reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

The speaker introduces a comparison of ICE to the Ku Klux Klan. One speaker defines the KKK as a domestic terrorist group that used fear and force to change the political environment based on race and ethnicity. Another speaker asks if they are aware of the perception of how ICE's power and discretion are being used to enforce laws and if they see any parallels to the KKK. The speaker responds that they see no parallel between what is constitutionally mandated in enforcing the law and the KKK. They deny seeing ICE in the same category as the KKK. The first speaker urges listeners to vote and bring 10 people with them, suggesting the other speaker could be the next president.

There's a clear legal path to get one guy back, but what about all the other people? People are upset about illegal immigration, but who cleans hotel rooms, provides food, washes dishes, and does gardening? Immigrants are here through grit and will to give their families a better chance. White men in America are 45 times more likely to commit a violent crime than an immigrant. The media suggests appealing to white voters, but Joe Biden, an 81-year-old Catholic from Scranton, challenged their Trumpian sense and still won. If president, the speaker would call the president of El Salvador and demand they send people back or face invasion, because what they're doing is a crime.

Renee Good was killed during an ICE raid, an incident described as horrific and tragic by the speaker. The speaker recounts a social media exchange in which they stated, “Could have never been me because I don't interfere with federal ICE enforcement,” which led to accusations that ICE hates the speaker and that they are justifying murder. The speaker frames the event as part of a broader pattern: the absence of a warrant in the operation, the right of individuals to flee, and the reality that those opposing federal agents can be riskily drawn into deadly confrontations. The speaker cites federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. sections 111 and 372, to define crimes related to assaulting, resisting, impeding, or conspiring to interfere with a federal officer while they perform their duties. The speaker notes that these actions include blocking, chasing, surrounding, or physically interfering with an operation. They acknowledge that such actions should not lead to someone being shot, but argue that they can escalate into deadly consequences, a risk they believe is being normalized for civilians. A central concern is the existence of groups that encourage civilians to track and confront federal agents during enforcement operations. The speaker asserts that people are being convinced to pull alongside an active enforcement operation in their vehicles or confront trained agents, and that some are told this constitutes activism. They describe this as insane and as a lie propagated for various motives—by media outlets seeking outrage and headlines, politicians seeking votes, and content creators chasing clicks—without understanding the law being encouraged to be broken. They claim compassionate people are being used as fuel in this dynamic. The speaker addresses the political dimension of immigration enforcement, noting that deportation of people here illegally is not new and has occurred under every administration, including Obama, whom they describe as “our deporter in chief.” What is new, they argue, is convincing ordinary civilians—moms in cars, bystanders in the street—to step between armed federal officers and their mission, labeling that as smart, righteous, or consequence-free. The overall message is a warning that political battles should be confined to elections, courts, and legislatures, not the streets. The speaker pleads for the public to stop allowing individuals who profit from outrage to persuade people to risk their lives for headlines, asserting that the current approach has led to at least one death and should be re-evaluated.

The speaker is asked about the Minnesota GOP criticizing their past support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which initially helped those arrested after the George Floyd riots but has since expanded to assist individuals accused of other crimes. The speaker responds by stating they are a child of parents who marched for civil rights in the 1960s and affirms their unwavering support for peaceful protests.

Community organizers highlighted the guilt and distress of an active duty air force member, questioning if his actions are less valid because of it.

You mentioned wanting to eliminate 600 NIH workers on day one and 2,200 from HHS. Which departments will you cut from? There are 200 political appointees that change with each administration. If you remove those, will you replace them with your appointees? President Biden changed 3,000 employees at HHS. As a potential top health official, will you commit to not firing federal employees working on food safety or cyber protection? There are 91,000 employees. So, will you ensure those working on food safety and cyber security keep their jobs? I commit not to fire anyone doing their job. Will this commitment be based on your opinion or political agenda? It will be based on my opinion. So, it seems those with differing views on vaccines may be at risk of losing their jobs.

Speaker 1 hesitates when covering government cover-ups because they can be dangerous, unlike topics like Bigfoot or UFOs. Speaker 1 considers themself a patriot, pro-military, and pro-law enforcement, but also anti-war and pro-criminal justice reform. They value fairness and transparency and would like to think the government is good. However, their journey has shown them that it is mostly not, as it is made of flawed and selfish men. Justifications can be made for doing terrible things to stay ahead of terrible people. Speaker 1 says collateral damage is just part of it, such as giving settlements to people to stay quiet for national security.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

Speaker 0 describes a scene outside their front porch where a protester, a woman, blocked traffic with her car. She parked perpendicularly, and ICE had six or seven vehicles with multiple officers. The protester’s car blocked the road, preventing passage for the convoy. ICE officers yelled at her to move and then became aggressive, approaching her driver’s side door and attempting to open it. The woman then began to reverse as she appeared frightened. An officer leaned across in front of the vehicle and shot the woman point-blank in the face, with about three or four shots fired. The woman’s foot pressed the gas, she tried to escape, hit a telephone pole, and crashed into several cars. Speaker 0 notes there were perhaps only about 10 protesters, but many ICE agents and six to seven vehicles, each with multiple officers. The scene was dispersed yet extremely chaotic, and it seemed the ICE agents did not have a plan or were unprepared. The woman was slumped over in the car. A neighbor, who identified as a physician, offered to take vitals, ask for a heartbeat, and request CPR, but was told to back away and that medics were on the way, a process that took about fifteen minutes. In that interval, it’s implied she may have deceased, and no lifesaving measures were attempted. Speaker 1 asks about how the secretary of Homeland Security and the president characterized the incident, labeling it a domestic terrorist attack, a ramming attack, and an attempt to kill or run over ICE agents. Speaker 0 responds that this characterization is the only reason they are there, and they would prefer not to speak, but they believed the incident would be misconstrued as self-defense. They insist the event was totally preventable and absolutely unnecessary, distinguishing it from self-defense. Overall, the account presents a chaotic confrontation between a small group of protesters and a larger ICE presence, culminating in the shooting of a protester, followed by a delayed medical response, and a subsequent framing of the event by government officials as a domestic terrorist attack.

The speaker claims that Biden's Justice Department placed mothers on FBI and terrorist watch lists for advocating against certain school curricula. They state these mothers were labeled as terrorists for their activism. The speaker urges listeners to examine the Justice Department's actions. They then mention Biden's pardon of his son and his statement that the Justice Department has been politicized.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

Mayor Wu, does ICE arresting a child rapist threaten everyone's safety? No. Does ICE arresting a murderous MS-13 gang member threaten everyone's safety? No. I'd like to point out that you, Mayor Michelle Wu, have said that ICE's efforts actually threaten the safety of everyone. You're a hypocrite.

The speaker states they applied to the CIA and have received criticism, including from Putin, for being from a "CIA family." The speaker acknowledges their father worked in conjunction with the CIA and that they attempted to join the agency. The speaker says Putin is attacking their father as being connected to the CIA, which the speaker says is not untrue. After their father's death, the speaker learned their father was involved in that world, which they say shocked them. The speaker concludes by saying that this is a fact, whether or not people believe it.

Speaker 0: It's been a few days since you issued that resignation. You’ve been called weak by the president of the United States. You’ve been called a traitor by Lindsey Graham. You’ve been called an anti-Semite by Mitch McConnell, among others. Now there are reports that you’re under a leak investigation potentially accusing you of a felony that could put you in jail even though you now are raising your two boys. You’ve remarried, but you’re their sole biological parent still here. I ask you now whether this was worth it. Speaker 1: I think it most certainly was, Megan. I mean, the attacks against me are to be expected. The ad hominems from people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham at this point are fairly laughable. They don’t wanna discuss the issues. I wanna discuss the issues. As for the leak allegations, I’m not concerned because I know I did nothing wrong. Of course, I am concerned because we’ve all seen the FBI and the full way of the government come down on individuals who speak out. So that has me a little bit concerned, but I know the truth and the facts are on my side. So I think the important issues to address are what’s at hand, why we’re at war, and how we get out of the state that we’re in right now. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Your boys have already lost one parent. I mean, the thought of this government for which you’ve been working and the government for which you’ve sacrificed so much, actually trying to put you in jail over an alleged leak after the number of leaks we’ve seen go unpunished over the past ten years is truly outrageous, Joe. I mean, does it anger you? How does it make you feel? Speaker 1: You, you know, it it does anger me, but it it’s all just to be expected. I I knew this was going to happen. I I know their playbook. I think we’re all very familiar with their playbook. So, actually, the fact that they’re leaking these allegations so so they have to leak the allegations of an FBI investigation. If there truly was an FBI investigation, and who knows, maybe there will be, there would be a process and procedure for that. They would actually formally come to me. And if they were still collecting information, they most certainly wouldn’t leak it. So the fact that the FBI, DOJ, or really probably just partisans are leaking this this so-called investigation against me at a time when I’m going on and publicly speaking out against the course the administration is on, to me, that tells me everything that I need to know. I feel very confident in what I’m doing right now. I think I have a mission, and I think it is to do everything I can to stop this war. So to me, I kinda view everything else as a sideshow, and I just wanna stay focused on the mission.

Speaker 0 opened by saying that over the last week he has interacted with over 300,000 plus real Chicagoans who say it is hate speech to evoke the Civil War or the Confederacy, to say that law enforcement is a sickness, while the other person has over 150 sworn CPD officers on his detail. He asked what the other person would say to those people and whether he would ask his 150 sworn officers to stand down if he and his wife Stacy are ever attacked, shot at, or rammed with a protester’s vehicle. Speaker 1 responded with sarcasm about the large number, joking that the interactions had “gone down to 300,000,” and claimed he had checked the other person’s comments. He asserted that the addiction on jails and incarceration and the addiction of militarism is evil, referencing Doctor King, and said it is incumbent to ensure that “the real Chicagoans” or the real people of America receive attention, suggesting we should spend billions of dollars overseas on the people in Chicago instead. Speaker 0 pushed back, saying that the real Chicagoans he talks to, mostly Black and Brown, feel that the other person does not distinguish between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens, and that he is siding with illegal aliens over communities. He asserted that a recent incident involved “an illegal alien from Nicaragua” who grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her. He asked whether, if that had been the other person’s wife, Stacy, he would want ICE to deport that illegal alien, and asked for a yes or no answer. Speaker 1 pressed to get a direct answer, asking for a response “as a man, not as mayor,” and repeated the question about whether ICE should deport the rapist. Speaker 0 reiterated his question and stated that the answer for real Chicagoans is the deportation of the rapist, and that was the “answer for real Chicagoans.” Speaker 1 then apologized for being late, blaming traffic, and the other person quipped about the traffic, noting, “You’re not blaming me for the traffic, are you?” and said he had been watching.

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

Mister Secretary, considering the immigration situation over the past four years and the resulting national dialogue, do you think you would have approached things differently? Yes, it's important to recognize that in any large organization, including government, there are varying opinions on policies and operational measures. These differing views are expressed, decisions are made, and then everyone works together towards the common goal. Are you implying that your personal views on handling immigration differed from your superiors'? I prefer not to discuss the internal decision-making process. However, it’s a common reality that diverse opinions exist when many people are involved in making decisions.

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.

There's a clear legal path to get one guy back, but what about all the other people? People are upset about illegal immigration, but who cleans hotel rooms, provides food, washes dishes, and does gardening? Immigrants are here through grit and will to give their families a better chance. White men in America are 45 times more likely to commit a violent crime than an immigrant. The media says to appeal to white voters, but Joe Biden, an 81-year-old Catholic from Scranton, got 81,000,000 votes by challenging Trumpian sentiments and showing empathy for transgender people and immigrants. If president, the speaker would call the president of El Salvador and demand they send people back or face invasion, because what they're doing is a crime.

The speaker addresses immigration enforcement and the investigation into the Minneapolis incident, focusing on the response of ICE and the broader process of accountability. He begins by referencing the instruction to “get the out of Minneapolis” and questions, in hindsight, whether that was the appropriate response. He states that he stands by exactly what he said, and clarifies that his remarks were a reaction to an immediate conclusion drawn by the federal government. That conclusion asserted that the ICE agent was acting in self-defense and, shortly thereafter, labeled the victim as a domestic terrorist. The speaker emphasizes the need to conduct a full and fair investigation. He expresses a deep concern about trust in the investigative process when the government that is conducting the investigation itself has drawn initial conclusions. He argues that when the federal government, which is responsible for the investigation, announces conclusions first, it becomes harder for the public to trust the investigation. He asserts that it is important for the American people to gain trust in the process. The speaker then voices specific concerns about relying exclusively on the FBI rather than also involving the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). He notes that the BCA is an entity with police officers, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys who have extensive experience investigating officer-involved shootings. He mentions that the BCA has previously conducted investigations that have led to both charges and non-charges, implying that their involvement could influence the proceedings. Finally, he states a principle: no one should hide from the facts. If people are being transparent and not hiding from the facts, they should ensure that the investigation is full and fair. The overall message stresses the importance of trust, balance in investigative leadership, and a commitment to a comprehensive review of the incident, rather than premature or exclusive conclusions by one investigative authority.

I wouldn't return to a job in the federal government until some things change. Right now, there's a lack of stability, and the emotional impact on me feels like a betrayal, especially considering the 30% of the federal workforce who have served on active duty. I served my country for eleven years, nine on active duty, with two deployments and time away from my family. I even missed my mom's passing while serving. I was excited to continue serving in my role, but they took it away and blamed it on my performance, despite positive reviews. It feels like my service isn't valued, and they don't care about the impact on me or others like me. To me, it feels inhumane, ignoring our personhood and disrespecting us as human beings and American citizens.

The speaker was asked if they would have done anything differently than President Biden during the past 4 years. The speaker responded that there is one thing that comes to mind. They added that they have been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.

I'm not returning to Haiti. There's a dangerous individual from Haiti, identified by ICE as a gang member with 17 recent criminal convictions. Trump, you understand? I'm all for Biden. I owe a lot to Obama for his support.

ICE. Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement. "What was your name again? My name is Mercury. Nice to meet you." "Why do you hope to get out of this? Why are you here?" "Okay. I I I'm I'm gonna ask that question a lot. First of all, that question should not even have to be asked, but when people stop talking, really bad stuff starts." "When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When church starts happening, they fall apart. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to wanna commit violence against that group." "I wish we could be here without having my hat thrown off and stuff, but what what we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have a reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option."