reSee.it - Related Video Feed

After a 2012 raid on his property where his dog was shot and property was destroyed over a bogus charge, the speaker donated laptops preloaded with viral spyware to government secretaries. Within a week, he claims to have gained control of the entire government computer system, monitoring their activity. He was looking for information related to the raid. Instead, he says he discovered that the Minister of National Defense was the largest drug trafficker in Central America and the Minister of Immigration was the largest human trafficker.

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

Speaker 0 recounts discovering a secret SCIF on campus, a secure facility with files nobody knew existed. An employee walked by a door, inquiries were made, the room was entered, and individuals were found working there with secret files on controversial topics. Those files have been turned over to attorneys and the speaker is pursuing what happened. The speaker notes that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) knows every traveler entering the country and every good that comes in, and they assess and collect tariffs. They highlight that information about travelers during COVID was with national labs under the speaker’s jurisdiction, and that scientists at those labs participated with the Wuhan lab. The speaker claims these scientists traveled back and forth between each other and worked on those experiments, describing this as eye-opening. Addressing Elon and his team, the speaker says they were extremely helpful since the speaker’s arrival in office, assisting in identifying a troubling issue: some of the speaker’s own department employees had downloaded software on the speaker’s phone and laptop to spy on them and record meetings. The speaker states that this had happened to several politicians and notes that bringing in technology experts helped reveal this software; without examining laptops and phones, the activity would still be ongoing. The speaker emphasizes a need to continue partnering with technology companies and experts to bring them in for assistance, as government work—especially within the department under the speaker’s jurisdiction—has been neglected and lagging behind what it should be. The speaker recalls that in the first four months, they couldn’t even email a PowerPoint from Department of Homeland Security servers if it was longer than six pages, illustrating what they view as backwards thinking that hindered national security. The speaker reflects on the concept of a deep state, admitting that they previously believed it existed but didn’t realize how severe it was. They describe daily efforts to uncover individuals who do not love America and who work within the Department and across the federal government. The overall message conveys uncovering secrecy, internal surveillance concerns, cross-agency connections involving CBP and national labs, collaboration with tech experts, and a strong critique of past departmental conduct and systemic protection failures.

Someone who snuck into that chat that was not a part of that was not an employee there. And they screenshotted what they saw and leaked it out on x. This is a chat group that was created and administered by the NSA, one of the premier intelligence collection entities that we have. It was obscene. It was talking about sex toys and sex tricks for people who had gone through, you know, some kind of transgender surgery. During the workday on an intelligence hosted work chat group. The supervisors said anybody who's involved with this is getting fired and getting their security clearance revoked. Imagine you're in any office and you're having these kinds of sexually explicit conversations in the workplace. This cannot be happening in the workplace, and it must not be happening in our premier intelligence agency that has people who have the highest clearances that that anyone can hold. This chat group had existed for over two years. Because of president Biden's DEI initiatives, they were essentially told, shut up. It's none of your business.

I was pressured by government officials to say and do things that would harm others. They even hacked my phone and sent me a tracking notification. They offered me money and tried to persuade me to lie. They also mentioned an AI hacker that could manipulate media to their advantage, paid by the National Congress. I left the country out of fear for my safety. I don't want to blame others, but I'm scared something might happen to me. I want to share this with you.

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.”

The transcript centers on Amjed Fassisi, a CIA contractor who works with Deloitte and, at times, within the CIA’s China Mission Center on cyber operations. He describes a career path that includes time at the CIA starting in 2008, a stint at the NSA for two years, then a return to the CIA in 2011, where he managed about 80 cybersecurity practitioners and later helped stand up a threat program inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fassisi asserts that he holds a high-level clearance (top secret/SCIs) and that his role involves cross-agency work across the enterprise, though he does not disclose specific details. Key, repeated claims attributed to Fassisi: - The higher-ups in the intelligence community, including CIA directors Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, and the upper echelons of their staffs, colluded to withhold information from sitting President Donald Trump. Fassisi states, “We kept information from him,” and later explains “the executive staff” (the director and subordinates) were involved. - Fassisi contends that the CIA and other agencies monitored Trump and his inner circle, using human sources and surveillance. He mentions that Trump could be targeted or spied on, including claims that he would “call Vladimir Putin and tell him” secrets, and that “the intelligence agencies thought that president Trump was a, quote, fucking dumbass and would disclose information.” - He asserts that information about Trump’s activities was intentionally withheld from him by the intelligence community, and that this withholding involved high-level officials who would not share details with the president. - Fassisi suggests that the intelligence community engaged in surveillance of Trump and his team using methods such as human intelligence rather than only wiretaps, and that the FBI, NSA, and other agencies were involved, with implications that FISA-related processes were used to monitor Trump. - He asserts distrust and lack of information-sharing among agencies, stating “the NSA and CIA don’t share information” and describing internal fragmentation and territoriality between agencies as a problem. - Fassisi alleges that there was a broader pattern of weaponizing the CIA and collaborating with foreign partners to influence or monitor Trump associates, referencing the broader narrative around Trump and Russia and implying ongoing monitoring of Trump’s activities post-presidency as well. - He makes broad allegations about Israel and other allies, asserting distrust and claiming Israel “steals intelligence” from the U.S.; he frames relations with allies as fraught and unreliable. - Fassisi describes the reporting by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi as validated by his claims, and positions the ongoing investigation as exposing corruption within the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice, with a narrative that information was hidden from the public and from Trump. Supporting context around the interview: - The exchange includes tense moments where Fassisi is shown a CIA badge and discusses his role; the interviewer questions the plausibility and provenance of his claims, pressing for documentation or proof, while Fassisi provides limited responses about his clearance, division (China Mission Center), and contractor status. - The segment also includes editorial framing by the presenter, interjecting with external commentary and promotional content not directly related to Fassisi’s assertions. The interviewer promises follow-up coverage and frames Fassisi’s statements as part of a broader whistleblower narrative. - Throughout, the content repeatedly emphasizes claims of withheld information from Trump, surveillance of Trump and his associates, inter-agency distrust, and internal CIA culture, without providing verifiable documentation within the interview itself.

After being elected governor, I was interviewed by 23 CIA members who wouldn't reveal their purpose. They refused to share their names or roles, which was unsettling. They questioned me about my election, and I was struck by the diverse group present, resembling everyday people. We need to engage with those in this field to understand their activities and who they are monitoring. It's important to uncover the extent of surveillance happening.

Speaker 0 (anonymous whistleblower): Government seems to be involved. They’re definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. We’ve recovered the vehicles and have physical proof. I was partially cleared into those activities and had access to the data, reading intelligence reports resulting from those programs. Speaker 1: And with your own eyes you’ve seen it. So when people say this is kooky, there’s nothing to back it up… Speaker 2 (NASA): NASA is open and transparent with our data. Do you believe what Mister David Crush said, or is he lying? Whatever he said, where’s the evidence? Speaker 1: What do you say? Speaker 0: Members of this administration are very aware of this reality; the current president is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I trust his leadership. I think he’s assembled a cabinet, and I believe if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, the capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3: I have access and have spoken to people about it. I’ve had meetings with very smart, solid people who believe there is something out there. It makes sense there could be, but I’ve never been convinced, despite that. It’s not my thing. Speaker 1: So you think, one, he knows, and two, he’s open to transparency on UAPs? He’s very well informed on this issue. Leave it at that. I don’t want to get ahead of what the president might want to reveal. There’s been a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 0: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration. I had to seek legal protection because I was fearful professionally and personally. Speaker 1: And when you mention recovering pilots or remains nonhuman, that’s something you saw in the intelligence with your eyes? Speaker 0: Yes. There were pictures. It’s uncomfortable to discuss because it’s outside a normal worldview to understand there is a biological sentience that piloted these crafts and does not necessarily look 100% like us. Speaker 1: Were there pictures? Speaker 0: There were. Speaker 1: When I said from another planet or outer space, you said you don’t know where they’re from. Is it interdimensional? What are we talking about? Speaker 0: I’ve talked to a lot of graybeards about the origin. I leave an open mind. There is an extraterrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming from elsewhere off Earth, but I didn’t see that data. I’m not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government had. I’m not aware of any remains the department has of extraterrestrial beings or technology. Speaker 1: Do other governments know? Do they have programs? Speaker 0: They have their own programs. Two and a half years ago we’ve been in an arms race with peer competitors—Russia and China—and they have their own programs. I viewed a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs. Speaker 1: We’ve recovered things—bodies and physical remains. Was there a sense of their motive or whether it’s peaceful or not? We’ve seen a mixed bag of motives. Speaker 0: Activity and motive vary; the reasons for visiting are not fully understood. Could it be because we have interesting genetic material on Earth and we’re a Jurassic Park tourist attraction? There could be a myriad of reasons. Speaker 1: For other people coming forward, what do you say about intimidation? There are reports of harassment. There’s hope. Congress values whistleblower information now, and there’s appetite to do the right thing. There are things happening behind the scenes that the administration may discuss when ready. Speaker 1: We’ll follow every element. It’s fascinating. Speaker 0: Thanks for having me. Speaker 4: Sean Hannity here. Subscribe to Fox News YouTube pay.

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.

Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer with seventeen years of service, recounts a sweeping, real-world portrait of MKUltra, directed-energy weapons, and a long-running program of secrecy and retaliation at the highest levels of the U.S. intelligence community. He describes how the CIA and a “shadow government” targeted him and his family after he investigated a serious vulnerability in U.S. embassies—namely, foreign nationals in visa sections could hack an unclassified computer to identify CIA cover officers and assets. When he alerted CIA management, a division chief warned him to drop the matter, and his report was allegedly deleted. State Department IG later corroborated the risk to agents and rebuked the CIA; Shipp says this encounter left a laser-like targeting on his back. Following these events, Shipp says he and his family were transferred to a secret U.S. base where they were given a house known to be contaminated. Within months, severe illness struck: his children’s throats swelled, headaches surged, and his wife developed dementia. He asserts the house contained black mold and leakage of mica toxin (a chemical weapon Saddam Hussein used, described as yellow rain). With the aid of an attorney, Shipp reported the mold and toxins and sought redress, obtaining a clearance for his attorney to work with CI documents. He alleges that, after he filed a personal injury suit against the rental company, the couple faced intensified retaliation: surveillance, bugging, and a wave of neurological symptoms across the family—severe headaches, insomnia, nosebleeds, and immune and neurological damage. He asserts his oldest son’s immune system was severely compromised and that the boy’s symptoms resembled AIDS or radiation exposure; the son later developed PTSD and deteriorated mentally, leading to concerns about his whereabouts in Florida. Shipp asserts that senior CIA and Department of State officials attempted to silence him, including an IG officer who later confessed that George Tenet and a senior CIA official (Buzzy Cronk-gard) were ordered to silence and destroy him to prevent public disclosure. He describes a culture of intimidation, including a rise in the escalation of surveillance and obstruction of access to credit and resources. He recounts a “secret base” where additional disturbing occurrences were reported, including an observed figure described by guards as a goat-headed, cloaked figure (Baphomet) witnessed by multiple witnesses, including the base commander’s son. Shipp asks whether this symbol signals demonic activity or a psyop and notes that the accounts were later corroborated in mainstream outlets as to the base’s existence. On MKUltra itself, Shipp defines it as a practice that used drugs (LSD, mescaline, etc.) without participants’ knowledge to monitor brain activity and to create programmable “born” super-soldiers or data mules who would forget the information they carried. He claims the program included sexual abuse, sleep deprivation, beatings, hypnosis, and other forms of torture to break and reprogram minds. He cites Victor Marchetti’s assertion that MKUltra did not end in 1973 and mentions Elizabeth Nichol-son’s studies asserting continuing existence. He argues that the Church Committee inquiry led to the destruction of thousands of documents and suppression of testimony, preventing reform. He cites Sirhan Sirhan as a potential later MKUltra subject and notes Carol Warner’s work with patients who had MKUltra exposure. Shipp connects these activities to broader patterns of power and secrecy: mass mind control through contractors (Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Booz Allen Hamilton) who hold CIA clearances, and a culture where tens of thousands of Americans are bound by secrecy agreements that preclude speaking out. He claims Lockheed Martin monitors mail and has access to the U.S. Post Office, suggesting pervasive surveillance and control. He connects Venezuela’s use of directed-energy weapons to the broader capabilities of the CIA and other national actors, arguing that these technologies go back twenty years or more and have spread to Russia, China, and elsewhere. He contends that Havana syndrome and related phenomena are related modalities and suggests the CIA’s upper echelons do not share the full truth with Congress, recalling Chuck Schumer’s warning about “six ways from Sunday” to retaliate if you cross the intelligence community. He argues for reform: dismantling or reforming the CIA and moving intelligence functions to accountable bodies so that oversight becomes feasible again. Throughout, Shipp emphasizes the human cost: his wife and children still suffer PTSD and neurological damage, his son remains missing, and he himself continues to face pressure and retaliation. He frames his narrative as a call to expose the abuses of secrecy, advocate for accountability, and awaken the public to the alleged realities of MKUltra-era and post-era mind-control capabilities.

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.

The speaker shares their experience of being targeted by the government after their property was raided and their dog was shot. In response, they donated laptops with spyware to government secretaries, gaining control over the entire government computer system. While monitoring the system, they discovered that the minister of national defense was involved in drug trafficking and the minister of immigration was involved in human trafficking. The speaker acknowledges the risk of sharing this information and suggests that it is better to remain unaware.

In 2023, a whistleblower conference took place shortly after the Whistleblower Protection Act was activated, hosted by Stephen Greer at the National Press Club. Several whistleblowers shared their stories, and I was sent there by my employer to identify potential whistleblowers to report to the FBI. I found myself torn between becoming a whistleblower and suppressing them, as there are valid and invalid reasons for whistleblowing. During the event, I heard Michael Herrera's testimony, which caught me off guard. Many attendees were skeptical of his claims, but his firsthand experience was compelling.

The government raided my property in 2012, so I retaliated by donating laptops with spyware to government secretaries. I took control of the government's computer system to find evidence of their setup, but instead discovered the minister of national defense was a drug trafficker and the minister of immigration was a human trafficker. Despite the danger, I'm okay with not pursuing further action.

From a firsthand account about the whistleblower within ODNI who worked for then, Obama's DNI, James Clapper, about how he refused to go along with this. "As a result, he was sidelined and cut out of this." "He was the cyber guy in the director, in the director of national intelligence, James Clapper's, team." "He was sidelined because he wouldn't play along with the lie that they were creating, and he did blow the whistle." "He raised this through the ICIG." "He raised this, tried to raise this with multiple members of congress, including senator Warner." "He never got calls back." "They were not interested in what he had to say and what he had experienced." "He even tried then to go and report this to the Department of Justice, under, president Biden and was refused." "No action." "They were not interested in taking action in this."

I want to show you something. I was going to let this go, but I can't. Hello. I don't know how to do this, but I want to tell you all that I have been pressured by government officials to do and say things to harm others. They even hacked my phone and I received a tracking notification. This happened after meeting with government officials who, besides that, offered me everything and a large sum of money. They also tried to persuade me to lie and arrange a meeting with the president if I caused harm.

Speaker 0 describes that it has been independently discovered four other times, and that it “has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time.” He says he doesn’t think they’ll suppress it this time and that “I think you're in the clear.” He asserts they obviously know about you because he has had multiple both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations. He states, “If you haven't had a US government agent come to you and say, stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then they’re going to let you do it. He claims there are people waiting, saying, “there are SSP motherfuckers that are fucking twiddling their thumbs. Like, is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We've been influencing this bitch forever.” He adds that on the other side, multiple parties are looking at each other wondering, “Didn't we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? She's still doing it? What? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” He describes two constant scenarios in his life: one where people are urging, “do it. Do it. You're the one. Do it.” and another where people are warning, “they're gonna kill you. Don't do it. They're gonna kill you.”

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 explains that the government wanted to arrest them after raiding their property and causing damage. In response, the speaker donated laptops with spyware to government secretaries, gaining control over the entire government computer system. They were searching for evidence of being set up but instead discovered that the minister of national defense was involved in drug trafficking and the minister of immigration was involved in human trafficking. The speaker acknowledges the danger of sharing this information and suggests that it is best to keep it undisclosed.

Internal IBM Slack messages obtained by the speaker reveal discontent towards their reporting. The messages highlight the significance of the story within IBM and its subsidiary, Red Hat. One individual, Brenton Conaboy, suggests that opposition from certain people confirms the speaker's credibility. Another person, Jay Ryan, blames the speaker for initiating the conversation and expresses a desire to harm individuals online. Chris Galahue, a technical marketing content writer, acknowledges the purpose of the speaker's work and questions whether it should be allowed. Matthew Solis, a senior IT support engineer, doubts the speaker's trustworthiness but is contradicted by his own CEO's confirmation of the events. The speaker teases further revelations from numerous insiders.

In late 2015, my boss, Peter Daskin, approached me and asked if we should work with the CIA. Having worked in national security before, I wasn't surprised. I suggested it wouldn't hurt to talk to them, as there could be financial benefits. Peter mentioned their interest in the places, people, and data we were working with, particularly in China. After that conversation, he confirmed the relationship with the CIA over the next two months. It's not uncommon for programs like this to gather intelligence on foreign laboratories.

In late 2015, my boss, Peter Daskin, approached me and asked if we should work with the CIA. I used to work in a classified environment and have experience in national security, so I wasn't surprised. I told him it wouldn't hurt to talk to them, as there could be financial benefits. Peter mentioned that the CIA was interested in our work in China and the data we were collecting. After this conversation, he confirmed the relationship with the CIA over the next two months. I wasn't shocked because programs like this are often used to gather intelligence on foreign laboratories.

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.