reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 gave the FBI a thumb drive containing 29 minutes of high-definition video showing two men attacking a building. As of this morning, neither man has been arrested. Speaker 0 states that despite going through over 725 indictments, none of their video or even a single still picture of either man has appeared on the Internet. The FBI is allegedly refusing to take Speaker 0's calls, return emails, or accept an offer to meet. Speaker 0 believes the FBI is hiding these men. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to inquire about the identities of these men. Speaker 0 confirms that Ben Grundler has all this information and that they have been in contact for over a year.

Republicans in the House plan to investigate Hunter Biden, the president's son, and are interested in data from his laptop. CBS News obtained this data directly from the source, who provided it to the FBI under subpoena. An independent forensic review confirmed the authenticity of the data. The laptop was taken to a Delaware computer shop for repair in 2019 but was never paid for, leading the store to consider it abandoned. The FBI later subpoenaed the store's owner for the laptop and its data. The laptop and its contents have fueled Republican interest in Hunter Biden's business dealings, but there is no evidence that President Biden directly benefited from them. The White House declined to comment.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about their recent interview with the FBI and if it was a deposition. Speaker 1 claims to not know what they are referring to and suggests discussing it offline. Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 has had any interviews with the FBI since becoming secretary of state, to which Speaker 1 avoids giving a direct answer. Speaker 0 then brings up the State Department turning over documents related to Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Blue State Strategies Corporation, but Speaker 1 does not provide any information. Speaker 0 tries to refocus the discussion on Afghanistan, but Speaker 1 continues to avoid answering questions.

The speaker states that whether something was stolen is up to the Harris team to disclose. The Biden-Harris campaign can decide if the FBI can see what was stolen and whether Donald Trump, a competitor, can see what was taken. In some instances, the FBI can demand information. In other instances, they have to ask the owners of the information to provide it. The speaker confirms they can ask on behalf of others. The speaker concludes that the situation is "quite bad."

In this video, the speakers discuss the whereabouts of Hunter Biden's laptop and the FBI's handling of it. They express frustration and disbelief that the FBI claims to have no knowledge of the laptop's location, despite it being turned over to them three years ago. The speakers question whether the laptop contains compromising information that could harm national security and whether the first family is compromised. They also mention Project Pegasus, a joint CIA-FBI operation to spy on American citizens. The video ends with one speaker offering to provide the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop to Congress.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of discrediting herself by focusing on trivial matters concerning Biden, such as his ice cream preference, instead of investigating Hunter Biden's alleged financial dealings with foreign entities. Speaker 1 claims Hunter Biden received millions from Moscow and significant payments from an energy company despite lacking relevant experience. Speaker 0 states that the Hunter Biden laptop story originated from Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani and cannot be verified. Speaker 1 insists the laptop's existence is known and that it's crucial to investigate potential corruption involving Biden and foreign money from China, Ukraine, and Russia. Speaker 1 also alleges Biden's brother profited in Iraq without prior experience. Speaker 1 asserts this is a major scandal that Speaker 0 is ignoring. Speaker 0 reiterates the laptop cannot be verified.

The FBI initially refused to take the copy of Hunter Biden's laptop in October 2019, indicating their reluctance to get involved. They approached the speaker in November 2019 to understand their concerns but still hesitated to take the laptop. Eventually, in December 2019, they obtained it through a subpoena. However, during the impeachment trial, the laptop did not surface, leading the speaker to believe that the FBI prioritized protecting the Bidens over the truth or safeguarding.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

The speaker discusses the FBI's "failed investigation" of the January 6th pipe bomb, alleging the FBI has no leads or suspects, has lost information and evidence, and that the Secret Service deleted all texts from January 6th. The speaker claims Steve D'Antuono said cell phone data that could have been used to find the bomber was corrupted. The speaker states that the FBI does not have video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The speaker asks if confidential human sources were involved in the pipe bomb incident. The other speaker responded they would have to refresh themselves on the information gathered to date. The speaker suggests getting the information public before the election.

I want to introduce page 5055 from the committee's interview with FBI employee Roya Demlow on July 17, 2023. If someone suggests that when Demlow said the laptop was real, it meant the FBI confirmed it belonged to Hunter Biden in October 2020, would they be misrepresenting her words? Demlow confirmed they would be misrepresenting her because she does not have much knowledge on that matter.

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

The discussion revolves around the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the New York Post article, stating that the laptop was not authenticated and suggesting possible manipulation by Rudy Giuliani or Russia. Speaker 1 asks for evidence of this claim. Speaker 0 agrees that transparency is crucial and asks if public testimony by Hunter Biden would be more transparent than private testimony. Speaker 1 admits to never considering this and refers to the First Amendment. The conversation abruptly ends.

The speaker questions why the FBI paid Christopher Steele $1 million to verify a dossier on Trump and offered $3 million to Twitter to suppress a story on Hunter Biden. They express concern over the FBI's actions being politically motivated. The FBI director responds by explaining the payments to social media companies are for legal process costs. The speaker accuses the FBI of damaging its reputation and questions if the FBI requested financial institutions to provide customer data. The FBI director is unsure and the speaker presents an email from Bank of America as evidence.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of discrediting themselves by avoiding questions about Biden's son and alleged corruption. Speaker 1 questions the validity of the Hunter Biden laptop story, sourced from Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani. Speaker 0 insists it's a crucial issue to investigate Biden's alleged corruption involving China, Ukraine, and Russia. Speaker 1 argues the story lacks verification. Speaker 0 counters by pointing out the laptop's existence and the Biden family's response. The conversation escalates as Speaker 0 emphasizes the significance of the scandal and Speaker 1 questions its validity.

The speaker asks about a House Oversight Committee subpoena regarding an FBI document from 2020. The document allegedly describes a criminal scheme involving then Vice President Biden and a foreign national exchanging money for policy decisions. The speaker asks for the White House's response, but they refer to the Justice Department and have no information. The speaker also asks about the country and policy decision, but the response remains the same.

Speaker 1 accuses the media of bias for not covering a supposed scandal involving Biden. Speaker 0 defends the need for verification. Speaker 1 claims the scandal can be verified due to a laptop. The conversation escalates with accusations of media bias and unfair questioning. The interview is abruptly ended.

I want to introduce page 55 from the committee's interview with FBI employee Roya Demlow, which took place on July 17, 2023. The discussion centers on whether Demlow's statement that the laptop was real implied that the FBI had confirmed in October 2020 that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. Demlow clarified that if someone were to suggest that, they would be misrepresenting her statement, as she does not have sufficient knowledge on that matter.

Speaker 0 asks how to convince Americans who are focused on Hunter Biden's laptop that the speaker is fighting for them. Speaker 1 dismisses the laptop issue as a smear, stating that reputable sources have debunked it. They mention that similar allegations were made months ago. Speaker 1 also highlights intelligence community evidence of Russian involvement. They defend their son's integrity.

Speaker 0 asks about Hunter Biden's laptop, questioning FBI Cyber's knowledge. They mention the laptop was turned over to the FBI in 2019, but the assistant director doesn't know its current location. Speaker 0 requests to enter Hunter Biden's laptop contents into the record. Speaker 2 praises Matt Gaetz's questioning and criticizes the FBI. Translation: Speaker 0 inquires about Hunter Biden's laptop and questions the FBI Cyber's awareness. The laptop was given to the FBI in 2019, but the assistant director is unaware of its current whereabouts. Speaker 0 requests to include Hunter Biden's laptop contents in the record. Speaker 2 applauds Matt Gaetz's questioning and condemns the FBI.

The speaker accuses Merrick Garland of lying about the laptop scandal involving Hunter Biden. They claim that the laptop contains evidence of 10 felonies, including human trafficking, and connects Hunter Biden to international human trafficking. The speaker also mentions child endangerment and criticizes Hunter Biden's behavior, including his relationship with Xi Jinping. They challenge Garland to bring forth his evidence while promising to reveal the "depravity" of the Biden family. The speaker concludes by stating that they can give as good as they get in this confrontation.

I will introduce page 5055 from the committee's interview with FBI employee Roya Demlow on July 17, 2023. Demlow stated that suggesting the FBI had determined Hunter Biden's laptop ownership in October 2020 based on her comment that the laptop was real would be misrepresenting her words, as she lacks knowledge on the matter.

Speaker 1 questions why House Republicans haven't released Jeffrey Epstein's Black Book, which is under the FBI director's control, to expose alleged pedophiles. When asked if he would declassify the Epstein files, Speaker 1 says he would, but expresses concern about potentially affecting people's lives if the information is phony. Speaker 0 says the issue is bigger than Epstein, 9/11, JFK, or RFK, and asks who is on the Epstein tapes and in the black books, questioning why this information has been hidden. Speaker 3 mentions Donald Trump has discussed the DOJ potentially releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Speaker 2 claims that the release is under review, following a directive by President Trump, stating that everything will come out to the public because Americans have a right to know.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

I want to introduce into the record page 5055 from the committee's interview with FBI employee Roya Demlow, which took place on July 17, 2023. During this interview, there was a suggestion that when Demlow stated the laptop was real, it implied the FBI had confirmed in October 2020 that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. Demlow clarified that this interpretation would misrepresent her statement, as she does not have sufficient knowledge on that matter.