reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

President Trump is being questioned about race, but he deflects by bringing up allegations against him being a Russian plant. He dismisses these claims, stating that multiple former heads of the CIA and both parties have called it garbage. Trump sarcastically refers to the laptop controversy as another "Russia, Russia, Russia" hoax. The conversation then returns to the issue of race, and Trump expresses disbelief at the topic.

The speaker states that the "Russian story" would be called a covert influence campaign if they were doing it. The speaker also claims they would be the last to say they've never tried a covert influence campaign.

Speaker 1 claims Russia is engaging in disinformation campaigns and planning a false flag operation in Eastern Ukraine using pre-positioned operatives. This is based on declassified U.S. intelligence information. Speaker 0 asks for evidence to support these claims, comparing the situation to "crisis actors" and "Alex Jones territory." Speaker 0 questions where the declassified information is, stating that Speaker 1 has only made allegations without proof. Speaker 1 says the information is declassified and being made public to deter Russia or, failing that, to expose their fabrication of a pretext for action. Speaker 1 states that making the information public protects sensitive sources and methods. Speaker 0 asks what evidence suggests Russia is planning this, and Speaker 1 responds that the U.S. is confident in its intelligence. Speaker 1 alludes to the U.S. having detailed information but will not spell out what is in their possession. Speaker 1 says Russia has positioned forces and undertaken preparations for a potential invasion.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

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 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

Tulsi Gabbard is described as "doing a great job" in the speaker’s view, with an aside that includes the word "Whisk." The speaker notes that Gabbard "took a lot of heat two days ago because she went in at Pam's insistence," and that she "looked at votes that wanna be checked out from Georgia." The question is raised aloud: "They say, why is she doing it? Right, Pam? Why is she doing it?" The response given is that the reason is "Because Pam wanted her to do it." The speaker emphasizes the motive by stating, "And you know why? Because she's smart." The dialogue then references a belief that others suggested the action was tied to Gabbard’s position or stance, saying, "they said, well, this has to do her position. Has to do it's really not so, but her position has to do with international." The speaker counters that line of thinking by invoking a different narrative about international affairs and election interference. The speaker recalls the longstanding chorus that has claimed Russia, Russia, Russia has been meddling in elections, noting, "the same people that said that, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia has been screwing our elections." The speaker then contemplates the possibility that Russia "had something to do with it," but follows with, "They say, no. No. Russia didn't have." The implication is that the narrative on foreign interference has shifted, leading to the assertion that "now they're saying Russia had nothing to do with it." The speaker adds a broader hypothetical, stating, "Because if I say Russia, that it's perfectly fine. But you could add China and about five other countries to it." Amid these discussions, the speaker reiterates praise for Tulsi Gabbard: "But she's done a great job, and Pam has done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it both." The closing lines suggest a personal note about not having seen the person in a while: "I haven't seen you in a couple of times. And I have one of..." The remainder of the sentence is cut off in the transcript.

In the video, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been found. Speaker 1 mentions that information can be found in the report prepared by director Mueller, but they are not aware of any collusion or conspiracy. Speaker 0 then interrupts and states that when the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, they did not have any information suggesting that anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.

The speaker states that files were fabricated by Comey, Obama, and Biden. They claim to have spent years dealing with similar situations, referencing the "Russia Russia Russia hoax." The speaker says that someone, presumably the person who gave the briefing, handled the situation well. They conclude that it is up to that person to decide what is credible and should be released.

The speaker accuses Russia of engaging in disinformation campaigns and planning false flag operations in Eastern Ukraine. When asked for evidence, the speaker refers to declassified intelligence information but does not provide specifics. The speaker emphasizes the need to deter Russia from carrying out these actions and states that making the information public serves this purpose. The other person questions the lack of concrete evidence and expresses skepticism. The speaker defends the credibility of the US government and stresses the importance of protecting sensitive sources and methods in declassifying information.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

The speaker claims the CIA interfered in the 2020 election, referencing RFK Jr.'s statements and using the word "tomatoes" to avoid censorship. They allege that Anthony Blinken enlisted Gina Haspel and 51 former intelligence officials to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation. The speaker points to a letter signed by these officials, including James Clapper and Michael Hayden, who they describe as "professional deep state liars." They highlight that the officials admitted they had no actual evidence of Russian involvement. The speaker asserts the CIA has a history of election interference and accuses the agency of protecting Joe Biden from scandals, including those related to his family. They also bring up Bill Clinton's association with Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker concludes by criticizing intelligence agencies' meddling and praising those who seek truth and honesty.

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.

Speaker 0 says that over the last several weeks they declassified and released documents exposing that President Obama and leaders in the intelligence community knowingly manufactured a false intelligence document after the 2016 election. The document alleged that Russia aspired to help President Trump win the election with the aim of undermining his presidency and usurping the will and the voices of the American people who sent Trump to the White House.

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, claimed that the Intelligence Community believes Hunter Biden's laptop and its emails are part of a Russian disinformation campaign. However, the Director of National Intelligence stated that there is no intelligence supporting this claim and no evidence has been shared with Schiff or any other member of Congress. The Director emphasized that using the intelligence community to push a political narrative is unacceptable. He made it clear that Hunter Biden's laptop is not involved in any Russian disinformation campaign, and he believes the American people are aware of this.

Speaker 0 asks who blew up Nord Stream, to which Speaker 1 jokingly replies that "we" did, implicating Speaker 0. Speaker 0 denies involvement and questions if there is evidence that NATO or the CIA did it. Speaker 1 avoids providing details but suggests looking for someone with an interest in such cases. Speaker 0 expresses confusion over the magnitude of the incident and suggests that if Speaker 1 had evidence, they should present it to win a propaganda victory. Speaker 1 claims it is difficult to defeat the United States in propaganda because they control global media, making it costly to get involved. They believe shining a spotlight on their sources of information won't yield results.

An individual accuses another of repeatedly presenting unnamed FBI agents' words as truth on their network, leading viewers to believe Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin conspired in 2016, which they claim is false. The other individual denies the accusation. They then state that President Trump went to extraordinary lengths to keep specifics about his meetings with Vladimir Putin secret, even from his own administration. They play a clip of President Trump responding to a question about whether he ever worked for Russia, where he calls it insulting but does not directly answer. The individual then asks if the president of the United States ever worked on behalf of the Russians against American interests.

Speaker 0 asks how to convince Americans who are focused on Hunter Biden's laptop that the speaker is fighting for them. Speaker 1 dismisses the laptop issue as a smear, stating that reputable sources have debunked it. They mention that similar allegations were made months ago. Speaker 1 also highlights intelligence community evidence of Russian involvement. They defend their son's integrity.

Speaker 0 says it's "preposterous that we were talking about Hillary Clinton's emails again in the year 2025," that "they get activated," and that Trump won't be blamed for not releasing the Epstein files, "We spent years on this story." Speaker 1 counters, "No. Let let me you you had to take this story seriously for years, and it was false. It wasn't false." He asserts that "When Trump won in 2016, the intel community concluded that Russia didn't have a hand in his victory," but "Obama determined and wanted a new conclusion," sending "Brennan" to "come up with a new collusion," and insists "There was no proof." They claim "They amplified a false conclusion that Trump colluded with Russia in 2016." He adds, "The Democrats never cared about Epstein until they saw a political motivation," while noting "the right is more on top of Epstein" and that "We actually cared," concluding with "Save me your selective outrage."

The speaker asserts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election, suggesting that a full investigation would reveal Trump's illegitimacy as president. They claim that Trump lost the election and was only placed in office due to Russian interference. The speaker then asks if the listener believes Trump is an illegitimate president based on their statement, which they cannot retract.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of working for a Russian oligarch and misusing money. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and criticizes Speaker 0's integrity. The conversation becomes heated as they argue about truth and lies. Speaker 1 questions the DOJ's treatment of him compared to Speaker 0. Speaker 0 mentions Speaker 1's conviction and reduced sentence. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's credibility. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of not being able to handle the truth.

During the debate, Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of lying about a Russian plan and claims that there is overwhelming evidence of Russian engagement. Speaker 1 denies these allegations, stating that intelligence agencies and former heads of the CIA have called it garbage. Speaker 0 also accuses the FBI of cheating by telling Facebook and Twitter what to do. Speaker 2 believes that the objective is to stop Donald Trump and what he represents in the political process. Speaker 0 concludes by accusing Joe Biden of lying about a major scandal, calling it cheating and election interference on an unprecedented scale.

The speaker claims the biggest scandal was spying on their campaign, insisting it's verified despite lack of evidence. They urge to air it for Biden's detriment. The interviewer refuses, citing the need for verification. The speaker insists they were spied on and caught, challenging the interviewer to check the papers. The interviewer remains skeptical.