TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

The speaker advocates creating a twenty-four-seven declassification office in the White House that reports directly to the president and handles incoming from the United States of America. The office would pursue declassification of high-profile documents, stating a desire to obtain JFK files, the 9/11 files, and other materials. The speaker asserts that the deep state primarily uses an illegal application of the classification system to cover up its corruption. They reference the so-called “Lovebirds” texts from FBI and DOJ officials involved in the Russiagate investigation, specifically Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who allegedly were having an extramarital affair while coordinating support for their stance against Trump. The speaker claims these texts expressed hatred for Trump and discussed creating an “insurance policy” to stop him. According to the speaker, after discovering these texts, the FBI and DOJ redacted them before congressional investigators and members overseeing those agencies for an extended period. The speaker emphasizes that this is one example among broader claims of improper behavior by the agencies. The speaker then notes a recent development: Strzok and Page received a $1,500,000 payout from the Department of Justice to settle a lawsuit over the improper disclosure of their personal text messages on FBI phones. The DOJ allegedly rewarded them, despite claims that they broke the law, violated the chain of command, and weaponized the justice system against a political target they despised. The speaker claims that the text messages were eventually declassified in full when the speaker became deputy director of national intelligence, allowing the world to read them. This, they say, demonstrates the best form of transparency. With this context, the speaker reiterates the rationale for the proposed 24/7 declassification office: to provide direct access to documents, files, and memos rather than regurgitated summaries. They argue that the deep state completed a full circle by rewarding those involved and that this office would enable America to receive the truth. The speaker frames the next step as obtaining the truth for the country, with the office serving as the mechanism to accomplish that objective.

The speaker suggests that in every January 6th case, the FBI has withheld evidence that could have helped the defendant. They believe defense attorneys should have access to a whistleblower's complaint, which reveals that compensation is tied to these cases. The speaker suggests that defense attorneys should question the agents involved about whether their bosses received bonuses for opening these cases. The other speaker agrees and finds it unbelievable that there are incentives to increase the number of Americans in jail.

My colleagues are trying to undermine and defund the FBI because they are investigating Donald Trump. Attacking the FBI and independent journalists undermines our democracy. By attacking these institutions, they can violate the law without consequences. The credibility of the FBI is being eroded by those on the other side of the aisle, and this needs to stop.

- 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 FBI is being criticized for not being transparent with Congress about their actions regarding a whistleblower's allegations. The whistleblower came forward because they were unsatisfied with how the FBI handled the information. The FBI is accused of covering up and not being forthcoming with Congress, who has the authority to oversee and investigate such matters. Congress should have access to the investigative materials, but the FBI is withholding them.

Speaker 1 asserts that there is a two-tier justice system weaponized to persecute people based on political beliefs, and that Director Wray has personally helped weaponize the FBI against conservatives. He references the Twitter files, Missouri v. Biden disclosures, the Durham investigation and report, and the exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax. He asks Director Wray what he is prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement to earn back the trust of the American people, noting that he asked Mister Durham about this, and Durham said he did not think things can go too much further given that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. Speaker 0 responds by disagreeing with the other speaker’s characterization, saying the description of his bias against conservatives seems insane given his personal background. He explains that the approach to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution starts with emphasizing to his staff to do the right thing in the right way, which means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. He outlines several actions: enhanced procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks and triple checks, record-keeping requirements, accountability policies, and funding for new functions like an Office of Internal Audit that didn’t exist before. He notes the installation of an entirely new leadership team from his predecessor and asserts that where he can take action, he will to hold people accountable by removing them from the chain of command. The exchange ends with an invitation to speak further, though the remark is truncated: “Gentlemen, ladies, time to speak to the….”

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 speakers confirm retaliation for speaking out against Homeland Security officials. No one at Homeland Security has been disciplined, demoted, or fired for not complying with the DNA law. The speakers faced consequences like losing credentials and firearms. They were marginalized and their careers destroyed. One supervisor mentioned the agency's goal was to bankrupt, force resignation, or worse.

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.

The FBI is accused of working against the American people and needing reform. Whistleblowers spoke out about the bureau's corruption and retaliation tactics during a congressional hearing. They detailed instances of being suspended, losing financial support, and facing humiliation and intimidation. Democrats attempted to discredit the whistleblowers, but they followed proper protocols and made protected disclosures. The FBI's role in the January 6th events was also questioned, with allegations of withholding video footage and the possibility of undercover agents being present. Protecting whistleblowers and holding those who retaliate against them accountable is crucial. Financial support is being provided to the whistleblowers through a crowdfunding campaign.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

The speaker discusses the problem with the Department of Justice's (DOJ) interview process. Currently, there is no verbatim record of suspect interviews, only a summary form called FD 302. This lack of recording was exploited in the case of Michael Flynn, where FBI officials manipulated the 302 to charge him with lying. To prevent such abuses, the speaker proposes the Fair Act, which would require all DOJ officers to record interviews of Americans accused of criminal offenses. This act aims to ensure fairness for defendants and hold the DOJ and FBI accountable. The speaker emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of all Americans.

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

Director Wray, the speaker expresses concern about the politicization of the Department of Justice and the FBI during the Biden administration. They believe that senior officials have allowed these institutions to be politicized. The speaker mentions FBI agents who are unhappy with the weakening of institutional integrity due to the DOJ being treated as a political weapon. They focus on the investigation into corruption allegations involving Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. The speaker presents a WhatsApp text message from Hunter Biden to a senior Chinese communist, suggesting that Joe Biden would retaliate if a commitment was not fulfilled. They mention an IRS whistleblower who testified that the DOJ blocked attempts to obtain GPS data on Joe Biden's phone. The speaker questions whether the FBI tried to determine the locations of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden when the text was sent. Director Wray defers to the ongoing investigation led by special counsel Weiss. The speaker accuses the DOJ and underlings of trying to stop the investigation and allowing the statute of limitations to expire. They mention another testimony from the IRS whistleblower, alleging that an Assistant US attorney stated that a search warrant would not be approved due to political optics. The speaker questions whether the FBI allows political optics to hinder corruption investigations. Director Wray reiterates that they follow the facts and cannot discuss ongoing investigations. The speaker criticizes Director Wray for not doing the work and hiding behind the attorney general.

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.

From a firsthand account about the whistleblower within ODNI who worked for then, Obama's DNI, James Clapper, about how he refused to go along with this. "As a result, he was sidelined and cut out of this." "He was the cyber guy in the director, in the director of national intelligence, James Clapper's, team." "He was sidelined because he wouldn't play along with the lie that they were creating, and he did blow the whistle." "He raised this through the ICIG." "He raised this, tried to raise this with multiple members of congress, including senator Warner." "He never got calls back." "They were not interested in what he had to say and what he had experienced." "He even tried then to go and report this to the Department of Justice, under, president Biden and was refused." "No action." "They were not interested in taking action in this."

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.

This internal government memo confirms I was retaliated against for speaking out against Homeland Security officials who I believed were breaking the law. No one at Homeland Security has been disciplined, demoted, or fired for failing to comply with the DNA law. To the contrary, some have been promoted. I've had my law enforcement credentials and firearm taken away, and my law enforcement retirement revoked. Publicly removing someone's firearm is the ultimate insult. I was iced, left to do menial tasks, and my future career potential vanished. I was demoted three levels, and like my colleague, my firearm and credentials were taken. Never in our combined seventy-five years of service have any of us even had a disciplinary action. One of the supervisors said the agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or preferably all of the above.

The speaker states that the FBI settled two lawsuits, agreeing to give Peter Strzok $1,200,000 and Lisa Page $800,000. The other speaker believes the Department of Justice was involved, not the FBI, but will confirm if the FBI had to sign off on the settlement. The speaker references Lisa Page saying to Peter Strzok, "Trump's not ever going to become president," to which Strzok replied, "No. He won't. We will stop it." The speaker wants to know if the FBI signed off on the settlement and who signed off on it. The speaker asks if the other speaker or Chris Ray signed off on it. The speaker states that Merrick Garland must have agreed to the settlement. The other speaker will direct the Department of Justice to answer these questions.

Bezos owning the Washington Post is described as an arm of the CIA, a claim raised by Speaker 0. He suggests that the newspaper is part of a broader pattern where media power is consolidated in the hands of a few billionaires, accusing the outlet of being used to push a particular agenda. Speaker 1 responds dismissively to that assertion and mentions Ellison taking over of [text incomplete in the transcript], signaling ongoing concerns about who controls major media and institutions. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 asserting that Barry Weiss is trying to squash real news and hide it, and that reporters who are doing real journalism are being targeted, framed as investigations or actions run by a few billionaires who control much of the media landscape. A related critique follows, declaring Bill Clinton a “slimeball” for deregulating the Federal Communications Act of 1996. The speakers reference the consequence that there were thousands of independent radio stations, television stations, and newspapers before deregulation, and now six companies control 92% of the media as a result of that action, calling Clinton a “lousy little slime ball.” The discussion moves into personal remarks about Monica Lewinsky, with a claim that “I didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” followed by derisive language directed at Bill Clinton, describing him as “that little clown.” The conversation then shifts to the Epstein files, with frustration expressed about why those files are not being released. The speakers criticize the redaction of the Epstein files and question, “Where the hell are these Epstein files?” They argue that the redactions are to protect individuals, using charged language to describe the situation as disgusting, and they call for the files to be made public. The topic then turns to the DOJ’s handling of redactions related to Congressman Thomas Massey. The DOJ reportedly missed deadlines to provide reasons for the redactions to Massey and “walked right past his deadline.” The speakers say they interviewed Massey on the show, reiterating that the DOJ violated the deadline and ignored the will of the people, with the DOJ referred to as the “DOJ, Department of Jerkoffs.” Finally, Massey is praised as one of the top lawmakers, described as one of the few in Congress who is truly respected, and “one of a kind,” with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 expressing strong admiration for his work and integrity.

A senator questions Deputy Director Abadi about allegations of a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abadi refuses to comment on the existence of a report or 17 voice recordings related to the allegations. The senator accuses the FBI of stonewalling and damaging its reputation. Abadi maintains that they operate within established parameters and will work with the committee to provide information. The senator criticizes the FBI for not being accountable and demands the release of the report and recordings. Abadi avoids directly answering questions about the investigation and the informant's reliability. The senator expresses concern that the evidence is being covered up by Democrats and the media. The exchange becomes heated and ends with the senator calling Abadi's behavior disgraceful.

The speaker testifies about the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against its own employees and the American people. He served in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, then as a police officer, and later as an FBI special agent. Despite receiving high performance reviews and being selected for specialized units, he has been smeared as a subpar employee after witnessing weaponization within the FBI. He states that too many in the FBI prioritize avoiding difficulty over upholding the Constitution, leading to an Orwellian atmosphere that silences dissent. He is speaking out despite the potential personal cost, including the loss of his job and family's home. He claims the FBI allowed him to accept orders to a new position, sell his family's home, and report to the new unit before suspending him on his first day, rendering his family homeless. He concludes that bad actors have begun running parts of the government, but he will never stop trying to serve the nation and protect the innocent.

Speaker 0 states: "It's disruptive. It's ridiculous." "Obviously, it's to persecute an enemy, which I can't believe the FBI is being so politicized." "However, I will say, if he would have testified in the first impeachment hearing, maybe we wouldn't be here." "So there's a little bit of karma also."