reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We now know without a doubt that Obama, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey were attacking our democracy, all while accusing us of attacking democracy. We know these things because director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released hundreds of documents revealing that the mindful objections of senior intel officials were ignored. Foreign spies were given a US government endorsed platform to smear Trump with abject lies. They used these lies to illegally spy on the Trump campaign. Former CIA director John Brennan lied to congress about his role. The cover up effort was real. Now that director Gabbard has revealed the truth, where will it all lead?

I’m a whistleblower and a current state employee who identifies as a Democrat, having only voted Democrat, which I say makes this a sad day for me. I consider myself very loyal: I’ve worked at my state agency for 20 years, had three jobs since graduating from college, and lived on the same block for 20 years. In 2019, a poster was put up at the agency listing three names to contact if there were concerns about fraud, waste, or abuse. I worked with those three people, and over the next year I say they made my life as miserable as it could be, during a period when my son was young. The three people were: 1) Our ethics officer. She called me and told me that if I spoke in front of the legislative committee, I would likely be fired. 2) The chief compliance officer at the time (now the commissioner). She called me on a Saturday with an HR representative and told me that when I returned to work the next week, I would have a new job. When I asked if I had any choice, she said no—“it’s this or nothing”—and that I was involuntarily transferred to a different position to get me out of where I was. 3) Our director of auditing. He completely outed me after I reported fraud to him. He called the person I was reporting on and said that Faye Bernstein told him details “about you,” which I say led to more crying at my front step.

As documents are declassified and released, more is being learned about who was directly involved and implicated in past wrongdoings. Some individuals loudly protested against these actions, and whistleblowers are coming forward with documentation of their protests and unwillingness to participate. As those who had a hand in these actions are identified, it will provide an opportunity to ensure that they, and others willing to weaponize intelligence to subvert the will of the American people, can no longer work in the intelligence community.

The discussion argues that identifying government corruption requires identifying the actors, and frames RussiaGate as a politically funded operation used in intelligence and law enforcement to obtain a secret-court authorization by lying about a political opponent to surveil him, taking two years to unpack. The central claim is that Gina Haspel was a leading architect of RussiaGate and remained behind the scenes, later becoming Trump’s CIA director. The transcript asserts that in 2016, when RussiaGate was launched in England, Gina Haspel was the CIA station chief for England and the top intelligence officer in the United Kingdom. It claims that, for lawful overseas intelligence and law enforcement operations, the number-one office of the DNI representation must authorize offensive operations, and that Gina Haspel, as the authorized representative in England, had to authorize such activities. The transcript states that new reporting indicates US FBI and intelligence community officials, and possibly other overseas intelligence allies, were involved in “bumpings” in England, and that this could not have happened without Haspel’s authorization. It further claims the key questions were why she did it, what legality she understood, what extent of knowledge she had, and what internal memorandums she would have written to authorize the conduct, including who she worked with, such as Comey, McCabe, Stroock, Page, and others, across England and America. A second key point is that, according to the transcript, Haspel blocked release of an ICA (Intelligence Community Assessment) report. It refers to a report by Devin Nunes and the team on John Brennan’s ICA that the transcript says was critical and should have been released during the Trump administration through the end. It claims Haspel stonewalled it and that it remains in a safe at CIA headquarters, portraying this as the reason the report is still classified and not publicly available. The transcript explains that in 2016 and 2017, John Brennan was ordered by Obama to issue the ICA on what Russia did, if anything, to interfere in US elections, and that the produced report was largely false. It states that, in parallel, Nunes and others created a classified seventeen-page report assessing what went into the ICA, who conducted interviews, what intelligence was used, whether it was false, and whether there was political motivation. The transcript says this report was not released, and calls Haspel the single most important figure blocking it. It also claims this helps demonstrate that the IC was involved and that there was “tons more corruption.” The transcript adds that the president reportedly wanted declassification, but says Haspel worked with DOJ figures including Pat Cipollone and others to argue “national security” concerns. It states the declassification fight was lost due to time constraints and links Joe Biden’s win to burying the materials. It concludes by saying that if President Trump wins, the transcript expects this and other material to be declassified, and it cites Washington Post journalist David Ignatius writing an article congratulating Haspel for blocking release, implying that the article reflected knowledge of the report’s contents and political impact.

CIA whistleblower reveals a cover-up by the Biden administration regarding attacks from directed energy weapons by foreign adversaries. In an interview, the whistleblower confirms being attacked and states that the intelligence community has obstructed congressional investigations, calling it a terrifying cover-up. The whistleblower discusses experiencing gaslighting from the CIA, which aimed to make victims doubt their injuries. A recent congressional report suggests foreign involvement in these injuries. The whistleblower expresses gratitude for the report and criticizes the CIA for betraying its personnel. She urges for acknowledgment of the situation to prevent further harm and hopes for change under a potential Trump administration, emphasizing that those involved in the previous report should not be allowed to handle this issue.

Recently, in January, a member of the Senate Intel Committee tried to block someone from getting a job in the intel world because this person would push for the release of the JFK files. This senator's main goal is to keep those files secret, but I don't understand why they would be protecting the CIA, especially after the Church Committee hearings already discredited them. I know that a member of the Senate Intel Committee made that call to block the appointment. Someone asked if it was Tom Cotton from Arkansas, but I haven't asked him directly for an interview, even though I probably should.

Clayton interviews investigative journalist Timothy Alberino about recent “disclosure” documents released under the Trump administration, including videos and audio files, and about whether the U.S. government has alien bodies and when such evidence will be publicly shown. Alberino says he was warned the first tranche would be “underwhelming,” but expects subsequent releases—staggered on an “every two weeks” schedule—to become “more spectacular.” He claims earlier releases largely draw from material already held by the Pentagon’s AARO, describing it as a “sham UAP investigative body,” and from prior FOIA-released material, with some new content. Alberino argues against conflating the Trump administration’s disclosure efforts with access to deep underground special-access programs housed in “dumbs” (deep underground military bases). He says the President of the United States, the Secretary of War, and others have not been read into these programs and do not have access on a need-to-know basis. He says the White House and agencies like the FBI are reviewing documents to determine what can be released without breaching national security interests. He maintains that Trump and figures such as Hegseth and Patel are not withholding because they “don’t agree” with disclosure; instead, he says they plan to release as much as possible that does not conflict with national security so the public can draw conclusions. Alberino says Trump will not go onstage and present alien bodies or Roswell-style images, and that classified information about the “legacy program” will not be publicly released. When asked directly whether alien bodies and autopsy videos will be shown, Alberino says “absolutely not,” stating that Trump, Hegseth, and Patel do not have access to bodies. He claims the disclosure process is constrained by what officials can access, while the more important material is allegedly sequestered in private contractors rather than held within agencies like the Pentagon, FBI, or DNI—allowing officials to claim they do not have that information. Alberino describes “oppositional factions” inside government, intelligence, the White House, and the Pentagon: a “secrecy group” that wants the public kept uninformed, and a “disclosure group” that wants limited disclosure centered on a “baseline truth” that non-human entities exist and that craft and bodies have been recovered. He says the disclosure group seeks congressional oversight, which he claims is intentionally circumvented by compartmentalized, contractor-heavy programs with limited oversight. He further claims there are “rogue elements” and introduces the idea of “alien reproduction vehicles” (ARVs) derived from non-human technology, used for “nefarious things,” though he frames these as actions by rogue elements rather than the U.S. government as a whole. He identifies people he says are on the “limited disclosure” side, naming Congressman Eric Burlison, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others, and states Tulsi Gabbard is also on the disclosure side. He claims that inquiries from the DNI and official attempts to inspect facilities are met with runaround and deception about projects shown on site. Alberino says facility visits by congressmen have not necessarily revealed bodies and suggests that craft footage may be more likely than biological evidence. He references that higher-resolution videos are supposedly seen in private than what has appeared via public FOIA releases, and he expects footage similar to Gimbal, GoFast, and Nimitz-level imagery. He also claims that if whistleblowers come forward publicly, they face NDAs and career consequences, and he says whistleblower protection legislation proposed by senators and representatives has faced repeated defeat. He describes whistleblowers privately briefing members of Congress “but they won’t come forward…they won’t go under oath.” In discussing interdimensional claims, Alberino says there is no certainty conveyed in classified settings about the “ontology” of beings, though he says interdimensional language is discussed publicly. He asserts that congressional-level information indicates the phenomenon is real and that there is evidence suggesting a legacy program exists, but he says those he interacts with have not been shown direct evidence explaining origins. He discusses speculation about extra dimensions and space-time warping, connecting these ideas to craft behavior such as phasing out or disappearing, and references Bob Lazar’s claims about craft appearing to lift off and then vanish. He also speaks about transmedium movement and the idea that a craft may create gravitational bubbles that bend light. Alberino includes claims about materials and technological gaps, saying extracted exotic materials are crucial and that the ability to reproduce them is limited. He describes an “arms race” framing involving legacy programs beyond the U.S., including China and Russia, and says strategic advantage may be why much is not released publicly. For religious aspects, he says media coverage conflated different stories and points to two streams: (1) evangelical leaders connected to Paula White, which he says involves “ontological shock” from being told something; and (2) a separate private UAP-and-human-trafficking investigative organization he describes as having briefers who share mostly public-domain information and seek to encourage pastors to prepare congregants for disclosure, while emphasizing that their theological views are not based on being read into programs. He claims this private group focuses heavily on human trafficking. Toward the end, he reiterates that a new tranche of documents may appear within about a week and continues into a slow drip toward summer, with underwhelming early releases followed by more impressive footage later. He also says he has been told AARO is being “frozen out” of the release process after being ordered to turn over lower-tier material, and that the strategy is to reduce AARO’s role in public dissemination.

Your investigation uncovered witnesses who told you that or told your team that CIA Director John Brennan overruled intelligence officials who were objecting to the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment. How well would some of those witnesses hold up in court or in a public hearing of the House Oversight Committee? Well, these are some of the most senior intelligence officials within the CIA who came forward and spoke the truth to the House Intelligence Committee's, majority staff team that launched this investigation. They invest they they spoke to and interviewed over 20 intelligence community professionals, senior officials within the CIA, which is how they uncovered the truth of what actually happened as reported in the documents that we released yesterday.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Before the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund “dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work described as the source of an unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic. On the final day as Director of National Intelligence, the speaker says they are releasing “never-before-seen communications and documents” intended to show how Fauci worked with “politicized career leadership” in the intelligence community to suppress the truth about his actions, the lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for the research. The documents are said to demonstrate Fauci’s influence over and manipulation of intelligence community COVID-19 assessments and to show Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 by denying knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research. The speaker also states that multiple intelligence community whistleblowers provided testimony that they faced retaliation for challenging manipulation of intelligence regarding the virus’s origins. The speaker describes this as a “pattern of suppressing dissent, silencing critics, and burying the truth.” The speaker says Fauci’s close relationships with the intelligence community enabled him to occupy three roles that “shield[ed] him from scrutiny”: 1) Funding dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to big pharma and its pursuit of universal vaccines worth trillions of dollars. 2) Acting as a behind-the-scenes advisor, alongside hand-picked “experts,” to push the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin, framed as a way to hide Fauci-funded gain-of-function research using taxpayer dollars and to shift blame away from Fauci’s actions. 3) Serving as a “pandemic pundit,” publicly pushing “lies, disinformation, and censorship” across available platforms. According to “hundreds of reviewed emails” included in the release, the intelligence community “almost always incorporated Fauci’s recommendations.” The speaker says Fauci promoted a paper whose publication he helped prompt as legitimate information for intelligence community consideration. Senior analysts are described as praising Fauci as an “unbiased guide” to real coronavirus experts while ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives. The speaker further claims Fauci “blatantly lied” to Congress under oath during his 2024 testimony to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, denying he spoke to any intelligence agency about COVID, and says the newly released correspondence directly contradicts that sworn testimony. The speaker reports whistleblowers described threats of retaliation, marginalization, and career setbacks for analysts who challenged Fauci’s conclusions. Examples provided include a contractor terminated days after coming forward to ODNI as a whistleblower, and managers telling advocates for the lab leak hypothesis or those expressing dissent that leadership would determine promotions. The speaker says senior leaders also attempted to undermine whistleblowers by removing anonymity required by the whistleblower process and insisting their managers or attorneys be present during ODNI meetings, described as creating an atmosphere of intimidation. The speaker concludes that the release is intended to provide transparency, truth, and accountability, citing “lies and censorship and coverups,” and describing the tactics used as part of a “deep state playbook.”

I blew the whistle on the American Taliban case after discovering that torture had been used during the investigation. The Department of Justice failed to disclose this evidence during the prosecution. I went to the media about it, which led to a criminal investigation against me and being put on the no-fly list. This experience showed me the power and aggression of the government when you go against their narrative, even if it's based on falsehoods.

The speaker notes that mainstream media outlets are strangely silent about declassified Russia hoax material. The speaker is not surprised because many of these outlets received leaks from John Brennan, James Clapper, and their people almost immediately after the Obama directed National Security Council meeting. These leaks occurred weeks before the intelligence community assessment was completed or even drafted. The media outlets printed what they were told without vetting or evidence because it didn't exist. These outlets repeated and built upon this lie created by President Obama's administration and went on to win awards.

Before the COVID pandemic, the transcript claims that Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund “dangerous gain-of-function research” on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work it says is now widely viewed as the source of an unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic. It says the speaker, in support of President Trump’s “maximum transparency mandate,” is releasing never-before-seen communications and documents on the speaker’s final day as Director of National Intelligence. The transcript alleges the documents show how Fauci worked with “politicized career leadership” in the intelligence community to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’s lab leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for the research. It claims the documents expose Fauci’s “direct role” in influencing and manipulating intelligence community assessments on COVID-19 and that Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 under oath by denying knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research. It also states that multiple intelligence community whistleblowers testified that they faced retaliation for challenging manipulation of intelligence about the virus’s origins. The transcript says it reveals a “pattern” of suppressing dissent and silencing critics. The transcript attributes three roles to Fauci that it says shield him from scrutiny: (1) funding dangerous gain-of-function coronavirus research linked to “big pharma” and their pursuit of universal vaccines; (2) serving as a behind-the-scenes advisor who, with hand-picked experts, pushed the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin to hide the gain-of-function research Fauci funded; and (3) acting as a pandemic pundit who publicly pushed “lies, disinformation, and censorship” across multiple platforms. According to the transcript, “hundreds of reviewed emails” show that the intelligence community “almost always” incorporated Fauci’s recommendations, including promoting a “fraudulent paper” as legitimate information for intelligence consideration. It says senior analysts praised Fauci as an “unbiased guide” to coronavirus experts while ignoring experts who might dissent from Fauci’s narratives. The transcript reiterates that it claims Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic by denying he spoke to any intelligence agency about COVID, and says the released correspondence directly contradicts that sworn testimony. It further describes alleged whistleblower retaliation, including threats of retaliation, marginalization, career setbacks, a contractor terminated days after coming forward to ODNI, and managers telling those who advocated for or expressed dissent on the lab leak hypothesis that leadership would determine promotions. It also claims senior leaders undermined whistleblowers by removing anonymity required in the process and insisted managers or attorneys be present during ODNI meetings, creating an intimidation atmosphere.

"You wanna talk about an insurrection? This is a insurrection against the American people that was thwarted at multiple times." "He looked me in the eye and said, the truth of the matter is we took the playbook for psychological operations and information warfare that we would use against our enemies, and we turned it against the American people to undo the twenty sixteen election and to make sure they didn't elect Donald Trump in 2020." "Now that is a senior intelligence officer with more than thirty years of experience, a patriot who served in some of the most dangerous parts of the world, and he understood that the tactics of making something fake look real were ripped right up our out of our intelligence communities." "Our intelligence agencies not only harm Donald Trump, they were harming the American public, the national security interest of the American public."

James Clapper was allegedly on the team that manufactured the intelligence assessment about Iraq's WMDs that led to the Iraq war. According to Clapper's book, he and his team created something that was not there. Considering his actions then and in 2016 as Obama's director of national intelligence, Clapper allegedly has no problem politicizing, manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.

There is irrefutable evidence that detail how president Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. The Obama administration doctored the intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with his intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed. None of them knew what the other was doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting this report. There was a massive pressure campaign that came right from the top. Obama and his spy chiefs knew that Putin didn't prefer Trump over Hillary, but they cooked the intelligence to make it look like he did.

The speaker expresses concern over media silence and the deletion of online posts. Speaker 1 is unsurprised by the mainstream media's refusal to cover or their attempts to diminish the impact of revelations found in declassified documents. The speaker claims the media avoids specific evidence and the voices of intelligence professionals who protested against malicious actions taken by figures like John Brennan and James Clapper under President Obama's direction. These actions allegedly involved creating an intelligence assessment filled with falsehoods. The speaker asserts the media avoids these voices because it would expose their complicity in pushing a lie and hoax throughout President Trump's first administration.

"In some cases, they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something." "This this gets to the real heart of the challenge here and the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy." "When you look at the so called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war." "And look at what that has cost our country in lives and treasure." "This goes all the way back to why this organization was founded." "So so, again, this is this is really what is at the heart of needs of what needs to be addressed within the intelligence community and why leadership matters so much."

The CIA refused to provide information necessary to understand why analytical standards at the CIA were violated. The CIA illegally monitored the computer and phone usage of DIG personnel, including their investigations and contact with whistleblowers. The monitoring involved Americans being spied upon illegally while executing duties directed by the President and under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One CIA contractor assisting with the DIG’s investigation into events that transpired between 2022 and 2023 was fired by the CIA one day after meeting with the DIG. When the DIG ceased operations, the CIA also took back 40 boxes of JFK files and MKUltra files that were being processed for declassification by DNI Gabbard.

James Clapper was allegedly on the team that manufactured the intelligence assessment about Iraq's WMDs that led to the Iraq war. According to the speaker, Clapper wrote in his book that he and his team created something that was not there. The speaker claims that Clapper's actions in 2016, as Obama's Director of National Intelligence, show that he has no problem politicizing, manufacturing, and weaponizing intelligence for a political outcome.

Government officials, like James Clapper and John Brennan, have been accused of lying under oath before Congress. Clapper denied the domestic surveillance program, but his body language suggested otherwise. When asked if the NSA spied on US citizens, he initially denied it, but later admitted to it. Similarly, Brennan initially denied spying on the Senate, but later apologized when evidence was presented. These officials have managed to avoid charges despite their dishonesty.