TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

As a Christian attorney, I took my responsibilities seriously and aimed to be morally and ethically upright. I believed in challenging the 2020 election results for President Trump, but I failed to ensure the facts presented by other lawyers were accurate. I regret not doing my due diligence in raising challenges in multiple states, including Georgia. If I had known then what I know now, I would not have represented Donald Trump in these post-election disputes. I apologize to the people and have already faced censure from the Colorado Bar. Thank you.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker admits to not knowing anything about it until it came out publicly. They mention that there were many names on the list, but the press only focused on a few. The speaker reiterates that they had no knowledge of the situation.

The speaker notes that people might be surprised that he has never interacted with Donald Trump face to face, though that is about to change. The speaker then references a statement made last month by Trump, who suggested that the speaker turned black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of his identity. The speaker dismisses this as the same old tired playbook and declines to comment further. The speaker then expresses confusion as to why a shot wasn't taken. The speaker reiterates that people might be surprised that he has never interacted with Trump.

The speaker was asked if they misspoke about carrying weapons in war, despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years in uniform and their service in public education. They believe people know them and that their record speaks for itself. Regarding the alleged misstatement, the speaker said they were discussing carrying weapons of war after a school shooting. They acknowledged their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated that they will never demean another member's service.

I always made sure when I ran for congress to be truthful and back up my claims with evidence, especially regarding my background, because trust is essential for public office. I'm asking you directly about your claim of not speaking Chinese. I've seen videos of you speaking Mandarin during your congressional run. Why do you say you don't speak Chinese when you clearly do? I encourage people to watch the clip in question. I said thank you for inviting me in Chinese, but 99% was in English. My Chinese is at a rudimentary, kindergarten level. It's a family joke how bad my Chinese is. I understand my parents when they speak to me in Chinese, but I can't articulate myself well. I stand by my statement that I'm not able to have a fluent conversation.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

Speaker 1 is asked about their previous tweets regarding Trump and Brian Kemp stealing elections. Speaker 1 dismisses the comparison as ridiculous and clarifies that they were referring to the threat to voting rights at that time.

The conversation covers a mix of topics centered on political connections and accountability. It begins with a reference to Barack Obama, noting he “was president of The United States,” followed by a remark about his time in Chicago and a comment attributed to him: “only black people could live that way.” Attorney Klein is brought into the discussion, and there is a transition to turnover of questions and answers. A committee issue is raised: Speaker 2 accuses the person addressed of misleading the committee, including a contradictory written submission. The person responds that they will review the matter “in our next break to correct the record,” answering “Yes” to whether they will review it. The dialogue then addresses political campaign involvement. Speaker 2 asks whether the person helped out the president’s campaign, acted as a representative or spokesman, and whether it was their idea for the campaign dating back to 2011; the response given is “Yes.” Speaker 3 asks for identification of individuals associated with the Trump organization. The person confirms several individuals: Alan Weisenberg as the Chief Financial Officer, and Miss Rona Graf as the executive assistant to Mr. Trump. The request is for as many names as possible so the committee can meet them. The person confirms Rona Graf’s position and explains that she is the executive assistant, with her office directly next to Mr. Trump’s, and notes that she has been involved in a lot of what went on. There is a reflective aside from Speaker 1 about the difficulty of following the proceedings in real time, and a critical observation regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement: questions are raised about why Epstein would have the contact information of the executive assistant and why she would feel comfortable texting him back during a congressional hearing. Speaker 4 adds commentary on hierarchy and motivation, suggesting that Epstein’s influence is reflected in the assistant’s actions: “Epstein's clearly paying her… she's just following her marching orders for her paycheck.” The exchange ends with the implication that the hierarchy and payoffs influence the responses and behavior of those connected to the Trump organization.

Everything that has been heard and read is true, and the speaker is deeply sorry. They hurt Alex Turk, his friends, and family, which they regret. The speaker also apologizes to the people of San Francisco for letting them down, and commits to restoring their trust and confidence. They will work hard to ensure the city's business is handled appropriately. A personal apology is extended to everyone in the administration, staff, friends, and family members.

The speaker is asked to explain a discrepancy between their claim of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protests in the spring of 1989 and reports that they didn't travel to Asia until August of that year. The speaker says they grew up in rural Nebraska, joined the National Guard at 17, and used the GI Bill to become a teacher. In the summer of 1989, they traveled to China and started a program taking basketball teams, baseball teams, and dancers back and forth to China to learn. They say their community knows who they are and that they have poured their heart into the community, while acknowledging they are not perfect. They claim to have been a bipartisan member of Congress and were elected governor twice. They admit to sometimes getting caught up in rhetoric. They say the experience in China made a difference in their life and that Donald Trump should have come on one of those trips. When asked again about the discrepancy, the speaker says they misspoke and were in Hong Kong and China during the democracy protest.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

A community I care about is hurting because of offensive posts attributed to me. Many of you have seen these blog posts online and on social media. They are homophobic, discriminatory, hateful, and weird. When a friend showed them to me in December, I was stunned because I couldn't imagine where they came from. I've spent months trying to understand these posts and hired cybersecurity experts to investigate if someone manipulated my words or my former blog. They haven't been able to prove manipulation, but I genuinely don't believe I wrote those hateful things because they are completely alien to me. I understand why some people don't believe me based on my past tweets and writings. I've been dumb, cruel, and hurtful to the people I advocate for. I own that, and I'm truly sorry.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe white people should pay reparations, claiming Speaker 1 tweeted in January 2020, "Yes, the North. Yes. All of us. Yes. America. Yes. Our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes. Reparations. Yes. On this day." Speaker 1 denies the tweet referred to fiscal reparations. Speaker 1 states the tweet referenced owing much to those who came before. Speaker 0 calls this a bizarre framing of the tweet.

The speaker states they applied to the CIA and have received criticism, including from Putin, for being from a "CIA family." The speaker acknowledges their father worked in conjunction with the CIA and that they attempted to join the agency. The speaker says Putin is attacking their father as being connected to the CIA, which the speaker says is not untrue. After their father's death, the speaker learned their father was involved in that world, which they say shocked them. The speaker concludes by saying that this is a fact, whether or not people believe it.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's ethnicity, stating they look "ambiguous" and "weird," and asks if they are Arab or Indian. Speaker 1 identifies as Indian, Ugandan, and a New Yorker. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 would claim African American status, like Elon Musk. Speaker 1 says they would not. Speaker 0, noting Speaker 1 is African, asks why not, stating their own middle name is Kwame. Speaker 1 affirms they are proud to be Ugandan.

I apologize for recording a video message that was shown at a partisan gathering. It was a mistake and I should not have done it. As the Speaker, I understand that I am human and can make errors. However, I am committed to doing better. I will implement a stricter communication protocol and seek guidance from parliamentary experts to prevent this from happening again. Respect for people, decorum, and the institution of Parliament are important to me. I am still learning in this role.

The speaker was asked about a statement where they said they carried weapons in war despite never deploying to a war zone. The speaker responded that they are proud of their 24 years of service and their record speaks for itself. They speak candidly and passionately, especially about children being shot in schools. When asked if they misspoke about being in war, the speaker said the conversation was about carrying weapons of war after a school shooting, and their grammar isn't always correct. The speaker stated they will never demean another member's service.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about a viral moment after a game against the Indiana Fever, in which many people believe Speaker 1 said, "effing white girl" or "effing white girls." Speaker 1 states definitively that she did not say that and would never say that, as there is no place for that type of language in the league. Speaker 0 asks if it's possible that's what Speaker 1 said, even though Speaker 1 can't remember. Speaker 1 reiterates that she knows that's not what she said because she wouldn't use that type of language.

Speaker 0: Hi, Michiganders, specifically Detroiters. Do you guys care that Charlie Kirk has passed away? Yeah. I didn't think so because my district is primarily black people, and Charlie Kirk said awful things about black people. So, no, I think my district will like me because I advocate for them as a white person. So

The speaker clarified that while they mentioned using IVF, they used a different fertility treatment to have children. Regarding false statements made during their 2006 congressional campaign about a 1995 arrest for drunk and reckless driving, the speaker stated that people can see their record and those who vouch for them. The speaker discussed their infertility issues and the treatments that led to having children, contrasting this with those trying to take those rights away. They stated they won't apologize for speaking passionately about issues like guns in schools or reproductive rights. The speaker believes most Americans understand the difference between IVF/IUI and abortion bans that deny families the chance to have a child.

You were asked why black voters should trust you after using offensive language. You defended your record, mentioning employment, opportunity zones, and support for historically black colleges. You criticized the interviewer for being late and for the hostile question. You claimed to be the best president for black people since Abraham Lincoln, dismissing the question as disrespectful.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

Speaker 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.