reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

Speaker 0 discusses claims related to two major historical events and the alleged suppression of information surrounding them. First, regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Speaker 0 asserts that the assassination was carried out “by the Tiny Hats,” and that 18 witnesses were found dead afterward. This assertion is presented as a central point in the book, which Speaker 0 says has been banned because it “admits that after JFK was taken out by the Tiny Hats, 18 of the witnesses also ended up no longer alive.” The speaker emphasizes that the pattern is that “they always try to eliminate anybody who can expose the truth.” Second, Speaker 0 connects the JFK event to the Apollo moon-landing narrative. The claim is that after the alleged people went to the moon, the astronauts who supposedly went to the moon “also ended up no longer being here.” The implication is that those who could have spoken out against the moon-landing story were removed. The speaker then elaborates that “they took out the people who could have said something, who could have told people that they just landed in Nevada instead of actually going to the moon.” Throughout, the text frames these statements as part of a broader pattern of silencing witnesses who might reveal the “truth.” The speaker presents the sequence as follows: after JFK’s assassination, witnesses who could reveal the reality were killed; similarly, after the moon-landing story, astronauts or others connected to the event who could provide alternative information were also eliminated. The underlying claim is that both events are accompanied by deliberate actions to prevent disclosure of a hidden truth, with the book cited as a vehicle that documents or supports this view, contributing to its ban. No additional context, verification, or evaluation of these claims is provided in the excerpt. The focus remains on the asserted linkage between high-profile events, the deaths of witnesses or involved individuals, and the notion of intentional suppression of alternate explanations. The overall narrative centers on alleged conspiratorial patterns of eliminating people who could reveal the supposed truth behind JFK’s assassination and the moon landing.

The speaker mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

Speaker 0 says “it's clear that they're covering something and protecting someone or some people” and notes “there are a lot of powerful Democrats that are also on that list,” adding “there's definitely something being held back” and that it won't come out until this administration's progress. Speaker 1 references an OMG exclusive: FBI analyst Mitchell Rosas admitting that “the bureau and the administration is covering up the Epstein files,” and Rosas adds that “a lot of powerful Democrats are on that list.” They recall, “we're gonna release everything on JFK. We're gonna release everything on MLK. We're gonna release everything on Epstein” but, “Oh, never mind. We found some or it's like, oh, no. It turns out there is no list.” The piece says “the Department of Justice redacted every single word of the probable cause used to obtain the search warrant, the raid of my newsroom” and “The truth only comes out because brave people on the inside choose courage over silence.” They invite tips to OMG and promote the podcast “What's the name of your podcast? Price is my life. The Price is My Reelection, I would say.”

An individual states they didn't get rich in Congress and questions how people like Biden and Obama acquired wealth while in public service. They claim many informed individuals, including former high-ranking officials from the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and advisors to Obama, privately believe "the 9/11 report was just silly" and a cover-up. While these individuals are aware of the truth, they are unwilling to come forward publicly. The speaker asserts their credibility on the topic, noting their long-standing involvement and endorsements from figures like Donald Rumsfeld. They reiterate that those with access to real intelligence believe there is more to the events of 9/11 than what has been disclosed.

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.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The speaker mentions that the information has been discovered independently four times before, but has been suppressed each time. However, this time they believe it won't be suppressed. They mention having interactions with various agency affiliations, both protective and threatening. They state that if the US government hasn't intervened and told them to stop, then they are allowed to proceed. There are people waiting for them to publish, while others are questioning why they haven't been silenced yet. The speaker feels torn between those encouraging them to proceed and those warning them of potential harm.

The discussion revolves around the CIA and allegations of withholding information from Trump. A reporter questions an individual about their statements regarding CIA operations and their employment status. The individual denies making certain claims and avoids confirming their top-secret clearance. Despite being confronted with video evidence, they maintain that everything is speculation and refuse to provide clear answers about their role at the CIA or any connections to a Chinese Mission Center. The reporter emphasizes the importance of the story regarding intelligence agencies being potentially weaponized for political purposes. The individual expresses frustration about being followed and insists they cannot disclose specific information. The interaction highlights the tension between the reporter's inquiries and the individual's evasive responses.

The speaker questions why FBI keeps records secret, suspects cover-up. Names in FBI report redacted, including Lady Rothschild, linked to Epstein, Clinton, and Prince Andrew. Epstein had blackmail material, as confirmed by conversations with speaker. More evidence of blackmail likely hidden.

The speaker believes Jeffrey Epstein was connected to intelligence, as Vicki Ward reported, and that the DOJ was told to leave him alone in 2008. They claim there's been a cover-up and will publish a video detailing the exact documents the DOJ should seek and individuals to question. The speaker believes the Epstein intelligence connection hasn't been investigated due to the Pandora's box it opens. They think public outrage might force some disclosure. The speaker attributes the suppression of information to a combination of donors and national security officials with intersecting interests who have influence over the White House and executive branch agencies. They claim Trump World donors were involved in Epstein's network. If Epstein's intelligence ties are confirmed, every aspect of his career would be scrutinized to determine which intelligence agency was involved, triggering intense investigation into his dealings. This, combined with donor pressure, has created a power struggle for the White House.

Speaker 0 explains that the people who are very powerful on the scene are included in “the files,” and if you’re powerful and not in those files, it would be an insult because it means you’re a loser. Speaker 1 asks who isn’t in the files, and Speaker 0 confirms that those not in the files are losing. When asked if the speakers are in the files, Speaker 0 answers yes, noting that it’s any journalist who wrote about it that’s in the files.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

The conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

The speaker expresses frustration over the sealed list of Jeffrey Epstein and questions why it is being kept hidden. They believe that releasing the list would have severe consequences, causing society to crumble and eroding trust in governments and the wealthy. The speaker suggests that the list is being withheld because it contains the names of powerful individuals who do not want their involvement exposed. They advocate for the release of the list, even if it means taking a step back in order to move forward.

There is no client list detailing people Jeffrey Epstein trafficked. Instead, there is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers accusing various people of improper sex. The speaker, as the former lawyer involved in investigations, knows the identities of those redacted, but claims none are public figures currently in office. Some were previously in office, and some are dead. The redactions are the result of court orders from two judges in Manhattan protecting alleged victims. Pam Bondi, the Justice Department, and Donald Trump are not responsible for these redactions, and the speaker is unaware of any undisclosed information they could release. The speaker claims the vast majority of names in the files are already public knowledge, appearing in articles and books. The speaker believes the media has not done enough to find the people already disclosed in the public record.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant and hope that they are still available. The whistleblower is described as credible. When questioned about the informant's whereabouts, the speaker clarifies that they are hopeful of finding them. They explain that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen frequently or being in the public eye.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 2 about how they obtained confidential information. Speaker 2 refuses to disclose their source, citing attorney-client privilege. Speaker 0 threatens contempt if Speaker 2 does not reveal the source within 5 minutes. Speaker 2 mentions statements made by Mr. Copeland regarding a murder. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 demanding answers and Speaker 2 maintaining their stance. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 insisting on knowing the source of the information.

Documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and the speaker knows the names of those individuals, why they're being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker is bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases and cannot disclose this information. The speaker knows the names of people whose files are being suppressed for protection, which they believe is wrong. The individuals being protected are politicians and business leaders, among others.

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.

Someone claims their discovery has been independently discovered four other times and suppressed each time. They believe this time is different and they are in the clear. The speaker says they have had both protective and threatening interactions with people of various agency affiliations. They claim that if a US government agent hasn't told them to stop, they will be allowed to continue. Some SSP members are supposedly waiting for the speaker to publish, while others are wondering why the speaker is still working on it after being threatened. The speaker feels they are in a situation where some people are encouraging them to continue, while others are warning them that they will be killed if they do.

The speaker expresses frustration over the sealed list of Jeffrey Epstein and questions why it is being kept hidden. They believe that releasing the list would have severe consequences, causing society to crumble and eroding trust in governments and the wealthy. The speaker suggests that the list is being withheld because it contains the names of powerful individuals who do not want it to be made public. They advocate for the release of the list, even if it means taking a step back in order to move forward.

The speaker contends that the real reason for hard efforts to prevent the release of the files for months is to protect billionaires, friends of the speaker and associated political donors. They claim Epstein had close ties to our own intelligence agencies and Israel's intelligence agencies, and argue that there will be attempts to stop this somewhere else, which they believe will backfire.