reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker points out that the prosecutor in the case has intertwined her political interests with the case, which could backfire. The prosecutor has been removed from part of the case due to a conflict of interest and has made inappropriate public statements. The speaker believes this is bad form for a prosecutor and could be a problem when the case goes to court. They predict that Donald Trump will argue that the prosecutor has improperly mixed politics with the case and should be removed. The speaker acknowledges that these arguments may not succeed, but the prosecutor has created problems for herself.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of planning to discuss anti-trans topics after talking about abortion. Speaker 0 expresses anger and claims that the discussion is violent and triggering their students. Speaker 1 apologizes, but Speaker 0 dismisses the apology, stating that Speaker 1 cannot understand the experience of having a baby.

In this video, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their testimony in court regarding a memo outlining potential investigations. Speaker 0 argues that it was misleading and wrong to testify about possibilities and maybes. Speaker 1 defends their answers, stating that they were discussing the memo and its purpose. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's claims, suggesting that the Democrat district attorney was excited about pursuing investigations against Ken Paxton. Speaker 1 disagrees with the characterization and explains that the feds waved them off. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's credibility and suggests they would never engage in criminal activity. Speaker 1 denies this and clarifies their stance. The video ends with Speaker 0 highlighting that Speaker 1 applied for a job at the AG's office after writing the memo, with a letter of recommendation from Margaret Moore.

Speaker 0 objects to Speaker 1's nonresponsive answers and reminds him to only respond to the questions asked. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's authority and expresses frustration with the judge's handling of the case. Speaker 0 warns Speaker 1 about potential penalties for his conduct. Speaker 1 dismisses the warning and threatens to come after Speaker 0 for attorney's fees. Speaker 0 reiterates his commitment to professionalism. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 urging them to continue.

The speakers discuss the role of different government branches in interpreting the law, with Speaker 1 emphasizing that the judiciary has the final say, not legislators, everyday people, or the president. Speaker 1 expresses concern that institutions are being undermined, with the legislative branch failing to check the president. They argue that disregarding judicial orders, even if disliked, erodes the rule of law, using hypothetical scenarios involving presidential executive orders, election ballot access, and prosecutorial overreach to illustrate potential problems. Speaker 0 notes the irony of representatives who previously supported impeachment now criticizing similar actions, and emphasizes that the hearing should focus on the court's ability to function as intended, not on impeachment.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and think it is a terrible job. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

Speaker 1 was approached with an offer to pause their political activity, but Speaker 1 is offended, viewing it as an attempt to buy them out of running and a reflection of others' lack of concern for the country. Speaker 1 believes this is about preventing them from winning and defeating Trump, which they see as bad for the country. Speaker 0 suggests it may not be about Trump, but about Speaker 1. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought at any price, stating they are not going to let people who hate the country tell them not to run. Speaker 1 intends to be a "pain" to those trying to stop them and is willing to fight, even if it means risking their life. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to tell them to get behind their campaign. Speaker 1 believes the "swamp" doesn't pre-approve of them because they would root out corruption.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about using a 200-year-old law to circumvent something. Speaker 1 responds that it is not as old as the Constitution, which they still pay attention to. Speaker 0 then asks how many more times Speaker 1 plans on deporting South Capitol Hill. Speaker 1 states they are in trouble.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 recounts feedback from “real Chicagoans,” describing them as mostly Black and Brown, and claims they tell him that the other person does not seem to know the difference between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens. He asserts that these individuals feel the other person is siding with illegal aliens over their communities. He then pivots to a direct line of questioning. The real question, as Speaker 0 presents it, concerns a violent incident: “An illegal alien from Nicaragua grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her.” He presses for a direct response about what would have happened “if that had been your wife, Stacy.” He stages the hypothetical to elicit a clear stance from Speaker 1 on how to respond to such a crime and its immigration context. Speaker 1, however, interrupts to steer the conversation away from the loaded scenario. He repeatedly signals a move on, indicating a preference not to engage with the hypothetical or to answer the pointed ethical dilemma on the spot. The back-and-forth centers on the tactic of addressing the question versus avoiding it, with Speaker 0 insisting on a straightforward answer “as a man, not as mayor, but as a man.” The exchange escalates as Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to provide a simple yes or no and to address the issue directly, effectively challenging Speaker 1 to commit to a position regarding ICE and deportation in light of the described crime. Speaker 1 responds by again stating to move on, resisting the direct yes/no framework. Throughout, Speaker 0 persists in pressing for a candid, personal response to the hypothetical crime and its immigration implications, while Speaker 1 maintains a boundary about continuing the discussion in that moment. Ultimately, Speaker 1 declines to answer the specific deportation question in the moment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms the demand for a direct personal answer. The segment ends with Speaker 1 thanking the audience and moving on, leaving the explicit yes-or-no question unresolved in this exchange.

Speaker 1 questions the FBI's role, asking if their job is to defend Joe Biden or protect the country and uphold the constitution. Speaker 0 clarifies that the FBI's job is to protect the country, keep people safe, and uphold the constitution objectively. Speaker 1 accuses the FBI of being politicized and weaponizing the agency against the American people. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that there are good people in the FBI and defends their actions. Speaker 1 questions why certain information was redacted, but Speaker 0 explains that redactions are made to protect sources. Speaker 1 expresses the need for transparency to address the perception of politicization.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

Ms. Monica, the number 2 person in the Department of Justice, is questioned about the partisan nature of the department and its failure to enforce certain criminal statutes. Specifically, the speaker focuses on 18 USC 1507, which prohibits influencing judges through picketing or parading near their residences. The speaker accuses the DOJ of not prosecuting violations of this statute, despite numerous protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes. Ms. Monica denies this claim, stating that the attorney general has directed the US Marshals Service to enforce all federal laws and prioritize the safety of the justices. The speaker argues that a written presentation contradicts this, emphasizing that the goal is to avoid arrests and prosecutions. Ms. Monica disagrees with this interpretation.

The speaker emphasizes that the Department of Justice should not be politicized, echoing the president's previous statements. They are asked about convincing Americans to trust the department's independence and fairness, despite Donald Trump's repeated attacks. The speaker asserts that they have never influenced the department's decisions and expresses frustration with the situation. The transcript ends with a question about lying to the public and a strong reaction.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

Speaker 1, Julie Kelly, asserts that the new leadership at the DOJ and FBI may not be aware of who Jocelyn Ballantyne is, describing her as lead prosecutor who "led the team of government lawyers, DOJ lawyers, who went after the Proud Boys" and labeling her as "among the worst of the worst." Kelly references her experience covering the Proud Boys trial in 2023 and states that Ballantyne was near the top of Kelly’s list of j-six prosecutors who should be fired. Kelly recounts a scandal from the Proud Boys trial involving a spreadsheet of FBI correspondence in which agents discussed destroying evidence, surveilling, and eavesdropping on communications between Proud Boys who were in pretrial detention federal prison and their attorneys. She notes that the defense, during the trial, discovered this spreadsheet accidentally and intended to use the information as evidence. According to Kelly, the defense attempted to question an FBI agent who was a government witness and planned to present what they found in the spreadsheet. She describes that, as the defense began to present this evidence, Judge Tim Kelly—who, she says, is good friends with Jocelyn Ballantyne and had worked with her in the DC U.S. attorney’s office on cases—abruptly cut off the questioning. A day or two later, Ballantyne went into court and claimed that the communication represented classified secrets and should be withheld from the jury, a move Kelly characterizes as being aligned with Ballantyne’s actions. Kelly asserts that Judge Kelly went along with this claim to withhold the information. Kelly emphasizes that Ballantyne led the team of prosecutors against the Proud Boys, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. She notes that Ballantyne then pursued severe sentences, including some defendants receiving life terms, such as Lindsay Attario, who Kelly says ended up with a twenty-two year prison sentence before those sentences were commuted by the president. Speaker 0 interjects multiple times with questions and expressions of disbelief, urging Julie Kelly to explain how such actions could be true and challenging the notion that Ballantyne’s conduct was inappropriate, while Kelly maintains that the described conduct and the actions taken by Ballantyne and the DOJ were part of the Proud Boys prosecutions and related cases.

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and believes it is the worst job in America. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 making a provocative claim that everything people experience, including rape and addiction, is attracted into their life, and that the people involved in rape or pedophilia are attracted to those acts. Speaker 1 pushes back, asking for clarification about cases of pedophilia and how these dynamics should be understood. Speaker 0 continues by saying that the children are attracted to the pedophile, and Speaker 1 challenges them to pursue the line of thought by asking to go there. They discuss how labels of good and bad are often tied to who one chooses to side with. Speaker 0 expresses discomfort with the implication of the discussion and provides a hypothetical: if someone assaulted his wife at home, he would “forcibly stop” them and would value stopping the act “100% certainly.” He argues that morality at the moment would drive one’s reaction to harm, and asserts that when one sees something as evil, one would act to stop it, emphasizing that it is evil in one’s perception. Speaker 0 then asserts a universal standard: it is not acceptable to beat a child to a pulp or to sexually assault a child. He argues that there is something fundamental inside humans—a driving force toward life, love, freedom, and the experience of living in the world—and when someone intentionally interferes with that, there is an obligation to try to prevent or stop them. He adds that one can override impulses, acknowledging personal temptation to harm that has been resisted. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of repressing desires and then attacking his customers publicly. He suggests Speaker 0 is taking information that contradicts his stated beliefs and refuses to broadcast it because it conflicts with his system, describing it as a fight that Speaker 0 is ready to engage in. The tension is evident as Speaker 0’s and Speaker 1’s reactions become increasingly heated; Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1’s hands are shaking. Speaker 1 criticizes the stance of not exposing certain information on the show, arguing that it challenges his beliefs and that he is unwilling to “pacify” his research for anyone. He asserts that there are upsides to events, even to the murder of children, stating that there are upsides to it. Speaker 0 concludes with an abrupt decision to stop the discussion: “I think we’re gonna have to stop here, John.”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they told Penley that they had informed Ken about his authority. Speaker 1 confirms that they told everyone on the phone call, including Penley. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1, as the chief of staff of the Attorney General's office, advised Paxton that it was okay to sign an outside counsel contract. Speaker 1 agrees and mentions being honest with Paxton's executive staff. Speaker 0 points out that despite this, they still went to the FBI. Speaker 0 then asks Speaker 1 about their personal beliefs and mentions the implications of an affair. Speaker 1 responds cautiously. Speaker 0 brings up the idea of perfection and sin, and suggests that having an affair doesn't make someone a criminal. Speaker 1 agrees and Speaker 0 concludes by highlighting the hypocrisy of labeling someone a criminal for a marital indiscretion.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.

Nobody is above the law, and elected office does not grant immunity from prosecution. Defending a judge or prosecutor politically is inappropriate because the legal system should be nonpolitical. The speaker expresses dismay that someone had a judge arrested.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.