TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about the person in the White House who can cut off the President's speaking ability. Speaker 1 denies the existence of such a person and states that the President speaks for himself. Speaker 0 insists that it has happened before and asks if Speaker 1 is unaware of it. Speaker 1 maintains that it did not happen and expresses confusion about what Speaker 0 is referring to. The conversation ends without a clear resolution.

Peter Navarro entered the situation room uninvited, claiming hydroxychloroquine works and accusing others of having blood on their hands. Vice President Pence asked him to leave, surprising everyone. It was a disruptive interruption in a serious conversation.

- "The January 6 stuff was a culmination of what started many years ago back when Obama was in office." - "They decided to use it for their own self interest." - "There were a few at the very top, both sides, who knew exactly what was coming and tried to add to it." - "Yeah. And it was a coup." - "They were going to eliminate Pence." - "There were phony FBI out there." - "There were phony Secret Service, and there was phony US marshals." - "So the original plan was to take over the sledblade, and the marshals had to come in." - "That's why he was phoning marshals out there."

Dan Scavino, the former social media director for the White House, had a conversation at the White House Christmas party on December 19, 2020. During the conversation, Scavino expressed excitement and claimed that they didn't care about the election results or leaving power. He referred to President Trump as "the boss" and stated that they were determined to stay in power under any circumstances. When questioned about the legitimacy of their actions, Scavino simply reiterated that they didn't care.

Speaker 0 believed that the ability to challenge the election results was over. Speaker 1 disagreed, stating that although Congress certified the results, they didn't want to say the election was completely over. Speaker 0 recounted a conversation where someone referred to President Trump as "the boss" and claimed they wouldn't leave power. Speaker 1 clarified that Congress had certified the results but didn't explicitly say the election was over. Speaker 0 pointed out that staying in power doesn't work that way. Speaker 1 concluded by saying they would accept the results of the presidential election.

Just finished a meeting at the White House planning our objection for January 6th. We won't let Biden and the Democrats steal the election. Trump won by a landslide. Contact your house reps and senators to ensure their support. Many people are already involved. Stay tuned. Translation: Just finished a meeting at the White House planning our objection for January 6th. We won't let Biden and the Democrats steal the election. Trump won by a landslide. Contact your house reps and senators to ensure their support. Many people are already involved. Stay tuned.

The speaker asserts that the effort to release the Epstein files came directly from President Trump. They acknowledge that many people may have a hard time with this claim, but state that it is the truth. The speaker also says that Trump fought the hardest to stop these files from being released.

Speaker 0 discusses a transcript of a call from President Trump trying to overturn the election. They play an audio clip where Trump mentions criminal events. Speaker 1 feels threatened by Trump's comments about overseas ballots. Speaker 2 thought Trump believed he won the race but had investigated all allegations.

The speaker questions the DNC's corruption level, suggesting it functions as a campaign arm for the president. The bigger issue, however, was Joe Biden's chief of staff, who wielded enormous power. The speaker stresses the chief of staff's influence, describing him as a "shadowy, blister to ball type figure." While not publicly recognizable, this individual held significant power within the White House. The speaker emphasizes avoiding him, describing him as "scary."

"You wanna talk about an insurrection? This is a insurrection against the American people that was thwarted at multiple times." "He looked me in the eye and said, the truth of the matter is we took the playbook for psychological operations and information warfare that we would use against our enemies, and we turned it against the American people to undo the twenty sixteen election and to make sure they didn't elect Donald Trump in 2020." "Now that is a senior intelligence officer with more than thirty years of experience, a patriot who served in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and he understood that the tactics of making something fake look real were ripped right up our out of our intelligence communities." "Our intelligence agencies not only harm Donald Trump, they were harming the American public, the national security interest of the American public."

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

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.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

I wasn't surprised by Trump's circle calling for violence after the 2020 election. It wasn't just talk - they intended to act. If this happened in an African country, it would be called a coup or an attack on democracy. It was shocking to witness in the most powerful democracy. The gravity of the situation didn't fully hit me until afterwards. Translation: I wasn't surprised by the calls for violence in Trump's circle after the 2020 election. If this happened in an African country, it would be called a coup or an attack on democracy. It was shocking to witness in the most powerful democracy. The gravity of the situation didn't fully hit me until afterwards.

Speaker 0 describes that on 07/18/2023 special counsel Jack Smith has decided to pursue another arrest and more indictments of President Trump, alleging it is a result of the Fed storming the Capitol on 01/06/2021 and targeting Trump for his role in the effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on that date. He asserts that all President Trump did was give a speech and that he incited nothing. He claims the people disrupting the peaceful transfer of power were “our government.” He argues that when videos from the Capitol appeared, Tucker Carlson, while still on Fox News, claimed the videos were manipulated, asserting they were added to with people, sound, fire, and smoke, probably mirrors, to make it look horrific. He says footage has been removed from the Internet, making reflection on 01/06 difficult, and that all remaining footage is manipulated, stating there was not all the fire and smoke and that the famous picture is a manipulated image. He asserts the rioters didn’t bring guns and that there was no fire or smoke, but instead “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and that history has been changed and references are no longer available. He claims that during the Fed’s direction, Trump did say on video what he should have said, including “I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election stolen from us, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to respect our great people in law and order. There’s nothing more he could have said.” He notes the video is difficult to find but exonerates Trump, maintaining he incited nothing, especially since the feds were doing most of it. He says this video will be important in the coming weeks and months as Smith continues to go after Trump, predicting suppression of the video by social media platforms, as in the immediate aftermath of the Fed’s direction. He says he captured the video and urges sharing. Speaker 1 quotes Trump: “I know you’re pained. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.” Speaker 0 adds that Tucker Carlson claimed Democrat party and those involved in planning and organizing the insurrection hired a Good Morning America producer to dramatize the footage and even dubbed in sound, to make it more sensational, implying the footage was staged. He questions why it would be necessary to add sound and create more people and fire or smoke to redefine the events, suggesting the feds planted and altered footage to present an insurrection. Speaker 2 reinforces the claim with a direct statement: “How staged and fraudulent was the work of the January 6 committee? Democrats hired a Good Morning America producer called James Goldston to dramatize the footage they released. They even dubbed in audio to make the pictures more sensational as in a docudrama. The networks carried it all live as if it were real.”

I caught a Pentagon advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, specializing in AI, coordinating a secret war room to counter Trump. This guy, Jamie Mannarino, worked for Hillary Clinton, then the FBI as a "spy hunter," and now advises on AI technologies that "don't yet exist." Mannarino was caught on hidden camera discussing these secret meetings and expressing his negative opinions about Trump. He even mentioned consulting with retired generals about what actions they could take to prevent certain potential presidential actions. Following this exposure, the Pentagon spokesperson stated they were not involved and that Mannarino was out of control and had been stopped. This is an example of the deep state attempting a coup.

Speaker 0 claimed the former president was illegitimate for 4 years. Speaker 1 argued about conceding the election and potential violence in the future. They debated about the Capitol attack and the death of Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick. Speaker 1 denied that anyone died during the attack, but Speaker 0 mentioned Sicknick's death.

Pat Cipollone, Trump's chief counsel, is being criticized for his actions and may face consequences in the future. Questions are raised about who hired him and why he was kept in his position for so long. There is frustration over the handling of the situation, with suggestions that it could have been resolved quickly if the team was more competent.

Speaker 0 questions if this could be the biggest setup or crime in the country's history. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of uncovering the truth and the cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves Republicans. Speaker 1 commits to following the evidence, regardless of where it leads. Speaker 0 holds Speaker 1 accountable for this commitment. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the significance of revealing the truth and uncovering cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves members of Speaker 1's own party. Speaker 1 pledges to follow the evidence, no matter the consequences. Speaker 0 reminds Speaker 1 of this commitment.

An interviewer asks if it's true that President Trump offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. One speaker says Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, testified that Trump never issued an order to deploy the guard. Kash Patel and another individual confirm under oath that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Donald Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops for January 6th. They state the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and President Trump were present. They claim Trump authorized the troops to be utilized should a request come in, but those requests never did. One speaker clarifies the meeting was primarily about a foreign threat to the U.S., and the discussion about January 6th occurred at the end. They believe Trump was acting as any commander-in-chief would.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

That one moment changed what we knew about Ray Epps that night when he whispered storm the capital before it had happened and echoed the official narrative before it was broadcast across the nation. Of supporters of president Trump stormed The US Capitol Building. We ran it through forensic software that technical investigators use for analyzing audio and video to make sure we heard correctly, and it had not been altered. Epps, who continued to direct people to the capital in the cold light of day on January 6, did not go into the capital himself, according to the January 6 committee and the FBI. He's never explained publicly why he said storm the capital, what he meant by that, or what he may have known. So why hasn't it been addressed? Nobody cared about the Ray Epp story.

The transcript discusses the Pizzagate conspiracy, stating that it claims Hillary Clinton and her former campaign manager John Podesta ran a child sex ring at a Washington, DC pizzeria. It asserts that this is a lie. The speaker adds a satirical remark about Chuck E. Cheese robots being the only ones trapped in a pizza place, and it references a Westworld-like scenario where robots might rise up, framing it as part of the broader, unfounded fear. The origin of the conspiracy is traced to alt-right readers who examined Clinton campaign emails hacked by Russia and published by WikiLeaks. They noticed more references to pizza and pizzerias than expected, and concluded that this signified a secret sexring. The speaker notes that “a lot of uninformed gullible people” believed the theory, providing Michael Flynn as an example of someone who amplified it. Flynn, who was Trump’s pick for national security adviser, tweeted: “new Hillary emails, money laundering, sex crimes with children, etcetera, must read,” as part of introducing or endorsing the narrative. The transcript emphasizes that the theory spread despite lacking corroborating evidence, highlighting the role of hacked emails and sensational interpretation by alt-right figures. The speaker adds a concluding retort: “Introducing it, you decide. Okay? Then I decide a guy who spreads this bull shouldn't be in charge of national security.” This serves as a final judgment within the dialogue on the appropriateness of promoting the conspiracy in a position of national security leadership. Key points highlighted include: - Pizzagate claims that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta operated a child sex ring at a DC pizzeria. - The assertion that this is a lie. - A satirical aside about robots at Chuck E. Cheese and a Westworld reference. - The alleged origin in hacked Clinton emails with increased pizza references found by alt-right circles, as published by WikiLeaks. - The spread of the theory among uninformed followers, with Michael Flynn cited as a notable promoter who linked “new Hillary emails, money laundering, sex crimes with children” to read. - A concluding stance that a promoter of this conspiracy should not hold a national security role.

The speaker discusses how a story about Donald Trump grabbing a Secret Service agent's neck was fabricated. The driver and others present that day denied it happened. The committee ignored evidence contradicting the narrative they wanted to push. Destroyed material likely went against their agenda. Liz Cheney is the prominent figure in this committee. Translation: The speaker talks about a false story involving Donald Trump and a Secret Service agent. Evidence disproving the story was ignored. Destroyed material likely contradicted their agenda. Liz Cheney is a key figure in this committee.