reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I'm at the building where the supposed sniper took a shot. It's not steep, a 7-year-old could climb up easily. Secret Service should have been on the water tower behind me to prevent this. The president was speaking from the stage behind me. There are questions in Butler, but we will investigate to ensure it never happens again. Translation: I am at the building where the alleged sniper shot from. It's not very steep, even a 7-year-old could climb up easily. Secret Service should have been on the water tower behind me to prevent this. The president was speaking from the stage behind me. There are questions in Butler, but we will investigate to ensure it never happens again.

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

The speaker states that they are not saying the organization lost 85,000 children, but that contact was lost with them and their whereabouts are unknown. The speaker asks if that is a fair statement. The speaker asks if, after making three calls on average to check on 85,000 children placed by the organization, there was no response. The speaker then asks if it is fair to say that contact was lost with over 85,000 kids. The speaker asks for a yes or no answer. The speaker states that the organization does not know where 85,000 of the children are. The speaker then says they will move on after receiving no answer.

Your mandate wasn't investigative, so why issue a report? Can you clarify the distinction between information and evidence? We're not discussing evidence that would hold up in court. We did not collect or retain any materials, such as raw footage or photos, related to this matter. We have no such materials.

I'm up on the building where the supposed sniper took a shot. It's not steep, a 7-year-old could climb up easily. Secret Service should have had sniper teams on the water tower behind me. Questions in Butler about why the Secret Service on the 2nd floor didn't stop the individual. The stage where the president was giving a speech is behind me. We will investigate to ensure it never happens again. Translation: I am on the building where the alleged sniper shot from. It's not very steep, even a 7-year-old could climb up easily. The Secret Service should have had sniper teams on the water tower behind me. There are questions in Butler about why the Secret Service on the 2nd floor didn't stop the individual. The stage where the president was giving a speech is behind me. We will investigate to ensure it never happens again.

Have you ruled out a pardon for yourself or family members? Yes, I have. What would I pardon myself for? I have no intention of pardoning myself because I didn't do anything wrong. Could you comment on Meta's decision to...

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

Is it standard for your department to meet with dark money groups secretly? I can't speak to actions taken by the former deputy secretary, who is no longer with us. But you are the secretary of the interior, correct? Yes, I am. Do the people here work for you? They work with me. So you're not in charge? I provide vision and direction. Do you take responsibility for the department? Yes, I do. Then why are your leaders meeting with dark money groups off the books? This is the first I've heard of this. I can't comment on my deputy's actions. What did they gain from canceling leases at their request? I don't know who that individual is. You seem unaware of your department's issues. We have a corruption problem in your department.

Speaker 0: You guys still having water problems? Yeah. Yeah. No water. No water problems. No water alone.

I saw shower heads for decontamination at work today. Unsure if it's a cause for concern. No information given, so I assume we're okay.

Speaker 0 asks about the location of hard evidence recorded on telemetry tapes. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't seen any indication that the telemetry data even exists, and even if it did, they don't have the machines to play it back. Speaker 0 clarifies that Speaker 1's research has shown the telemetry data is missing, which Speaker 1 confirms.

You are not being honest with this committee. We asked for all memorandums from the Secret Service on July 15th, have you provided them? You are dodging important questions that the American people want answers to. We had to subpoena you to be here, and you still won't answer. These are not difficult questions.

After the Titanic sank, claims were offered. Yes, it truly went down to the ocean floor. I had no idea; I thought it just had a leak. Well, it had a significant issue, a 300-foot gash. So, it really did sink. As far as we know, it did. That's the first I've heard of it.

The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes. Translation: The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

Can you clarify the presence of federal agents or assets on January 5th and 6th? Specifically, how many were there, did they encourage people to enter the Capitol, and did any actually go inside? I can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Two years ago, you were asked the same question. Can you provide an answer now? I don't know the answer. So you don’t know how many were present or if there were any at all? I have no knowledge of that. You’ve had two years to find out.

Speaker 0: Take this in and understand what we’re actually dealing with. Many views exist—from Trump being a pedophile protecting pedophile buddies, to Israel infiltration and cover-ups, to it being a Democrat hoax. The reality, as described here, is that there is a supranational global cabal that has operated for nearly a hundred years, using money laundering, blackmail, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other nefarious operations to fund and overthrow countries, serving as the shadow power of the world. We can see who these people are, their intentions, and the outcomes of their policies, and they are still being shoehorned into the most important positions in the world specifically because they’re part of this cabal. Main players mentioned include Larry Summers, who, per Epstein documents, was named executor of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate after his death. The money Epstein received from Les Wexner and others to create a starting fund and build a reputation as a financier is said to be returning to the coffers of Larry Summers, seen as part of this operation. The analogy is that this operation is like a corporation with Epstein as a brand under an umbrella, where if one asset (like Irish Spring) fails, its resources are absorbed back into the wider corporate structure. Summers, formerly Treasury Secretary, who helped destroy Glass-Steagall and contributed to the 2008 market crash dynamics, is said to have his bailout-money influence guided by Larry Fink at BlackRock. Summers, who was head of Harvard and later appointed to OpenAI’s board, is linked to the governance of the AI company behind ChatGPT. Larry Ellison is described as corresponding with Epstein and Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister) about which politicians serve their interests, including arranging a meeting between Marco Rubio and Tony Blair due to shared interests in this cabal. Epstein is depicted as a central, manipulative figure involved in selling weapons from Israel, meddling in elections, and influencing universities in Russia, raising questions about his influence and reach. The speaker emphasizes Epstein’s reach across political and corporate spheres and the question of his power, asking how such influence is possible. Speaker 1: The question is, how do you go about that? Speaker 0: He didn’t even go to school for trading; it’s all fabricated. He is a spymaster and a kingpin in a mafia. This group, including Les Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein, Larry Summers, Larry Ellison, Donald Trump (at this point), is part or perhaps the managing structure of the same organization discussed in the Eagle two documents from the 1960s, where the CIA sought autonomy from Congress by creating its own income streams, including drug trafficking in Vietnam. The opioid and drug-running links are tied to Iran-Contra, with George H. W. Bush involved in opium trade and the drug-running networks. Bill Gates and other figures are alleged to have involved in cover-ups during CIA-driven operations in South America, with Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance cited as exposing such networks. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, when Bill was governor of Arkansas, allegedly helped run headquarters in Mina for flights to and from Colombia, spreading drugs across the United States. The assertion is that the same group runs drugs, rigs elections, and is involved in various crises, including alleged connections to COVID-19, Russiagate, 9/11, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, forming a pattern of the last decades of upheaval in America. The discussion moves toward Epstein’s network and the sources of his money, with emails revealing connections, against a backdrop of broad search for Trump and the prevalence of unconfirmed, baseless anonymous claims. The core claim is that the true representation is the “new world order” and a banking-based intelligence network where intelligence agencies originated from banks. The CIA’s founding from the OSS is tied to MI6, which allegedly drew on the Rothschild banking intelligence, tying the CIA, MI6, and banking elites together. The speaker concludes that the same names—running drugs, stealing elections, burning down skyscrapers, and flying airplanes—appear repeatedly, linking DEI, ESG, white discrimination claims, and Epstein to the same global web.

They monitored the area before my speech, but nobody warned me about a man on the roof with a gun. People noticed him and even shouted, yet no action was taken. It was a mistake not to address the situation earlier.

The speaker says they have contacted record-keeping institutions tied to historic “old world” structures and that the responses will “shock the world,” beginning with the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany, New York, and then the Great Clock of Westminster (Big Ben/Elizabeth Clock Tower) in London. They describe emailing the Albany Institute of History and Art to confirm whether its collection includes the original architectural blueprints and structural drawings for the Cathedral of All Saints in Albany. The speaker frames the cathedral as supposedly built from 1884 to 1888 without power tools and argues that blueprints should exist for a structure of that scale. The Albany Institute of History and Art replies that, after looking through folders, it does not see blueprints and “doesn’t have the receipts to the building.” The institution also says it does not see material related to mechanicals and that none of the records from the building have been digitized. The speaker highlights additional claims that the records are too oversized to access, that there is no librarian on staff, and that no one can provide digital images because they cannot digitize the records. The speaker states that where other drawings exist (described as tissue tracings folded into drawers), they are not final blueprints and do not provide load-bearing calculations or construction measurements, and insists that no actual construction or engineering plans were found. The speaker then pivots to Big Ben and the Elizabeth Clock Tower. They describe being in contact with the parliamentary archives about claims that Big Ben was commissioned, funded, and built as part of the Palace of Westminster reconstruction after a supposed 1834 fire. They say they emailed to ask whether the Parliamentary Archives or any associated archive holds original materials related to the Great Clock of Westminster, including original blueprints, engineering drawings, ledgers, engineering calculations, specifications, records of communications between architect and builder, photographs of construction, and inspection certificates. The Parliamentary Archives reply, according to the speaker, that they have “surprisingly few architectural drawings” and that they do not have construction records requested, which the speaker says would prove Big Ben and the Elizabeth Clock Tower were built in the 1800s. The speaker presses further, asking whether the Parliamentary Archives has ever held a complete set of original drawings and what happened to them. The speaker says the archives respond that the architectural drawings and the requested blueprints were never part of the Parliamentary Archives collections, stating that they were not produced by Parliament. The speaker links this to the Public Records Act of 1838, claiming that records created by government departments must be preserved as public property and that construction began after the law took effect. They argue that if the project was government funded and approved, the records should have existed and been preserved, presenting the archives’ position as a contradiction with the stated government-history narrative. The speaker then says they contacted the National Archives at Kew after being told that government records, including those about construction of Big Ben, would be held there. They describe the National Archives replying that they cannot confirm the existence of records related to the construction of Big Ben and advising the speaker to look through records themselves. Immediately afterward, the speaker says the National Archives states that those collections are currently being transferred and will not be open to the public until 2026, which the speaker interprets as inaccessible records while urging public searching. Overall, the speaker asserts that multiple institutions failed to provide requested original blueprints, mechanical/engineering documentation, or digitized records, and they frame this as evidence that the documentation supporting mainstream construction timelines is missing or unavailable, culminating in a “legal paper trail” involving the Public Records Act of 1838 and the institutions’ inability to confirm the requested construction records.

Did you serve as CFO for Hillary Clinton's campaign? Yes, in 2016. Did you facilitate the payment for the Steele dossier? That was not something I was aware of. Yes or no? It was not something I was aware of. I yield back the rest of my time.

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

"So the question was, have we spoken to the shooter's parents, and if there were any red flags that may have been missed?" "I know there were dozens of interviews that have been conducted, with relatives, friends, associates of the shooter, as well as people, obviously, witnesses that were present at the scene yesterday." "I know we have not been successful in, talking to the shooter's mother yet at this time, but there there continue to be efforts, made to get that done." "So you have talked to the father? I I cannot confirm that." "I just I don't know. There's been We have been listening to"

I expected to find functional gas execution chambers but determined that the facilities could not support the use of hydrogen cyanide gas for executions. I consulted the supervisor about the original holes in the ceiling, and she confirmed that they are not original and have been rebuilt after the war.

I do not remember. I cannot recall. It is possible, but I do not remember. I am not sure. This does not ring a bell with me. I don't recall ever. I don't know. It may have happened, but I don't remember. I don't recall them saying that.

Was there massive fraud affecting the 2020 election results? The response focused on observations in Pennsylvania, but did not directly answer the question. The inquiry about massive fraud was met with a refusal to provide a straightforward yes or no. Instead, the discussion shifted to other topics, indicating an inability to address the question clearly.