TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions whether Chairman Comer has proven Joe Biden committed high crimes. He believes Biden should be impeached but is unsure why the vote has not been called yet. The discussion revolves around the lack of evidence for impeachment and the delay in taking action. The speaker accuses the hearings of being a show and states that the vote will never happen due to insufficient evidence. The conversation ends with frustration over the ongoing hearings without a clear resolution in sight.

The speaker denies interacting with their son, brothers, and business associates in relation to the impeachment inquiry, stating that it is all lies.

The speaker believes there is no shortage of great ideas, but Congress lacks the courage to act. The speaker's agenda includes attempting to get Congress to act. If Congress does not act within the first 100 days of the speaker's administration, the speaker will take executive action because action is needed.

The speaker expresses concern about the current president of the United States, calling him a draft dodger, womanizer, and pathological liar. They believe it is dangerous for America and the world. Despite not wanting to see this in politics, they suggest that the House of Representatives should introduce a resolution of impeachment against Bill Clinton. They believe it is necessary to address the ongoing issues and move forward. They explain that under the constitution, the House introduces the resolution, and the US Senate conducts the trial. They believe this course of action is necessary for the country's well-being and the peace of the Western world.

Yesterday, Democrats gave Chairman Schiff more authority in the impeachment process. But Schiff has already tried to impeach the President three times, first accusing him of treason with supposed evidence of Russian collusion, which turned out to be false. Then, he pushed for impeachment based on obstruction of justice, relying on Bob Mueller, who later admitted his analysis was based on a nonexistent legal standard. Now, we're on impeachment effort number three, involving a whistleblower who initially met with Schiff's staff. The details of that meeting haven't been released, and Schiff won't release the Inspector General's testimony confirming the contacts between him and the whistleblower. It's like having someone who planted fake evidence ruling on its admissibility.

The speaker clarifies several points regarding a whistleblower. They state they do not know the whistleblower's identity, have not met or communicated with them, and committee staff did not write or coach the complaint. The committee staff also did not see the complaint before it was submitted to the inspector general, nor did the committee receive it until the night before the acting director of national intelligence. The speaker asserts that the theory of collusion between the whistleblower and the intel committee staff to initiate impeachment is a "complete and total fiction." The speaker notes the whistleblower complaint's remarkable accuracy, corroborated by subsequently gathered evidence. They also affirm their staff acted with complete professionalism and express gratitude for their hard work.

Points of order attacking the president are not allowed during today's impeachment inquiry hearing. Members are encouraged to speak openly.

The speaker expresses their hope that the January 6th committee will pursue and hold accountable those who defy congressional subpoenas. When asked about supporting 10 minutes for the Supreme Court, the speaker responds with a clear "No."

The speaker discusses the firing of Viktor Shokin, stating it was due to corruption, not to protect Burisma. They agree with witnesses who say there is no evidence to impeach the president. Other colleagues also state there is no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.

Democrats passed a resolution giving Chairman Schiff authority in the impeachment process. Schiff has tried to impeach the President three times. The first time, he accused the President of treason and collusion with Russia, which was untrue. The second time, he cited obstruction of justice, but Mueller's analysis didn't hold up. This third impeachment effort involves a whistleblower who met with Schiff's staff. The details of that meeting haven't been released, and Schiff won't release the Inspector General's testimony confirming the contact. The speaker likens this to a trial where the person who planted fake evidence is ruling on its admissibility.

The speaker accuses the House Speaker of not complying with the agreement that allowed him to assume the role. They criticize the lack of action on term limits, balanced budgets, and the release of the January 6th tapes. The speaker also expresses disappointment in the lack of accountability for the Biden family and the reliance on budgetary gimmicks. They highlight the failure to use the power of the subpoena and the power of the purse, specifically mentioning the absence of a subpoena for Hunter Biden. The speaker criticizes the leadership's request to vote for a continuing resolution, which they believe supports the Green New Deal and inflationary spending. They demand real oversight and mention the possibility of impeachment for Joe Biden. The speaker warns of a motion to vacate the chair if compliance is not met.

The speaker urges the chairman to move forward with impeachment, questioning the delay and cost to taxpayers. The other speaker defends the process, stating they are following facts and oversight. The first speaker challenges them to call for impeachment if they truly believe in the evidence. Ultimately, the first speaker believes the impeachment efforts are a show without substance, claiming it will never happen due to lack of evidence and support.

Speaker Pelosi claimed on national television that she had not spoken to the individual since the initial breach of the Capitol and that there had been no communications with him that evening. The individual, referred to as Speaker 1, confirmed that he spoke to Speaker Pelosi three times that evening, contradicting her statement. First call (approximately 05:34 PM): The individual went to brief Vice President Pence at a secure location and to conduct a personal assessment of the Capitol, with House Sergeant at Arms Irving informed that he was going over to brief the Vice President. Irving wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. The first call to Speaker Pelosi occurred during this briefing, establishing direct contact while the briefing was underway. Second call (during departure from the initial location): As the individual left the area and was walking toward the Senate with Mr. Stenger, Jennifer Hemingway handed him Emily Barrett’s cell phone, and it was Speaker Pelosi on the line. This second call concerned the information provided to Vice President Pence about when the Capitol could be returned to the chambers, and the individual reassured Pelosi that the information was correct and that they could get back into the chambers by 7:00 PM. The call ended after this confirmation. Third call (06:25 PM): While at the Senate, away from the initial secure location, using Robert Karam’s cell phone, the individual dialed leadership who were off-site at a secure location to brief them. He briefed all of the leadership on the plans to get them back into the chambers, which constituted the third call with Speaker Pelosi. In summary, Speaker 1 asserts that there were three separate conversations with Speaker Pelosi on January 7, each addressing the situation and the plan to restore operations in the chambers, including confirmation of the timeline to return by 7:00 PM. He states that Pelosi’s claim of not speaking with him is inaccurate, affirming that he did indeed have three conversations with her that evening.

One person can call for a vote to remove Kevin McCarthy, but a majority is needed, which means Democrats would have to vote against him. However, it is unlikely that Democrats will do so because McCarthy made a deal with them. The speaker believes that Democrats will actually support McCarthy to show who really governs and how it happens. The speaker wants to change this system and evaluate bills independently. McCarthy is making a secret deal on Ukraine while trying to get Republicans to vote for a continuing resolution that doesn't include Ukraine. McCarthy has lied to Democrats, Republicans, and the White House, but if they choose to keep him, he belongs to them.

This impeachment is seen as a continuation of the January 6th insurrection. The speaker believes that the current Speaker of the House is responsible for the idea of overturning the election, and that Donald Trump sent a violent mob to the Capitol. However, they argue that these efforts failed. The speaker criticizes the inquiry, stating that there is no evidence of wrongdoing and that the real issue is that Joe Biden won the election. They also criticize the focus on Donald Trump at the expense of other important matters. Lastly, the speaker sarcastically suggests that given enough time, evidence will be found to prove that Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son.

Tomorrow, I will file an impeachment resolution against Joe Biden. The charges include bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud, and involvement in drugs and prostitution. Republicans have gathered evidence such as witness testimony, financial records, a laptop, text messages, and phone conversations. This evidence supports the impeachment articles against the president. I will file these charges tomorrow, and they only scratch the surface of the corruption and bribery allegations.

The impeachment inquiry is based on lies, warned by Pompeo and Lev Parnas, with no specific charges against the president. The committee proceeded despite knowing the evidence was falsified. The focus should be on why the inquiry continues.

Speaker is asked if they agree with congressional Republicans' call for resignation, but does not respond when pressed by the speaker of the house.

This is not an impeachable offense, just a policy difference. Impeachment of a cabinet official sets a dangerous precedent for future Republican presidents. I have done my research and am firm in my decision. Open to new evidence, but unlikely.

Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

The speaker accuses Speaker Pelosi of blocking investigations into the January 6th incident and claims that the committee is being used to push the Democratic agenda. They argue that Pelosi is afraid of a real investigation and doesn't want the truth to come out. The speaker raises questions about the Capitol Police's preparedness, Pelosi's involvement, and the FBI's actions. They express frustration that there haven't been hearings on rising gas prices and criticize the focus on theatrics instead of important issues. The speaker believes these actions will backfire on the Democrats.

Speaker 0 argued that Nancy Pelosi set a precedent by waiting to hold a vote on the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Speaker 1 dismisses this claim as ridiculous and states that there is no requirement for a vote at this time. They express satisfaction with the support and thoughtfulness of their caucus in pursuing fairness, truth, and upholding the US constitution.

I want to clarify that on page 174 of the interview transcript, it was stated that I called the FBI's notes a lie, not the agents themselves. The summary from the agents claimed I met with the Biden family in 2017, which I deny. A Republican, Kim Buck, believes impeaching Biden is not appropriate. I will not be swayed by House Speaker Mike Johnson's attempts to keep me here or support an unconstitutional impeachment. I will yield my time back to the chair.

The speaker criticizes the House Speaker for not complying with the agreed terms and demands immediate compliance or removal. They express dissatisfaction with the lack of action on term limits, balanced budgets, and the release of January 6th tapes. The speaker accuses the House Speaker of insufficient accountability for the Biden family and enabling Biden's spending agenda. They highlight the failure to use the power of subpoena and purse, particularly in regards to Hunter Biden. The speaker opposes a continuing resolution and calls for individual spending bills, oversight, and impeachment of Joe Biden. They warn of a potential motion to vacate the chair and pledge to resist the current government if necessary.

The speaker argues that the war in Iraq resulted in an enormous, unrecoverable cost: “we spent $2,000,000,000,000, thousands of lives,” and that the outcome left the United States with nothing to show for it. The speaker contends that Iran is now taking over Iraq, describing it as having “the second largest oil reserves in the world,” and asserts that this outcome proves the involvement in Iraq was a mistake. The speaker states that George Bush made a mistake and that the United States “should have never been in Iraq,” claiming that the intervention destabilized the Middle East. Regarding accountability, the speaker questions whether Bush should be impeached and suggests a preference for letting the other party decide how to label the issue, saying, “So you still think he should be impeached? I think it's my turn, ain't it? You do whatever you want.” The speaker emphasizes a belief that those responsible “lied,” specifically about weapons of mass destruction, asserting, “They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Alright.” In sum, the speaker presents three core assertions: (1) the Iraq War was extraordinarily costly in financial terms and human lives, and produced no tangible gain; (2) the war destabilized the Middle East and empowered Iran to increase influence in Iraq, which the speaker frames as a mistaken outcome; and (3) the leaders claimed WMDs existed when they did not, asserting that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that those claims were knowingly false. The dialogue also touches on impeachment as a potential consequence for the leadership involved, framed through the speaker’s yes-or-no stance and interjections about accountability.