reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker expresses concern about Americans being afraid of being prosecuted by the Department of Justice. They mention the events of January 6th and how some Americans came to the Capitol out of frustration with the government. They criticize the lack of proper security and mention the fear people have of the FBI. The speaker questions the Department's handling of investigations, particularly regarding the Durham report and the slow progress on certain cases. They also raise concerns about corruption and the need for only eligible citizens to vote in elections.

The speaker, who immigrated from Ukraine, expresses concern about Americans being afraid of prosecution by the Department of Justice. They mention the events of January 6th and question why the debate wasn't stopped when people broke into the Capitol. The speaker also criticizes the handling of investigations, particularly regarding Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden. They express frustration with the lack of accountability and raise concerns about corruption within the Obama administration. The speaker emphasizes the importance of only allowing eligible US citizens to vote in elections and requests action from the attorney general.

The speaker expresses concern about Americans being afraid of prosecution by the Department of Justice. They mention the events of January 6th and criticize the lack of proper security. The speaker also questions the handling of investigations, particularly regarding the Durham report and the slow progress on certain cases. They express frustration and disbelief at the actions described in the report. The speaker raises concerns about the involvement of the president's son with corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs and the potential impact on Ukrainian efforts and policies. They emphasize the need for trust in the president and question the Department of Justice's role in allowing foreign propaganda and destabilization. The speaker concludes by asking about the importance of ensuring that only eligible US citizens vote in elections.

The speaker discusses the ongoing investigation into former President Trump and expresses concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department. They argue that the department is filled with partisan Democrats and questions the transparency and accountability of the investigations. The speaker highlights the importance of knowing who is working on these investigations and criticizes the department for withholding this information. They mention previous investigations into Special Counsel Mueller's team, which revealed anti-Trump bias. The speaker concludes by stating their intention to sue for the release of the requested information and emphasizes the need for oversight and accountability in upholding the rule of law.

The speaker questions the authority of Jack Smith as a private citizen to represent the US. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the lack of nomination or confirmation for Jack Smith. The speaker challenges the creation of the special counsel office without congressional authorization. They also touch on DOJ's handling of January 6 cases and the upcoming inspector general report. The speaker emphasizes the independence of the inspector general and commits to not interfering with their work.

The Supreme Court ruled that the statute used in the January 6th prosecutions was misinterpreted and not meant for protests. They applied ancient canons of interpretation to reach this decision. The Biden administration misused the statute, but the Court upheld the rule of law. There are concerns about the abuse of power and oversight is needed to understand how this happened. The speaker, a former law professor, criticizes the cynical and biased use of the statute, highlighting the double standards in prosecution. The focus is on the need for fair application of the law.

The speaker believes many January 6th defendants were wrongly charged with 1512, an obstruction charge, and that a bipartisan Supreme Court threw it out. As a US Attorney, the speaker wanted to investigate the use of 1512, which they attribute to Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco, but ultimately to Andrew Weissman. Weissman, connected to the Mueller investigation, allegedly advocated using 1512 to target Trump, even if it meant "making it up." The speaker claims Weissman wanted to charge Trump after first jailing hundreds of people to validate the charge. 1512 was initially created after Enron to prevent the destruction of documents related to an official proceeding. Weissman allegedly planned to expand the definition of "official proceeding" to include the electoral college count. The speaker asserts that this plan involved jailing people, securing guilty pleas, and influencing judges to support the charge before targeting Trump.

The speaker questions the appointment of a special counsel, suggesting that it may give him the power to charge in different locations. They mention that the special counsel previously claimed to have the authority to do as he pleased, but whistleblowers contradicted this, stating that he was unable to do so. The Justice Department denied the whistleblowers' claims. However, the speaker believes that the recent move implies that the whistleblowers may have been correct. They express concerns about the political implications raised by Republicans.

Senator expresses concerns about Merrick Garland's use of political appointments in the Department of Justice, turning it into a political tool rather than a law enforcement agency. The Senator plans to hold up nominations until Garland commits to focusing on law enforcement and criminal prosecution, not politics. The Senator believes that action is necessary, as people are tired of just complaining about the issue. The Senator also discusses the importance of who controls government documents and information, emphasizing the need for the elected president to have control rather than the unelected bureaucracy. The Senator argues that this case highlights the power struggle between the administrative state and the people. The Senator and another speaker agree that this is a constitutional and moral question about the sovereignty of the country and the role of the president.

The speaker accuses Mr. Graves of abusing his position by prosecuting over 1,000 people involved in the January 6th incident and planning to arrest 1,000 more. They highlight a specific case of Matthew Perna, who peacefully entered the Capitol for 20 minutes without assaulting anyone or causing damage. Despite cooperating with the FBI and pleading guilty, Mr. Graves requested more prison time for Perna. Tragically, Perna later died by suicide. The speaker argues that the Department of Justice should stop being weaponized and focus on prosecuting real criminals. They announce their intention to introduce articles of impeachment against Mr. Graves.

- "Do you know who Ray Epps is, and where is he? And, is he sitting behind bars like some of these other, protesters who've been sitting there without bail for so long?" - "And what we need to know is whether or not that cooperation existed on January 5 and January 6 to get people to do things that they might otherwise not do, like enter the capital." - "We already know as a consequence of reporting in revolver.news and in re really, that was confirmed by the New York Times that there were people texting their handlers from the crowd in January 5 and January 6." - "Now we just need to know whether the folks being controlled by the federal government were, in fact, the very people that were doing the worst things on January 6."

"There's a concern that there were agents of the government or assets of the government present on January 5 and January 6, during the protests." "I'm need afraid I can't see that at all." "Alright. You have you have those images there, and they're captioned. They were from January 5 and January 6." "As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every but they need to go into the capital the next day, is then the next day directing people to the capital." "And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything." "One of the norms of the justice department is to not comment on impending investigations and particularly not to comment about, particular scenes or particular individuals." "So I'm not gonna violate this norm of, of of, the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing."

Why isn't FBI Director Chris Wray publicly defending his department's actions regarding the January 6th investigation? His resignation implies a lack of apolitical integrity within the FBI, suggesting that each presidential administration dictates priorities, rather than upholding a consistent, unbiased approach. This leaves the impression that wrongdoing occurred. The prioritization of the January 6th investigation over other crucial cases, like those involving child sex trafficking and serial killers, has negatively impacted agents' morale. However, some pushback exists; DC judges, including those appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, have openly criticized the Department of Justice's actions, refusing to allow these cases to be dismissed. Their outspokenness provides a counterpoint to the perceived silence from other quarters.

It's our constitutional duty to do oversight. He asks, "how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 5 and January 6 and agitating in the crowd to go into the capital and how many went into the capital. Can you answer that now?" Speaker 1 replies, "I don't know the answer to that question." The exchange continues: "I don't know the answer to either of those questions. If there were any, I don't know how many." "You've had two years to find out." The discussion mentions Ray Epps: "yesterday, you indicted him. Isn't that a wonderful coincidence on a misdemeanor?" and says, "you're sending grandmas to prison." It references a video claim: "the guy on video who's saying go into the capital," noting "10 videos, and it's an indictment for a misdemeanor?" In discovery, "the Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question that you're asking." "With respect to mister Epps, the FBI has said that he was not an employee or informant of the FBI." "Mister Epps has been charged, and there's a proceeding, I believe, going on today on that subject." "The charge is a joke."

The speaker met with Mr. Martin, who seems like a good man. The speaker's concerns related to January 6th. Mr. Martin built a compelling case regarding some prosecutions that were heat-of-the-moment bad decisions. The speaker believes anyone who reached the perimeter on January 6th should have been imprisoned for some period of time and has no tolerance for anyone who entered the building. Mr. Martin explained how some people got caught up in it, making a stupid decision to enter a breached building. The speaker's issue isn't whether they should be charged, but by how much. The speaker believes what happened on January 6th was wrong, not prompted by others, and those involved disgraced the United States. Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, and the speaker agreed that some should not have been pardoned. The speaker would support Mr. Martin as a US attorney for any district except the one where January 6th happened and has indicated to the White House that they wouldn't support his nomination.

Ms. Monica, the number 2 person in the Department of Justice, is questioned about the partisan nature of the department and its failure to enforce certain criminal statutes. Specifically, the speaker focuses on 18 USC 1507, which prohibits influencing judges through picketing or parading near their residences. The speaker accuses the DOJ of not prosecuting violations of this statute, despite numerous protests outside Supreme Court justices' homes. Ms. Monica denies this claim, stating that the attorney general has directed the US Marshals Service to enforce all federal laws and prioritize the safety of the justices. The speaker argues that a written presentation contradicts this, emphasizing that the goal is to avoid arrests and prosecutions. Ms. Monica disagrees with this interpretation.

Jack Smith was not nominated by President Biden or confirmed by the US Senate. The special counsel statute has expired, so the authority to appoint a special counsel is questioned as it was created without Congress authorization.

Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government. Translation: Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government.

The speaker expresses concern about Americans being afraid of prosecution by the Department of Justice. They mention the events of January 6th and question why the debate wasn't stopped when people broke into the Capitol. The speaker also criticizes the handling of investigations, particularly regarding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They express frustration with the lack of accountability and raise concerns about corruption and foreign influence. The speaker asks the Attorney General if they believe only US citizens should vote in elections. The Attorney General responds affirmatively.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The speaker was unsure if they were on the list. Upon returning to the office, colleagues shared their confusion. Two hours later, termination letters arrived, dismissing 15 assistant U.S. Attorneys. The speaker's letter cited their actions in prosecuting individuals involved in the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order from 01/20/2025 characterizing that work as a grave national injustice. The letter stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting U.S. attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes Mr. Martin doesn't understand that U.S. attorneys represent the United States, not the president, and that firing 15 attorneys created a deficit in the office's ability to prosecute cases.

The speaker clarifies that while Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, there were 200-300 who should not have been pardoned, a point on which Mr. Martin agreed. The speaker would likely support Mr. Martin as a US attorney in any district except the one where the January 6th protest occurred. The speaker indicated to the White House that they would not support Mr. Martin's nomination. The deadline relates to the length of time Mr. Martin can operate in an acting capacity, but the administration can extend that if desired.

The speaker, who immigrated from Ukraine, expresses concern about Americans being afraid of prosecution by the Department of Justice. They mention the events of January 6th and question why the debate wasn't stopped when people broke into the Capitol. The speaker also criticizes the department's handling of investigations, particularly regarding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They express frustration and concern about corruption and foreign influence in the country. Finally, they ask the attorney general about ensuring that only eligible US citizens can vote in elections. The attorney general responds affirmatively.

The speaker questions witnesses about the presence and activities of federal agents or assets during the January 6th Capitol riot. One witness states they do not know if any federal agents or assets were present on January 5th or 6th, whether they agitated the crowd, or whether any entered the Capitol. The speaker suggests this may be perjury, noting the witness has had two years to find out. The speaker also asks about confidential human sources and the erection of gallows, claiming FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland have stonewalled inquiries. Another witness confirms their report will include information about confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but cannot provide a number. The report is in draft form and requires classification review, making its release before the upcoming election unlikely. The report will address whether confidential human sources followed DOJ protocols and include information about travel reimbursements. The speaker expresses frustration with the delay and lack of transparency.

The speaker questions the attorney general about pardons for January 6th offenders and asks if she advised the president on this. The attorney general refuses to discuss conversations with the president. The speaker accuses the administration of incompetence, corruption, and cruelty, focusing on corruption. She asks if the attorney general was ever registered as an agent of a foreign principal under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The attorney general acknowledges representing Qatar for anti-human trafficking efforts related to the World Cup. The speaker accuses her of being a registered lobbyist for Qatar and not disclosing this during her Senate confirmation. The attorney general claims it was discussed in detail. The speaker asks if the attorney general advised that President Trump could accept a $400 million airplane from Qatar. The attorney general refuses to discuss advice given to the president. The speaker asks if she recused herself from that issue, and the attorney general questions the speaker's claim that the president wanted the jet because it was "pretty."

The speaker expresses concerns about the weaponization of government and the DOJ's approval rating. They question the Department of Justice about acquiring geolocation data and specific analyses done with that data. The speaker asks if the DOJ obtained geolocation data from external sources or bought it. The attorney general mentions that the data was obtained through subpoenas issued to telephone companies. The speaker then brings up Durham's report, which called the FBI's activities sobering, and asks if it worries the attorney general. The attorney general mentions that Durham thanked him for not interfering with the investigation and acknowledges the report's criticisms. The speaker asks if questioning an election is a crime in the US, to which the attorney general responds that it is not. The speaker concludes by expressing concerns about the trustworthiness of the American people and Congress.