TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a terse exchange about past remarks by an ambassador and the possibility of an investment. Speaker 0 asserts that the ambassador said something about Speaker 1 in the past and adds that the ambassador is attempting to invest with him. Speaker 1 responds with uncertainty about who the ambassador is and what was said, saying, I don’t know anything about him. If he said bad, then maybe he’ll like to apologize. I really don’t know. Did an ambassador say something bad about him? Don’t tell me. Don’t Where is he? Is he still working for you? Speaker 0 confirms the ambassador’s presence and location by replying, Yeah. Yeah. He’s just right there. He’s right. Give up. This sequence indicates a desire to move on or to end the line of questioning, with Speaker 0 directing attention to the ambassador’s physical presence and implying there is no further discussion to be had about the matter. Speaker 1 presses for clarification about whether something bad was said, repeating the question, You said bad? The tension in the dialogue is underscored by Speaker 0’s concise confirmation that there was some prior remark attributed to the ambassador, followed by an immediate pivot to the ambassador’s proximity as a way of signaling that the issue has shifted or concluded in Speaker 0’s view. Later in the exchange, Speaker 0 adds a new point by saying, Before I took this position, mister, which introduces a reference to a time prior to Speaker 0’s current role. The phrasing suggests there is context regarding Speaker 0’s relationship with the ambassador or with the situation that existed before taking the current position, though the exact nature of that context is not elaborated in this portion of the dialogue. Speaker 1 directs the conversation toward President Biden, saying, president Biden. I don’t like you either. I don’t. And I probably never will. Go ahead. This line conveys a personal sentiment toward President Biden, indicating disapproval or hostility, and ends with Speaker 1’s instruction to proceed, implying that Speaker 0 should continue whatever line of dialogue or argument was being pursued prior to this comment. Overall, the dialogue centers on alleged past statements by an ambassador about Speaker 1, a potential investment connection with that ambassador, and a tense personal stance from Speaker 1 toward President Biden, all within a brief, confrontational exchange.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

Speaker 0 states they are going to Washington D.C. to meet with senators and representatives, after which they will sell Avery's books. Avery (Speaker 1) expresses reluctance about the book, stating it has ruined their life and its publication will worsen it. Speaker 0 reminds Avery that they previously wanted people to know about the book. Avery acknowledges this, but now considers it a "stupid, silly mistake" and no longer wants the book published.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of avoiding a major scandal and focusing on insignificant matters. Speaker 1 claims the scandal cannot be verified. Speaker 0 insists it can be verified, citing the discovery of the laptop. Speaker 0 states that the family on the laptop has gone into hiding for five days. Speaker 1 suggests the person is preparing for a debate. Speaker 0 doubts it would take five days to prepare.

Speaker 1 calls for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police and Speaker Pelosi confirms that Mr. Irving will be resigning. Speaker Pelosi claims she hadn't spoken to Speaker 1 since the breach, but Speaker 1 clarifies that they spoke three times. The first call was to brief Vice President Pence, the second call was when Speaker 1 left the location and met with Mr. Stenger, and the third call was to brief all the leadership on the plans to get back into chambers. Speaker 1 acknowledges the bravery of the Capitol Police.

Speaker 0 criticizes others for attacking a black woman in power. They express disappointment in smear campaigns and emphasize the need to live harmoniously in the community. Speaker 1 denies using a credit card for personal expenses in Las Vegas. Speaker 2 mentions taxpayer money spent at restaurants. Speaker 1 defends their actions, stating they answered questions about spending.

Speaker 1 mentions waiting for Bonnie Willis to respond. They discuss a whistleblower in her office who raised concerns about misuse of funds. Willis fired the whistleblower, prompting a subpoena for related documents. Willis made US Marshals serve the subpoena. They joke about Willis' behavior and mention CPAC. They express appreciation for CPAC's support of conservative principles. Translation: The speakers discuss Bonnie Willis not responding, a whistleblower's concerns, a subpoena for documents, and Willis' behavior. They joke about CPAC and express gratitude for its support of conservative principles.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Mr. Mayer is questioned about his absence and criticism after dropping out of the governor's race. He defends himself by stating that he has been working hard and attending numerous public events. He dismisses the criticism from the press and claims to focus on getting things done. The interviewer brings up events that he missed, including the Urban Land Institute and the China SF Conference. Mr. Mayer explains that he had the flu during that time. The interviewer also mentions staff members leaving and Mr. Mayer's unannounced trip to Hawaii. Mr. Mayer denies any wrongdoing and downplays the significance of these incidents. He expresses disappointment with the interview and leaves abruptly when asked about the city's deficit.

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.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

Speaker 0 mentions feeling like a dog catcher and going to formation for president twice. Speaker 1 interrupts, wanting to discuss Jeffrey Epstein, but Speaker 0 refuses, saying they are walking and feeling sad about it.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

The speaker expressed disappointment that questions from reporters have been avoided for 17 days. They urged the person in question to be more transparent with the American people and address the changes in their positions. The speaker criticized the individual for portraying themselves as tough on crime while also being critical of law enforcement and opening up old wounds. Despite the lack of attention from the person in question, the speaker thanked the reporters and left to attend their event.

Speaker 1 accuses the media of bias for not covering a supposed scandal involving Biden. Speaker 0 defends the need for verification. Speaker 1 claims the scandal can be verified due to a laptop. The conversation escalates with accusations of media bias and unfair questioning. The interview is abruptly ended.

Speaker 1 denies being warned about potential conflicts of interest by former White House aides. Speaker 0 mentions that State Department official Mr. Kent testified about raising the issue, but Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 1 claims that the warning was never communicated to their staff and suggests that it may have been due to their son's critical condition at the time.

Speaker 0 wishes they had a stand-in to deliver speeches while they stay in their basement. Speaker 1 apologizes and says they have to address the full Obama agenda urgently. Speaker 0 repeats their desire for a stand-in arrangement.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom broke his silence amid a nearly month-long absence and the city's "half billion dollar deficit" to restart interviews. He asserted, "I've been here focused in San Francisco," and, "We've done 69 public events." He dismissed critics, saying, "I don't read the press. It is comical, some of the things that have been written." He noted missed appearances and said, "I had the flu that week." On his Hawaii trip, he stated, "I was gone for forty eight hours." He argued he deserved time with his family after a long campaign. He referenced a staff shakeup and remarked, "The press secretary gave gave my guess to the press and then he resigned." Confronting finances, Newsom said, "There is a big deficit." He added, "Deficit. $522,000,000. We just got a lot of work ahead of us." He closed, "Off the record, I'm amazingly disappointed."

The interviewer questions the mayor about criticisms of him dodging the press and public, and sulking after dropping out of the governor's race. The mayor claims to have been working hard and attending many public events, dismissing negative press. The interviewer cites specific events the mayor missed, including the Urban Land Institute and the China SF Conference. The mayor attributes some absences to illness. The conversation shifts to staff departures, including the press secretary who resigned after giving misinformation about the mayor's trip to Hawaii. The mayor downplays the incident, stating his chief of staff was aware. The discussion turns to the city's $522 million deficit, which the mayor acknowledges requires a lot of work. The interviewer notes the mayor's eagerness to leave after the interview and his disappointment expressed "off the record." The interviewer clarifies that "off the record" agreements must be made beforehand, and the cameras were rolling.

Speaker 0 expresses disappointment in Elon, stating, "I've helped Elon a lot." Speaker 1 asks if Elon raised concerns privately before making them public and questions whether Elon should be taken seriously about spending cuts, given his role in that area. Speaker 0 responds that Elon worked hard and did a good job, suggesting Elon misses his former position, noting the unique appeal of the Oval Office.

Speaker 0 apologizes and admits to breaking all the rules. Speaker 1 reassures them that it's perfect and mistakes are possible. Speaker 0 believes that the egos of people in DC are a major issue. Speaker 1 expresses a preference for having no titles and being true to themselves. They both agree to proceed.

The speaker claims $5 trillion in untraceable payments exist with no record of where the money went. They allege Social Security sent out $72 billion in bad checks, and the head of Social Security resigned. The speaker finds the resignation suspicious. Speaker 1 asserts there is no waste in the Pentagon, Treasury, or HHS. Speaker 1 asks why Speaker 0 is not celebrating cuts and reforms if they agree there is waste, abuse, and corruption. Speaker 1 claims billions of dollars are being saved. Speaker 0 attempts to calm Speaker 1 down, stating they are not having a debate. Speaker 1 insists they are not trying to debate and will speak freely about saving Americans billions of dollars.

Speaker 0 expresses affection and playfully scolds Speaker 1 for leaving town without saying goodbye. Speaker 0 says they almost had Speaker 1 arrested for leaving without a goodbye hug. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 received their "nose." Speaker 0 says they miss Speaker 1 and wishes they could make their Christmas happier, but Congress prevented them from going home for Christmas. Speaker 0 threatens to punish Speaker 1 if they leave without saying goodbye again. Speaker 1 says they will get a vitamin B shot from Doctor Travail when Speaker 0 returns. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to do that and expresses gratitude.