TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Kamala Harris's campaign is accused of deliberate misinformation in a political ad. The ad features two Pennsylvania farmers who supposedly switched to supporting Kamala Harris after January 6th. However, these individuals, Robert Lang and Christina Chadwick, are allegedly actors with a history of donating to Democratic and leftist causes since at least 2016. This is seen as an example of a synthetic campaign and candidate, where narratives are manufactured. The individuals are portrayed as Trump supporters who turned, but they are allegedly Democratic actors. The question is whether this will be reported by mainstream media, and if so, it could damage the perception of Harris as an authentic candidate.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

The transcript presents a demonstration of how Google's Gemma AI can generate highly convincing, misleading content. It begins by describing Gemma as a collection of lightweight, state-of-the-art open models built from the same technology that powers Google’s Gemini models. Google markets Gemma as a top-of-the-line open model for critical industries like health care and robotics, and claims it is “the most capable AI model that you can run on a single GPU.” The speaker asserts that Google’s AI products, including Gemma, will be making life-or-death decisions very soon. The example centers on a false narrative about a contemporary political figure. The speaker recounts that, according to Google, shortly after a young man named Michael Pimentel was murdered in Nashville in 1991, the subject (referred to as Starbuck) was declared a person of interest in the case. The initial investigation allegedly identified Starbuck as a person of interest; he knew Pimentel, a dispute existed between them, and he was interviewed by police. Years later, in 2012, a former friend of Starbuck, Eric Smallwood, allegedly came forward with allegations that Starbuck had confessed to involvement in Pimentel’s murder, claiming that Starbuck and another individual were involved. The speaker then notes that this is an elaborate story, and questions the source of such information. Google’s Gemma AI supposedly provides an answer: when the speaker ran for Congress, political opponents highlighted the 1991 case. The story of how the speaker allegedly murdered a young man “was mentioned in numerous attack ads and media appearances.” Gemma purportedly lists additional sources, including the Tennesseean and Fox Seventeen Nashville, with URLs for each source, and headlines like “Robbie Starbuck responds to murder accusations ahead of congressional primary” and “Robbie Starbucks slash Michael Pimentel murder case explained.” The speaker stresses that the only way to discover these URLs are fake is to click on them. The implication is that within a short timeframe, Gemma could fabricate further articles. The summary presented by Google, according to the transcript, is that the speaker is currently under investigation and has not been cleared of wrongdoing. The speaker asserts that none of these articles or claims are true: they were never accused of killing anyone, and certainly not in 1991 when the speaker was two years old; Eric Smallwood and Michael Pimentel do not exist; the Nashville Police Department has never investigated the speaker; and neither Rolling Stone nor any Fox affiliate reported otherwise. The speaker concludes that Google fabricated an entire story to damage their reputation and fraudulently invented fake mainstream news stories as validation for Google’s lies.

Tulsi Gabbard was placed on a domestic terror watch list after criticizing the Biden administration. She views it as political retaliation and a violation of her rights. Surveillance includes explosive detection teams and air marshals on her flights. Gabbard questions what other government agencies may be monitoring her. She believes this is an attempt to silence critics and calls for those responsible to be held accountable. She stresses the importance of freedom and privacy in the United States.

Speaker 0: The time game is over. Justice with General Flynn. They criticize the Department of Just Us and recall a past moment when they would have been brought into the DOJ in handcuffs. Speaker 1: Delivers a stream of violent, braggadocious lyrics about weapons, killings, and dominance, including references to shooting, trafficking, and threatening rivals. The content emphasizes keeping enemies in check, physical violence, and material wealth, with repeated lines about not losing sleep over killers, firing weapons, and "run it up" for money and power. Speaker 2: Argues that many people gaining sudden large followings on Twitter or talking about topics like low taxes or transgender pronouns may be pedophiles, suggesting conservative media uses people with criminal pasts as influencers. States that such individuals say things to align with a broader agenda and mentions Israel in the context of a broader critique of conservative priorities. Concludes with a tip to contact Charlie Cook for those seeking a "second act" in public life. Speaker 3: Kyle Clifton discusses an after-party associated with TPUSA’s America Fest in Phoenix on December 19, called the Grand Young Party. The party reportedly featured girls dancing half-naked on stage, girls locked in cages, underage drinking, stripper poles, sex on the dance floor, and mentions “strange ritual Zionist extremism.” He notes promo footage from Florida and Phoenix, blurred faces of attendees, and that age did not matter if the attendee knew the organizer, Joe Bazrawi. Background is provided on Maverick events as the organizers. He reports a security guard tackled an 18-year-old patron, causing injuries; police encouraged filing a report for assault. Parents of other female patrons are considering lawsuits for supplying minors with alcohol. The event was advertised as a TPUSA America Fest after party, hosted by TPUSA ambassador/employee Joe Bazrawi, whose travel and lodging were paid for by TPUSA. He claims TPUSA was aware of and encouraged the party, and that Bazrawi maintains a private dossier on conservatives who oppose his party or beliefs to blacklist them from TPUSA events. Bazrawi allegedly attends other events to photograph attendees for his dossier and share with TPUSA executives. Attendees allegedly included Matt Gaetz, with rumors that James O’Keefe and Madison Cawthorn were present; photos are mentioned. Questions are raised about TPUSA’s responsibility for hosting unsanctioned events with high-profile guests and potential legal consequences or PR damage. The after-party reportedly had about 30–40 attendees leave early; refunds were issued to some in response to public comments, while others did not receive refunds. Some attendees were admitted as late as 1:45 AM; the event ended at 2 AM. Ticketing was disorganized, with staff not knowing who attended. Local Antifa chapters reportedly planned to submit stories to CNN to harm Matt Gaetz’s career. The speaker expresses concern about the conservatism movement’s image and the potential implications for Gaetz and Cawthorn. Speaker 4: The Vault claims to possess extensive material—video, pictures, emails, audio, text messages, phone calls—on everyone and to be willing to drop it all. The speaker has “a lot of crap on Richard Spencer and everybody else” and suggests signing up for Telegram to access this material. Speaker 5–6: Expressions of fear or alarm from the audience, with a call to “Dale” and a plea for help or relief, indicating tension or distress in the room.

Kamala Harris is allegedly paying people to attend rallies. The speaker claims to have proof of this through a Casting Network billboard. The billboard sought nonunion actors for a Democratic event, offering payment, a per diem for meals and transportation, and coverage of flight and other expenses. The submissions were due the day before the speaker discussed it. The speaker believes this shows that the Harris campaign's ground game is a facade, as they are willing to pay for people to attend rallies.

A woman's Venezuelan doctor friend, who came to the U.S. as a refugee during the Trump administration, claims she received emails from the Kamala Harris campaign asking her to register to vote. The doctor is not a citizen or a permanent resident and has never registered to vote in the U.S. She received the emails in an email account she created in Venezuela and used for immigration communication. The woman questions how the campaign obtained her friend's email address and why they would send voter registration emails to a non-citizen. She also notes that her friend only received emails from the Kamala Harris campaign, not from Donald Trump's campaign.

There are claims that the person presented as Kamala Harris is not actually her, as they look completely different. This has led to accusations of deception towards voters, suggesting the use of body doubles and a fake Kamala Harris.

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.

News alert discusses Tulsi Gabbard releasing a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and U.S. intel agencies to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency and the 2016 election. The report claims there is irrefutable evidence that Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. Gabbard says she obtained a House Intelligence Committee report that had been locked away in a CIA vault for nearly a decade, and investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials. The assertion is that the Obama administration doctored intelligence to imply Putin and Trump colluded to steal the election, with a highly unusual, rush-developed assessment produced a month after Trump’s victory. John Brennan allegedly handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, who were siloed and not aware of each other’s work, with only one analyst in charge of drafting. The process was described as a rush job with no coordination with other intelligence agencies, essentially “home cooking” for Obama. The four key elements repeated in the assessment, forming the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation, are: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took actions to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The claim is that none of these were true, and there was no reliable intelligence to support them. Senior CIA officials allegedly refused to propagate these allegations, but were overruled by CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, who pressed for them despite lacking verifiable evidence. The report alleges the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed counter-evidence, and even used anonymous internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA personnel allegedly admitted that these actions violated tradecraft standards, with a pressure campaign emanating from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. Speaker 1 asserts that Donald Trump knows Russia helped him win in 2016. Speaker 2 suggests Putin’s preference for Trump came from his dislike of Hillary Clinton, who was running, while Speaker 3 states Russia sought to interfere systematically to advance Trump’s prospects. The conversation notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to aid Trump, yet the report contends Russians aimed to create chaos and undermine faith in democracy, with solid intelligence indicating Putin had no clear preference between Clinton and Trump but had dirt on Clinton that was not released. The discussion questions why the dirt from the DNC emails and claims about Clinton’s health, including tranquilizers, were not leaked to aid Trump, and whether the information about Clinton’s health is credible. The panel suggests that if Russia sought to influence the election, more damning information would have been released. The speakers claim Obama and top intelligence leaders mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to craft a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump. They contend Obama continued pushing the hoax after the election, describing it as undermining democracy. Towards the end, there is mention of potential criminal implications, with references to referrals to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation, including possible liability for Obama. A tester voices that Brennan may have committed perjury before Congress. A final note asserts that the CIA did not rely on the Steele dossier for the intelligence community assessment, countering a claim made in the discussion. The segment closes with a call for accountability.

Tulsi Gabbard released new evidence asserting that former president Barack Obama and top aides conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. She claims that while publicly maintaining a peaceful transfer of power, Obama privately worked to sow discord and sabotage his successor, and that the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence used to justify baseless smears against Trump to delegitimize his victory before he took the oath of office. She contends that Trump never had anything to do with Russia and that the Russia collusion hoax was a massive fraud known to be false by Obama and others, including former CIA director John Brennan, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and more. Gabbard says the report confirms there was no collusion or corruption by Trump, but rather by Obama and weaponized intelligence agencies, with the Russia hoax being a lie driven by Democrat political operatives approved by Obama and leaked to the media to launch a years-long witch hunt against Trump and his first administration. She asserts that allies of the president, including Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some having their lives destroyed due to the lie. According to her, the first two years of Trump’s presidency were consumed by debunking these lies at the highest government levels. She notes that nearly ten years later, declassification of documents shows the truth, vindicating Trump, his family, and his allies. She claims this new evidence strengthens the case that those who sabotaged a duly elected president did grave harm to the republic. Gabbard credits CIA Director Ratcliffe, Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, and the declassification of a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report, which she says shows the intel community did not have any direct information that Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Trump in 2016; instead, Russia was actively preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory, but, at Obama’s unusual direction, the intel community published implausible intelligence to sabotage the incoming president. She describes this as one of the greatest political scandals in American history and contends that Legacy outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for perpetuating the hoax, arguing it’s time those awards be stripped for journalism that propagates political disinformation in service of the Democrat Party and certain intelligence officials.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states are not requiring proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Governor Glenn Youngkin in Virginia issued an executive order to clean up voting rules. The Biden administration's Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to try to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern because everyone should want the law to be followed.

The speakers discuss Kamala Harris's campaign allegedly paying for Google ads to promote articles with edited headlines and subheads. These altered headlines, according to the speakers, present a more favorable view of Harris than the original articles. Speaker 1 asserts that the Harris campaign is paying for misinformation, while simultaneously criticizing others for spreading it. Speaker 2 notes that while the ads are labeled as "paid for," many people may not notice the disclaimer. He adds that the original articles are already so positive that the campaign only needs to tweak the headlines to make them even more favorable. Speaker 0 expresses disgust, pointing out Harris has never received a vote, yet was allowed to approach the nomination without scrutiny. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

There are claims that the person presented as Kamala Harris is not actually her, as they look different. This has led to accusations of deception towards voters, suggesting the use of body doubles and a fake Kamala Harris.

Hillary Clinton initiated the narrative branding Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset due to Gabbard's rising status in the Democratic Party. Gabbard, a combat veteran and articulate leader, began aligning with Bernie Sanders' views, which angered Clinton. This led to a rift, especially after Gabbard exposed the DNC's unfair treatment of Sanders during the 2016 nomination process. Clinton's campaign had previously fabricated claims about Donald Trump being a Russian asset, and Gabbard became another target. Gabbard's independent views, including her stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, were used against her, and her meeting with Bashar al-Assad further fueled the accusations. The discussion emphasizes that diplomacy often requires engaging with adversaries, not just allies.

It is against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. However, some states do not require proof of citizenship when noncitizens register to vote. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order to clean up the state's voting rules. The Biden-Harris administration Department of Justice sued the governor and the Commonwealth of Virginia to prevent them from cleaning up their voter rolls. This creates doubt and concern in the minds of many Americans.

A woman's Venezuelan doctor friend, who came to the U.S. as a refugee during the Trump administration, claims she received emails from the Kamala Harris campaign urging her to register to vote. The doctor showed her friend these emails. The doctor stated that she used the email account for immigration communication when she applied to come to the U.S. legally. The doctor is not a citizen or a permanent resident and knows it is illegal for her to vote. She has never registered to vote. She wonders how the campaign obtained her email address and why she only received emails from Kamala Harris and not from Donald Trump. She speculates that the White House or DHS may have sold her information to a third party.

I'm confirming that Tulsi Gabbard has appointed someone with a history of being untrustworthy, potentially aiding adversarial nations. In Connecticut, the leading Democratic candidate in a major US Senate race is facing scrutiny after being caught misrepresenting his military service. Richard Blumenthal, the state attorney general, previously stated he served in Vietnam, but reports indicate he received five wartime deferments and served stateside in the Marine Reserves. I misspoke, and I won't let a few misplaced words tarnish my record of service to our country. However, video evidence exists of Blumenthal claiming he was in Vietnam.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims that multiple intelligence community assessments released before the November 2016 election concluded that Russia lacked both the intent and capability to influence the election's outcome. Gabbard alleges that President Obama is guilty of treason and conspired with Hillary Clinton regarding the intelligence community's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. She supports this "extreme allegation" with public statements and released documents.