reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Congressmen Roy, Crane, Biggs, and Mills are urged to act immediately to protect the president and potential next president. Legislation reforming 18 USC 3056, which grants power to the Secret Service, must be passed today. The speaker believes that without this reform, specifically removing the Secret Service's investigative function, the president may not make it to inauguration day, even if he wins. The speaker emphasizes the urgency of the situation, stating action was needed "10 minutes ago."

Donald Trump discusses what he calls the “big beautiful ballroom” at the White House and pushes back against Democrats who have criticized the construction. He presents the project as the people’s house and argues that despite ongoing construction at the White House over the years, the new ballroom is underway. He shows images of the work and describes the ballroom as a master class, comparing it to Versailles, with seating, chandeliers, large windows, and an open design intended to create an open feel. He asserts that not a single dollar of taxpayer money is being used for the project. Trump also addresses the surrounding White House complex, noting that the area that has been demolished is part of the overall renovation, including the East Wing, which he says will be taken out and replaced in a shown diagram. He uses these visuals to emphasize the scale and ambition of the renovation and to counter critics who say construction is unnecessary or wasteful. A significant portion of his remarks shifts to a broader, more conspiratorial topic: the original design of Washington, DC. He claims the city was built as a Freemason city and asserts there is “sacred geometry” present in the layout. He mentions overlaying this geometry with Freemason symbols and a star, suggesting that the city’s design appears “satanically built” on the surface because of its geometric structure. Against this backdrop, Trump reveals a new element of the project: he says he is building an archway and adding to the ballroom. He contends that the sacred geometry of Washington DC would be disrupted or “knocked out of whack and out of alignment” by his archway and the expanded ballroom, implying that the addition would alter the established geometric order of the capital. He asserts that “most people haven’t talked about that” and claims he has discussed it now, even suggesting that whether he knows it or not, the result is “absolutely fantastic.” Trump expresses enthusiasm about the architectural changes and frames them as a bold challenge to the existing design sensibilities of Washington DC. He describes the project as “fantastic news,” portrays it as a form of resistance to the traditional city plan, and closes with a strong expression of support, saying he loves the idea of Trump’s building plans and wants to see more construction.

Good morning. I've been asked about the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, and I want to share my perspective. With 17 years in the military, including 14 in a special operations unit, I have experience in close protection for VIPs, including the Prime Minister in dangerous areas. The recent incident raises serious concerns. The shooter’s ability to access a rooftop so close to the president during daylight seems implausible without assistance from an agency or organization. The aerial photo made it clear that security measures were insufficient. It appears that this was not just a random act; it had to be planned, whether through negligence or strategic intent.

When the events unfolded on Saturday, there was shock and concern for the former president. Investigators are looking into whether the roof access was properly secured, as the shooter had a clear view of the former president from about 400 feet away. The building's sloped roof posed safety concerns, leading to the decision to secure it from inside.

The transcript describes a high-profile unveiling at the White House grounds: a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom replacing the old structure, touted as “one of the most beautiful ballrooms that you’ve ever seen.” The president is shown suggesting that the ballroom can be had for “the small price of $200,000,000,” with executives from Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Lockheed Martin in attendance who are said to have “cut checks before they got their entrees.” It is stated that “this big beautiful ballroom isn’t taxpayer funded” and that Trump is using his own cash with “a little help from his friends.” The excavation contract for the site is referenced, with a negotiation described where the speaker claims to have reduced the price from 3,200,000 to 2,000,000 after an initial offer of 1.5 million, framing it as a notable concession for “one of the best, most beautiful ballrooms in the world.” Alongside the spotlight on the ballroom, the conversation shifts to U.S. politics and congressional leadership. Don the Builder is described as using the dinner to poll guests about the crowd size at the triumphal arc, while discussions accuse Democrats of internal disarray. The segment claims Nancy Pelosi’s role has been marginalized and that AOC has asserted ownership of “the house,” with Schumer’s leadership questioned, including speculation about readiness for a primary challenge from the left. The commentary portrays CNN coverage as complicit and suggests that AOC is “the new Nancy Pelosi with a healthy hip,” and claims Schumer has been shut out from the house. A series of exchanges focuses on the potential for a government shutdown. Speaker 2 asserts that ink-on-paper commitments are required, rejecting IOUs and pinky promises. The panel discusses whether Schumer’s leadership is at risk of a left-wing primary challenge, and a participant asks whether Schumer should be worried about this challenge. Another speaker counters that the government shutdown is linked to primary concerns, while a Democrat, Fetterman, is positioned as an alternative voice: “Shutting the government is really what the Democratic party wants to do,” with Fetterman depicted as telling the truth and a threat to the party, and assurances that there will be “more on that later.” The coverage notes workers missing paychecks during Democrats’ luxury Napa Valley retreat, describing a sense that Schumer is politically endangered and that Hakim’s leadership in the party is uncertain. In the broader political landscape, commentators critique the Democratic leadership as out of touch with ordinary Americans, criticizing their reliance on New York-centric politics and their connection to the rest of the country. The segment underscores tensions within the Democratic Party leading up to potential primaries against figures like John Fetterman, who is portrayed as a popular, working-class-focused senator in a battleground state. As the discussion closes, the remark is made that the only way Democrats could visit Mar-a-Lago is via an FBI raid, suggesting a bleak framing of the party’s prospects and the political climate surrounding the former president.

In the speaker’s view, it is crucial for the American people to understand the options available to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The speaker uses a vivid analogy to illustrate the stakes: if someone who would wear a vest in an endless supermarket tragedy were to possess a weapon capable of killing tens of thousands, the result would be catastrophically worse than the loss of a few lives in a typical mass casualty scenario. This comparison is intended to highlight the gravity of nuclear proliferation and the potential for mass casualties. The central national security objective emphasized is ensuring that the worst people in the world do not have a nuclear weapon. The speaker asserts that achieving this objective is of utmost importance for the United States at any time and under any administration. The rhetoric underscores that preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state is the top priority in national security. The speaker attributes a high level of importance to the administration’s current approach, stating that the president is pursuing these aims and cares deeply about this issue. The emphasis is on presenting and evaluating the available options to safeguard national security against the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, framing the president’s actions as directly connected to this critical objective.

The speaker discusses potential security failures in protecting the president at an event. They suggest the need for a thorough investigation to understand what went wrong and prevent future incidents. The speaker emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing security concerns. They stress the need for a comprehensive inquiry before making any accusations. The conversation highlights the significance of ensuring the safety of the president and the American people.

The speaker argues that Iran, despite being an energy-rich country, has squandered its potential by pursuing a radical ideology that diverts wealth away from its people. He states that millions of Iranians protested because their quality of life did not match what it could or should be, and he attributes this disconnect to the Iranian state’s priorities. The speaker contends that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism because it takes the money it earns and invests it in tunnels, missiles, launchers, UAVs, and other militarized capabilities, and that those investments are being destroyed and degraded “in historic proportions.” He emphasizes that Iran may still possess some capability and will attempt to hold people at issue, signaling ongoing threats that require vigilance. In response, the speaker asserts that efforts to compel Iran are ongoing every single day. Regarding embassies and consulates, he notes that unlike previous administrations, the current approach is to double and triple down on ensuring the safety of personnel, regardless of which department—Whether Department of War or Department of State—cits involvement, the aim is to protect facilities and personnel. The maxim “the best defense is a good offense” is invoked to justify proactive measures, including targeting or pursuing those who would threaten diplomatic facilities. He asserts that there are numerous actors attempting to target U.S. diplomatic missions, and that the U.S. is not surprised by Iran’s indiscriminate targeting, asserting that such attempts are still occurring. The overall message is one of a persistent, aggressive stance against Iran’s destabilizing capabilities and an emphasis on protecting U.S. personnel and facilities abroad while continuing to degrade Iran’s ability to project power.

The speaker, a retired Green Beret and sniper, believes the shooting of President Trump was a planned attack due to security measures in place. He questions how a 20-year-old could have accessed the area and fired shots without inside help. The speaker offers to protect the president for free if needed.

The speaker states the gathering is in midtown Manhattan, at the most iconic venue in the United States. They claim it's a place Republicans are not supposed to come, which is why Donald Trump came. The speaker asserts there's no place in America the president shouldn't be able to come.

Speaker 0: Trump is not building a ballroom. Andrew Kerr, an architect with over twenty years of federal project experience, posted on Facebook and walked through step by step why this ballroom makes no sense. He did the math: $300,000,000 at 90,000 square feet would be about $3,333 per square foot, and he said that even luxury federal construction doesn’t usually approach $1,000 per square foot. The geometry of the renderings is nearly impossible, showing a building with a 380 by 235 foot footprint, but interior views show maybe 200 by 100 feet, which is 20,000 square feet, so that can’t exist in the same building. Construction drawings look like they were thrown together in about a week, and he suggested they were probably thrown together by Grock, or whoever’s still wandering around the White House from Doge. So the million dollar question is what is he building? The answer, he suggests, is an underground data center. Think about where they’re building. It’s not random. It’s the East Wing, where the PEOC bunker is, the tunnel systems that connect the White House to the Treasury to other federal buildings, and where all of the secure communications infrastructure lives. That’s prime underground real estate. It reminds me of Larry Ellison’s Oracle data centers in underground Jerusalem: nine stories deep, 160 feet below ground, 460,000 square feet, costing $319,000,000 per bunker. The White House is already at $300,000,000 for this “ballroom,” and it’s only climbing. Fiscally, it feels like a more apt comparison to those. Outside of architecture anomalies, the fact that this is privately funded should have been the first red flag. This is Donald Trump, the man who has spent taxpayer money on stuff that benefits him. He spent over $3,900,000,000 in taxpayer money just to make over Air Force One. Didn’t he also have Secret Service pay room bills at Mar-a-Lago? This suggests it isn’t serving him; it’s serving someone else specifically. Look at the donor list: defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton, tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Palantir, crypto companies like Coinbase, Ripple, and Tether, and telecoms like T-Mobile and Comcast. These aren’t people funding a party space; these are companies with interests in government infrastructure, data, and operations. They’re funding infrastructure that directly serves them. Also, about Larry Ellison’s vision to automate the government: many tech pros talk about automating federal operations or creating a single digital platform for the government, which would require a supremely secure physical home for that system. Placing it directly under the White House would eliminate latency problems and ensure the President has direct physical control over the system’s core. Centralizing control and securing the brain of the government. It’s dystopian in many ways, and these are real developments happening worldwide. The companies funding this are buying access to integrate their systems with how the government operates, and that’s what $300,000,000 will get you. I guess.

Whistleblowers claim the security plan for the former president called for law enforcement on the roof and around the building, but there was no one except the shooter on the roof and no one around the perimeter. The excuse given was that it was too hot that day. Whistleblowers also say the lead site agent was not trusted or highly regarded by other Secret Service agents and didn't know what she was doing. The speaker questions why these individuals were running security for a former president and current major party nominee, calling it inexplicable and stating that the lack of answers is making the situation worse.

I will provide an overview of the security planning for the July 13th attack. The Secret Service and the former president's security team were unaware of a man with a firearm on the AGR building's roof until gunshots were heard. They were informed by local law enforcement about a suspicious individual before the shooting occurred.

The speaker expresses disbelief at the security failure allowing someone to scale a roof near the president. They argue that the Secret Service should have thorough security measures in place to prevent such incidents. The speaker questions the intelligence failure and demands accountability from the Secret Service agents involved. They emphasize the importance of prior security checks to ensure the president's safety. The speaker's personal experience with security incidents adds to their skepticism about the reported events.

I'm on the building where the sniper supposedly fired. The roof isn't steep; a 70-year-old man climbed it easily. If there were Secret Service or sniper teams here, he wouldn't have made it five feet up. The windows where the Secret Service was supposedly stationed on the second floor raise questions about their response time. Behind me, where the red roofs are, is where the president was speaking. There are many unanswered questions here, and we aim to conduct oversight to ensure this situation is addressed and prevented in the future.

The speaker questions the Secret Service's effectiveness, citing a shooting of Trump and a recent shooting attempt. They claim the Secret Service's current methods are not working and that whistleblowers have revealed the agency isn't following its own protocols. The speaker believes the core issue is a failure of leadership, not the agents themselves. They advocate for firing people, implementing new protocols, and ensuring the protection of Trump and attendees at his rallies. The speaker expresses a lack of confidence in the Secret Service's current protective measures.

We increased security for the former president in response to the threat, adding resources since he was a candidate. This ongoing increase in resources continues.

The speaker details a security career with frontline work in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve provided security services to the president of the United States and other high-ranking members of the U.S. government, and they’ve protected diplomatic personnel, high-net-worth corporate clients, media personalities, investigative journalists, and the general public. They continue this work as a SWAT team leader and executive protection specialist, and have been repeatedly recognized for high-level professionalism, proficiency, and knowledge of security measures across those fields. The narration signals ongoing analysis of past events, suggesting the speaker is evaluating what happened within this security context in complex environments.

The speaker is giving directions and updates during a situation involving potential threats. They mention seeing someone on a building, requesting backup, and discussing the need for security measures. There is a mention of hearing shots and ensuring safety. The speaker also talks about communicating with the Secret Service and the need for posting guards in certain areas. They express concern about a possible threat and the need for caution. The speaker ends by mentioning taking a picture with Trump. Translation: The speaker is providing information and updates during a situation involving possible threats and security measures. They mention seeing someone on a building, requesting backup, and discussing the need for guards in certain areas. There is also mention of hearing shots and ensuring safety. The speaker communicates with the Secret Service and expresses concern about a potential threat. They end by mentioning taking a picture with Trump.

The speaker criticized the Secret Service for claiming a sloped roof was unsafe when it wasn't. They demonstrated shooting accuracy on a similar roof to highlight the danger. The speaker blamed the Secret Service for failing to secure the rooftop during a past event, putting the President at risk. They called for the director's immediate dismissal due to incompetence.

The speaker expresses concern about the urgency of a report being released within 60 days, given the high threat environment in the United States. They emphasize that this is not a political game, but a matter of safety for important targets both internationally and domestically. With an assassination attempt on a former president recently, answers are needed before any decisions are made.

The speaker discusses the lack of security measures during a potential assassination attempt on President Trump. They criticize the decision not to have a patrol car or personnel on the ground for deterrence. They question the explanation of a sloped roof hindering security efforts. The speaker calls for a thorough investigation to uncover the truth and ensure accountability. They express concern over the potential conspiracy theories that could arise from the incident. The speaker emphasizes the need for proper protection of politicians and highlights the importance of accountability in maintaining security standards.