reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Chemical munitions were deployed, and flashbangs were used against the speakers. There was a request for assistance near an ice cream tower. The speaker, who has custody of 44,000 hours of videos, witnessed acts of violence against police officers that were brutal and ugly. The officers did what they had to do. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the incident wouldn't have occurred. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and deny any aggression towards the officers. The situation escalated when the police started firing without provocation.

The exchange opens with one speaker shouting aggressively, using repeated vulgar phrases and insults directed at another person. The initial lines are: "What up? Hey. You're a bitch. You look like a bitch. Back the fuck up." The speaker continues to demand that the other party "Back the fuck up," emphasizing the instruction with added exclamations and repetition. The tone remains confrontational as the speaker comments on appearance with "Nice nice pink rat tails," and again insists, "Back the fuck up." The dialogue then shifts to an incident-driven claim: "No. He came up and attacked us." The speaker questions the other person’s perception with, "Are you fucking stupid?" and asserts that the entire event is captured on video: "It's all on camera, you fucking idiot." This assertion is reinforced with the statement, "He came up and attacked us," underscoring the claim of being assaulted. A sense of accountability and evidence is introduced as the speaker reiterates the alleged assault and points to documentation: "Don't walk away now. I was pepper sprayed twice. It's on Tommy's camera." The mention of pepper spray indicates a violent or confrontational encounter preceding or during the moment being described, and the reference to "Tommy's camera" suggests a separate recording device that purportedly captured the events. The interaction continues to involve a third party, implied to be a responding authority, addressed with a respectful but firm tone: "Yes, sir. Quit attacking us stupid." This line reveals a dynamic where the speaker is appealing to an authority figure, insisting that the other party stop attacking them and positioning themselves as a defensive party in the confrontation. Throughout the transcript, the speakers alternately make pronouncements, defend their actions, and insist on the veracity of their claims through both direct statements and appeals to captured evidence. The repeated phrases—"Back the fuck up," "You're a bitch," and "Don't walk away now"—frame the encounter as a heated exchange characterized by insults, demands for space and safety, and assertions of being mistreated or assaulted. The claim that "It's all on camera" and "It's on Tommy's camera" functions as a central assertion of documentary evidence supporting the speaker's version of events, while the closing line, "Yes, sir. Quit attacking us stupid," signals a concluding attempt to de-escalate and engage authorities while maintaining the stance that the speakers are being attacked. The overall content centers on an alleged assault, the presence of pepper spray, and the insistence that the incident was captured on multiple recordings.

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "01/06/2021, the media propaganda machine fed us a story that shapes the narrative of insurrection." "They intentionally left out some key details." "There's an entire timeline that you haven't seen and it tells a different story." "They're going into the capital, I think." "It looks like they got sniper rifles." "We want to petition our government for the redress of grievances." "Notice the smoke from the sniper's barrel?" "What do you think that means?" "This is where Joshua Black is shot in the face." "He never saw it coming." "The agitator Landon Copeland admitted to being a member of Antifa just after being sentenced for his involvement." "They're trying to save this guy's life right now."

"We need to talk about how the media is the mouthpiece of the US government." "This man was over six feet tall, and we're expected to believe that he himself from a bunk bunk that is five and a half feet tall." "However, it has to be with enough force to break his neck in multiple places in ways which are indicative of a person being violently strangled." "unbelievable coincidences of his cellmate being moved out of his cell just hours before his death." "The cameras are conveniently located so that nothing records anything in that area." "The guards that are supposed to be guarding him were told to go home because there's maintenance happening." "This is your fucking life and your kids and your families. Wake up."

The speaker begins by instructing viewers to watch the video in a specific orientation to properly see the content, promising that they will show some footage from January 6 that has not been seen before. They claim that the January 6 pipe bomber was a Capitol Police officer named Shawnee Kirkhoff, and that Kirkhoff was shooting pepper balls at protesters and shot people through the mouth, injuring other protesters as well. The speaker says they will show clips of Capitol Police and MPD (DC Metropolitan Police) officers assaulting people in the crowd, including the speaker themselves, with pepper spray, batons, sticks, and other means. The speaker emphasizes that protesters are heard screaming and begging for the actions to stop. They point out that other MPD and Capitol Police officers are seen waving at these rogue officers who are beating and inciting the crowd, suggesting these could be other CIA agents or other Shawnee Kirkhoff-type plant bombers. These are presented as questions that, according to the speaker, deserve to be asked. A video is to be shown as a snippet of many more to come. The speaker mentions an intention to release a video covering the time frame from 03:55 PM to 04:18 PM, but states that this plan has changed. Instead, they will release the full video in about a week or two and will publish additional small snippets over the next couple of days. The speaker frames this as a sequence of forthcoming releases rather than a single upload. Toward the end, there are brief on-screen audio moments: “Easy on the spray. Stop the spray.” followed by lines that appear to be crowd or mic dialogue, including “Quit fucking o c, miss Ray. Alright. Come on.” These lines serve as short, real-time reactions or commands during the events being referenced. Overall, the speaker asserts that new, previously unseen footage from January 6 will reveal interactions between law enforcement officers and protesters, including alleged misconduct by an identified officer, and raises provocative questions about possible ties to broader covert activity, promising ongoing releases of further clips in the near future.

The speaker expresses gratitude for being able to respond to the lies spread about them by the media and PR firms. They claim that January 6th was a staged event and describe witnessing police using force against the crowd. They mention warning people not to enter the building and criticize the media for misrepresenting their actions. The speaker believes that the events of January 6th have been used to label political opposition as terrorists. They promise to release more footage to provide context and invite viewers to follow them on social media. Another speaker encourages peaceful behavior and advises against confrontation with the police. The transcript ends with a statement about Infowars providing truthful information.

Speaker 0 describes Skyler as having given about four different interviews online right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. She notes he is seen with glasses on top of his head, front row at the scene, and somehow sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial during the memorial service. She asks, “Who is this guy? How is this possible? And why are his interviews so odd?” She points out that on the day of the shooting Skyler was in the front row and near a bodyguard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 recount Skyler’s position: “Maybe 10 or 15 feet away when it happened. Close as he could.” They describe Skyler with sunglasses on his head, and a Charlie Kirk bodyguard in front of him, with Skyler off to the side in the corner when Charlie began taking questions. They note the bodyguard is directly in front of Charlie, Skyler to the side, matching Skyler’s own account of being “front row, Noel in front of him,” with a bodyguard to his left and one in front of him. They say Skyler was “front row and center.” Speaker 0 then says Skyler later appeared sitting on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial, with a floor pass for a press conference, literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They claim this is documented on Skyler’s Facebook page. They mention Skyler’s Facebook shows two, perhaps “two point, I think, k” followings, with from 2018 to 02/2025 only about seven posts and about 10 pictures, implying a sparse content profile for a “digital creator.” Speaker 3 describes Skyler’s earlier claim about getting into the stadium: “Just made it to the stadium. There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. … There’s been people waiting in line since 05:30 in the morning.” He says Skyler went past multiple security layers to obtain a media badge and a floor pass, and then ended up on the Main Floor “a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial.” The speakers question how he could gain access and yet appear to be late, then have a media pass and seating positions. Speaker 4 adds, “So, again, why go into detail acting as if you were late, you didn’t even know you were gonna get in, yet somehow you end up with a passing all these checkpoints to get a media pass around your deck, end up on the First, you know, Main Floor just a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial that day. It’s just like it’s a big act, a big show that this guy's putting on. It’s like he was handpicked to do all these interviews. He was handpicked to have front row that day because he was up, you know, farther up in the crowd before Charlie got there.” Speaker 4 closes with a segment featuring a clip of another person describing a mythic, imagery-laden interpretation: “An indecision night. I photoshopped in my mind. I photoshopped the blood away. I photoshopped Charlie, sat him back up, put his smile back on, and rewound the tape… I rewound the bullet going back up into the rifle. I stuck a flower inside the rifle.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 address a viral video about Charlie’s chief of staff, Mikey, and explain why they are discussing it. - The video in question attacks Mikey, Charlie’s chief of staff, claiming based on a few seconds of clips that he allegedly has a nonchalant or calm reaction to Charlie’s murder. They describe this as a “extremely disgusting attack.” - Speaker 1 recounts what happened: they were at the scene when a shooting occurred. The loud crack is heard; they turn and see Charlie has been shot. They realize there is a shooter on the scene. They decide to get out of there rather than be shot, noting Charlie had a security team that leapt into action to get Charlie out. - Speaker 0 notes their own actions: he, too, considered getting into the car, but decided against it. He was ahead of Mikey as they left. He recalls a moment where he paused to assess the situation, then saw Mikey, who was profoundly freaked out. Mikey’s lip was quivering, and he said, “I need to call Erica,” then took his phone and began calling Erica. Speaker 0 also called his own mom, saying there had been a shooting and that he was okay. - They describe Mikey’s later actions: after the initial shock, Mikey took charge like a “general directing a battle,” coordinating hospital transport and information flow, and directing people where to go. When they learned Charlie had died, Mikey told them, “now none of you can say anything that you've heard because it is Erica is not going to hear about this from anyone except me.” - Speaker 2 asks if Mikey could be involved in a conspiracy to murder Charlie. Speaker 1 responds that such accusations are vile and describes how some people online fuel such narratives, comparing the mindset to getting a “high” from dangerous or provocative content. - The speakers emphasize Mikey’s heroic actions: Mikey was distressed but stepped up to direct people and communicate with Erica and others. Speaker 0 notes that he, too, was traumatized after learning of Charlie’s death and rushed to be with Erica and the team. - They address the specific allegation that Mikey was on the phone immediately during the incident; they state he was not on the phone but was taking social videos to share with their group chats. He would send updates to Charlie’s social media during the event while the crowd was changing, then, overwhelmed by the noise and shock, he put his fingers in his ears but his phone remained in his hand as he moved away. - They describe the scene as a cordoned-off area with a narrow gap that people used to exit, where Mikey walked briskly or ran as he processed the trauma and continued to direct actions. They reiterate Mikey “turned into a general on a field marshaling the troops.” - Speaker 1 closes by urging readers who propagate narratives attacking Mikey to reconsider, stating that such narratives are bad and gross and a choice that shouldn’t be made.

The speaker challenges the credibility of the narrative about Charlie Kirk’s incident and points to security footage to raise questions. They reference a security detail member wearing “meta AI shades” who appears to be filming. According to the speaker, when Charlie is hit, the security person turns on the shades, films, and then, as chaos unfolds with a crowd rushing the stage, carries out a handoff. The speaker describes a handoff occurring to a gentleman in a shirt. They claim that this is the moment when someone takes something off Charlie and hands it to the man in the black shirt, who then runs off. The speaker asserts that the item being handed off is the “laugh mic” that allegedly contained an explosive device, implying that the security detail’s first priority was to remove the suspicious object from Charlie and pass it to the other person rather than ensuring Charlie’s safety. The speaker emphasizes that the security detail “knew exactly what to do” and questions how the person receiving the item would know what to do in such chaotic moments, suggesting coordinated movement. They argue that the security actions undermine the official narrative about Charlie Kirk and Tyler Robinson, indicating that the FBI should be questioned and accountability demanded from the FBI and this administration. In summary, the speaker uses the footage to claim that the security team’s behavior—specifically the meta AI shades operator filming, the rapid handoff of an object from Charlie to a man in black, and the subsequent actions—casts doubt on the established story and points to potential coordination and a failure to prioritize Charlie’s immediate safety. The call is for greater scrutiny and accountability of the FBI and the administration.

Recently, some police officers spoke about their trauma during the January events. One officer described being outnumbered, beaten, and called a traitor. However, it turns out he was not in uniform and was actually an FBI informant carrying a Confederate flag. This revelation undermines the narrative presented, suggesting it was not based on truth. There's a call to release FBI files to uncover the real culprits behind the events.

The footage reveals that Brian Sicknick was not a victim of violence at the Capitol, contradicting claims made by the January 6th committee. The tape shows him walking normally after the incident, and investigators for the Democratic Party reviewed it but chose not to release it to the public. This decision was made to protect their narrative, as revealing the truth would undermine their political agenda. Their willingness to misrepresent the facts about Sicknick indicates a broader pattern of dishonesty.

The speaker argues that the event, recorded from multiple angles and analyzed frame by frame, obviously happened. They express anticipation for a future “goalpost shift,” but instead expect others to agree with each other and lie, claiming various parties—CBS, Fox News, the media, reporters, the video—are lying, while insisting the event is real and that the speaker and others are vindicated. They mention emailing Donald Trump, noting they have never talked to him. The speaker then reads comments about the incident, referencing a claim that “she did hit him” and that this is part of the cycle, with the speaker implying some groups lack sympathy for the person involved. They conclude by noting that “she was peaceful.”

"A bullet cartridge." "Right there." "It's been thrown over there, setting the scene for something that would be possibly coming our way to be part of this whole insurrection rubbish?" "Because how all in the same scene or magazine, whatever you wanna call it, gets thrown and then conveniently in the same scene, the policeman drops his weapon on the ground." "So you got the the cartridge, and you got the weapon." "Right there, ladies and gentlemen. There's the weapon, and there is the cartridge." "Right here, weapon and cartridge." "Can you see?" "Now, ladies and gentlemen, it's the finer details we need to pay attention to."

The speakers recount the moments surrounding Charlie Kirk being shot and highlight the behavior of Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kelley’s chief of staff. The account begins with a father describing his son’s roles: Justin is the chief financial officer, and Mikey is the chief of staff. He recalls the instant Charlie was shot: “Charlie’s been shot in the neck. Please call every pastor and pray.” He notes that Charlie was directing at the time, with blood all over him. Speaker 1 focuses on Mikey’s actions during the incident. He notes that Mikey is still there, phone in hand, texting, talking, then putting the phone away. He points to the person Charlie is arguing with, Hunter Kozak, and emphasizes what the video shows about Mikey: he seems to see Charlie get hit and “simply walks away.” Mikey later reappears on the other side of the tent, not running but walking. The account questions whether Mikey might be on the phone, though it isn’t certain. Security guards are described as doing their part, while Mikey is shown “walking, like getting far away from everything.” The narrative suggests Mikey turned his back on the incident after it happened. Speaker 2 names Mikey McCoy, Charlie Kirk’s chief of staff and friend, describing what he did or did not do during the morning. The speaker asserts that Mikey “spent the whole morning dutifully and loyally by Charlie’s side filming everything,” but then “abandoned Charlie in the very instant Charlie was killed.” The key questions posed are whether Charlie was actually dead, whether he needed help, and whether Mikey rushed to aid him or instead got his camera out. The speaker concludes that, according to the account, “Mikey McCoy didn't care about Charlie Kirk at all and just left him behind.” In summary, the described sequence presents Mikey McCoy as being present with Charlie prior to the shooting, then engaging in texting and moving away, appearing on the far side of the tent, and ultimately turning his back on Charlie after the incident, with the claim that he abandoned him as Charlie passed. The recounting is reinforced by a second speaker who reiterates that Mikey did not assist Charlie and appeared to prioritize other actions over Charlie’s welfare.

This transcript centers on footage and claims surrounding Alex Preti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse who was killed by border patrol. The video described was filmed on January 13 in Minneapolis and shows a man who appears to be Alex Preti interacting with federal immigration agents eleven days before he was shot and killed. The organizers note that the BBC analyzed the footage and confirmed his identity with 97% accuracy using facial recognition technology. The events described began with the team receiving a tip on the morning of January 13 that federal agents were blocking a street at the corner of East 36 and Park Avenue in Minneapolis. The news crew arrived around 10:15 a.m. They observed observers shouting at the agents as the agents walked back to their vehicles. As the agents started driving away, the man in the footage kicked the taillight of one of the vehicles. In response, an agent exited the vehicle, an altercation ensued, and the agents fired tear gas and pepper balls into the crowd. The sequence shows the agents continuing to hold the man down before they retreat and the man walks away. The man depicted in the footage is described as wearing a similar outfit to what Preti was wearing on the day he was killed. The video also shows what appears to be a gun above the man’s waistband. The sequence then shows the man continuing to stand at the scene. The transcript notes a discrepancy between different accounts of what happened on the day Preti was killed. Specifically, it states that on that day, the Department of Homeland Security claimed Preti approached officers while holding a handgun. That claim is said to have been contradicted by analyses of bystander videos from multiple news investigations, which concluded that Preti was holding a phone, not a gun, when he was pinned to the street. The narrative concludes by stating that shortly after the altercation captured on January 13, federal agents drove away, and the reporters or crew left the scene soon after. The account emphasizes that this footage was part of a broader set of observations and analyses surrounding the incident and Preti’s death, including the claim about the device in his hand being a phone rather than a gun.

Speaker 0 argues that “they are not here to cause safety in this city” and that “what they are doing is not to provide safety in America.” They claim those actions are “causing chaos and distrust,” and that such actions are “ripping families apart,” and “sowing chaos on our streets,” adding that in this case they are “quite literally killing people.” The speaker contends that the opposing side has already begun to frame the incident as an action of self-defense, and, after having seen the video themselves, states directly that this portrayal is “bullshit.” They insist that the situation does not reflect self-defense but rather that “this was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying, getting killed.”

The transcript presents a highly inflammatory, pro-immigration-enforcement narrative centered on recent unrest in Portland and Chicago, with broad claims about law enforcement, media, and politics. - In Portland, Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, is described as visiting “Rip City,” inspecting what is framed as Antifa’s “mini confederacy,” and interacting with an undocumented migrant in a way likened to a dramatic arrest, with wording implying removal from the country. - The situation at protests is depicted as chaotic and violent, with ICE vans “busting through barricades” and targeting a fentanyl trafficker, a murder suspect, sex predators, and pedophiles “all iced in Oregon.” Protesters are accused of throwing rocks and using lasers and dye, while Democrats are described as saying it’s all “smoke and mirrors.” - Protesters are described as peaceful on the surface but with videographers behind them to create a perception of chaos; a tone is set that the media is biased, and there is contempt for mainstream outlets, including a claim that “Legacy Media doesn’t have any reporters filming the riots.” - Chief Bob Day is introduced as a police chief who is also a DEI consultant, previously working for a DEI nonprofit, and accused of coaching Antifa to avoid arrest. The narrative suggests that Day prioritizes positive media coverage and that his actions reflect a broader strategy to reimagine policing. - The piece asserts a strained relationship between people of color, police, and a broader social order, with speakers claiming that bias and racism within policing have not been adequately addressed and that challenges will increase unless something changes. - There are repeated claims that Antifa is attacking immigration officers for an extended period, while Portland is described as aiding Antifa and resisting ICE. A meeting between Kristi Noem and Bob Day is described as unfavorable to law enforcement, with Day allegedly dissatisfied by the outcome. - Chicago is portrayed similarly: federal agents’ operations are described as being hampered by a stand-down order, with a female rioter who allegedly doxxed ICE agents and rammed a car later described as extremely dangerous; prosecutors reportedly characterize the individual as dangerous, while the left is accused of prioritizing “micro confederacies” to protect alleged criminals. - The transcript ties these events to political figures and themes: mentioning Mayor Johnson and “no ICE zones,” referencing violent crime, and portraying actions by Democrats and certain judges as lenient toward criminals. A Latin King calls for a $10,000 hit on a border patrol commander. - There is a recurring narrative about the 2024-2025 political climate: immigration, crime, media bias, and political power. Claims include that illegal crossings have declined to the lowest level since 1970, that the FBI has arrested thousands in crime sweeps, and that political operatives hope to deploy troops to polling places to “protect the vote.” - The piece ends with criticisms of Kristi Noem and others, accusing them of sensationalism and of inciting actions, and portraying discussions about immigration and policing as deeply adversarial, with calls for stronger enforcement and political maneuvering to influence elections.

During a protest, there were acts of violence against police officers. The speaker, who has custody of thousands of hours of videos, witnessed these acts. The officers responded with necessary force. However, another speaker claims that if the police hadn't used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the situation wouldn't have escalated. They argue that it was a peaceful protest and that the officers initiated the violence without provocation.

Chemical munitions were deployed, including flashbangs. There was a request for assistance near the ice cream shop. The speaker, who has custody of thousands of hours of videos, witnessed acts of violence against police officers. The officers responded accordingly. However, another speaker argues that the protest was peaceful and the officers initiated the use of force with concussion grenades and pepper spray.

"Police have now entered into the crowd." "We're not moving till something happens about this country." "Here's the man who was hit." "He's been cleaned up a little bit." "This guy was knocked out by the police." "It looks like he has a broken nose, blood gushing down his face, and now he's back." "He stood up." "He's just lying to you." "I'm not doing anything. I'm standing here." "I've seen what happened to this poor guy." "Don't do it again, mate. Honestly, don't do it again." "I'm a public citizen and a public fairway." "I'm a public citizen on a public highway." "Arrest me then." "Arrest me then." "You're gonna fuck the game on you."

Social media and journalism can misrepresent the circumstances surrounding an event, and the post seen does not depict the entire incident. What often happens is that social media and mainstream media commentary distort content, which makes it harder to thoroughly investigate the activity and enforce the law. A single post or coverage item can present one side of the story without context, leading to people rushing to conclusions and the narrative “growing legs” that the investigation then has to manage. Speaker 1 asked where the nearest officers were. Speaker 0 answered that in the central business section they were working; both were in vehicles and had to maneuver through traffic. Regarding what exactly was distorted, Speaker 0 explained that social media irresponsibility frequently shows one side of the equation without factual context, and then people run with that, causing the issue to grow larger and become more difficult to manage as part of the investigation.

The speaker points to a bullet cartridge, saying, "A bullet cartridge." They claim it's "It's been thrown over there, setting the scene for something that would be possibly coming our way to be part of this whole insurrection rubbish?" and note that "in the same scene or magazine, whatever you wanna call it, gets thrown and then conveniently in the same scene, the policeman drops his weapon on the ground." They emphasize by saying, "So you got the the cartridge, and you got the weapon. Right there, ladies and gentlemen. There's the weapon, and there is the cartridge. Right here, weapon and cartridge. Can you see?" Finally, they conclude, "Now, ladies and gentlemen, it's the finer details we need to pay attention to."

"What you're watching here, you're gonna watch the reaction." "Something is hitting that shirt before it goes through his neck." "There could easily be a white vest under it." "Or what I just realized here is you guys have black letters on there." "That round could have very possibly touched one of those black letters." "The shirt looks like after the fact, but he did even have this mic on here." "There is no way to get that angle of that shot." "the vest goes through this, hits something inside, ricochets back out, comes out the top." "it most likely was a long rifle." "I'm still not convinced of the trans shooter." "There have been lies that the FBI has told us." "Kyle's Kyle does this stuff for a living." "Drop some comments below."

During the Capitol incident, a law enforcement officer recounts being attacked and called a traitor. Another person claims that the officer was actually an FBI plant, not in uniform, and carrying a Confederate flag. They believe the narrative is unraveling and demand the release of FBI files to reveal the true culprits.

I warned about chemical munitions and called for deployment. There's chaos as flashbangs are being used against us, and officers are shooting into their own crowd. We’re here to support Blue Lives Matter, but this is how we’re treated. A large crowd is approaching on High Street, and we need backup. There were violent acts that day, including brutal assaults on police officers. Our officers acted as necessary. However, if the police hadn’t used concussion grenades and pepper spray, the situation might have remained peaceful. We were standing close to them, and they initiated the violence without provocation. We’ve been tear-gassed.