reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript follows a chaotic, multi-voiced discussion centered on political information networks, election integrity, and coordinated activism around protests and media narratives. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly question the sources of information: “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and the same for Jonathan, signaling concern about where information originates and how it is disseminated. - Speaker 2 describes a sense of purpose from sharing information and notes that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, under oath in, you know, a senate… the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” - Speaker 3 references multiple online presences, including YouTube and Facebook (Jeremy Oliver, Onslaught Media Group), and mentions protesting activities as part of the narrative. - Speaker 4 mentions “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs,” implying rehearsal for protests or political actions. - Speaker 1 indicates a readiness to “storm the capital” and notes that participants are “all actors,” signaling a performative or coordinated element to actions. - Speaker 3, as a journalist or news producer, plans to stream live from protests to show “the real story” and “support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - A dialogue involving Speaker 1 and Patrick discusses Mary Fanning and Mary Fenix, with questions about speaking to Patrick and perceived fairness in conversations, leading to a strained exchange. - Speaker 5 asserts that “Donald Trump has no business being president,” and introduces a coalition or think tank that includes Biden, Harris, Mike Flynn, and Simon Johnson (an IMF chief economist by birth in England), framing a network with both Democrats and Republicans. - Speaker 3 introduces Brian Gamble as CIO of the America Project, founded by Patrick Byrne, who sits on the Council on Foreign Relations with Stanley McChrystal. The claim is made that Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from McChrystal’s home; McChrystal is described as an advisor for the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects Trump-trending content and promotes opposing viewpoints. The system is said to share opposing viewpoints, connecting to efforts involving the Flynn network to target the Patriot movement. - Speaker 6 expresses disbelief at the unfolding information, while Speaker 1 dismisses an interruption during a conversation, showing friction in interviews and onlookers. - Speaker 8 details that “the entire Flynn network was there,” naming Ali Alexander (a former CMP member) as a lead organizer, and Michael Flynn’s appearance on the CMP staff roster. The aim is stated as “creating instability as they’re trying to carry out a color revolution.” The speaker lists a list of Flynn network traits: a united and organized opposition, the ability to drive home the claim that voting results are falsified, compliant independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote, and the mobilization of tens of thousands of demonstrators. - Speakers 9 and 10 discuss 2020 in Maricopa County, noting 395,000 in-person voters on election day (a figure they describe as low due to COVID) and debating how many Republicans intended but did not vote in Maricopa in the midterms. Projections estimate large missed numbers (700,000 or around 150,000 in later drafts), with debate on whether turnout would favor one party given demographics and turnout expectations. - Speaker 8 critiques associated figures: Patrick Byrne, Roger Richards (tattoo of Lucifer, propaganda space films with Jordan Sather), Emily Newman (ties to US Agency for Global Media, linked to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), and Brian Gamble’s background in information warfare. - There are digressions about fundraising sources, rockefeller connections, and a tension between reform goals and control, with Speaker 12 suggesting figures like Charlie Kirk publicly advocate doing “the same things that got us into this place” to “beat the system,” implying a critique of reform vs. control within the movement. - The dialogue closes with personal anecdotes about Wisconsin politics, a case discussed with a Supreme Court justice race, and a strained, emotional confrontation that underscores distrust and the perception of manipulated information flows.

The transcript centers on a confrontation in Miami Beach with Matthew Tiermond, a former Project Veritas board member, who is discussed as having been on the board during a controversial period including the February 6, three-year anniversary of the termination of James O’Keefe from Project Veritas. The exchange, captured by an undercover journalist working with James O’Keefe, reveals a web of explosive claims and repudiations about Tiermond’s conduct, his relationship with federal agencies, and his stated ambitions. Key allegations and admissions about Tiermond: - Tiermond is described as having said he would “carve my heart out and eat it,” a claim tied to a repeated assertion that he wanted to kill James O’Keefe. He later characterizes the statement as metaphorical, saying “I would kill James O’Keefe… it’s metaphoric.” - He asserts he has “a thousand sources in the DOJ and CIA I talk to all the time,” and that he has “fed the Southern District tons of shit to try and get him in prison.” He claims to have spoken with multiple law enforcement and intelligence contacts, including mentioning the SDNY, the FBI, the IRS, and other agencies, and asserts that he has discussed Tiermond’s activities with them. - He acknowledges involvement with the SDNY and the FBI as an informant, stating that he has talked to many people who called him from law enforcement agencies and that he answered questions truthfully and honestly. He is pressed to identify who he fed information to, with the interviewer demanding specifics and identifying him as an FBI informant on tape. - Tiermond asserts that he has used insider information to target various conservative figures and organizations, including claims about Donald Trump Jr. and Don Jr.’s alleged insider trading and crypto schemes intended to influence foreign governments. He states his mission is to ensure Don Jr. ends up in prison and describes Don Jr. as “stealing billions.” - He describes a plan to “weaponize money” through investment banking to influence the system, stating, “I am going to weaponize the entire system the way Paul Singer does, but my way,” and expresses a goal of making $100,000,000 to weaponize money better than anyone. - He says he has advised and solicited investments for companies in the pharmaceutical space, including entities such as Cathayed Incorporated, Matt Tiermond LLC, and a company called Petragen Petrogen. He notes that some deals were discussed while on the Project Veritas board and mentions NDA constraints and the risk to his licenses if he discloses more. - He references conflicts of interest policies with the board, including disclosures about investments in Petragen or related entities, and implies that some discussions were restricted or confidential. - He discusses the media landscape, acknowledging that he’s worked with legacy outlets like the New York Times and National Review, and says he would work with the New York Times if they pursue the truth of what’s going on. Additional context and implications: - The conversation situates Tiermond as both a participant in Project Veritas’ internal dynamics and as someone who claims intimate, ongoing access to federal agencies. He describes the SDNY as “all about power” and asserts that there are no “bad FBI agents,” contradicting the interview’s insinuations about the FBI’s conduct based on his prior alleged stance during FBI raids on Veritas journalists in 2021. - The interview recounts a confrontation where Tiermond was approached to discuss his statements, with the undercover journalist verifying that Tiermond’s claims included admission to informing the SDNY and to wanting to kill O’Keefe, while denying certain other accusations. Setting and purpose: - The narrative is presented as the “rest of the story” about Matthew Tiermond, culminating in a live encounter in which Tiermond’s admissions and threats are publicly documented. The segment ends with James O’Keefe reporting from Miami Beach, framing Tiermond as a controversial figure whose allegations involve murders, informant activity, and high-stakes financial ambitions.

O'Keefe and Flynn are collaborating to gain political control and protect the secrets of the Pandora Papers. The speaker believes they are involved in a plot to have them killed. They suspect that James O'Keefe sent undercover agents, including Aileen Landy, who they claim worked for an Israeli military company and acted as a spy.

Speaker 0 delivers a rapid-fire set of bragging lines about wealth, fashion, and success: “Go see my eyes red on my demons,” “My postie racks up just to motivate my niggas,” “Rappers need a stylist bad, but I ain't use a stylist yet,” “I signed a million dollar contracts in my box to steal a text,” “Wake up, check my bank account, phone numbers in there, bitch. I'm blessed,” and references to private jets, being fresh off the press, sipping drinks with lines, a tinted eye, a moving piece, and owning a new bulletproof Cadillac. He notes money, private flights, and the ability to charge for Instagram content, while cutting off a girl who didn’t pick up. The tone centers on opulent lifestyle, independence, and status. Speaker 1 shifts to a hostile, accusatory monologue: “All over the place, guys. Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer.” He claims Gabe Hoffman “is running humps on people” and calls him a “bad guy.” He says he looks like he’s seen a ghost and that someone close to him was there to infiltrate him, describing these people as “really fucking bad” and stating they are “evil,” including claims of them being “unregistered foreign agents.” He asserts he will be watching everything they do and declares ongoing surveillance and vigilance: “I will be watching. Everything you do, I’m gonna be watching.” Speaker 2 notes a logistical detail: “Hell yeah. On my way back to the site to get my burner phone so I can use my ghost accounts…” indicating plans to obtain a burner phone for anonymous or modified online activity. Speaker 3 adds a blunt, explicit line about using “ghost accounts” for actions, saying, “can use my ghost accounts to fuck,” reinforcing the theme of covert or deceptive online activity. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes an ostentatious wealth/aspirational rap persona (Speaker 0) with a conspiratorial, accusatory stance toward specific public figures (Speaker 1), and mentions of circumventing scrutiny or anonymity online (Speaker 2 and Speaker 3). The named individuals identified by Speaker 1 are Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer.

The transcript centers on a critical clash over Candace Owens, TP USA, and allegations surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder investigation, focusing on Fort Huachuca, alleged alibis, and competing narratives presented by Candace Owens and her critics. - The speaker positions himself as having known and supported Candace Owens for ten years, but challenges her latest claims, calling them “ridiculous gaslighting” and “nonsense,” and promises to lay out the facts and where they land. - The ongoing dispute involves “Egyptian planes,” a “latest so-called witness and whistleblower,” Mitch Snow, and a broader question about possible foreign or domestic involvement in Charlie Kirk’s murder, which is tied to a Fort Huachuca narrative. - Mitch Snow is alleged to have claimed that he saw Brian Harpole leaving a meeting at Fort Huachuca on September 9, and also claimed that Erica Kirk was at Fort Huachuca the night before, at Candlewood Inn and Suites. Owens had hosted Snow’s claims as part of her investigation, and the speaker had previously advised Candace to check alibis. - Candace Owens’ supporters and surrogates allegedly attacked the speaker after he questioned the alibis; he persisted in investigating, noting that the Fort Huachuca storyline had “completely blown up” with those alibis. - The narrative shifts to Erica Kirk, with Owens stating she had claimed she did not say the military was involved and did not implicate TP USA, despite compilations of past statements suggesting otherwise. The speaker contends Owens moved the goalposts multiple times and used the Fort Huachuca angle as a distraction from a prior Egyptian plane storyline. - The speaker asserts exclusive access to HD screenshots from Andrew Colvin, the TP USA spokesperson, which purportedly show that Owens’ depiction of Andrew Colvin’s involvement in “secret damage control” is a fraud. He claims to reveal that Colvin was coordinating with Paramount Tactical, not Owens directly, and that Colvin reached out to Owens’ team with alibi requests regarding Erica Kirk. - A key incident involves a screenshot and a time-stamped image Erica Kirk allegedly sent to Colvin showing her with her kids at 08:33, purportedly from Phoenix, which Owens used as part of her alibi apparatus. The speaker presents this as evidence that Colvin’s communications were not a cover-up but a regular PR exercise, and that Owens used the image to claim a broader conspiracy. - The speaker narrates a back-and-forth where Colvin allegedly provided an alibi for Erica Kirk; he shows that Kirk sent photos from a park and home, and Colvin responded three hours later, asking not to display the photo publicly but to acknowledge the proof. Owens denies the alibi and reframes it as desperate behavior by TP USA. - The discussion expands to broader personnel and planes-related details: an undersecretary of the army allegedly went to Fort Huachuca on the eighth; a defense department border inspection visit is cited as context for why Fort Huachuca is significant. The speaker emphasizes that the focus should be on the ninth and the alleged base alibis, not the eighth. - The speaker accuses Owens of simulating a “gaslighting operation” and notes that she has discredited alibis by shifting attention to new claims; he maintains that the “ninth” is the core question, not the earlier Fort Huachuca references. - The narrative includes a conflict with commentators such as Alex Jones, Charlie Kirk, and The Daily Wire, and alleges that Owens’ circle has manipulated public perception to undermine TP USA and Charlie Kirk. - The speaker concludes with a denunciation of Owens’ tactics, insisting that the public should focus on the Charlie Kirk murder case and its true facts, while alleging Owens uses a pattern of deception, moving from one narrative to another to distract from the nine’s alleged details. He calls for prayer for Candace Owens and urges supporters to consider the broader battle against perceived globalist manipulation; he also frames this as a spiritual or existential conflict in which truth is being contested. Note: Promotional or advertising content included toward the end of the original transcript has been omitted.

The conversation centers on a set of claims and observations about January 6 that orbit around Sedition Hunters, Ray Epps, and the so-called “Northwest Scaffold Commander.” The speakers discuss and link multiple pieces of information to argue that the FBI and other agencies were paying close attention to, or coordinating with, covert actor networks on that day. - The discussion opens with a reference to a John Solomon article about Sedition Hunters and claims that the FBI and Justice Department paid Sedition Hunters about $150,000 to gather evidence on January 6 protesters to help the FBI make arrests. They note the figure was reported as over $100,000 in some places and $150,000 in a House hearing, and they say the FBI/DOJ paid Sedition Hunters, the SPLC, the ADL, the Atlantic Council, DFR Lab, and Bellingcat for intelligence. - The main focus shifts to a piece titled Meet Ray Epps (December 2021) by the speakers’ interlocutor, where they argue that the “main star of the show” was not Ray Epps, but a different figure labeled Northwest Scaffold Commander (referred to as Scaffold Commander). They emphasize that Sedition Hunters’ archives identified Scaffold Commander as their number-one suspect, although he was not placed on the FBI’s most-wanted list. - They recount how, on January 8, 2021, the FBI’s most-wanted list listed Ray Epps as a top suspect in the case, with public calls for information and a cash reward. By late June 2021, a Phoenix newspaper identified him as “Reyes,” and on July 1, 2021, the FBI removed Epps from the wanted list with no explanation and no arrest. They contrast this with Scaffold Commander, who was never added to the FBI’s public wanted list for identification by the public, despite being the focal point of Sedition Hunters’ investigations. - The speakers describe Scaffold Commander as an older man with glasses, a nerdy mask, and a blue cap, who allegedly directed the breach from the Northwest scaffold overlooking the Capitol. They claim he used a bullhorn to issue commands for approximately 18 minutes to an hour and a half, from 1:00 PM to about 2:30 PM, urging the crowd with phrases like “Move forward,” “Don’t just stand there,” “Help somebody over the wall,” and “We gotta fill up the capital.” - They juxtapose these observations with the chronology of the breach: the first breach around 12:53 PM, the crowd’s advance toward the Capitol, and the moment rioters entered the building. They argue Scaffold Commander acted as a ringleader and that Ray Epps was directly beneath him in the crowd, effectively functioning as an internal participant who helped draw people toward the front. - A key point they stress is that Scaffold Commander’s high perch and commanding role align with a long-cited CIA manual from 1983, Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, which describes a small cadre of crowd agitators operating from elevated positions to direct slogans and crowd movement. They quote and reference passages describing an “outside commando element” that stays above the crowd to observe and direct a demonstration, using high observation points to shout instructions and guide the crowd’s actions. - The speakers argue that the FBI has not acknowledged Scaffold Commander, has not included him on any public list, and has not publicly solicited identification for him, despite Sedition Hunters’ focus on him as the pivotal organizer. They suggest that internal FBI records, memos, or emails about Scaffold Commander could be highly revealing, potentially showing whether higher-ups instructed not to pursue him. - They conclude by urging the FBI and related investigators to search their internal records for “Northwest Scaffold Commander” and make any relevant documents public, implying that such records could undermine the official narrative of the event. They also frame the existence of an internal, externally guided command structure as a critical piece of the January 6 story that remains underexplored by authorities.

James O'Keefe shares a video of someone banging on his front door. He opens it to find a stack of documents, which turns out to be a federal lawsuit filed by Project Veritas against him. O'Keefe expresses surprise and questions what the lawsuit aims to achieve. He mentions that Project Veritas had a significant amount of money when he left but has apparently spent it all without raising much more. O'Keefe also reveals the names of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit, expressing his confusion and concern about their efforts to silence journalists.

"James O'Keefe puts out that video." "The video is her talking about how there's, like, tens of thousands of videos of him hurting children." "He's also the one who put out Karen Bass' phone call about her going talking have you ever heard it? The super creepy Bro," "Covertly recorded April 28 revealing previously undisclosed information about Epstein regarding tens of thousands of videos of little kids to a complete stranger in a DC restaurant." "There are tens and thousands of videos. Yeah. And it's all but little kids, so they have to go through everyone." "That she didn't even say underage girls. She said little kids."

The transcript follows a chaotic exchange among multiple speakers discussing information sources, political narratives, and protests, with several recurring themes and claims. - There is a pattern of questioning information sources and personal actions. Speakers repeatedly ask, “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and “Who the fuck is Jonathan? Where does he get his information? Why did he delete karaoke?” indicating a concern with source credibility and content deletion. - A speaker (Speaker 2) describes a sense of purpose from sharing information, claiming that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, you know, under oath in, you know, a senate… Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” -Jeremy Oliver (Speaker 3) promotes alternative information channels, stating he has a YouTube page, a personal Facebook page, and that viewers can see “at the last protesting.” He frames mainstream media as unreliable, promising to “stream live and show exactly what's going on at the protest and really just support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - Several participants discuss plans to act on protest grounds, including references to “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs” (Speaker 4) and “we’re basically ready to storm the capital with us in a couple of minutes” (Speaker 5). - There are assertions that “we’re all actors, but I wanna direct and act” (Speaker 6) and depictions of confrontations with others during protest or media interactions, including exchanges where people demand to speak with others about Mary Fenix/Fanning (Speaker 5). - A series of critical assertions target then-President Donald Trump and link various individuals and organizations to a network. A speaker states: “Donald Trump has no business being president,” followed by further claims about a coalition “super think tank of Biden, Harris, a couple intellectual figure behind them… Mike Flynn… and two economists,” including Simon Johnson, described as IMF chief economist, with English birth. - The conversation introduces the America Project and Patrick Byrne, claiming Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from Stanley McChrystal’s home and associating McChrystal with the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects opposing viewpoints for Trump, and then shares those viewpoints to counter them. The system is said to target the Patriot movement. - There is a claim that the Flynn network included Ali Alexander and Michael Flynn, and that their aim was “to create instability as they're trying to carry out a color revolution,” listing criteria such as “a united and organized opposition,” “an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results are falsified,” “compliant independent media,” and “capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators.” - A discussion on 2020 voting numbers is presented as a comparison to the midterms. It is stated that “2020, they reported 395,000 in-person voters on election day,” with debate about whether that figure was statewide or in Maricopa County. Projections speculate on how many Republicans intended to vote but did not cast ballots, with estimates ranging from around 150,000 to 700,000. - Additional claims connect groups and individuals to broader political finance and media ecosystems, including mentions of the US Agency for Global Media, prior Hillary Clinton and John Kerry involvement, and references to propaganda concerns. - Toward the end, the discussion touches upon Wisconsin politics again, with commentary on a state supreme court candidate and voter ID emphasis as a Democrat-leaning position contrary to expectations, followed by a shift into a more personal debate about a case involving a mother’s tragedy and media attention, ending with a tangential accusation of sympathy manipulation.

The speaker discusses plans to ruin someone's reputation through news articles and videos. They mention a major Wall Street insider trading case and a rare look inside the secret world of the KKK. The speaker admits to creating doctored videos and leaking secret corporate information. They express a lack of boundaries with fake news and mention making shorter versions of the videos for commercials. The speaker reveals concerns about being tracked and creating a fake YouTube account with a fake IP address. They mention paying for fake views and believing they could say anything without consequences. The speaker also talks about appearing on a show in the Bahamas and hiding their identity while making these videos. They mention Nygard's belief that Jesus was popular due to a good PR team.

The speaker discusses how they can potentially entrap individuals, including pro-lifers, through manipulation and social media tactics. They mention targeting political commentator Alex Jones and causing financial harm to him. Additionally, they reveal that FBI agents were present undercover at the January 6th Capitol riot. The speaker implies that the FBI's involvement in such events is kept secretive.

James O'Keefe is suing Twitter for defamation after confronting a Facebook executive. He highlights a video showing CNN engaging in similar actions. The lawsuit claims that Twitter made false statements about O'Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, which is known for its conservative activism.

James O'Keefe is suing Twitter for defamation after they made factual statements about him. This situation arose following a confrontation with a Facebook executive. Concerns about doxing led to the removal of a video, despite similar content being aired by CNN. The discussion also touches on Project Veritas, a conservative activist organization, and the implications of their actions, including accusations of fake donations. Ultimately, the truth and evidence surrounding these claims are called into question.

The speaker describes a coordinated smear campaign against him, asserting that after he announced he would challenge Trump, a lineup of public figures began attacking him or being described as “feds.” He cites Ian Myles Chong, Tucker Carlson, and Milo as examples, saying the criticism revolves around insinuations that he is connected to or controlled by federal agents. He argues that these accusations are part of a broader effort to silence the American people and dismiss his voice. He contrasts the public’s reaction to his campaign with what he regards as a coordinated “fed” narrative, claiming that Tucker Carlson has insinuated he is a fed, and noting that Carlson’s father was a CIA agent who ran Voice of America for forty years, along with Carlson’s collaborations with people he labels as CIA assets. The speaker provides a cascade of biographical and investigative claims about people connected to Carlson and others: - Eric Prince, described as a CIA asset, appeared in a group chat with Tucker Carlson; Carlson had on Joe Kent, a green beret, who is described as intelligence. - Curtis Yarvin is described as the son of an American diplomat who works with Peter Thiel, who is described as a federal informant. - Peter Thiel is claimed to be an FBI informant; Thiel’s Palantir is said to have contracted with the CIA for almost ten years (2001–2008) and now contracts with the NSA and FBI. - Thiel funded JD Vance’s Senate campaign, giving $15,000,000 to help him secure the Trump endorsement; Carlson allegedly helped persuade Trump to make Vance the vice president. - Carlson is said to have invited Kevin Spacey, described as a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, on a Christmas interview. - The speaker contends that a social media ecosystem includes many who see nothing suspicious about these connections, including CIA involvement, green berets, and intelligence ties that push certain candidates on Trump. He asserts he's been demonized for years: banned from social media, banks, airlines, and credit card processors; subpoenaed; and money frozen. He claims this is because he has grown a substantial, loyal following and uses it to organize and mobilize swing-state voters rather than taking advertising or sponsorships. He says his followers are genuine and committed, which frightens those who want influencers who can be paid to push narratives. The speaker reflects on Charlottesville and white anxiety, suggesting others only recently acknowledge these issues. He asserts he would appear civil in an interview with Tucker Carlson and asks for a platform to “clear the record.” He contends he is being targeted for standing up to the GOP establishment and for criticizing both the right-wing establishment and the left. He predicts he will be “patsied” and that those opposing him will try to take him down, leaving him to be the “dark MAGA” guardian, not the hero, who nonetheless confronts the country’s problems and fights for real change. He closes by declaring he will be the villain if necessary, stating that the country will never give him the credit he deserves, but that he performs this role out of duty, not glory.

No one openly discusses it, but it's clear that Project Veritas has faced backlash after exposing perceived hypocrisy at CNN. Their controversial approach has led to accusations of misinformation. Stanford researchers labeled their footage as part of a coordinated disinformation effort. Veritas is currently suing the New York Times for defamation and has reportedly achieved a significant victory in that case. James O'Keefe is also suing Twitter for defamation after confronting a Facebook executive. Despite challenges, Veritas maintains that their factual statements about their work as a conservative activist organization are valid and that the truth is not determined by external opinions.

The transcript intercuts a lyrical unreality with a sprawling, confessional denunciation of others and alleged political manipulation. - In a music-like segment, Speaker 0 raps about luxury, danger, and motion: “A thud right now. In the air. I'm free as a bird. Plus, I'm flat right now. Drip talking slur.” He describes being heavily adorned with diamonds and tattoos, a bulletproof Cadillac, and a life of constant movement, with lines like “Diamonds and tattoos cover my scars,” “One of my hoes shop in Chanel,” and “This shit here gonna sell itself.” He references multiple cities, vibes, drinks, and fashion, claiming “a whole lot of motion involved” and that his presence will “sell itself.” He mentions being in possession of “too many” cars and a lifestyle marked by luxury and risk. - Speaker 1 names public figures—“Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer”—and accuses Gabe Hoffman of “running humps on people” and being “a bad guy, dude.” They express intense anger and fear, saying, “I look like I’ve seen a ghost,” and claim that someone very close to Speaker 1 was likely sent to infiltrate them. They insist, “These are really fucking bad people,” and state, “They tried to set someone up that you know and love.” - The repeated assertion appears: “They’re fucking evil. These people are evil.” The speakers claim these individuals are “unregistered foreign agents” and announce plans to “be watching everything they everything you do.” The commitment to surveillance is explicit: “I will be watching. Everything they everything you do.” - Speaker 3 talks about returning to a site to get a burner phone to use “my ghost accounts to fuck Breva,” indicating plans to operate anonymously online. - Speaker 5 references participation in broader political actions: “We conduct riots and color revolutions and, you know, steal elections, and we overthrow governments we don’t like. And I was part of that.” - Speaker 4 cites the IIA, describing it as “social media psychological warfare” that began in 2007. - Speaker 6 recalls being present at events around the attempted assault on the Capitol, saying, “They were all pumped that they were gonna fucking trash the capital. I was there,” followed by a realization that “This is not good.” - Speaker 7 notes a lack of preparation among those involved and alludes to a looming, unprecedented storm: “There is a storm coming like nothing you have ever seen, and not a one of you is prepared for it.” Overall, the transcript juxtaposes opulent self-presentation with allegations of corruption, infiltration, and active participation in political manipulation and destabilization, punctuated by threats of surveillance, retaliation, and an impending large-scale upheaval.

The transcript outlines the origin and propagation of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and catalogs a wide range of alleged connections among political figures, businesses, and investigations, presenting these as part of an open-source online inquiry that spiraled into a real-world incident and a broader discourse about media and power. - Origins and method: WikiLeaks released emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s private server and John Podesta’s account. Anons and various forums (Reddit, Steamit, 4chan, Vote, Websleuths) purportedly found strange references to pizza and hotdogs in the emails, which they reinterpreted as code language used by pedophiles. The narrative emphasizes an open-source investigative culture where people publicly contribute data and discuss what is pertinent, claiming that scandals have occurred on both sides of the political aisle and are bipartisan. - Core claim and media framing: The program asserts that Pizzagate originated from Podesta email dumps and evolved into a theory that Clinton and Podesta ran a child sex trafficking ring. It is claimed that the email references to pizza, handkerchiefs, hot dogs, and related terms were code words used by pedophiles, with Comet Ping Pong Pizza referenced multiple times in the emails and connected to Podesta through James Alefantis, its owner, described as a friend of Podesta and listed by GQ as a powerful DC figure. - Specific nodes and symbols: The narrative identifies a supposed FBI symbol system used by pedophiles (including a “boy love” triangle) and notes that Besta Pizza’s logo formerly contained a similar symbol, which it is argued changed after investigators pointed it out. It also links a number of performances at Comet Ping Pong (e.g., Heavy Breathing, Sex Stains) to disturbing symbols later identified as pedophile codes. James Alefantis is described with references to intimate associations (e.g., a relationship with David Brock, founder of Media Matters) and to his Instagram presence, which allegedly contained disturbing images and coded references. - Broader network and alleged ties: The film asserts extensive links among Alefantis, Podesta brothers, and other Washington figures, including references to donations to Hillary Clinton and George Soros, frequent White House visits, and dinners with Podesta. It cites pictures of Podesta with Alefantis and other figures, and claims a pattern of relationships with prominent Democrats and fundraisers. - Cultural artifacts and art world connections: The transcript describes connections to Marina Abramović and “spirit cooking” events, claiming Podesta attended such events, and cites museum-like art collections (e.g., Tony Podesta’s home) as evidence of a hidden culture. It recaps the idea that “spirit cooking” is a ritual performance and contrasts it with the artist’s explanation of context. - Notable individuals and incidents: The text references Dennis Hastert (the former House Speaker) in the context of criminal charges and alleged abuse, presenting Podesta’s emails as mentioning Hastert and tying that into a broader network. It describes various DC figures and businesses (e.g., Gordy’s Pickle Jar, Beyond Borders, Politics and Prose) as part of the alleged web of pedophilia-adjacent activity, with logos and social media posts interpreted as evidence. It claims that the Podesta brothers and others are part of a “deep state” or “occult” network. - Pizzagate in the real world: The narrative recounts the December 2016 incident in which Edgar Welch fired inside Comet Ping Pong Earth, saying he was investigating claims of a child sex ring and that the information originated online. It emphasizes the danger and harassment faced by Alefantis, staff, and customers, including death threats, and frames the gun incident as a consequence of fake-news-driven conspiracy theory. - Media coverage and accountability: The transcript includes a Kelly File segment in which James Alefantis speaks about the harassment and threats to staff and customers, underscoring that the claims had real-world consequences even as police and mainstream media reportedly found no evidence of a sex ring. It includes an Infowars segment in which Alex Jones and others discuss Pizzagate, acknowledge that they had initially reported on Podesta email code words, and later issued an apology and retraction regarding specific statements about Alefantis and Comet Ping Pong. - Investigative and ethical reflections: The piece features a video producer recounting alleged threats from Alefantis, including a phone call in which he purportedly threatened to kill the producer and his family unless the related video was deleted. It also includes a segment where a technician discusses alleged “kill room” imagery and references to underground tunnels and a Pegasus museum, tying them to the broader conspiracy. - Conclusion and framing of a larger struggle: The final portion frames Pizzagate as part of a larger battle against a supposed deep-state manipulation of media and government. It positions the narrative as a catalyst for a broader movement (referred to as Q and a coming “second American revolution”), calling for declassification of materials related to Epstein, Gates, Spygate, Russiagate, JFK, and 9/11 and presenting a claim that public trust in mass media and social platforms is in jeopardy. It ends with a call to action and a slogan about a movement that transcends party politics, asserting that government should be controlled by the people. Throughout, the transcript presents a chain of alleged connections, symbols, and events used to argue that a hidden, interconnected network of political and cultural elites engaged in child trafficking, with Pizzagate as a flashpoint that demonstrated broader cultural and media manipulation. It includes counterpoints from mainstream coverage, as well as self-professed apologies and retractions by some producers, but it maintains the core claim of a pervasive, concealed conspiracy supported by a web of social, political, and artistic figures.

The conversation centers on Brian Harpole’s defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens and the intricate legal and political connections alleged to underpin it. Key points: - The lawsuit: Speaker 0 notes that ex Charlie Kirk security chief’s defamation suit against Candace Owens involves detailed accusations, and that Harpole’s legal team is connected to Dillon Law Group. The theme is that the suit represents a coordinated strategic response rather than a simple claim of harm. - Law firm and leadership: The law firm handling Harpole’s case is Dillon Law Group. Its founder is Harmeet K. Dillon, who Speaker 0 claims is associated with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and has shifted to “Israel Rights Division.” Dillon Law’s inception is said to have occurred in 2006 in San Francisco, with a mission to provide strategic responsive credit. - DOJ and political ties: The discussion emphasizes a DOJ connection, suggesting Harmit Dillon’s influence persists through her official role and leave status, and alleging she advocates for stricter anti-Semitism speech laws that could silence journalists like Candace Owens. - Daily Wire and personnel connections: The same Dillon Law Group previously represented The Daily Wire in a two-year arbitration, and the firm also hired Jacob Roth, an Orthodox Jewish attorney with civil rights expertise, who is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law (married to Abby Shapiro). This is framed as a “Shapiro tie” and a possible “attack by proxy.” - Implications of the family and DOJ ties: The argument posits that Ben Shapiro’s relationship to the firm and to Harpole’s attorney (Zachary Stoner, who allegedly worked for Dillon Law Group) creates a network linking high-level DOJ influence, family ties, and Conservative media figures to launch a legal offensive against Owens. - Discovery and evidence: A central theme is that discovery will allow Candace Owens and her team to obtain material such as video footage, text messages, and deposition testimony from involved parties. Speaker 2 discusses the potential to compel deposition of individuals like Terrell Farnsworth, Mikey McCoy, and Erica Kirk, and to obtain their text messages to challenge the “no conspiracy” claim. - The alleged purpose of the lawsuit: Candace Owens suggests the filing is a PR stunt used to place claims in a legal document as facts, inviting people to quote the lawsuit as truth. The claim is that Harpole’s lawsuit is used to push back on Owens, with the suggestion that it is intended to chill free speech. - Specific claims in the complaint: The complaint accuses Owens of describing Kirk’s security team as shady and of disseminating a credible tip about Harpole’s attendance at a classified meeting with senior government officials at a US Army base (Fort Huachuca). Owens reportedly could not confirm the report, and there was an implication that Harpole’s presence at such a meeting is false. - Admissions and counterpoints: Owens had reached out to Harpole prior to featuring Mitch Snow on her podcast, attempting to verify details and seek comment. Harpole allegedly warned that Owens would be sued if she interviewed Snow. The discussion notes that a deposition could verify whether Mitch Snow’s claims about seeing Harpole and Erica Kirk at Fort Huachuca are accurate. - Overall assessment by participants: The speakers see the lawsuit as a high-stakes move leveraging billionaire backing (alluding to Alex Jones’ lack of billionaire backers) to fuel the confrontation, with a focus on the discovery process as a potential reveals of new evidence. - Additional points: The complaint asserts that Owens’ statements harmed Harpole’s professional reputation and business, and that his claims of emotional distress were caused by Owens’ public remarks. It also questions why Harpole did not publicly respond to Owens’ inquiries about his whereabouts and activities on the contested dates.

Is this seat taken? Actually, that person works for me. Live from the Bronx, I'm James O'Keefe with OMG. You work for BlackRock, right? Yes, but I don’t consent to being recorded. You don’t have to; it’s a one-party consent state. I’m not interested in talking if you’re recording. You mentioned that BlackRock buys politicians. I didn’t say that. I’m just a low-level employee. But you did say it on video. No, I didn’t. You said it’s not about who the president is, but who controls the wallet. I’m nobody. I was just trying to impress someone. We’ll expose more people at BlackRock. I’m going to the police station to ask them to stop you from following me. James O'Keefe here, outside the police station, where the BlackRock executive is discussing my presence and denying his previous statements about Ukraine and buying politicians.

"Charlie Kirk's assassination has deleted evidence that Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson haven't mentioned once." "This guy told the cops to arrest him so the shooter could have more time to get away." "This guy was deployed for 09/11, deployed against Obama, for George Bush, and personally worked with senators and US congressmen." "And he personally admitted it, and they wiped everything, but I downloaded it just before. George Zinn," "These donors like Manafort, Berman, Ronald Weiser, they manipulate elections, create countries, and have personally admitted to taking money from all of these countries." "Zinn, the patsy, is an example of an actor they use." "I have a full twenty seven minute video going over exactly what happened, why people like Candace Owens might be lying to you, and the archive podcast link in bio."

The dialogue centers on accusations and revelations about political operatives and influence campaigns. Key points include: - A list of individuals named as problematic figures: Jack Kosobiak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer. Gabe Hoffman is described as “running hops on people” and as “a bad guy,” with a claim that these people are “evil” and unregistered foreign agents that the speaker will be watching closely. - A claim of infiltration and surveillance: one speaker asserts that someone close to them was likely there to infiltrate, and that “these people” attempted to set up someone they know and love, with the speaker vowing to monitor everything they do. - Allegations of role in broader disruptive actions: one speaker says, “We conduct riots and color revolutions and, you know, steal elections, and we overthrow governments we don't like. And I was part of that.” - The origin of operational concepts: one speaker mentions IIA, describing it as social media psychological warfare that began in 2007. - A sense of punitive consequence and manipulation: another speaker states that “they’re all being punished because they thought that what those important people told them was gonna happen,” and recalls being present during a plan to trash the capital, noting a lack of preparedness and security knowledge. - Reactions to claims about being controlled: one speaker says it pisses them off that others claim they’re being handled, with another agreeing that such claims have been heard before. - A warning tone about danger and preparation: one speaker warns that it is “very dangerous” that people are out there giving others hope, describing “a storm coming like nothing you have ever seen,” and asserting that not a single person is prepared for it. - Personal and on-site context: there are mentions of returning to a site to get a burner phone and use ghost accounts, and of attempting to coordinate around Breva, indicating ongoing, weaponized online activity and counter-movement tactics. Overall, the speakers blend accusations of manipulation and clandestine influence with admissions of involvement in disruptive actions, interspersed with warnings of impending upheaval and calls for vigilance.

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

The speaker discusses their plan to ruin someone's reputation by creating fake videos and spreading them through news articles and online publications. They mention being involved in a major Wall Street insider trading case and reveal a rare look inside the secret world of the KKK. The speaker admits to creating doctored videos and leaking secret corporate information. They express their lack of boundaries with fake news and their involvement in spreading it years ago. The speaker talks about making shorter versions of the videos for commercials and using a fake YouTube account with a fake IP address to upload them. They mention paying for fake views and believing they could say anything without consequences. The speaker also mentions appearing on a show in the Bahamas to present one of the anti-Bacon videos. Throughout, they emphasize the use of fake accounts and hiding their identity. The speaker concludes by mentioning Nygard's belief that Jesus was popular due to having a good PR team.

The speaker announces the launch of "FBI Leaks," a project to release audio and video of FBI officials speaking off the record. The first video features Deputy National Intelligence Officer Rami Hassan discussing the Epstein case, calling it a "shit show" and suggesting law enforcement "turned a blind eye." The speaker calls on insiders to reveal the truth, referencing past encounters with individuals from the Pentagon and Department of Defense. They highlight Jamie Menina, a former FBI special agent and "spy hunter" caught on hidden camera. The speaker recounts being attacked and discredited, including being sued and allegedly blackmailed by a lawyer representing intelligence agents who threatened to expose undercover sources if they didn't cooperate and provide funding. Despite these challenges, the speaker vows to continue their work.