reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that someone, presumably a former FBI director, called for the assassination of the president. The speaker states that the individual knew exactly what he was implying, and that this implication was clear. The speaker believes the individual apologized, but doesn't want to apologize for advocating violence. The speaker calls this person a "dirty cop" and says his history is not clean. The speaker does not want to take a position on what should happen as a result of the alleged assassination call, but will leave the decision to others. The speaker suggests that leniency might be understandable if the individual had a clean history, but because he doesn't, the speaker is less inclined to be lenient.

The speaker criticizes someone for referring to the American people as an "enemy within." The speaker emphasizes the phrase "enemy within," highlighting the perceived offense. The speaker suggests this person is implying a willingness to use the American military against the American people.

Mike Wyatt, a retired FBI agent, expresses his concerns to Speaker 0 about the need for change within the organization. He emphasizes the importance of bravery and integrity and shares his worry about the current state of affairs. Speaker 0 acknowledges Mike's concerns and appreciates his service. Mike advises Speaker 0 to seek competent help and gather intelligence before making decisions. He also mentions the aggressive nature of certain organizations and warns Speaker 0 to be prepared. Speaker 0 assures Mike that they are ready for any challenges and expresses gratitude for his advice. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging the possibility of facing opposition if things don't work out.

The speaker discusses how the person in question is provoking the intelligence community, despite the potential consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has various means to retaliate against such actions. The speaker suggests that even though the person is seen as a practical and tough businessman, their behavior in this regard is foolish. The speaker also mentions that they have been informed that the intelligence community is displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about.

The speaker discusses the distrust towards General Flynn by the CIA and FBI. They mention the challenges faced by the administration due to subversion and deception from within. The speaker reflects on the difficulties of navigating Washington DC politics as an outsider, highlighting the struggle to identify trustworthy individuals in a landscape of deceit and self-interest.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

The speaker warns that Trump is focused on revenge, which could harm the Department of Justice and FBI. People in law enforcement fear being targeted if Trump wins a second term. There are concerns about being unlawfully detained or jailed. The speaker urges Americans to take Trump's threats seriously, as he often follows through on his promises.

President Musk warned against taking action, advising to shut the government down. This caused fear among those involved. What insight does he have?

I'm speaking to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh directly. You have set destructive forces in motion, and there will be consequences for your actions. You will be unprepared for what's coming.

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 suggests that going against the intelligence community is unwise, as they have numerous ways to retaliate. Despite being a practical businessman, he is making a foolish decision. The speaker wonders what actions the intelligence community would take if they were motivated. They claim that the intelligence community is upset with how he has treated and spoken about them.

The speaker states, “We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It’ll be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” They claim to be a “US citizen, former …,” and challenge someone, asking, “You wanna come at us?” They instruct the other person to “go get yourself some lunch, big boy,” signaling a taunt and confrontation.

He's provoking the intelligence community by criticizing them, which is unwise. They have ways to retaliate. The intelligence community is upset with how he's treated them. We rely on them for information, especially regarding Russian hacking.

Our government is radical and dangerous. The FBI is investigating me for looking into Biden corruption in Ukraine. Special Agent Bracco questioned my sources about me, a member of the free press. I wonder why the Bidens live in luxury on a civil servant's salary. They would imprison me if they could. Translation: The government is dangerous and investigating me for probing Biden corruption in Ukraine. The FBI questioned my sources about my work as a journalist. I question how the Bidens afford lavish lifestyles on a government salary. They would arrest me if possible.

The speakers discuss the importance of being cautious and guided by their purpose. Speaker 0 worked in counterintelligence and counterterrorism for 22 years in the FBI. They advise Speaker 1 to seek competent help and gather intelligence before making decisions. Speaker 1 expresses concern about aggressive actions from alphabet organizations. Speaker 0 reassures them that they will be prepared and ready to face any challenges. Speaker 1 warns that if Speaker 0 returns to private life, they will still be targeted. Speaker 0 appreciates the warning.

The speaker warns of dire consequences for the listener and their plan if they inquire further or speak to anyone about what they have seen.

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.”

When you come at the intelligence community, they have many ways to retaliate. So, for a businessman, it's dumb to treat them poorly. From what I'm told, they're very upset with how they've been treated. We need the intelligence community. Without them, we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking. Does he have an agenda to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? This taunting hostility is not constructive. Whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.

Congress members fear intel agencies, hindering oversight. Unelected officials make big decisions, undermining democracy. Committee heads may have secrets, leading to inaction on important issues. Powerful figures acknowledge control by intel agencies, raising concerns about ongoing abuses. Why do we tolerate this? Translation: Members of Congress are afraid of intelligence agencies, which hinders their ability to oversee them. When unelected individuals make significant decisions, it undermines the democratic process. Committee leaders may have hidden agendas, preventing action on critical matters. Influential individuals admit to being controlled by intelligence agencies, prompting questions about why this behavior is allowed to continue.

Former government official suggests that the government will harm Donald Trump. The donor class must take action, implying violence against Trump. Intelligence agencies can retaliate against those who challenge them. Infowars claims to provide truthful information about future events, unlike other networks. Visit infowars.com for more information.

I have alerted my legal team about a potential business matter. I am known for being litigious. Please call the necessary people immediately. I feel wronged regarding Russia. This is dreadful. I have made this mistake five times before and I would rather not repeat it. If this issue disappears, that would be preferable. However, if it doesn't, you, along with everyone else, will face consequences. If I end the interview now, it will be at 11:40 and I will stop the recording.

The speaker addresses former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, accusing him of infiltrating their previous organization as a source and publishing private text messages. The speaker claims to now know Seraphin's source for this information. The speaker accuses Seraphin of being sloppy, greedy, and prideful, and declares they will become wrathful.

The speaker discusses how President Trump's actions towards the intelligence community could have consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has ways of retaliating and that they are upset with how Trump has treated and talked about them. The speaker also highlights a statement from Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Democratic Party in the Senate, who suggests that the president should be afraid of the CIA. The speaker criticizes Schumer and Mitch McConnell, claiming they are influenced by money from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and health insurance companies. They argue that corruption is the reason for the current state of the country.