reSee.it - Related Video Feed

It's been discovered multiple times but suppressed each time. However, this time feels different; there's a belief that it won't be suppressed. I've had both protective and threatening interactions with various agencies. If a government agent hasn't warned me to stop, then I can proceed. There are factions waiting for me to publish, while others are frustrated that I haven't listened to their threats from three years ago. I constantly navigate between encouragement to share my findings and warnings that I could be in danger for doing so.

The narrator hired a new cybersecurity company run by the former CIO of Northrop Grumman, who has “thirty five years in counter espionage specifically for the navy, specifically for advanced propulsion,” and was the chief information officer for Northrop Grumman. The narrator promised the CIO a series of “really crazy ass stories” about electronic and physical surveillance, stalking, and “weird ass death and sexual threats” and asked him to reserve judgment until the end, ready to hear if they were insane or not. The CIO told him, “I wish I could tell you that you were insane, but you're totally not.” He apologized, saying he was trying to let him down gently, and that the stories he’d heard were not unique: “the stories you've told me, I've heard from other young women in technology positions.” They do it “on purpose” to make you feel you can’t tell anyone, and they “pose as, like, agents on their own government.” He urged the narrator to protect herself and to tell others, but he waits until he has five or six “smoking guns” before speaking up.

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 describes two competing, ongoing pressures around a موضوع they’re discussing. They say: “It’s been independently discovered for other times. He said, it has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time. And he said, I don’t think they’re gonna suppress it this time. He said you’re in the clear.” They claim “they obviously know about you” because they’ve had “multiple protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations.” The speaker explains that if the person hasn’t had a US government agent come to them to say, “stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then “they’re gonna let you do it.” They assert that “they’re waiting,” with “SSP motherfuckers” twiddling their thumbs, wondering, “Is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We’ve been influencing this bitch forever.” The speaker notes that “on the other side of the fence, there’s multiple parties looking at each other like, didn’t we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening?” They emphasize the persistence of warnings: “What is she doing? She’s still doing it? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” The speaker describes two persistent scenarios in their life: one where people say, “do it. Do it. You’re the one. Do it.” and another where “multiple people” tell them, “they’re gonna kill you. Don’t do it. They’re gonna kill you.”

Speaker describes sending a life insurance policy of sorts—a package of text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents—to trusted people so that, if anything happens to him, they will know exactly who it is that has been making my life a living hell over the past couple of years. He says those behind it are trying to bankrupt me and my family, threatening us to sue us. He notes Everything that Kanye said was so real. He says Just leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, and you say what you believe. Fight fair. He claims he has explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary. He says to send everything around to about eight people that you trust and that he sent it to journalists, text messages, screenshots to people ranging from Max Blumenthal to Andrew Tate.

Speaker says he sent around a "life insurance policy of sorts"—a package filled with text messages, emails, private communications, videos, and private legal documents—to people he trusts, so if anything happens to me, you guys will know exactly who it is that has been making my life a living hell over the past couple of years. "People that are trying to bankrupt me, trying to bankrupt me and my family, that are threatening us to sue us." "Everything that Kanye said was so real." He adds, "man, Kanye was right. He was really saying something about what it takes to leave, you know, to fight for custody of your own soul. Just leave me alone. Let me say what I believe, and you say what you believe. Fight fair." "Why do you always have to make this threat to bankrupt people?" He says those people, if anything happens to me, have my explicit permission to release it all, detonate it all, expose all of these people in politics and in the movement who behave like this behind the scenes. It's necessary. He urges every person with a platform who is scared to "send everything around to about eight people that you trust." He concludes, "And, I mean, I I've ranged it. I sent it to journalists, text messages, screenshots to people ranging from Max Blumenthal to Andrew Tate. They won't know where it's coming from."

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.

I would openly say that you have no intent or have never thought about killing yourself, and you do not and have not ever engaged. But but the second part is even more important diligent because this is something I know for a fact that is used to demonize people that are dancing too close to the sun. You need to state publicly, you have not, never have or have no interest in any type of questionable sexual material. I'm telling you, like, there there's there's a degree of pressure that can be applied to people that will not stand down that most people just don't understand.

Taking on the intelligence community is incredibly risky. They have numerous ways to retaliate. Even a shrewd businessman would be foolish to antagonize them. I've heard they're extremely angry about how they've been treated and spoken about. I don't know exactly what they might do if provoked, but it's a dangerous game to play.

In the dialogue, Speaker 0 discusses long-standing claims that information has been independently discovered, suppressed, and now appears unlikely to be suppressed this time. The speaker asserts that the person being spoken about is apparently in the clear and that various agencies are aware of them due to multiple protective and threatening interactions with different agency affiliations. The core message is that if the person had not yet been approached by a US government agent telling them to stop, they would be allowed to continue; in other words, agents are waiting and watching, with some implying that suppression may not occur this time. The speaker describes a sense that “SSP motherfuckers” are anxiously awaiting publication, wondering if Amy will publish soon because they have been influencing the situation for a long time. There is a perception that multiple parties on one side are asking why she isn’t stopping, recalling that they had warned her three years earlier that they would kill her if she continued. The speaker conveys two opposing, ongoing scenarios in their life: one where people urge them to proceed (“do it”), asserting they are the one who should publish; and another where multiple people warn that others will kill them if they do publish. Overall, the transcript portrays a tense, dual awareness of external pressure and threats related to publishing, with conflicting external signals from various actors about whether to proceed or face lethal consequences.

The speaker has been told that their work has been discovered multiple times and suppressed, but this time might be different. They have had interactions with government agencies, some protective and some threatening. There are conflicting messages - some encouraging them to publish and others warning that they will be killed if they do. The speaker feels torn between these two scenarios, with pressure to continue their work and fear of the consequences.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Everyone is eager to hear your story, especially regarding the 2024 election. You have firsthand experience, which gives you authority on the matter. Can you share what's causing you to lose sleep? I received a text from a lawyer who previously tried to remove me from the ballot ten years ago. He threatened to send a cease and desist if I don’t stop speaking out. This has caused me significant anxiety. Courage is about facing fear, so I'm trying to push through it. It's concerning that individuals within the system are legally threatening you. I reached out to him to clarify what I said that was untrue, and we discussed it. Ultimately, everything I stated was accurate; he just didn't want it presented in a clear way.

Speaker 0: It's been a few days since you issued that resignation. You’ve been called weak by the president of the United States. You’ve been called a traitor by Lindsey Graham. You’ve been called an anti-Semite by Mitch McConnell, among others. Now there are reports that you’re under a leak investigation potentially accusing you of a felony that could put you in jail even though you now are raising your two boys. You’ve remarried, but you’re their sole biological parent still here. I ask you now whether this was worth it. Speaker 1: I think it most certainly was, Megan. I mean, the attacks against me are to be expected. The ad hominems from people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham at this point are fairly laughable. They don’t wanna discuss the issues. I wanna discuss the issues. As for the leak allegations, I’m not concerned because I know I did nothing wrong. Of course, I am concerned because we’ve all seen the FBI and the full way of the government come down on individuals who speak out. So that has me a little bit concerned, but I know the truth and the facts are on my side. So I think the important issues to address are what’s at hand, why we’re at war, and how we get out of the state that we’re in right now. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Your boys have already lost one parent. I mean, the thought of this government for which you’ve been working and the government for which you’ve sacrificed so much, actually trying to put you in jail over an alleged leak after the number of leaks we’ve seen go unpunished over the past ten years is truly outrageous, Joe. I mean, does it anger you? How does it make you feel? Speaker 1: You, you know, it it does anger me, but it it’s all just to be expected. I I knew this was going to happen. I I know their playbook. I think we’re all very familiar with their playbook. So, actually, the fact that they’re leaking these allegations so so they have to leak the allegations of an FBI investigation. If there truly was an FBI investigation, and who knows, maybe there will be, there would be a process and procedure for that. They would actually formally come to me. And if they were still collecting information, they most certainly wouldn’t leak it. So the fact that the FBI, DOJ, or really probably just partisans are leaking this this so-called investigation against me at a time when I’m going on and publicly speaking out against the course the administration is on, to me, that tells me everything that I need to know. I feel very confident in what I’m doing right now. I think I have a mission, and I think it is to do everything I can to stop this war. So to me, I kinda view everything else as a sideshow, and I just wanna stay focused on the mission.

The speaker explains he is trying to navigate possible collaboration with federal authorities while maintaining personal integrity. He says he has a statement that is “completely true” that he’s “never been in contact with any federal authority,” and he’s torn about how to start working with DHS to address threats he faces as a national figure. He claims “the Yemenis, a million of them came out into the streets” and that they want to kill him, with a fatwa on his head. He asserts he would need DHS to make a statement that “the Houthis and their fatwa that they placed on my head will not be stood,” and that “American citizens exercising our rights will not be, you know, subject to to Muslim murder, rituals.” He describes hundreds of thousands of death threats in his DMs and says, to deal with them, he would need to walk into an FBI building and give them a printout, but he “don’t fucking trust the FBI.” He accuses the FBI of having “destroyed my life,” pointing to past raids on his and others’ homes and references to the Mar-a-Lago search, stating he is trying to figure out how to navigate this situation without claiming contact with Harmeet or making contacts he “don’t want to.” He notes that when he and others exercised their rights in Dearborn, he views it as a civil rights hate crime, saying “the Muslim oppression of Christians in Dearborn” was a civil rights hate violation and that “they punched me in the face because I’m white” and “they punched me in the face because I’m Christian, not for anything else.” Harmony Dillon is described as wanting to prosecute this as a hate crime, with others subjected to spit, food thrown, assaults, pepper spray, etc. He mentions the Trump administration’s purported interest in bringing these people to justice, but he expresses a wish not to feed into it, citing personal integrity and caution. He questions whether the rank-and-file FBI officer’s motives are aligned with his interests, contrasting a year ago with a “grandma that walked through the capital” to now a Muslim who punched a Christian, implying hypocrisy or moral decline. He asserts there are “deep state embedded figures in the DOJ, in the FBI, in DHS,” who were involved in actions like the raid on Mar-a-Lago and other “schemes.” He says he needs assurance that these agencies have “our best interest” and that they are not “deep state shills.” Ultimately, he states he has refused to make contact because it’s “too risky” and he cannot be associated with people he deems “un American.”

Three people told me off record. Two have this in a written communication from Charlie. One, who was a Turning Point USA donor. The very day before Charlie Kirk died, he expressed that he thought he was going to be killed. He told these people, "I think they're going to kill me." He had not expressed that to me. So I am telling you this based off the testimony of three people. I hope those people come forward with that. Those conversations were off record; I honor that. But I am hoping that they will tell us who was they—Who is the they that he thought were going to kill him?

Based on personal experiences, the speaker acknowledges the seriousness of claims made by US government employees about the government killing individuals who speak out or plan to speak out. These claims were even made in front of senior officials on Capitol Hill. The speaker suggests that people are paralyzed by fear because this is a reality. Many individuals interviewed expressed their willingness to support the speaker in reporting these incidents to the inspector general, but they did not want to be named due to fear. The speaker and the other person in the conversation both admit that they never believed in UFOs until recently, but now they believe that the US government has made contact with extraterrestrial entities.

The speaker claims to know that documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and knows the names of those individuals, why they are being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker states they are bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and cannot disclose what they know. When asked if those being protected are politicians, business leaders, or both, the speaker responds that they are everything.

Speaker 0 lists a number of prominent figures: Tom Hanks, Stephen King, Robert De Niro, Kevin Spacey, Stephen Colbert, Adam Schiff, Meryl Streep, Obama, John Podesta, Dan Schneider, Dan Harmon. Speaker 1: I don't care what they do to me. This is an issue I feel strongly about. I’m literally willing to die over it. I’m willing to do whatever it takes until this is gone. I put in an anonymous tip to DHS, I said, I have information of a trafficking ring. I gave them Seth and Claire and told them some details. Here’s the thing that people need to understand: Organizations are corrupt. LAPD, like FBI. Hollywood pedophilia is not a conspiracy theory. By this, it’s a well documented fact. It happens a lot, but there are a lot of powerful people that have a lot of sway, and they can kill investigations. The LA sheriff’s badge has a known FBI pedo symbol on the badge. I have been researching this stuff since 9/11. Because when 9/11 happened, I was like, there’s no way that the official story there’s no way. So people have been trained to trust the ones in power. They, you know? A lot of people voted for Hillary Clinton, and you don’t need a conspiracy theory or anything to know that Hillary Clinton is, you know, a rotten individual. There are a lot of other people that are involved with this. There are people that, you know, 9/11 was the catalyst for a lot of people because they saw the depths that the ruling class would go to to propagate their control. What’s the deal with they say the Jews are the chosen people. I think as human beings, we’re all the chosen people, and they agree with me. I feel like that ideology—the chosen people meme—needs to go because, like, we’re all human beings. I understand people wanting to be with their own kind, and that’s great, but if you dehumanize others because of that, I don’t think that’s cool. It’s common knowledge at this point. Like, I’m in Hollywood. Everyone talks. Look at Kevin Spacey. Look at Kevin Spacey. Everyone knew about Spacey for years and years and years and years and years, and no one said anything. Media never covered it. Why I feel so blasé about just calling out Spielberg? It’s because they don’t want to fight it. They don’t want to take it to court.

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 recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

The speaker expresses concern that they might be killed if they fully destroy corruption and graft. They mention two separate incidents before they supported Trump where individuals traveled to Austin to kill them. One individual believed the speaker put a chip in their head, while the other had "chief serial killer" in their X profile bio. Both individuals, described as having severe mental illness rather than political motivations, were arrested and held in Travis County Jail simultaneously. They have since been released, though possibly with ankle monitors. The speaker believes the probability of being targeted by homicidal maniacs is proportionate to how often their name is heard.

Speaker 0 recounts experiences where elements of the US government approached him to be involved in things that were “way above my pay grid,” noting he has never discussed them in depth publicly. He describes being in rooms with people and wondering, “why are they talking to me?” comparing the experience to something out of “eyes wide shut.” When pressed about what they said, he declines to detail, saying, “I’m not gonna tell you.” He hints at a broader pattern, referencing a prior discussion about a “shape shifter” on Howard Stern and explains that he has experienced supernatural things and times when elements of the US government reached out to leverage his influence, which he characterizes as not being “that great.” He asserts that there are insinuations and, openly, that in popular music there are people who have been compromised knowingly, describing it as a Faustian bargain: “Pick door number one, and we're gonna push you to the moon.” He explains that in music, some people are protected and receive every benefit of that protection, while others are discarded if they do not comply with demands or “press a button and throw them off the ship.” He emphasizes that he has been in rooms with some of the most famous people in the world and has been invited to the White House twice for meetings that were essentially off the record. When asked to explain why, he notes the meetings occurred “during the Bush administration” and adds, “Oh oh, wow. And and and I’m not a Republican,” which surprised him given he grew up in a blue state.

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

Speaker 0 expresses intense anger toward the Trump administration, saying: "I give a fuck about any fucking person in the Trump administration being upset with giving them oh, how dare you?" They claim others have "no fucking idea to list the bodies that we have" and suggest that if they were serial killers, it would be like "Mal or something." They urge everyone to become emotionally detached from their online personas and to create burner accounts to "unmask all of these traders" and to impose the "threat of IRL consequences" because people use anonymity to act behind privilege. They state that Twitter should no longer be a safe place for these individuals and propose that someone should interrupt leadership by saying, "yeah, boss. I I can't do this anymore." They argue the government should consider the impact on families: "My kids and my address just fucking wound up on this platform. How the fuck did they find out who I am?" They insist that every time those people log in, they need to have "second fucking thoughts" and be terrified. They assert that "Security clearances don't mean a goddamn thing to me" and declare, "I guarantee you I'm 10 times smarter than you and your fucking best bet." Speaker 1 interjects: "Back the up, juicy." Speaker 2 responds with distress: "I'm not a Spit on me again." They request to be kept away from the person and say, "This guy's intimidating me. He's pushing me." They ask, "Where's your vehicle?" and answer, "It's in the garage." They further ask, "Hey. What is your name? Are you working for the hotel?" and Speaker 0 says, "I'm working. Tell me. Are" before the scene cuts off. Overall, the excerpt presents a heated monologue urging aggressive online accountability and real-world consequences for certain individuals operating under anonymity, followed by interruptions that reveal a tense confrontation involving intimidation, personal threat concerns, and questions about a vehicle and employment.