reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 outlines how manipulation operates and four simple ways to protect yourself, noting it is pervasive in deception and will also discuss the “purring war” surrounding Trump. A time-saving tip is to use the word “So” or “That’s all you have to say,” letting Mark Levine fill in, with “Nazi” repeated in response. The speaker emphasizes game theory: treat others as they treat you, including groups like signists, who censor those they deem antisemitic. People should be excluded from power if they meddle in others’ lives. He gives examples about racism and hiring, mentioning Amish people and Coca Cola, suggesting social backlash from lip-tart critics. He asserts Monsanto’s history of slave ownership (Sephardi Jews as slave traders) and claims a broader point about who is reminded about slave-owning founders while not highlighting Jewish slave owners. He references Intuition Machine and vows to complement it regarding manipulation. Identity and perception are discussed: you have an identity you believe in, formed from background, family, and nation, and you ground your views on what you directly know through feeling, hearing, and seeing; physical causation and genuine human interaction round out three grounding pillars. Reasoning often relies on hearsay—information passed through others—which can create a grounding gap; as data moves through many steps, each step can be manipulated by those aiming to distort thinking. The four manipulation methods are described as follows: - Filtering: presenting only part of the picture (e.g., one war side’s crimes reported, climate data showing warming globally but not locally) and using imagery that frames dictators or enemies in a particular way, with crafted scenes to provoke a specific response. - Presence of actors: conversations that seem honest but involve actors such as Ben Shapiro or Greta, implying that what you hear may be staged; Greta’s honesty is acknowledged but interactions may be manipulated. - Slogans and identity tactics: slogans like MAGA tie to policy implications and identity, enabling manipulation by aligning beliefs with a brand; also, fallacies and de-emphasizing evidence through various tricks. - Other tactics: ad hominem attacks, false authorities, poisoning the well, weaponizing identity (e.g., American identity or Patriot Act), social-proof coercion (being excluded from family events without vaccination), filter bubbles, paid demonstrators, and slow escalation tactics (foot in the door to gradual war). To protect yourself, he advises checking whether data are genuine and complete, identifying red flags, and distinguishing real causation from correlation. He suggests asking whether data were constructed, whether there are missing data, and whether the actor is genuine or merely performing. He stresses staying close to direct experience and engaging with people you disagree with to test dogma. He also mentions several contemporary geopolitical topics and individuals to illustrate the manipulation and political dynamics, including discussions on the Purim War narrative, Trump’s alliances and criticisms, and various military developments in the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. Toward conclusions, the defense is to assess data authenticity, identify red herrings, determine whether the scene is theater or genuine, and consider who is speaking and whether they are an actor. The talk ends with a note about posting a cat video on Substack or X.

There is no credible information available. None. If there were credible information, I would have brought the case yesterday, specifically the allegation that he trafficked to other individuals. The information we currently have is limited, and therefore the conclusion based on the available material is that there is no one implicated. So, to restate the conclusion using the information at hand, the answer is no one. This assessment is based on the information we have, in the files, in the case file. Okay.

Mitch Snow, Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition hosted on X with his cohosts and guests, describing a two-day sequence centered on his attempt to obtain prosecutorial records and the extraordinary presence he observed at Fort Huachuca. Context and purpose for Fort Huachuca visit - Mitch explained that for years he has been trying to obtain records related to his military service, alleged targeting, and a custody fight involving his son. He has been collecting records across the country (Florida, East Coast, Washington DC) to reinforce a prosecutorial case and defend his reputation. - The last records he needed, he said, were at Fort Huachuca, where there had been prosecutions connected to a tunnel associated with a drug trafficking operation involving the Sinaloa cartel. Mitch described laying sensors (seismic and acoustic) as part of a Joint Task Force Six mission in May 1990, discovering an underground tunnel near Douglas, Arizona, with evidence implicating U.S. members. He testified in an army CID deposition related to that case, and described being flown back to Fort Drum after the deposition. - He stated that the tunnel raid led to the tunnel’s partial shutdown, but that it also caused the cartel to redesign distribution methods (submarines, various ports) and that evidence included photographs showing U.S. members with cartel figures. He asserted that he was targeted and harassed for reporting these findings over the years, including attempts to access his clearance information and threats linked to debt-tracking techniques used by cartels. First day at Fort Huachuca (evening of September 8) - Mitch traveled to Fort Huachuca for the records he needed, planning to stay at Candlewood Suites on base. He arrived around 5:00–6:00 PM Mountain Time, checked in with his girlfriend (Amy) via video call, and went to the lobby to speak with staff about access and the building layout. - In the lobby, he noticed a man who seemed like a professional, possibly a special forces contractor, wearing a distinctive watch; he did not approach or engage with the man. - A woman joined the man on a corner couch; Mitch described the woman as having a “sheen” of being well put together, blonde with a ponytail, and noted the eyes as particularly striking. He observed them leave in a green GMC SUV with the woman entering the passenger seat and the man driving, while he headed off to find a place to eat. - Mitch and Amy had dinner off base at a place described as a Mexican sushi restaurant (Takimaki-like name) and returned to the Candlewood Suites. He reported that the base was navigable but had a lot of speed traps; he did not report being stopped or harassed by MPs on arrival, and he described the gate staff as helpful. - A key moment from this first day was Mitch’s observation in the lobby: the woman sitting with the contractor appeared to be a high-profile figure; he was unsure of her identity but described her as distinct from the military guests, not in uniform. - Later, a panel of listeners asked about the exact appearance and actions of the people Mitch observed, including whether the two individuals were romantic or simply meeting, and whether the female wore rings. Mitch answered with limited detail, saying he did not want to discuss some specifics at that time. Observations at the base and the private meeting later that night - On the first night, Mitch described witnessing the duo in the Candlewood lobby, then later seeing the woman with the contractor in the same lobby as he returned. - He described a potential private discussion between the woman and the contractor, with the two leaving together in the vehicle; the following morning, Mitch provided a rough timeline (5:30–6:00 PM for the lobby sighting, with departure around 7:00–7:30 PM MT). - The Host participants, including Sam, Noxie, Destiny, and Lemair, pressed for precise details and identifiers (make of the vehicle, exact times, and the identity of the people), while Mitch occasionally deferred to not reveal certain details yet, citing comfort and safety concerns. - The host and guests discussed Mitch’s prior experiences, his memory, and the fact that a militarized environment often accompanies high-profile investigations. Several speakers affirmed Mitch’s credibility, noting that his level of detail resembled trained observation (salute reports: size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment). Second day and the escalation - On the morning of September 9, Mitch woke early (around 05:30) to try to catch the sunrise and continued documenting with Amy via video calls; he described continuing to record selfies, videos, and notes to share with Amy. - Mitch retraced his attempts to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to retrieve the records, describing a lack of clear visitor information and multiple detours across post as he sought the proper location. - He encountered a series of baselined rooms, offices, and signs; at one point, an officer suggested a different building and a different path to obtain the records. Mitch found a room with a podium and two soldiers at a desk; he identified it as a near-time, transitional office with a sign-in log. - Mitch reported the appearance of an entourage of high-ranking officers (captains, majors, lieutenant colonels) and a congressman as the group passed by him while he waited. Detainment, questioning, and consequences - Mitch described being escorted outside the building with his belongings, including his bag of documents and passports, while a security/escort team questioned him about his purpose there. He provided his documents and explained his purpose: to obtain the records and file a report. - The officers suggested bringing in a sergeant major, but he did not return; instead, a group of officers and soldiers surrounded him, including a captain, and a bomb-threat-like scenario unfolded: a vehicle investigation was initiated, and a bomb threat was insinuated as part of the unrelated escalation. - Mitch recounted being driven off post to CID for interrogation; he described the interrogation room with one-way glass and the presence of Captain Neff. He provided his detailed life history and his case history, including the NDA he believed had expired and his request to produce a report number for the encounter. - The post commander reportedly trespassed him from the installation for 24 hours, a decision made after the interrogation; Mitch insisted he would not return if trespassed further and stated he would proceed with his records via other channels. He described a variety of law enforcement vehicles at the scene (marked and unmarked police vehicles, federal agents, and a Park Ranger-type officer) and an elaborate, sometimes surreal, sequence of questioning. He documented his own records, including the OIG number (277 episode) and other documentation, and later traveled back to Tucson to regroup with Amy. - Mitch described that he believed the bomb-threat and the post lockdown were part of an overreaction to his attempt to obtain records, noting that such reactions had occurred in the past when his records were sought. He claimed not to have been charged with any crime, but was escorted off the base and told not to return for 24 hours. Aftermath and ongoing implications - Mitch and Amy returned to Tucson and then continued the process, continuing to seek congressional inquiry and prosecutorial review; they also contemplated FOIA requests. They discussed the reality that Candlewood Suites’ ownership was privately operated, complicating direct FOIA access to hotel footage. They mentioned a separate FOIA attempt by a lawyer (Slickdog) to obtain records about sightings of named individuals on Fort Huachuca, with a focus on gate logs and signage. - The pair connected their experiences to broader political events, including the Charlie Kirk incident, Candace Owens’ involvement, and the allegations around Erica Kirk, Brian Harpole, and Mark Amaday, noting the difficulty in obtaining corroborating evidence. Mitch spoke about Candace Owens’ role in amplifying the story, and his own preference to keep certain details private until appropriate. - Throughout the conversation, Mitch’s credibility was repeatedly supported by the other participants who emphasized his memory and attention to detail as evidence of his lived experience. Several speakers stressed the importance of cross-checking facts against the timeline and urged caution against disinformation and attempts to discredit credible testimony. Closing notes - The space concluded with expressions of support for Mitch and Amy, praise for their courage, and a plan to publish and share Mitch’s full story beyond the space. The host highlighted ongoing efforts to verify details, to preserve the record, and to bring attention to Mitch’s experience as part of a broader pursuit of truth. The event was described as a significant, if contested, documentation of a whistleblower’s eyewitness account at a sensitive military installation, with calls to action for audience members to share the narrative and support Mitch and Amy as they continue their efforts.

You can lose your job as a public official without being convicted of a crime in our constitutional republic. Impeachment is not punishment, but a way to cleanse and restore honor and integrity to the office.

Lionel Nation (Speaker 1) says he has no knowledge of who Tyler Robinson is and is neutral, but the case sounded odd and is now “imploding” in his view. He outlines two key points: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with malice, premeditation, and by a rifle or some weapon, and the jury will weigh the evidence, including a confession to the parents and the gun. He questions the confession to the parents, suggesting it may be shaky because the police or others may have pressured a turn-in. He notes a Discord message confession from Tyler and a “gay lover” with a fuzzy hat, calling it the strangest confession ever, and he speculates about whether the confession was really an attempt to turn himself in due to fear of police action, rather than a true admission. He discusses how the indictment might describe the parents hearing the confession on TV or from a sheriff’s friend, calling that portion “sloppy” and speculating about whether it actually came from Tyler’s own mouth. He then examines the physical evidence: the Mauser 98 rifle in 30-06, the bullet not matching, and a lint brush analogy to illustrate a mismatch. He says the bullet “doesn’t match,” and wonders how this connects to the rifle; he admits uncertainty about the connection. He references gunshot residue (GSR) testing and notes questions about whether any GSR test was conducted on Tyler, and whether the rifle was fired. He mentions the rifle being found after dogs searched and suggests it could have been planted, or that it wouldn’t show residue if not fired. He stresses that the defense argues the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that if the bullet, rifle, or DNA evidence is not connected or if there is suppression of evidence, it could undermine the case. Speaker 0 asks about whether the confession is hearsay, and Speaker 1 responds that confessions can be an exception to the hearsay rule because they are admissions, though the indictment may not contain the exact confession. He notes the indictment is bare bones and later details would come out in discovery and deposition, including what the parents actually said. He considers whether the parents’ statements could be contested or reinterpreted, or whether they would claim they misunderstood what Tyler said or were influenced. They discuss the possibility of suppressing the rifle and the confession and how that would impact the case, noting the jury’s potential reaction if the only evidence is a vague confession to parents and an unreliable weapon. Speaker 1 jests about bringing expert witnesses, including a Marine sniper, to replicate the shooting and challenge the narrative, and about medical examiner reports and the possibility that the case could be dismissed if key pieces are not admissible. They contemplate the broader implications: if the government quits the case in the interest of justice, or if deeper investigations or disclosures reveal additional suspects or motivations. They reference Joe Kent’s claim that investigators were hindered, and speculate about the roles of public figures like Cash Patel and Erica Kirk, with Speaker 1 asserting that Erica Kirk’s testimony and role could be pivotal or contested. He contemplates that the case might extend beyond the courtroom into public discourse, including TPUSA involvement and community reactions, and emphasizes that the truth will come from a combination of courtroom proceedings and crowdsourced investigation. Ultimately, Speaker 1 reiterates that the question is whether Tyler Robinson can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if any link in the chain—confession, rifle, GSR, or other evidence—is not solid, the case could fail. They plan to monitor developments, including the medical examiner’s report, which Speaker 0 notes will likely be released, and suggest that the coming revelations could shape the narrative, for better or worse.

Trusting experts is not a feature of science or democracy. In legal cases, both sides present experts who can be convincing. Experts have their own biases and ambitions, so it's not reliable to trust them blindly. Trusting experts is more common in religion and totalitarianism.

The Department of Justice requires admissible evidence and credible witnesses to accuse someone of wrongdoing, preparing to prove the case in court with a signed charging document. A FISA application is a warrant requiring an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement officer, attesting to the truth and correctness of the information to the best of their knowledge. Incorrect information in the affidavit can lead to consequences, ranging from discipline to potential prosecution, depending on whether the errors are innocent or not.

Speaker 0 presents a very quick briefing and discusses the credibility of the different things they've seen. They say, "these files were made up by the sea. They were made up by Obama. They were made" as a claim about the files’ origin, with the sentence trailing off in the transcript.

Wikipedia's model works well even in contentious areas like politics and religion because contributors focus on the best of what we can know, not necessarily "the truth." Seeking the truth and convincing others of it may not be the right approach for tricky disagreements. A reverence for the truth might distract from finding common ground. The speaker is not saying the truth doesn't exist or isn't important, but that different people have different truths. These truths often result from merging facts with beliefs, and are based on factors like background, upbringing, and how others perceive us.

Speaker 0 notes that Wisconsin was the first state where the evidence he and his associate Chris had put together for Peter was presented under oath in a senate committee. The presentation occurred before the Wisconsin senate committee on election integrity.

Speaker 0: "What I'm saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents. There's a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. Alright? Mhmm. You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen." Speaker 1: "I'll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI's most wanted list. There are only two ways that happens. You die or your informant." Speaker 1: "Put that aside. Under congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when senator Cruz asked her, flat out, were there federal agents involved with January 6? And she said, quote, senator, I can't answer that at this time." Speaker 1: "The reason she said I can't answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russergate with Christopher Steelehauper and everybody else. It's the same narrative, and and I'm telling you they were there." Speaker 0: "You're so you're saying that she said I can't answer that because the answer is yes Yeah. And that would compromise whatever their operation was. Exactly."

The speaker expresses concern about the evidence of fraud in ongoing election contests. They mention the hundreds of affidavits that corroborate events on the ground, which they believe show that fraud did occur. They explain that in these cases, the court must consider the plaintiff's evidence as true and determine if the other side can counter it. They clarify that the initial phase is to establish if the plaintiff has stated a case for relief, and if so, the next phase would involve presenting irrefutable evidence of fraud. The speaker emphasizes the need to let the legal process unfold for a valid conclusion to the election.

In a court of law, the truth should prevail. Trial by television or guilt by accusation undermines freedom.

All things that are wrong are not illegal. And I'm not standing before you today telling you that what happened in that park was wrong. But I am standing before you today telling you that I trust the word of the attorney who was assigned to this case when he said, although those actions were wrong, he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were illegal.

The transcript covers several interwoven topics and claims: - Ghislaine Maxwell and Trump administration connections: Maxwell was allegedly hired to do PR for the Trump administration last month when she sat for an interview with Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney and now deputy attorney general. The segment characterizes the piece as deal-making, with Maxwell purportedly giving glowing testimony about Trump to help address the Epstein files in exchange for a cushier, minimum-security prison placement and possible pardon considerations. The speaker says this is “insane from start to finish” and criticizes Trump supporters’ reactions. - Epstein/Maxwell trial details and evidence: The speaker asserts that the worldwide sex trafficking network was exposed, leaders identified (one allegedly died mysteriously in prison; the other was convicted in court). Maxwell’s trial is described as featuring “the four best witnesses” from a pool of more than 100 accusers. Maxwell is said to have been convicted by a jury on trafficking-related charges based on “mountains of evidence” including documentation, photos, videos, and financials, not only victim testimony. Maxwell is said to have recruited young girls in person, with specifics on where recruitment occurred, amounts paid, and tactics used, as well as how it was covered up. The speaker claims co-conspirators remained free, and over 100 corroborating witnesses provided consistent narratives. Maxwell allegedly faced two counts of perjury, which the DOJ settled to secure the trafficking conviction, and the perjury charges were not tried. The speaker asserts that conspiracy theories about the case are dangerous. - Alleged lies in Maxwell’s testimony: Maxwell allegedly claimed there were never cameras inside Epstein’s homes or in “inappropriate” rooms, with explicit language such as “no cameras anywhere outside of possibly things that would, I would consider normal.” The speaker contends there are “literal photos of cameras in his bedroom,” FBI seizure of binders with photos and videos, and other evidence of cameras and blackmail. Maxwell is said to have claimed she never recruited anyone from Mar-a-Lago, contradicting Trump’s corroboration that Virginia Roberts Giuffre was recruited from Mar-a-Lago. The photo of Maxwell with Virginia Giuffre and Prince Andrew in Maxwell’s London apartment is cited as evidence of the involvement of Epstein trafficking networks; the speaker notes it has been verified by forensic experts and a photographer, including a Walgreens-developed stamp on the back implying a 2001 development date. - Photo controversy and settlements: The photo is described as genuine, with multiple verifications. It is claimed Prince Andrew paid millions to Virginia Giuffre to avoid facing her in open court, and Maxwell allegedly paid Virginia millions to settle a defamation suit. - Leaked emails involving Ehud Barak: The speaker discusses newly highlighted emails from Ehud Barak that appeared online, stating there are over 100,000 emails to and from Barak that have been circulated and verified, with a time span of 10/10/2014 to 09/09/2015. The dataset reportedly contains over 83 emails between Jeffrey Epstein and Ehud Barak, many short and focused on arranging meetings, access, money, and investments. The company Reporti (now Carbine 911), an Israeli cyber tech company, is mentioned as a recurring topic, with Epstein and Barak involved in investing alongside Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund (Thiel’s fund invested $15,000,000 in 2018; Epstein invested $1,000,000 in 2016 via offshore shell companies). Johnny Vedmore’s reporting on Nicole Junkerman and related pieces is noted. The speaker mentions an online intelligence service Barak reportedly subscribed to for $3,000 annually that monitored powerful people (Clintons, Gates, Bezos, Putin, Netanyahu) and suggests patterns of surveillance on major figures. - Other ongoing stories: The presenter notes additional stories, including Trump allegedly “going socialist” and nationalizing part of Intel, CDC leadership disputes involving Bobby Kennedy and Susan Menoras, and labor actions by CDC staff. The Israel-Gaza situation is described with claims of civilian casualty rates at 83% of deaths in Gaza, two separate strikes on a hospital, and PR responses by Israel. The transcript also references Ron DeSantis launching an Israel license plate in Florida, Beverly Hills voting to display Israeli flags in public schools, and public backlash leading to backpedaling. A closing critique links ethnonationalist ideology to Nazi Germany, questioning the notion of Jews as God’s chosen people. - Closing notes: The host promises more reporting on these topics, mentions upcoming collaborations and documentaries, and signs off with personal reminders. A closing line from Speaker 1 remarks that “Our security is at stake.”

The entire justice enterprise in The United States depends upon an honor system. It depends upon them telling the truth. It depends upon them abiding a promise they made to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. And we are long past the days when that oath was backed in most people by a fear of going to hell. And so it turns out it's an honor system. To get information, to be able to find the truth, and the truth is a real thing. There are facts. That honor system has to be enforced with an iron fist so the system will work, so the truth can be found in a reliable way.

Judge Wilson asks about the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in New York—one year. The business records case is a misdemeanor, correct? The underlying crime, the falsified business records, yes. That’s a misdemeanor charge. The only way to reach a felony is by concealing another crime, right? Correct. Each crime has specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict at trial. Right? That is the right way to do it. In the indictment, did they specify the underlying crime? No. They only described it as other crimes. In the jury instructions, did they specify the specific underlying crime? No. The falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions, with some brief description of a New York state election law violation, but there was no description of the three underlying crimes. There was a description given of falsifying business records, which was ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records. So, and that’s also a misdemeanor, right? That should be. So you have two plus two equals six: if you commit two misdemeanors, you get to the felony statute of limitations, which they had to get—or they could have never brought the case. That’s correct. But there are more questions about the statute of limitations. It’s not cut and dry because the time Donald Trump spent out of New York could be used to toll the statute of limitations. That was the Harvey Weinstein ruling in the court of appeals. He argued that the time he spent out of New York, while in California, should have tolled the time limitations, but the court of appeals ruled against him on that issue. So that’s how they may get around the statute of limitations problem in this case. Was the election law case a federal or state underlying crime? It seemed charged as both; when we got to the jury instructions, there’s a violation of New York election law charged, but then one of the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law. And then the third one was a tax violation, right? Also unspecified. So all three underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime. Were any of the elements listed? No. Not at all. And this matters for defense: if you don’t know the elements of the crime you’re defending, how do you mount a defense? You can’t. That’s the very issue of fundamental fairness referenced here: a defendant is entitled to know what the charges are against them so you can defend against those charges. Trump was never made aware of the extent of the charges until the end of the trial. Elements of the crime go in jury instructions. Traditionally you get the elements of the underlying crime. Instead, in this case, they got a grab bag: a choice of three underlying crimes, and we don’t even know which ones they chose or whether they could have been unanimous on those three. So not only were the elements of the crime missing, but there were three different crimes with three vastly different elements, all unspecified. Neither the indictment nor the bill of particulars lists the elements. The statement of facts merely describes a series of allegations and actions believed to have been taken by Trump, none of which describe any criminal activity or elements of any crime. Therefore, on appeal there may be significant legal issues arguing the jury never actually had the elements put in front of them. There’s little doubt this matter could be reversed on appeal based on these issues. Jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt or innocence, but juries are only as good as the information put in front of them. With that, the speakers yield.

Speaker 1, an expert in handwriting and signatures, believes that it is impossible to compare signatures for consistency in less than 3 seconds. They have extensive experience in this field and consider themselves to be at the top of their profession. Speaker 1 also explains that comparing signatures means carefully examining the similarities and differences between two items, in this case, signatures. They mention that Arizona statute 16,550 states that signatures should be compared for consistencies or inconsistencies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the word "compare" is commonly used in their industry and has a clear meaning.