reSee.it - Related Video Feed

OpenAI was committing crimes, and a month later he was dead. On November 18, the New York Times named my son as custodian witness, custodian witness is very very important, and he had the documents against OpenAI. That was on eighteenth, twenty second. He had just come back from vacation from LA and Catalina Island the same night. They have attacked him and killed him. The speaker links the publications about a custodian witness to the allegation that documents against OpenAI existed, and describes a single night when the witness returned from LA and Catalina Island before the attack. This is the timeline described.

Speaker alleges that Bill Barr, then the U.S. attorney general, covered up Epstein’s murder in the most secure part of the federal detention facility in Manhattan, noting Barr announced it was a suicide before any investigation. He links Barr to Donald Barr, Bill Barr’s father, claiming Donald Barr hired Jeffrey Epstein without a college degree to teach at a prestigious Manhattan private school, and, per a "well informed person," got Epstein a job at Bear Stearns. He insists this is circumstantial—not proof—but says he’s totally convinced and has spoken of it publicly. He says Epstein threatened to sue him, and he would welcome that. He claims Barr admitted he made the suicide declaration, arguing that, as chief law enforcement officer, the move was not law enforcement and amounted to a cover up. He concludes, "Those are facts, and I don’t know what to make of them."

"We need to talk about how the media is the mouthpiece of the US government." "This man was over six feet tall, and we're expected to believe that he himself from a bunk bunk that is five and a half feet tall." "However, it has to be with enough force to break his neck in multiple places in ways which are indicative of a person being violently strangled." "unbelievable coincidences of his cellmate being moved out of his cell just hours before his death." "The cameras are conveniently located so that nothing records anything in that area." "The guards that are supposed to be guarding him were told to go home because there's maintenance happening." "This is your fucking life and your kids and your families. Wake up."

"Candice is now saying that she believes that there is most likely some Ukrainian ties, some intelligence agencies that are involved in this assassination." "it's a military operation." "None of this shit is adding up, and it fucking stinks, guys." "a person going by the name Robbie Hild, who was allegedly from Washington." "No one is saying they went to school with him." "stronger than a theory and more of a hunch that this was a military operation, and people that executed this are actually from overseas." "They have a direct pipeline from Russia to America." "What we're talking about are terrorist cells." "Charlie was on a hit list. I also was on the hit list. Tucker was on the hit list." "release the gosh damn CCTV footage." "What the hell are you guys doing covering this shit up?"

'This guy is an extreme get my face.' 'You're acting deranged.' 'This kid's actually super fucking dangerous.' 'He is a very dangerous kid, it makes me very sad that he is in this community, that he is a part of this beautiful school.' 'Do you think that Charlie Kirk should have been killed?' 'I don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk, and I don't give a fuck about you, dawg.' 'Do you think he should have been killed?' 'I don't give a fuck about you, and I don't give a fuck about Charlie.' 'Fuck you.' 'Do you think it was justified? I think you should fuck off. I think you should go back to New York or go back to LA.' 'Make sure you at me at squid tips at YouTube.' 'Don't be a fucking pussy this time, dog. Fucking post it loser.'

John and Mario discuss the breadth and implications of the Epstein files, asserting that Epstein was an access agent connected to Mossad and deeply embedded with various intelligence actors. - Epstein as Mossad access agent and broader intelligence ties: - John asserts that Epstein’s status as a Mossad access agent is correct and that Epstein sought contact with the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Council, MI5, MI6, and even Russia’s Putin. He notes emails from Epstein’s side asking for private meetings with Putin, which were granted in a restricted form, while Epstein’s attorneys reportedly filed FOIA requests with the CIA and NSC about any association with them. - The conversation expands to consider broader pressure on the DOJ and the Trump administration to redact or withhold documents, with Congresswoman May mentioned as observing DOJ monitoring of her and colleagues. - The two discuss the idea that the “movers and shakers” in American culture and the billionaire/political class are driving the cover-up, with the implication that releases mandated by law have not been fully honored. - Death of Epstein and questions about the death/mortality: - Both speakers repeatedly state “Epstein did not kill himself,” noting the belief that he was murdered and cremated, preventing body examination. - They list several anomalies surrounding Epstein’s death: attempted suicide on July 23 with deleted footage, six days of suicide watch followed by removal from watch contrary to protocol, guards’ missed rounds, an empty cell with a removed cellmate who had been violent, an unmonitored call the day before death, and camera malfunctions on the day of death. - They discuss a decoy body used in the autopsy process and discrepancies in the autopsy report (ear shape, nose, and penis appearance) and a DOJ report dated a day earlier than publicized. The discussion includes the possibility of a decoy body to mislead reporters. - A forensic expert is cited, noting that the autopsy description described a normal penis, conflicting with accounts from a victim about a deformed penis. - Redactions, sources, and the release of documents: - They argue the released files overwhelm audiences and muddy facts, with millions of documents, of which only a fraction has been released; the rest remain redacted. - John explains FOIA processes and redaction rules (sources/methods, unindicted co-conspirators, victims’ privacy), emphasizing that there is little justification to redact content about Epstein himself since he is deceased. - They compare the redaction situation to the torture report, where redacted material obscures critical findings, and point out inconsistencies in what names are redacted (e.g., Les Wexner redacted as “Les” but not his full surname). - Libyan assets, Ukraine, and other financial angles: - A memo shows Epstein plotting to loot Libya’s frozen assets, with Greg Brown (former MI6 and Mossad connections mentioned) proposing to identify recovered assets and take 5–10% as compensation, with Libya’s reconstruction spending potentially exceeding $100 billion. - The discussion notes that the U.S. Treasury rewards those who facilitate repatriation of unfrozen assets, creating incentives for private actors with intelligence ties to pursue such recoveries. - A separate thread cites a 2014 Ukraine-related discussion where Epstein allegedly said the upheaval could provide opportunities; the Rothschilds are reported to have emailed Epstein about Ukraine and asset management strategies, implying Epstein represented the Rothschilds in asset opportunities. - They discuss the possibility that events like regime changes could be exploited for personal gain, with Epstein’s reputation management and potential money-motivated exploitation of geopolitical upheavals. - Honeypots, blackmail, and sex as an intelligence instrument: - The discussion covers claims of victims receiving death threats in Hebrew, and whether this indicates Mossad involvement or a private group using Hebrew phrasing to threaten. They argue Mossad has historically used threats and spying, and Epstein’s network could include others who leveraged sexual exploits for leverage. - They examine emails describing sexual activity in a transactional manner, with grainy surveillance footage capturing some redacted sexual content, suggesting a blackmail operation rather than simple perversion alone. - They consider whether Epstein’s sex life served as a bargaining chip for intelligence services, with Epstein’s protection and coercion potentially enabling illicit activity to be used for intelligence purposes. - Notable connections and individuals: - Fergie (Sarah, Duchess of York) is discussed as having close ties to Epstein, including emails referencing “marry me” and a period after his conviction; Prince Andrew is noted as heavily implicated in the broader Epstein network. - Howard Lutnick’s name appears in the documents; his denial of involvement with Epstein is highlighted as a potential discrepancy given the surrounding evidence. - The possibility that redacted materials could still reveal high-level connections or be weaponized against political figures is considered, with the overarching view that information could resurface or be released later to influence politics. - Final stance and ongoing investigation: - John maintains that Epstein’s role as an intelligence asset is supported by the files released to date and that more documents remain to be disclosed. He emphasizes that the situation involves intersecting intelligence communities, financial opportunism, and political exposure, with ongoing questions about the true extent of who knew what and who protected whom. The conversation closes with an acknowledgment that more files will likely be released, more information will emerge, and expert analysis will continue to evolve.

The discussion centers on serious allegations involving a programmer who accused OpenAI of stealing people’s work and not paying them. The group notes that this programmer was murdered, with several participants presenting conflicting views on his death. Speaker 1 states that it was a great tragedy and that the programmer committed suicide, expressing a strong belief that it was suicide. In contrast, Speaker 0 describes the situation as clearly a murder, citing multiple troubling details and offering their personal conclusion that the programmer was killed. There is also any emphasis on the programmer’s public exposure. Speaker 2 notes that the programmer had been named four days earlier in the New York Times lawsuit and had just done an expose for the New York Times on how copyright issues with OpenAI were involved, specifically on the twenty-sixth, highlighting timing as very odd. The conversation touches on surveillance and investigative details. Speaker 3 claims there were multiple investigations and two police reports, but asserts that only one police report has been seen, alleging that in the first report the writer changed it, and that this is the second report; they claim the only one seen is the second report. The narrative then returns to the stated belief that the programmer was murdered. Speaker 0 lists signs of foul play: a struggle, surveillance camera footage, and wires cut. They detail that the programmer had just ordered takeout, had returned from a vacation with friends on Catalina Island, and that there was no indication of suicide. They note there was no note and no observed behavior suggesting suicide, and that the programmer was found dead with blood in multiple rooms, arguing that these factors make murder seem obvious. The question of whether authorities have been consulted is raised, with Speaker 0 asking if the authorities have been talked to about it. Throughout, Speaker 1 reiterates their belief in suicide by asking, “Do you think he committed suicide? I really do,” maintaining that position even after the murder narrative is presented. Speaker 1 confirms they have not discussed the matter with the authorities.

"Candace ain't lying, guys. I know it for a fact." "We all know that these narratives they're spinning out that they're putting out don't make any sense. They don't make any sense at all." "We don't know who killed him, why it was done, or how it was done." "None of us really know." "If you're actually believing what these people are telling us, you're cooked." "No. No. No. Look closer. It's it's yellow. What are you talking about?" "How do we best honor Charlie's death and legacy than figuring out who the hell killed him and why and how?" "There is absolutely something going on in that organization." "There was something going on prior to his assassination." "There's absolutely something going on right now, and they do not want us to know." "We fight to figure out what the hell it is they don't want us to know."

He was murdered in the most secure part of the federal detention facility in Manhattan, our biggest city, and Bill Barr, the then attorney general under Donald Trump, covered it up. Maybe there's no connection there. I don't know. There. I just learned, and I believe it's true, I learned from a very well informed person, that it was Donald Barr who got Epstein his job at Bear Stearns. But I I called it circumstantial case, doctor. It's not a proof. It's circumstantial case. So I'm totally convinced. He announced that it was a suicide before they'd done an investigation. That's not law enforcement. That's by definition a cover up. So he covered up Epstein's murder and for whatever reason, and his dad got Epstein started in life. I I just don't even know what to make of those. Those are facts, and I don't know what to make of them.

A programmer claimed OpenAI was stealing people’s stuff and not paying them, and then he was murdered. One speaker says, “I really do” think it was suicide and notes it as a tragedy; he knew the person. The other insists it looked like murder, pointing to a gun purchase, a medical record, and argues there was a sign of a struggle. They discuss the slain man’s activities—he had just ordered takeout, returned from a Catalina Island vacation, and there was blood in two rooms with no suicide note. The mother claims he was murdered on your orders. They ask why authorities in San Francisco haven’t fully investigated beyond calling it a suicide and mention contacting Ro Khanna, with no result. The second set of details cites how the bullet entered him, a path through the room, a wig in the room that wasn’t his, and a DoorDash order, challenging the suicide claim.

"They said come to Israel, meet with me. Charlie Kirk said no. Now he's dead." "Bill Ackman is a Wall Street Jewish billionaire." "after October 7, Bill Ackman shifted to the right. He put a million dollars behind Trump and became very active in Republican politics even though he's a lifelong Democrat." "When the FBI could not locate the alleged gunman on Wednesday, do you know who stepped up and offered a $1,000,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Charlie Kirk's assassin? Bill Ackman." "the $1,000,000 will be paid out to the alleged killer's father." "Tyler Robinson was allegedly turned into law enforcement by his father." "I see a bit of a conflict of interest there." "That needs to be investigated."

Speaker 0: 'you guys are basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them, and then he wound up murdered.' Speaker 1: 'Also a great tragedy. He committed suicide.' Speaker 0: 'Do you think he committed suicide?' Speaker 1: 'It was a gun he had purchased.' Speaker 0: 'There were signs of a struggle, of course. The surveillance camera, the wires had been cut.' Speaker 0: 'No indication at all that he was suicidal. No note.' Speaker 1: 'And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders.' Speaker 0: 'the city of San Francisco has refused to investigate it beyond just calling it a suicide.' Speaker 1: 'I immediately called a member of congress from California, Ro Khanna, and said, this is crazy. You gotta look into this. And nothing ever happened.'

One of the largest political figures in America is assassinated on live TV, prompting the question: "was this a professional assassination?" The speaker says, "not usually are they planning out a carefully orchestrated hit that involves them getting away clean, and then giving a whole text message admission of guilt on regular old texts." He adds, "we have more than enough evidence to be asking the question, was there intelligence agencies involved." He notes, "the Israel conversation is not one. No one is claiming at this point that Israel was involved in this in any way," while claiming, "I have made that claim because I'm not involved." "This is not my case to solve. I was not involved. I didn't know Charlie." "Since day one, we have gotten more and more and more evidence that maybe we should be looking in Israel's direction." He cites, "an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the list of Israeli assassinations." He states, "Epstein worked for Israel" and asks, "Do you think there's any intel community involvement in this?" He continues, "I wouldn't be surprised one bit. I am convinced based on my own sources and my own reporting on this story. He wasn't one of ours." "So he was an American, which leads basically three options, MI six, Saudi, or Mossad? Which one would you choose? I guess Mossad, given his connection to Ghislain Maxwell." The crowd cheers.

Something's wrong. I know I shouldn't do this. I'm risking an awful lot to go up against this FBI, the MAGA FBI. There was no rifle in his hand. It is not easy to remove a Mauser barrel or index it after reinstalling and remain accurate. The photo of the rifle allegedly left in the woods has the barrel installed. So we're supposed to believe a guy is on the run after killing Charlie Kirk and he pauses in the woods to reinstall a barrel. I don't believe a word of it. I can't take the bullshit from this fucking government. It's lying to us. Something's wrong with this whole fucking picture. Sean Hannity immediately, that pimp scumbag goes on the air and repeats the government lie that lousy son of a bitch. I don't buy one word of this narrative, not one single word.

So you know the kid who was asking Charlie Kirk a question when Charlie got shot? Remember him? Everyone's feeling bad for him? Yeah. There's video footage of him practicing his reaction before it happened. So when Charlie got shot, you know, his reaction was to put his hands on his head, look shocked, shake a little bit. Yeah. He was doing that. He was practicing that in the crowd, and here's the freaking video. How are you gonna deny what you just saw there? How? And you already know what question, you know, he was asking Charlie. Right? Remember that? This just confirms what a lot of us have been thinking and what we all think actually happened. Sick.

"there's a man in custody." "I've really tried not to publicly speculate or say anything that I can't prove." "the guy's in custody." "If the FBI and the authorities in Utah, end this investigation by declaring Tyler Robinson a lone gunman with no accomplices whatsoever, without having done, you know, a truly exhaustive investigation, that will not be adequate." "I hate even to say that that could happen because, you know, it's my country, my government, I wanna trust the FBI, there's no reason to trust the FBI at all. At all." "how a guy who was by all appearances pretty normal kid, wound up murdering a stranger just a couple years later. Like he was radicalized." "Everything that you think about the FBI undersells it. It's, and I'm quoting, 10 times worse than you think internally." "I'm gonna need proof."

It's stressful dealing with people online who say they want to kill me and desecrate my corpse. I think it's an overblown reaction, like calling me a Nazi. It's like they think I'm Hitler and should be assassinated. Remember that guy who tried to kill Trump? His online footprint was professionally scrubbed. I doubt corporations like BlackRock are directly ordering assassinations, but individuals might see it as beneficial. That kid at the Trump rally with the rangefinder raises a lot of questions. CNN streamed it live, which was unusual. The Secret Service said the roof was too sloped for people, yet snipers were on a steeper roof. If it was a coordinated hit, someone shoots Trump, then they shoot the kid, and it's all wrapped up. He's basically a suicide assassin. Something radicalized him. And how did he have five phones and no cutlery in his house? The whole thing is insane.

There's a man in custody. I've really tried not to publicly speculate or say anything that I can't prove. I love Charlie and I well, I talked to his wife this morning. I love his wife, Erica. The guy's in custody, it's a very weird story. They're gonna need to do a real investigation, and I'll just say, if the FBI and the authorities in Utah end this investigation by declaring Tyler Robinson a lone gunman with no accomplices whatsoever, without having done, you know, a truly exhaustive investigation, you know, sort of like the one they did into January 6, that will not be adequate. They will risk further fracturing The United States along the lines of people who believe the story or wanna believe the story. I hate even to say that that could happen because, you know, it's my country, my government, I wanna trust the FBI, there's no reason to trust the FBI at all. At all. The institution of the FBI, no one's really been fired from FBI by the way. Everything that you think about the FBI undersells it. It's, and I'm quoting, 10 times worse than you think internally. Tell me what happened. How a guy who was by all appearances pretty normal kid wound up murdering a stranger just a couple years later. Like he was radicalized. If it turns out the FBI is not doing an adequate investigation, we should demand it.

The conversation centers on a highly unusual interview in which Tucker discusses a whistleblower connected to a major AI company and his reported death. The participants note that the whistleblower, identified by name as Jamie, allegedly committed suicide, but there are strong indications that some people believe he was murdered. Sam Altman is specifically addressed in the exchange, with Tucker asking if Altman is being accused; Altman responds, and the discussion emphasizes that the speakers think someone killed him rather than it being a straightforward suicide. Key points raised include: - The case has striking inconsistencies: no suicide note has been found, and Jamie’s parents believe he was murdered. - Investigative details mentioned as evidence of foul play include blood in two rooms, wires to a security camera that were cut, and someone’s wig found in the room. - There is also mention that Jamie ordered DoorDash right before the alleged suicide, which the speakers view as unusual and suggestive of a rapid change in mindset. - The discussion notes that the parents have publicly stated their belief in homicide and have urged a proper investigation rather than a drop of the case. - The possibility of an investigation is framed as necessary, with questions about why a proper inquiry should not be pursued given the alleged signs. - The exchange questions Altman’s reaction to the murder accusation, suggesting his response appeared bizarre or unconvincing to some listeners; one speaker posits Altman might simply be socially awkward, while others feel he would be more plainly irate and insistent on a thorough investigation if he were not connected to the case. - It is stated that Jamie’s family has sued the building’s landlord, alleging a cover-up related to his death. Reported details include packages disappearing from the San Francisco building and claimed safeguarding failures by the landlord and management. - Additional context acknowledges the emotional toll on Jamie’s parents, noting their grief and the potential impact on their beliefs about what happened. Overall, the discussion presents a narrative of a whistleblower’s controversial death with multiple seemingly contradictory clues (no suicide note, blood in two rooms, a cut security camera wire, a wig, and a late-night DoorDash order) and a call for a proper investigation, while also touching on the emotional strain experienced by the family and the implications of the landlord-related lawsuit.

Do you believe Sam Altman was involved in your son's death? We need to investigate. If he was deposed, it could impact many AI companies that violate copyright laws. We’re uncertain about what wrongdoing he might have exposed. Why would they silence him if it was just about copyright? There’s likely more at stake. We’ve heard from former OpenAI employees about potential wrongdoings, but we can’t disclose specifics due to safety concerns. This isn’t just about copyright infringement; it could involve serious crimes, possibly even government-related issues. We’re calling for a thorough investigation by the FBI and President Trump. This situation goes beyond my son's death; it poses risks to society. There seems to be a cover-up, and we need answers.

"You gotta just give up. It's it's gonna come out. Whatever it is, it's gonna come out. There you would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You got, like, 7,000,000,000 people you've got to ethnically cleanse right now if you wanted to just forget about the Charlie Kirk story." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "You traumatized all of us." "We're grieving because you assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "If you had pretended he slipped and fell on some ice in the winter, maybe you wouldn't have this response."

"It's gonna come out." "There would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You'd have to ethnically cleanse 7,000,000,000 people to forget the Charlie Kirk story." "It's no one's forgetting it." "Not the ballistics guys on YouTube that we're all listening to, but no one's no one's gonna let this one go because and by the way, that's your fault." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "People mostly read about it, and then the feds lied about it." "You traumatized all of us." "You assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "This is the Internet generation." "K? We're running this." "We're not calming down. We're pretty upset, and we're gonna stay upset."

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

"I thought the feds were saying they were looking for a bullet at some point, which is now very alarming to me. I don't understand that. How could they have been looking for a bullet? Because if I'm not seeing, and there isn't. I'm telling you, what happens in the front is not what happens in the back at all." "If I'm not seeing any blood, what what are we to take from that? The only thing that could make sense if what they're saying is true and that person took the shot from the place that they are saying that individual took the shot from, it would suggest that it it's a it it was inside of Charlie. Right? And they would know that. The feds would have known that." "So they would have communicated that they were never looking for a bullet."

He was murdered in the most secure part of the federal detention facility in Manhattan, our biggest city, and Bill Barr, the then attorney general under Donald Trump, covered it up. Bill Barr's father, Donald Barr, is the one who hired Jeffrey Epstein without a college degree to teach at one of the most prestigious private schools in Manhattan. I just learned, and I believe it's true, from a very well informed person, that it was Donald Barr who got Epstein his job at Bear Stearns. And by the way, that doesn't that's not proof of anything. But I I called it circumstantial case, doctor. It's not a proof. It is circumstantial case. So I'm totally convinced. I've said this in public many times. He announced that it was a suicide before they'd done an investigation. That's not law enforcement. That's by definition a cover up.