reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Inside the State Department's messaging operation, a whistleblower reveals how lines are drafted, cleared, and deployed on the Israel-Palestine controversy. Shahed Ghoreishi, who joined the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau in September 2024, explains that a press officer drafts lines, which then move from desk officers to the Seventh Floor for policy review before a spokesperson presents them at the podium. He explains the NEA’s broad remit as covering the Middle East from Morocco to Iran, with sub offices for Israeli-Palestinian affairs and the Arabian Peninsula. He notes that the Israeli-Palestinian desk attracts the most scrutiny because it generates the most questions and headlines. He says he was moved from Lebanon/Jordan coverage to ISA, and that his line work involved not just facts but how lines would influence outcomes, balancing clarity with defensibility if challenged. He recalls being asked to take on a heightened briefing role by the incoming administration, and describes the daily routine of preparing press guidance packets on Tuesdays and Thursdays two hours before a spokesperson’s podium appearance. He emphasizes that the official position often comes from quotes by principals like President Trump or Special Envoy Wittkopf, and that sometimes a line would be crafted to reflect those quotes rather than reproduce them verbatim. He recounts three concrete episodes that shaped his departure. The first involved a line on forced displacement presented as a possible policy prospect, cleared in July and routinely circulated in press guidance. When a reporter later asked about an alleged plan to move Gazans to South Sudan, the line was ultimately cut by the secretary’s office, even though the guidance had already been approved. The second episode concerned condolences for Anas, a journalist among those killed in Gaza. Ghoreishi says he drafted condolences, but senior officials objected that Anas’s conduct was unclear, and the line was dropped shortly before the briefing. The third issue centered on a West Bank reference. Milstein edited a line to praise Speaker Johnson for visiting Judea and Samaria, a term Ghoreishi argues is inflammatory and unhelpful, since it carries religious and territorial implications. He says Milstein’s edits were pushed up to the Seventh Floor and that, after this intervention, the pressure intensified on him and led to his firing a few days later.

The episode recounts a curated history of CIA misconduct revealed through a 693-page release, detailing decades of domestic surveillance, covert operations, and abuses that targeted American citizens. It traces the arc from the 1970s disclosures to later revelations about mass data collection and influence operations, underscoring that these activities were not isolated incidents but part of broader programs approved at high levels of government. Through vivid examples, the narrative covers domestic spying, mail opens, wiretaps, and infiltration of protest movements, along with high-profile investigations and congressional inquiries that sought to bring accountability to the agency. The piece emphasizes the role of journalist Seymour Hersh in exposing major aspects of the story and outlines how the Church Committee and other investigations exposed systemic overreach, including programs that paired intelligence work with domestic civil rights activists, lawmakers, and media outlets. It also highlights the evolution of oversight failures, the later expansion of surveillance powers, and the uneasy continuity of practices into modern policy. In discussing MKUltra, COINTELPRO, CHAOS, and Mockingbird–alongside the NSA and Patriot Act era developments–the episode presents a continuous thread about power, secrecy, and the challenges of preserving civil liberties in the face of national security imperatives. The host closes by reflecting on the difficulty of fully knowing what remains redacted while urging scrutiny of how information and influence are wielded in a modern democracy.

The episode presents a retrospective conversation about the government’s UAP programs and the person who helped shape them, focusing on Jay Stratton, a high‑level intelligence officer who had a long career across ONI, DIA, and related offices. The speakers discuss how the government’s approach to unidentified aerial phenomena evolved from earlier efforts to a more formalized framework, highlighting the shift from calling the phenomena UFOs to UAP and the drive to establish structured reporting, analysis, and a path for reporting by service members and civilians alike. They describe the 2022/2023 UAP report as a compact document that nevertheless reflected an expanded catalog of cases, a mix of explainable incidents and genuinely unexplained events, and a deliberate choice to present findings in a way that could be acted upon within the intelligence and defense communities. The dialogue emphasizes the tension between public fascination and bureaucratic caution, noting how language, classification, and the need to protect sources and methods can shape how the story is conveyed to Congress and the public. A significant portion of the discussion centers on Stratton’s career trajectory, his role in connecting several major efforts—from the AATIP era through the UAP Task Force and the later Arrow/ATIP developments—and his influence on creating an environment where analysis could be conducted with a sober, professional stance. The interview delves into his methods, such as assembling multidisciplinary teams, including scientists with diverse expertise, to explore disruptive technologies and their potential threats, and to build a framework for evaluating unfamiliar phenomena without prematurely attributing them to known technologies. The hosts recount behind‑the‑scenes moments in Huntsville and Las Vegas, and reflect on Radiance Technologies and the private sector’s involvement in continued UFO research after Stratton’s public service. Towards the end, the conversation turns to accountability, transparency, and the future of government‑led inquiry. They discuss whistleblower protections, congressional oversight, and the hopeful prospect that more firsthand accounts from experienced officials will inform public understanding. The episode underscores that the work is about more than sensational footage; it aims to establish trustworthy processes, preserve national security while improving public insight, and recognize the quiet, persistent contributions of investigators who operated largely out of the spotlight.

The episode centers on Joe Kent, a former national security official whose resignation over the Iran war is presented as part of a broader intelligence scandal within the administration. The hosts outline three reasons Kent cited for stepping down: Iran posing no imminent threat, Israeli influence driving the conflict, and a perceived deception campaign by Israeli officials and pro-war American media figures. They discuss Kent’s background as a Green Beret and his family history, highlighting how his past credibility complicates the narrative around his sudden policy shift. The conversation also examines alleged leaks of sensitive information to MAGA media figures, and they review conflicting public statements Kent made about Iran’s threat level, suggesting possible political or strategic motivations behind his changes in stance. The dialogue then turns to a trove of related rumors, including claims about leaks to Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, the involvement of Tucker Carlson, and the role of online networks in amplifying Kent’s message. The hosts compare Kent’s rhetoric with earlier positions and question whether the timing indicates coordination with other media and political actors, noting that Kent’s wife is connected to a publication accused of propagating certain conspiracy theories. Examples from the guests, commentators, and journalists are cited to illustrate perceived inconsistencies and possible propaganda dynamics. The discussion expands to Iran’s capabilities, including enrichment levels and missile tests, and whether those developments constitute an immediate threat. The hosts contextualize the Strait of Hormuz crisis within broader geopolitical aims, including the petrodollar system and BRICS dynamics, arguing that the outcome of the situation could reshape energy markets and Western influence in the region. The episode closes with analysis of the potential risks and rewards of a forceful policy approach, and a reflective caveat that listeners should draw their own conclusions while recognizing the complexity of the actors involved and the information landscape in which this narrative operates.

Whitney Webb and Charlie Robinson discuss predictions of chaos around the 2020 U.S. presidential election and how intelligence-linked simulations anticipated turmoil long before the coronavirus crisis, with outcomes ranging from a constitutional crisis to martial law. They point to simulations produced by networks tied to former Bush or Obama officials, neocon think tanks like PNAC, and allied groups. They argue these drills are not mere “war games” but part of a toolkit that maps possible futures, and note a pattern of simulations preceding major events such as 9/11, the anthrax attacks, London’s bombings, and the coronavirus crisis. Two organizations created around March are highlighted: the Transition Integrity Project and the National Task Force on Election Crises. The Transition Integrity Project’s cofounder Rosa Brooks is described as an Obama-era DOD and Hillary Clinton State Department adviser, previously special counsel to the president of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, and affiliated with the New America Think Tank, funded by Eric Schmidt, the Gates Foundation, Pierre Omidyar, Jeff Skoll, Reid Hoffman, and Craig Newmark. The other cofounder, Nils Gilman, is vice president of programs for the Berggruen Institute, which envisions a transnational network addressing AI and gene editing. Membership overlaps exist across both groups, including Michael Chertoff, Max Boot, David Fromm, Bill Crystal, John Podesta, Robert Gates, and Larry Wilkerson, with Wilkerson being a prominent public figure in both efforts. The groups’ membership is not fully public, but various reports note their overlap and the presence of PNAC-linked figures. The groups reportedly gamed four election scenarios: ambiguous results, a Biden victory, a Trump victory, and a narrow Biden win. A particularly striking hypothetical under a clear Trump win describes the Biden campaign encouraging Cascadia—California, Oregon, and Washington—to secede unless Republicans agreed to reforms such as granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico; dividing California into five states; mandating Supreme Court retirements at 70; and eliminating the Electoral College. The scenario then envisions Congress awarding the presidency to Biden, with Pence and Republicans resisting, leading to a constitutional crisis in which the military’s role remains unclear. The discussion emphasizes that the people behind these simulations—like PNAC alumni—“are not Nostradamus” but seek to shape outcomes by prefiguring them. The conversation also covers how some involved openly support Biden, and how the campaigns leverage narratives of democracy threats. Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks about not conceding are juxtaposed with the TIP projections. They discuss campaign energy differentials, the debate dynamics, and the perception that Biden’s team seeks stability and predictability, while Trump’s unpredictability complicates control. They examine cyber and foreign interference narratives. Cybereason, an Israeli-founded cybersecurity firm with Unit 8200 ties, has major investors such as Lockheed Martin and Microsoft-linked entities; its founder served in Israeli intelligence. Cybereason’s work, and broader CTI League efforts, are cited as manifesting the external dimension of election security narratives. The discussion critiques media and political elites who promote foreign-interference threats while overlapping with pro-Israel intelligence circles. They argue these dynamics intersect with broader agendas, including AI governance and the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, suggesting a convergence of technocratic power, media narratives, and political operatives aimed at managing or engineering political outcomes. They close by signaling ongoing reporting on these themes, highlighting the need to recognize the pattern of simulations, prepositioning, and narratives intended to normalize drastic interventions around elections, including potential continuity-of-government scenarios.