TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

CIA and FBI whistleblowers warned that “intelligence [was] dangerously compromised.” A CIA whistleblower has come forward to the House, and the House Oversight Committee letter alleges that a CIA team was paid to change its assessment of the origins of COVID-19. The discussion highlights that the government deliberately violated the COVID Origins Act, which passed unanimously through the Senate, passed through the House, and was signed into law by the President. The Act required that all government intelligence on the origins of COVID be made public, but the administration offered a summary that was heavily redacted. The administration also refused to report the names of scientists who fell ill at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019, despite intelligence community knowledge of their identities. The speaker says the government has become “extremely comfortable with lying to us,” and cites earlier reporting that identified three people in China who contracted the coronavirus and were working on gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wall Street Journal confirmed the reporting, and the ODNI report later allegedly did not reveal the information. The speaker argues this reflects abuses of power across multiple executive agencies, referencing an FBI whistleblower claim that six of seven analysts had concluded a laboratory origin and then reversed their position in exchange for financial incentive. The speaker also cites efforts described as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” including involvement of DHS and the creation of a “disinformation governance board,” and a group called the Deep Trust Alliance that appeared to try to determine what is reality versus “fakes,” then reportedly “ghosted” after 2021. The transcript connects these points to a claimed threat to the First Amendment via government pressure on social media. The speaker says Missouri v. Biden established that White House, FBI, State Department, CDC, and others met with social media companies for years, providing direct commands on what to censor, naming specific accounts and speech to suppress, and threatening platforms if they did not comply. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is cited as stating that this was a “clear violation of the United States Constitution,” saying the government cannot use private companies to censor speech it could not censor directly. A journalist explains the practical example involving COVID vaccine side effects: public interest advocates pushed companies to list side effects in ads, but the White House demanded that information about vaccine side effects be taken down from Facebook and other platforms. Facebook complied, while also acknowledging the information was often true. Facebook internal research is cited as showing that censoring such stories increases vaccine hesitancy. The speaker says the Fifth Circuit identified coercive measures but argues First Amendment concerns extend further, including when incentives are offered in exchange for censoring often-true content. The speaker describes a chilling effect on free speech and press, and states they personally were censored by Facebook. The speaker argues free speech should be “almost absolute” in the United States, with narrow exceptions such as immediate incitement to violence, fraud, and child exploitation.

CIA and FBI whistleblowers warned that “intelligence” was dangerously compromised. A whistleblower has come forward to the House, and the House Oversight Committee letter alleges that a CIA team was paid to change its assessment of the origins of COVID-19. The discussion centered on what the panelist said were violations of the COVID Origins Act, a law passed unanimously by the Senate and House and signed by the President. The claim was that instead of making government intelligence on COVID origins public, the administration offered a heavily redacted summary. The panelist also said the administration refused to report the names of scientists who fell ill at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019, despite knowing the names. The panelist described the impact of these actions and framed them as part of a pattern of the government becoming “extremely comfortable with lying” to the American people. They cited that they were the first to identify three people who contracted the coronavirus in China and said those individuals worked on “gain of function research” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They stated that the Wall Street Journal confirmed the reporting two weeks later, and that an ODNI report did not reveal the information they said they had identified. The conversation expanded to other executive-branch conduct. The panelist referenced an FBI whistleblower claim that, in a set of analysts’ work, six of seven analysts had said it was a laboratory origin and then reversed their position in exchange for salary bonus or financial incentive. They also referenced what they called perverse incentives within the FBI regarding domestic violent extremism and claimed there were abuses of power in multiple agencies. They further said they found ties between a “deep trust alliance” and U.S. security and intelligence agencies, describing it as an apparent attempt to decide what is real versus fake and expressing concern about chilling effects on free speech. A major focus was the Missouri v. Biden case and what the panelist said the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held. The panelist stated that the court found the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution by using private companies to censor what it could not censor itself, and that the record showed social media platforms complied with government requests, agreeing to act as tools of the United States government to censor ordered content and suppress ordered speech. As an example, they discussed COVID vaccine information: public interest advocates sought disclosure of drug side effects, and they said the White House demanded removal of Facebook posts sharing vaccine side-effect information. They stated Facebook acknowledged the information was often true, and said Facebook’s internal research concluded censoring such content increased vaccine hesitancy. The panelist also described Facebook executive Nick Clegg’s account that Facebook complied due to a broader need for data-flow negotiations with Europe. They argued this created a chilling effect and emphasized that they believed free speech should be protected broadly, with limited exceptions, while describing their own experience of being censored by Facebook. The panelist concluded with thanks to the chair and affirmed concerns about government influence over media and social platforms.

Mark Zuckerberg stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress mentions of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. He expressed being stunned by this order from the federal government to deny facts. According to the speaker, they sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy. The speaker claims they were the first target, with Facebook being told to remove them from Instagram, which Facebook did. The speaker asserts they had almost a million followers and posted no vaccine misinformation, challenging Facebook to identify any factual errors in their posts, which were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications.

The speaker says they are focused on solving the inflation crisis caused by Kamala Harris's policies. Regarding the 2020 election, the speaker believes issues should be debated peacefully in the public square, as Donald Trump has said. The speaker claims Trump said protesters should protest peacefully on January 6th. The speaker believes there is a threat to democracy in the form of censorship, Americans ending friendships over politics, and big tech silencing citizens. The speaker says Kamala Harris would rather censor people who engage in misinformation than debate them. The speaker is proud to have the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, who may not agree on every issue, but are united behind the principle of debating differences. The speaker accuses Kamala Harris of engaging in censorship at an industrial scale, which they believe is a bigger threat to democracy than what Trump said about protesting peacefully on January 6th.

The speaker discusses the recent Facebook files release and claims that tech companies are controlled by the government. They criticize the Trump administration for not addressing tech censorship and accuse the Biden administration of nationalizing tech companies. The speaker argues that the government is manipulating Facebook's algorithm to favor certain news outlets and compares it to controlling the oil industry or banning certain products based on political affiliation. They explain that this system of controlling news media was developed through NATO consensus building and is now being implemented in the Western world. The speaker calls for legal action and state-level resistance to protect freedom of speech.

Speaker 1 says that people do not know the long-term side effects of “basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA.” Speaker 0 responds that DNA is inherent in a person’s own nuclear cell. Speaker 1 reiterates that the long-term side effects of modifying people are unknown. The discussion then shifts to social media policy. Speaker 0 says that last week Facebook announced it is expanding its efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19 vaccines. Speaker 0 says the video will look at Facebook’s most updated COVID-19 vaccine policy, focusing on a specific part of the policy: Facebook says it would remove any content that claims the COVID-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA. Speaker 0 then says that they “got a new leaked tape from Zuckerberg himself,” the CEO of Facebook, which is described as violating his own code of conduct. Speaker 0 claims that, based on Facebook’s policy, Zuckerberg would be censored on the platform today for what he said. Speaker 0 highlights a claim attributed to Zuckerberg: that the vaccine is “modifying people’s DNA.” Speaker 0 says that it “seems pretty clear” that “modifying is synonymous with changing.” Speaker 0 states again that Zuckerberg would be banned from Facebook for saying this. Speaker 0 frames this as a conflict between what Zuckerberg said and what Facebook’s policy would remove from the platform. The transcript ends mid-sentence as Speaker 0 begins to describe showing the CEO of Facebook talking.

Mark Zuckerberg pledged to be a free speech champion, but Meta worked with the Chinese Communist Party to build censorship tools. Facebook deleted the account of a Chinese dissident living in America at Beijing's request and then lied to Congress about it. Meta executives also decided to provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to Meta user data, including that of Americans.

Gates suggests AI should censor disfavored views of vaccines. Some members of Congress have brought up media literacy, which is described as an Orwellian code word for government propaganda. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have called for government censorship of social media, including banning political rivals. Many governments, journalists, and societal elites view censorship of social media platforms as a must-have. Meta's Mark Zuckerberg confessed to bowing down to unethical and illegal government censorship demands on COVID. Gates and his partners use their clout to control the global COVID response with little oversight. TikTok banned ads by xxxy athletics, started by the former COO of Levi's, Jennifer Se, because her company recognizes the reality of biological sex. TikTok allows ads for minors to perform irreversible surgeries and is censoring the truth about trans-identified males participating in women's sports.

The speaker claims they are attacked for not believing in democracy, but the most sacred right in the U.S. democracy is the First Amendment. They state that Kamala Harris wants to threaten the power of the government, and there is no First Amendment right to misinformation. The speaker believes big tech silences people, which is a threat to democracy. They want Democrats and Republicans to reject censorship and persuade one another by arguing about ideas. The speaker references yelling fire in a crowded theater as the Supreme Court test. They accuse others of wanting to kick people off Facebook for saying toddlers shouldn't get masks.

Judiciary committee chairman Jim Jordan revealed that Facebook censored Americans over COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. Internal emails exposed the White House pressuring Facebook to remove content, and Facebook complied after meeting with Biden's surgeon general. The Biden administration demanded the censorship of true stories about vaccine side effects and discussions on the lab leak theory. Twitter files journalist Michael Shellenberger expressed surprise at the extreme censorship and the Biden administration's blatant demands. He called for Congress and the Supreme Court to take action against the violation of the First Amendment and the abuse of power by big tech companies. He also highlighted YouTube's censorship of a video about censorship. The ongoing censorship raises concerns about future election interference.

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

The speaker says Mark Zuckerberg spoke about the Biden administration censoring constituents and alternative media, calling it reminiscent of 1984. The speaker believes those who tried to suppress independent media are enemies of the First Amendment. The speaker says the Senate is seriously addressing this as part of weeding out the "deep state" and changing the "back doors" of government. They claim Democrats are complaining about efforts to remove individuals working for a political party rather than the American people. They believe there is an 18-month window to deliver on President Trump's promises. Investigations are ongoing, often in secure facilities due to classified information, with the Biden administration allegedly attempting to cover tracks. The speaker says they are working with the White House, Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, Leader Thune, and Speaker Johnson on this and other similar issues, many related to cover-ups and the election. The speaker says Zuckerberg indicated that the Democrat party had put "handcuffs" on Facebook. The speaker questions who directed the censorship, whether it came from the White House, FBI, or DOJ, and what threats were made. The speaker presents a document implicating Elvis Chan in discussing potential legal cover for Facebook in exchange for censoring conservatives. The speaker says Chan, as an FBI agent, couldn't act alone, implying involvement from the DOJ and potentially Garland. They question the nature of the threats made to platforms to enforce censorship.

Speaker 1 believes Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump. Biden allegedly used federal agencies to censor political speech, including the speaker's, shortly after taking office. This action is seen as unprecedented and dangerous for democracy. The speaker argues that questioning election results is not as big of a threat as a president using their power to control social media platforms.

A case filed by Missouri against Biden reveals that federal courts found Facebook coordinated with the administration to censor First Amendment protected speech. Courts documented that Facebook allocated significant resources to monitor posts about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. For instance, a parent in Missouri had a post about a school board meeting removed by Facebook's human moderators. In contrast, Facebook reportedly lacks the resources to address serious issues like child exploitation on its platform. This disparity highlights a troubling prioritization: ample resources for censoring speech but insufficient efforts to protect children from harm.

Mark Zuckerberg allegedly stated he was ordered by the White House to suppress discussion of vaccine injuries on Facebook and Instagram. The speaker claims to have sued the Biden administration and obtained documents showing that 37 hours after taking office, a White House group was formed to suppress dissent regarding government policy, and the speaker was their first target. Facebook was allegedly told to remove the speaker from Instagram, which they did, despite the speaker's claim that all vaccine-related posts were cited and sourced to government databases or peer-reviewed publications. According to the speaker, Facebook told the White House that the information was not misinformation, but the White House called it "malinformation"—factually true information inconvenient for the government. The speaker asserts that numerous individuals, including O.J. Botticello, Marty Makary, Dr. Oz, and Vinay Prasad, were also censored.

Big tech companies like Twitter and Facebook are censoring a damaging story about Joe Biden and his family reported by the New York Post. According to the speaker, these companies are blocking the president's campaign, cabinet members, and Republicans in Congress from sharing the story. The speaker claims that Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg intend to decide the election's outcome by silencing anyone or any media outlet that threatens Joe Biden. The speaker notes that executives from Facebook and Twitter recently joined the Biden transition team, including Twitter's public policy director, Carlos Manier, and former Facebook executive, Jessica Hertz. The speaker presents a photo from 2011 of President Obama dining with Silicon Valley executives, including Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Reed Hastings, Dick Costello, and Larry Ellison, as evidence of big tech's relationship with the left.

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.

Facebook announced it is expanding its efforts to remove false claims about COVID-19 vaccines, specifically claims that the vaccines change people's DNA. However, a leaked tape reveals Zuckerberg expressing caution about the vaccines, stating "we just don't know the long term side effects of basically modifying people's DNA and RNA." This statement seemingly violates Facebook's own policy. Zuckerberg later stated that his "understanding is that these vaccines do not modify your DNA or RNA," which contradicts his earlier statement. DNA is inherent, so anything foreign will ultimately get cleared. It's interesting that Zuckerberg can change his opinion, but Facebook users cannot do the same. What happened to free speech? Zuckerberg is betraying what Facebook ought to stand for.

Biden's actions, like denying Secret Service protection and using federal agencies to silence dissent, are concerning. He pressured social media companies to censor by threatening antitrust action and giving access to agencies like the CIA and FBI. This undermines democracy and free speech.

The speaker claims that big tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter coordinated with the government to censor information on various topics, including the Hunter Biden laptop story, negative economic information, conservative opinions on COVID vaccines and lockdowns, and jokes about President Biden. The judge in the court case called this censorship Orwellian and the largest attack on free speech in US history. The speaker argues that the American people deserve to know the facts and that their inquiry into the matter is legitimate, despite media headlines suggesting otherwise. They also criticize the White House for urging news agencies to scrutinize their investigation and question why the president won't provide requested information if there is no impropriety. The speaker extends an open invitation for President Biden and others involved to come forward and clear their names.

Mark Zuckerberg recently discussed free speech and censorship on the Joe Rogan Experience, claiming that modern censorship is ideologically driven. He criticized the Biden administration for pressuring Facebook to censor truthful information about vaccine side effects, arguing that it was a dangerous precedent. However, he faced skepticism about his newfound commitment to free speech, especially since he previously enforced strict content moderation policies. Rogan challenged Zuckerberg's claims about the COVID vaccine, emphasizing that the government's suppression of alternative treatments and information was problematic. Critics, including Stephen A. Smith, suggest Zuckerberg's recent stance is more about self-preservation than genuine change, given his company's history of censorship. The conversation raises questions about accountability and the impact of past actions on public trust.

Censorship remains a pressing issue, especially with recent events in Brazil and the blocking of X. There are concerns about potential repercussions for past censorship actions. Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged being pressured by the FBI, raising questions about accountability. If elected, there will be a commitment to fire those responsible for censorship, including those who misled tech companies like Zuckerberg. This includes the intelligence operatives who falsely labeled the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. It's essential to strip these individuals of their security clearances and hold them accountable for lying to the public for political gain. Disgraceful actions must have consequences.

Missouri filed a case against Biden, claiming that Facebook worked with the administration to censor protected speech. The courts found that Facebook allocated resources and human moderators to monitor COVID-19 vaccine posts and remove a parent's post about a school board meeting. However, they didn't prioritize addressing issues like multiple pedophile rings, claiming a lack of resources. This discrepancy is deemed unacceptable, as they had resources to censor free speech but not to protect children.

The speaker sued the Biden administration and won. According to the speaker, discovery revealed that 37 hours after Biden's inauguration, a White House group was appointed to censor the speaker and others. The speaker claims to have emails between this group and Mark Zuckerberg, as well as people at Twitter. The speaker credits Elon Musk with making these emails public and believes Musk is essential to free speech in the U.S. because he opened up Twitter. The speaker states that Musk released these documents to journalists against the advice of his attorneys.