reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker is upset about border patrol not stopping people crossing the border. They mention concerns about fentanyl and cannabis being taken. The speaker is frustrated with the lack of discretion being used. The secretary's response is dismissive, saying they make money. The conversation turns to baby producers, which the speaker finds inappropriate. The speaker plans to send a letter addressing the issues. The conversation ends abruptly.

The speaker discusses holding people accountable and the negative responses they receive. They mention an individual named Lorna who frequently uses the word "private" when it comes to public safety. The speaker also mentions a person named Sherry who questioned their request for a statement regarding a burglary. They express concern over Mary Faye dropping the ball and promise to help with an incident. The speaker shares a text message from Mary Faye, which includes offensive language. They mention filing a complaint with the ethics board, where Mary Faye is a member. The speaker expresses frustration that their concerns are being ignored. The transcript ends with a mention of a town council member with mental health issues.

The speaker confronts law enforcement, demanding their name and badge number. They mention FirstNet and whistleblowers inside the facility. They express their intention to obtain and publish body cam footage. They point out a bus filled with illegal immigrants and question the officer's knowledge. The officer responds that they are unsure. The speaker accuses the officer of lying and insists they know about the bus. The officer ends the conversation, stating they will leave it at that. The speaker expresses disbelief at the situation.

A creator states they went to the police station because a prominent creator incited mob violence against them, their property, and family due to differing views on pesticide use. The speaker claims their phone and social media accounts were flooded, and they received death threats, which have been reported to the police. The speaker alleges the other creator is targeting them for posting about not using pesticides like glyphosate on their Facebook page. They claim the creator wants the posts removed and has threatened to continue doxxing them and ruining their life and business if they don't comply. The speaker says the creator commented on their appearance in a video. They state they are now working with the police and attorneys and that people are sending them screenshots and emails expressing fear for their safety due to the mob violence allegedly encouraged in the creator's Facebook group.

The speaker discusses various legal proceedings and allegations of fraud in a conversation with another person. They mention the involvement of different individuals, including lawyers, judges, and government officials. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and accountability in their case. They also mention a private investigator who tried to help but faced obstacles. The conversation touches on corruption and the speaker's belief that those in positions of power are part of a larger network of criminals.

There is a discussion about child trafficking and the speaker's personal experience with their children being targeted. They express frustration at not receiving support and mention being an open book to anyone who wants to help. The other speaker acknowledges the situation but states they are already doing what they can and cannot offer further assistance. They mention the possibility of Epstein being alive and share their own encounters with danger. The conversation ends with the second speaker promising that things will improve in the next three months. The first speaker asks if they can still send a petition, but the second speaker declines, stating they don't have time.

They discuss witnessing disturbing events, including child abuse at Bohemian Grove. Despite threats, one person claims to have proof on their phone. The other offers help, but the first person is hesitant due to potential consequences. The conversation ends with an offer of assistance to navigate a legal situation.

I am angry and disappointed with the government and their actions regarding the water contamination issue. I no longer trust the government or their plans. Many people will be affected by this. They say they will conduct tests, but we don't know when. I won't get tested if they won't reimburse me. We want to know if the water is safe. I have a garden and freezers full of food that may need to be thrown away. Our children go to a school that serves local food and drinks the tap water. We have been told that everything local has been contaminated for five years. How should we react to this?

The speaker questions the witness about mixing personal and professional emails, expressing confusion and concern. The witness explains his actions were to protect a friend under threat. The speaker challenges the witness on ethics and reporting to the ethics office. The witness struggles to provide clear answers, leading to frustration from the speaker. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt and yielding back their time.

The speaker admits to not having directly presented their case to Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey. However, they did email Jack before January 6th, warning him about the platform allowing a coup. Since then, there has been no communication. If given the chance, the speaker would have a private conversation with Mark Zuckerberg. They express concern about the internet being defined by hate, division, and lies, especially for those with children. They hope that individuals like Mark Zuckerberg would prioritize people's safety and the future of the internet, rather than focusing solely on greed and profit. They emphasize the importance of considering the next generations.

The speaker tries to contact the state and local police departments but struggles to get assistance. They mention filing complaints in the past and receiving threats due to their involvement in politics. They express frustration with not receiving police reports and describe a recent threat from a woman named Linda Waterman. The speaker wants the police to take their threats seriously but refuses to provide their address. The conversation becomes heated, with the speaker insisting on knowing the names of the officers they would meet. The call ends abruptly without a resolution.

The speaker expresses concern about the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, emphasizing that the situation is worse than what the media is reporting. They mention receiving reports of dead fish in streams and rivers, contaminated water, soil, and air, and anticipate severe health effects for the town's residents. The speaker criticizes the lack of assistance from organizations like Red Cross, FEMA, and environmental conservationists. They urge viewers to save and share the video, claiming a cover-up by authorities. The speaker concludes by stating that the town is now uninhabitable due to the chemicals released in the incident.

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.

The speaker calls the Bridgeport State Police and then the Connecticut State Police Headquarters to report death threats and request an investigation into the person behind them. They mention Linda Waterman as a suspect and ask for her interoffice emails. The police advise them to contact the local police department and the state's attorney's office. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and protection they have received in the past. They also mention allegations of election fraud and corruption. The call ends with the speaker requesting an email address to send their information to. (149 words)

The conversation begins with a claim about Lyme disease being “a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon.” The speaker then says they “probably didn't say that,” and asks whether someone else “said that.” The next assertion is that “that's what the developer of Lyme disease said.” After stating this, the speaker emphasizes that they want “all of our colleagues” to hear it, addressing “Mr. Kennedy” directly and repeating the request that “they” hear it. The speaker continues to press on what was said and questioned earlier, maintaining focus on the idea that Lyme disease could be linked to military engineering. The exchange suggests uncertainty about whether the statement was actually made by the speaker or by the other person being addressed, but it repeatedly returns to the reference to what “the developer of Lyme disease” said as the basis for the statement being attributed. The speaker’s instructions to “Mr. Kennedy” are explicit: they want colleagues to hear the content that has been discussed, and the speaker underscores the importance of ensuring others receive the message. The conversation then transitions to a new question framed around exposure to pesticides, with the speaker beginning the question “Did you say that exposure to pesticides?” The line cuts off before any further detail is provided, leaving the question as an open inquiry about whether the other person had said something specifically about pesticide exposure.

The speaker thanks everyone for attending the private viewing and promises to show evidence of deadly terrier attacks. One person expresses frustration about previous false information and losing followers. The speaker assures them that the evidence is coming but first mentions that the incident on October 7th is considered worse than the Holocaust. The group urges the speaker to show the evidence, emphasizing the urgency due to their declining credibility. The speaker hesitates, suggesting that the evidence is too disturbing to be shown. The group becomes more frustrated and demands to see the evidence. The transcript ends with someone acknowledging the overwhelming nature of the situation.

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

The speaker confronts someone, possibly a police officer, about the identification of cadavers. They demand answers about the number of children among the deceased, but the person refuses to provide any information. The speaker becomes frustrated and accuses the person of pushing them. They continue to press for answers, but the person remains uncooperative. Another person expresses disappointment in the response and criticizes the speaker for their behavior. The confrontation ends abruptly.

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

The speaker describes being pulled over while driving a Jeep with no doors, windows, or roof, resulting in a window tint violation that was initially described as a warning but later they claim the officers “were going to give me a violation” and that the speaker was “seen… again.” The speaker says they submitted a FOIA/public records request and received two emails: one from the public records office and one from the sheriff. In the email responding to the public records request, the office states it searched for in-car dash camera footage related to a traffic stop that occurred on June 27th, 2026. The office says the associated video file is unavailable due to data corruption and cannot be recovered, concluding that “No video exists that can be produced.” The email also addresses the speaker’s request for any recorded telephone conversation between the speaker and members of the Sheriff’s Office, stating no responsive records are available because routine administration telephone conversations are not maintained as a public record and any temporary recordings are no longer available per the agency’s records retention practices. The email further states that portions of the request sought internal communications, and that no responsible records are available for disclosure. It concludes that the request is fulfilled to the extent responsible records exist. The second email, from the sheriff, addresses the speaker’s publication of multiple videos across social media platforms discussing interactions with the agency and making allegations about the conduct of the Sheriff’s Office and its employees. The sheriff states the videos contain statements that are misleading, inaccurate, and harmful to the agency’s reputation and its personnel. The sheriff then directs the speaker to immediately cease publishing additional content and to remove all existing videos, posts, and related content referencing the incident from any social media platform or other public forums within 72 hours of receiving the notice. The email warns that failure to comply may result in the office pursuing all legal remedies available under applicable law, including seeking injunctive relief, and taking appropriate action. The sheriff also states that nothing in the correspondence should be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies available to the office. The speaker says they provided these messages to their lawyer, who told them there is “ain’t nothing they can… do” and that they could post the correspondence. The speaker says they plan to talk to the sheriff “here soon” and indicates they will be posting the sheriff and the county “here soon,” while expressing anger about the situation.

The speaker wants an account returned because it wasn't utilized as well as it could have been. The speaker wants it back to continue their endeavors and allow the account to be utilized. The speaker suggests the account isn't helping the other person, especially if they are stressed. The speaker claims they were concise and respectful when requesting a phone call and were not "crashing out" or "tweaking out." The speaker states they were being business professional by scheduling a call, but couldn't provide sensitive information via text. The speaker acknowledges the other person is upset and feels the request is rude.

The speaker is frustrated because they have been requesting information for years but have not received any notices. They express their disappointment and mention that they have been meeting with the people involved for 20 years. The other speaker clarifies that they do not work for the city but for Coastal Engineering. They exchange email addresses and discuss the issue of contaminated oysters. Finally, the frustrated speaker receives the link they were looking for and mentions forwarding it to others. The conversation ends with a polite farewell.

In this video, Speaker 1 confronts Dennis Gilliam about his alleged involvement in certain Signal and Telegram groups. Dennis claims to have no knowledge of these groups and suggests that he may have been added without his consent. Speaker 1 believes Dennis is not the creator of these groups and wants to collaborate in identifying the real culprits. They discuss the possibility of Dennis being transferred to these groups through links posted on Facebook. Speaker 1 emphasizes that their main focus is finding the individuals responsible for creating and participating in these groups, rather than accusing Dennis. Additionally, the video discusses how the speaker was led to various groups on Signal through provocative photos on Facebook. They mention that both boys and girls are being posted in these groups, with mainly women being posted in the videos. The age range of individuals in the groups is mostly teens and twenties. The speaker admits to clicking on links and seeing pictures and videos but claims to have quickly exited when uncomfortable. They mention that the groups are primarily in Spanish and that they have seen links with pictures and videos being posted. However, the frequency of inappropriate content being posted in the groups remains uncertain. The video also features a conversation between Speaker 1, Speaker 2, and Speaker 3. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 2 about his alleged involvement in groups that post explicit content involving minors. Speaker 2 denies any knowledge or intent to view such content, but Speaker 1 presses for more information. Speaker 3, who is also present, shares that he has grandchildren and works in mental health. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of clicking on videos featuring young children. Speaker 2 admits to accidentally clicking on such videos multiple times. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 explaining their organization's work and Speaker 2's involvement. The video ends with Speaker 2 deleting evidence from his phone.

David McKean from The Deep is being called by Johnny Flynn, who manages the Facebook Walkbridge site. Johnny has some questions about test results and remediation documents for Vets Park and Oyster Shell Park. He wants to know how the contamination at the park affects dogs and the safety of children playing there. Johnny provides his contact information and asks David to email him with the information he needs. He mentions that the site has been neglected for a long time and hopes to receive prompt answers.