TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

This launch has been disastrous, generating over $1 million in fees while fans were left disappointed. Allegations of insider trading linked to the creator account have surfaced, but the creators deny any wrongdoing. They claim the fees support the project's ongoing operations and cover expenses, including legal fees for establishing a foundation. The project is managed by Hailey Welch, who supposedly owns none of it. The creators argue that their tokenomics are legitimate, despite criticism about the allocation and the potential for insiders to profit at the expense of fans. They insist they are committed to the project's long-term success and reject claims of a rug pull as defamatory.

The speaker explains they paid $15,000 to go and interview Clavicular for a thirty-minute session. The purpose was to ask about Clavicular’s funding, his business, and rumors about him and Peter Thiel, because those rumors are everywhere. However, the moment the interviewer brought up Peter Thiel and Palantir, Clavicular panicked, flipped it on the interviewer, and claimed that the interviewer was the one funded by Peter Thiel. Clavicular stated that his team did research on the interviewer and that there were blockchain ties from Thiel-funded parties to the interviewer’s wallet, which, according to him, there’s zero proof of because it never happened. He claimed he literally couldn't show one single receipt that the interviewer is Peter Thiel funded or Peter Thiel backed, and he said, “I'll wait.” The interviewer asks for clarification: “So let me get this straight. You charge $15,000 for thirty minutes, and then you can't handle a single question. Like, source, I just made it up.” The interviewer adds, “And then you're calling me a scammer, but literally what you just did is scamming. Like, nobody told me to do this. I went solo. I came alone.” The interviewer explains that the only reason for asking about Thiel was because everybody was saying that Peter Thiel is the one that got clavicular released from jail and dropped all of the charges. The interviewer concludes, “So, yeah, I just got fraud maxed, but it's pretty pretty clear that clavicular is funded by Peter Thiel.”

That this is not a rug pull, that I have 100% control over this supply, that I'm not gonna lock it, that I'm not gonna stake it, that I'm gonna keep my control. And that's why here we are with people panicking, by the way, at a legitimate floor of 50 to $60,000,000 on a meme coin that was launched with a 100% fair stealth launch that nobody knew about until three days later. Do you know what kind of an achievement that is?

The speaker introduces Web, a tool built to allow natural-language conversations with an entire document set (specifically mentioning the Epstein files and expanding to other datasets, including items like the dancing Israeli files and Israeli art students files). Web enables users to ask normal questions, for example: “show me examples of his foundations, charities, and businesses interacting with Israelis or organizations based in Israel.” The tool analyzes the documents based on the user’s natural-language prompt and returns results with sources cited. Key features demonstrated: - When a query is run, Web pulls back all relevant documents, which can be clicked to turn red and opened as primary sources. Users can see the work the tool is doing, including entities such as Ehud Barak and the network of Ehud Barak, Wexner, and Epstein, as it compiles the research. - The response is written in natural language for easy understanding, with sources cited. The primary sources remain accessible on the left in their original organizational structure, allowing users to read documents in their original form. - The tool will not browse the internet or conduct external research to answer questions; it references only the files in the user’s document set and provides citations that can be checked. The speaker presents the current usage experience: - It’s possible to ask follow-up questions and expand the chat, using suggested questions or generating new ones. - The user interface shows both the generated explanation and its sources (with links to the documents). Operational and access details: - The speaker endorses Web as “the absolute shit” and encourages people to try it. After a period without a password gate, it’s offered in an open beta to anyone who wants to try. - The speaker has personally funded the tokens for the beta so users can access it for free during this phase; beta testers aren’t required to pay. - He notes that running AI tools costs money due to compute resources, and, after the open beta, Web will transition to a subscription model with access to additional datasets. - Plans include open-sourcing the project later, allowing people to download and run it themselves and examine the code (with a caveat: selling it would not be allowed). - The goal expressed is to enable broad accessibility so that “any old person can understand these documents” and to clearly show who Epstein worked for and what was in the files, with all content retained even if DOJ deletes files from the public domain, as “we’ve already got them all and they’re not being deleted from our database.”

We need to expand our support to make a significant impact, even if it means spending millions of dollars. This amount is small compared to the billions at stake in this game. My goal is to convey this message while fundraising and talking to the community. We aim to demolish everything, seize their assets, and see what results from that. However, this task has not been easy or smooth.

"And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't." "There's a cost to putting a website together." "Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me." "Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000." "I did it at least a dozen times." "You know, these things have actual real cost to them." "Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have."

The speaker outlines additional investment costs, listing items that would total the investment: 'boosts, on Moonit, Dex ads, applications getting launched on other exchanges, getting a website going,' among other initiatives. He notes doing all of these while traveling across the country on his laptop, trying to get all this infrastructure set up. By enumerating these items, the speaker conveys that the total investment includes marketing and platform integration tasks. The travel-on-the-road context highlights a hands-on approach to building the project’s foundational infrastructure. The examples—boosts, Moonit, Dex ads, multi-exchange applications, and a website—illustrate a focus on visibility, accessibility, and readiness across platforms.

The speaker acknowledges having a fan following and a loyal shareholder base. They state that as CEO, they receive no compensation and have invested their own capital, aligning their interests with maximizing shareholder value. The speaker contrasts this with other public companies where executives receive tens or hundreds of millions in risk-free compensation, which they consider despicable. They assert that GameStop is not run in this way.

That this is not a rug pull, that I have 100% control over this supply, that I'm not gonna lock it, that I'm not gonna stake it, that I'm gonna keep my control. And that's why here we are with people panicking, by the way, at a legitimate floor of 50 to $60,000,000 on a meme coin that was launched with a 100% fair stealth launch that nobody knew about until three days later. Do you know what kind of an achievement that is?

Money is a concern on certain platforms or distributors. Instead of spending, why not consider other options?

And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't. There's a cost to putting a website together. Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me. Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000. I did it at least a dozen times. You know, these things have actual real cost to them. Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have.

I am fundraising to support our cause and trying to convey the message that we are reasonable and won't destroy everything or take away people's assets. If someone were to invest $10-20 million a year, we would have a different outcome. This is not a significant amount for those who have billions at stake in this game. I am engaging with the business community to explain our intentions. We have a big job ahead of us.

$5,400,000 are currently in the dev wallet. The speaker will transfer $50,000, which is less than 1%, to another wallet. The speaker is forecasting this transfer in advance.

Speaker asserts: '100% of my red money would go into jay proof. A 100% of it.' They describe 'a dev sitting here with his face on the screen every day telling you he's never gonna sell a penny, and who never has.' The speaker notes that this dev 'admits to mistakes when they were made, like the market maker, gambling on some shitcoin, big mistake, market maker, gone, dealt with.' They emphasize that 'every single thing that I do every day is to bolster this token.' The segment ends with the repetition 'Every single thing that I do every' underscoring a continuous, daily effort to support the token.

The speaker claims the Democratic party is paying TikTok users thousands of dollars to create content promoting the party, and that they were offered nearly $15,000 to do so. They also claim to have seen mutuals posting content aligned with these pitches within 48 hours, without disclosing they were paid. The speaker says they received two pitches: one for ongoing monthly videos leading up to the election, and another to fearmonger about Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundation. They criticize the Democratic party for allegedly using fearmongering tactics with bad information. The speaker notes that Heritage Foundation trustees are endorsing both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and that Barack Obama previously worked with them. They state that one pitch instructed them to not directly say "vote for Kamala Harris for legal purposes." The speaker says they are informing viewers that people are being paid to create political content.

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker states they have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They also mention the real costs associated with influencers.

The transcript centers on a long-form discussion of the Epstein case, the alleged “deep state,” FOIA operations, and political maneuvering around Trump, with frequent calls to aggressively release and pursue Epstein-related documents and other investigations. The speakers assert that the FOIA department is being used to shield deep-state ties and that many federal offices are filled with anti-Trump figures who have prevented full disclosure. - Epstein files and the role of the deep state - The speakers claim the Epstein files are being selectively redacted by FOIA departments to conceal deep-state connections. They state that FOIA personnel are controlled by deep-state actors and that Epstein’s case involves a “fleet of aircraft” and operations linked to major power centers. They argue Epstein’s activities connect to money laundering, information laundering, and a broader set of deep-state assets and operations. - They propose a remedy: appoint Tom Fitton as special counsel on the Epstein files, arguing he “knows how FOIA really works,” understands key personnel, and has litigated Epstein-related cases for years. They assert this would restore public confidence and expedite the exposure of Democratic ties and other actors alleged to be involved. - They advocate for Trump to have executive-privilege-style powers to declassify and release Epstein materials, suggesting a broad interpretation of “Epstein file law” that would allow him to disclose or appoint an ombudsman with power to release materials at will. They emphasize the need to disclose Democratic ties and to hold press conferences when releasing documents, avoiding the use of fake documents or videos. - Specific figures and institutions named - Kash Patel is cited as saying there are “open files on a dozen plus coconspirators” and as someone who has noted alleged misdirections by those handling Epstein-related material. - Kyle Serafin and Phil Kennedy are mentioned as documenting a person at the FBI capacity who is “an anti-Trump advocate,” implying that deep-state appointments control FOIA and related processes. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss replacing FOIA and related personnel who are deeply implicated; they specifically name Tom Fitton as the ideal choice and entertain other high-profile figures like Tulsi Gabbard as potential custodians of the Epstein disclosures. - Tulsi Gabbard is described as being in charge of broader investigations tied to the Epstein files and other major political issues (elections, COVID-19, etc.). They also reference “Epstein files” intersecting with other investigations they attribute to the deep state. - Epstein, Maxwell, and allied networks - Epstein is described as deeply embedded with Western intelligence agencies (French, Israeli, UK, and US) and tied to Robert Maxwell, with Maxwell’s daughter linked to Epstein. Epstein is portrayed as having been “recruited by Bill Barr” and as a central figure in a long-running intelligence and blackmail operation. - The discussion links Epstein to Leslie Wexner (Victoria’s Secret founder) and a French talent agency, portraying these connections as part of a large, interconnected network involved in money laundering, arms trafficking, blackmail, and intelligence work. - The speakers insist that Epstein’s activities extended to the late 1990s and beyond, including alleged involvement in “Shutters” in Santa Monica and other high-profile cases, with a consistent pattern of using underage girls and blackmail to exert influence. - They emphasize a broader motive: exposing the “deep state” to vindicate Trump and indict deep-state actors who allegedly engaged in illicit operations, including foreign intelligence services and Western governments. - The broader political frame and potential indictments - The Epstein files are presented as a potential hinge for indicting a wide array of figures across political lines, including references to Comey, Mueller, Hillary Clinton-era actors, and other “rogue actors” who allegedly hindered investigations. - The conversation ties Epstein to broader themes: the 2020 election, COVID policies, and anti-Trump actions by the “deep state.” They contend that the Epstein disclosures could demonstrate the depth of state interference in political processes and media, making Democrats and their institutions targets of accountability. - They argue the Epstien files could show criminal activity by multiple national actors, including Israeli, UK, and French components, and could reveal coordinated efforts to derail Trump and manipulate media narratives. - The Candace Owens angle and related criticisms - A substantial portion of the dialogue critiques Candace Owens, alleging she is running a “CIA-style” operation that distracts from the true conspiracy around the deep state and Tarantifa, and that she manipulates narratives related to Tyler Robinson and Charlie Kirk. - They accuse Owens of shifting narratives, fabricating alibis, and promoting disinformation, calling her a “SIOP” (psychological operation) and alleging her behind-the-scenes connections to MI6 or other international actors through her husband (George Farmer) and other associates. - They recount multiple incidents where Owens purportedly changed stories about meetings, alibis, and involvement in various investigations, asserting she uses “receipts” selectively and inconsistently to support divergent claims. - The speakers allege that Owens’s public warfare against Trump and TP USA is part of a broader intelligence operation intended to disrupt conservative momentum, link to Royal/MI6 circles, and undermine investigations into the deep state and its networks. - Tyler Robinson case and media dynamics - They describe Tyler Robinson as a Middle American figure whose transformation into a political actor is portrayed as a product of online radicalization and Tarantifa-linked influences. They claim there was a concerted effort to spoon-feed disinformation about Robinson and Candace Owens’ involvement. - They argue this is part of a larger pattern of media manipulation and disinformation designed to distract from real conspiracies and to target Trump and conservative movements. - Strategy and messaging guidance - The speakers advocate for Trump to go on the offensive with Epstein, releasing comprehensive, verified documentation, and pushing accountability for “rogue actors” in the FBI, the DOJ, the CIA, and the NSA. - They stress the need for aggressive prosecution and the appointment of trusted figures to lead the Epstein disclosures, arguing that this could restore public confidence and pivot the political conversation toward accountability for the deep state. - They urge addressing the statute of limitations issues in COVID, January 6, and 2020 election-related cases before the window closes in early 2026, warning that delays by Bondi, Blanche, and others could jeopardize prosecutions and political support. - Promotional and logistical notes - The dialogue includes frequent mentions of promoting Alex Jones programs, products, and stores (alexjonesstore.com and infowarsstore.com) to fund operations, along with appeals to listeners to support the broadcasts financially and through purchases, framing financial support as essential to sustaining investigations, media efforts, and broader political action. In sum, the transcript presents an entangled, aggressively conspiratorial narrative: a claim that Epstein’s files illuminate a vast, deeply embedded deep-state apparatus spanning multiple nations and agencies; a call to appoint trusted figures (notably Tom Fitton) to supervise full disclosure; a push for Trump to declassify and publicly prosecute the implicated actors; a harsh critique of Candace Owens as part of a disinformation ecosystem; and a broader strategy to use Epstein, along with related investigations, to dismantle perceived institutional corruption while fueling political narratives and fundraising.

A creator states they were paid for their flight and given access to an event, but denies needing a DNC budget to travel the country and "drag MAGA." They claim their own credit card allows them to "drag fascists" and that they don't need DNC, MAGA, or social money. The creator mentions right-wing influencer Kim Higbee, who believes both right and left-wing influencers should get paid. Speaker 1 claims Kamala and the DNC are paying people upwards of $1500 for 60-second clips backing Trump. The creator denies being paid to criticize Trump, stating they've been doing it for free for four years and that it's easy to find people who dislike Trump. They assert there's no need to pay people to discuss election fraud or other problems related to Trump.

The exchange centers on how the dev wallet supply was acquired. "The dev wallet. The dev wallet's initial acquisition of the supply." There were "combined purchases" that were "over 6,000" and ended up "close to 30,000. 25, 28, 30,000." The purchases required "multiple transfers into the dev wallet" because "my bank account only allows me to like send $5,000 at a time" and "Jewish restrictions are on that." The first three days show "only $6,000 in transactions." "He only put 14,000 initially from his from his Coinbase, and he claimed a 150,000 he's in." "I did it immediately. I did it immediately. I locked up the supply immediately." On evidence, "Have you got evidence that you put in $3,540,000 either via source scan or something else?" and "Where's the evidence that you..."

"that's not enough supply to lock it, so I had to go back and buy more." "There should be your Coinbase going into your dev wallet." "Where's that evidence?" "I'd like to see the evidence that you're in a $150,000, my friend." "I'm into this project for a collective 100 and some odd thousand dollars." "Between buying out of my own pocket, all of the boosts, all of the Dex ads, all of the website stuff." "But I made the dev buy immediately before and after it insta bonded." "So the first buy bonded it, and the second buy was right after it bonded." "I needed another buy to get the 85% that I needed, and that we wanted for the control structure to set all of this up."

The speaker says the reason for the checks is to get attention. When they do these things, the legacy media loses their minds and runs it on every news channel. The speaker says they couldn't pay for that kind of coverage, that it would cost 10 times more to get it.

Speaker 0: This is my coin. This is my face, my reputation on the line, and this is my word. So if you believe in our message and if you believe in me and if you believe in our movement, then you have the opportunity to invest in that movement. Speaker 0: This is my coin. This is my face, my reputation on the line, and this is my word. So if you believe in our message and if you believe in me and if you believe in our movement, then you have the opportunity to invest in that movement.