bonus episode focusing on Epstein files.

The speaker mentioned that some people were inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker was personally involved in these conversations and questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources in the videos whose identities needed to be safeguarded. The speaker then mentioned Mr. Allen experiencing retaliation.

The speaker, a former LAPD narcotics detective, accuses the CIA of drug trafficking and presents evidence of CIA involvement in drug operations. Another individual mentions past CIA activities, including assassination attempts and espionage. They question the credibility of the CIA director's denial of such activities in Los Angeles.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1 with information about a cover-up that should be exposed. Speaker 1 advises them to pray about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. Speaker 0 questions how this protects against corruption and misconduct, to which Speaker 1 admits it doesn't solve the problem. Speaker 1 warns that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as examples. Speaker 0 concludes the hearing, acknowledging the gravity of the situation.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

Senator Alex Padilla states that a half dozen violent criminals are being rotated. Someone states there is no recording allowed out here per the FBI. Another person says that you can record.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

Speaker discusses Trump’s stance on JFK assassination files, saying Trump claimed that if you knew what I know, you wouldn’t tell people either, and notes that this is his position on UAP as well. He asserts that the CIA had knowledge of the JFK matter and that the conspiracy industry around JFK is an industry with many wackos, but emphasizes that the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. He mentions that documents are still classified sixty-one years later and argues that both Trump and Joe Biden have kept those documents secret in violation of his reading of federal law. He states there is no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination, only an institution or possibly countries involved, and indicates there may be something worth protecting. He relays a conversation with someone who had seen the documents two years earlier, from whom he learned that yes, the CIA was involved, and notes James Jesus Angleton, head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this. He says this was news to him and he discussed it on TV. The next day, while quail hunting, he received a phone call from Mike Pompeo’s lawyer, who, as then-CIA director and later Secretary of State, had plotted the murder of Julian Assange. The lawyer told him that anyone who reveals contents of classified documents has committed a crime, and the speaker recalls driving with his dog and asks if revealing that the U.S. government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president constitutes the crime, while suggesting Pompeo is protecting the murder. The speaker says Pompeo had no response. The speaker asserts Pompeo pressed Trump to keep the documents secret and calls Pompeo sinister and criminal, citing that Pompeo was caught—referencing Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff’s piece—where Issachoff’s sources claimed Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange, who had not been charged in the U.S. as CIA director. He states federal employees are not allowed to kill people they don’t like. He contends Pompeo pressured Trump to withhold information the public has a right to know and that Pompeo plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. Finally, the speaker questions how Pompeo is treated in Republican Washington, noting he is treated as a respected figure and potential secretary of defense in a Trump administration, despite being described as criminal for keeping information secret and for plotting a murder. He finds it mind-bending that Pompeo is treated as a pillar of Republican Washington.

The speaker describes "a massive scandal in Washington DC with the doctoring of crime stats," noting that "the Department of Justice under the attorney general is leading the effort to uncover this." "But when we ultimately share the results, results, it will it will stun you." They state that "the extent to which even though DC had the worst crime in America, honestly measured, it dramatically understated how bad it was," and claim "There's even accusations that murders and homicides were reported as accidents instead of murders." "I mean, this is how severe the manipulation of the crime data has been in this city." "And it will all be uncovered, it will all be brought to light." The speaker adds: "I've had a chance to spend some time, as to everyone here, with the police officers in the city." "Members of the public are going up to them and thanking them, just overflowing with gratitude."

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.

Michael Horowitz, the DOJ's inspector general, testified on Capitol Hill regarding January 6th. He was asked about the presence of confidential human sources, or CHS, on the Capitol grounds that day. Horowitz stated that the forthcoming report would include information on this matter. When asked if there were more than 100 CHS present, he declined to answer due to the draft status and classification review. He also said he didn't recall how many CHS were reimbursed for travel. This response implied that there were indeed confidential human sources involved on January 6th. Questions remain about their level of involvement and whether they induced anyone to commit crimes.

Speaker 0: "What I'm saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents. There's a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. Alright? Mhmm. You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen." Speaker 1: "I'll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI's most wanted list. There are only two ways that happens. You die or your informant." Speaker 1: "Put that aside. Under congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when senator Cruz asked her, flat out, were there federal agents involved with January 6? And she said, quote, senator, I can't answer that at this time." Speaker 1: "The reason she said I can't answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russergate with Christopher Steelehauper and everybody else. It's the same narrative, and and I'm telling you they were there." Speaker 0: "You're so you're saying that she said I can't answer that because the answer is yes Yeah. And that would compromise whatever their operation was. Exactly."

The speaker mentioned that there were individuals inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources whose identities needed protection. The speaker then mentioned that Mr. Allen faced retaliation.

I have been in government for a long time, involved in JSOC and DIA. I know about past betrayals and manipulations. I exposed a false flag plot at Calvert Cliffs. I call out someone for spreading disinformation and attacks. I challenge them to a deposition under oath to reveal the truth and stop the deception for the good of the country. It's time to face the consequences for their actions. Let's see if they will show up and answer the questions. The truth must come out for the benefit of the people and the nation.

Senator Alex Padilla stated he has questions for the secretary regarding violent criminals. Another speaker is concerned about ICE agents being targeted and doxxed for doing their job. They specifically asked how many ICE agents have been doxxed.