reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

Speaker 0 said they know “about Butler” and stated that “Trump shut down the investigation into Butler,” calling it “a fact.” Speaker 0 said Dan Bongino told them this when Bongino worked at the FBI, and that Bongino was “terrified” when Speaker 0 spoke to him in December. Speaker 0 described obtaining “a lot of the social media posts” attributed to Thomas Crooks that Speaker 0 said had been posted in the months and years before a shooting and claimed they had been “told didn’t exist.” Speaker 0 said the FBI had “lied” about this and that they called Kash Patel, then later called Dan Bongino to ask what was happening. Speaker 0 said this was not meant as an attack and that the prior FBI administration, Chris Wray, was responsible. Speaker 0 said Bongino became “hysterical” on the phone, and that after a “long series of text exchanges” and phone conversations, Bongino told Speaker 0 to “take it up with Trump,” saying Trump was the one who shut down the investigation. Speaker 0 said this occurred “the first or second week of December,” around the beginning of the second week of December, which Speaker 0 said they had written down. Speaker 0 said that moment led them to realize there was “no good explanation” for shutting down an investigation into an attempted murder, stating “like this is not what we’ve been told it was.”

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

"I killed this man. Understand." The speaker, a physician, tells others that they killed someone and notes that EMS are coming, adding, "We have medics on scene," and asks, "Where are they? Where are they?" They insist they have their own medics and demand space, saying, "Can I go check up poles? No. Back up. Now." The confrontation intensifies as the speaker repeats, "You just killed my fucking neighbor," and "You killed my fucking neighbor," questioning how the other person can "show up to work every day" and, "How the fuck do you do this every day?" They accuse the other party of harming and taking neighbors, saying, "You're killing my neighbors. You're stealing my neighbors."

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 0 objects to Speaker 1's nonresponsive answers and reminds him to only respond to the questions asked. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's authority and expresses frustration with the judge's handling of the case. Speaker 0 warns Speaker 1 about potential penalties for his conduct. Speaker 1 dismisses the warning and threatens to come after Speaker 0 for attorney's fees. Speaker 0 reiterates his commitment to professionalism. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 urging them to continue.

The speaker thanks the chairman and addresses someone named Hunter, suggesting they are afraid of the speaker's words. The speaker reclaims their time. The speaker says that the House committees should provide relevant information to any legitimate inquiry. The speaker claims their first five offers were ignored. Then in November, a subpoena was issued for a behind-closed-doors deposition. The speaker asserts that Republicans have repeatedly misused this tactic in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize witness statements.

A reliable source claims that someone from Washington called the Atlanta district attorney on Friday, urging them to indict on Monday to cover up mistakes made with Weiss. The district attorney explained that the jurors wouldn't return until Tuesday, but the caller insisted on Monday, regardless of the time. The purpose was to manipulate the news media. The identity of the caller is unknown, and this information is hearsay. The speaker believes the claim due to the leaked clerk document, the exhausted state of Weiss, and the late-night press conference.

The witness testified that they were present when Tony Schafer received a phone call from then-Attorney General Bill Barr. The call was on speakerphone, and 6 or 7 other people were able to hear the conversation. Barr was described as irate, telling Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response indicated that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The conversation was described as agitated.

The speaker questions the witness about mixing personal and professional emails, expressing confusion and concern. The witness explains his actions were to protect a friend under threat. The speaker challenges the witness on ethics and reporting to the ethics office. The witness struggles to provide clear answers, leading to frustration from the speaker. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt and yielding back their time.

The conversation centers on Tina Peters, her defense team, and alleged procedural and ethical problems surrounding her case. The speaker details his personal involvement, including paying a million dollars to Doug Richards to defend Peters. He recounts discovering misgivings about Richards’ defense plan a few days before trial and visiting Richards’ hotel room to hear his theory of the case. Richards allegedly arrived resentfully on a Zoom call with other criminal defense attorneys and proposed a strategy to put Peters on the stand, claiming that “colonelson” told her to image a hard drive. The speaker notes that colonelson was the president’s attorney, not Peters’ own attorney, and Richards supposedly argued Peters could claim it was legal advice from an attorney, although the speaker states California does not have a legal advice exception and Colorado law would render such a defense nugatory. The proposed strategy allegedly aimed to create jury sympathy for a 68-year-old grandmother rather than present substantive legal arguments or evidence of fraud. The speaker contends that Richards’ strategy would have resulted in Peters going on the stand with no other witnesses, effectively inviting jury nullification and failing to argue legitimate defenses or present critical motions. Peters reportedly fell ill during this period, and she fired Richards at the last moment, seeking proper counsel. The judge and Richards are described as part of a “railroad” process in Colorado, with Richards allegedly designing an ineffectual defense to push Peters to testify, thereby enabling possible indictments of Kurt Olson and 45. The speaker asserts that several local criminal defense attorneys on a Zoom call were horrified by Richards’ strategy and that the defense was deliberately weak. Stephanie Lambert, currently indicted in Michigan, who is in leg irons in Washington, DC, then took Peters’ case and filed motions that, in the speaker’s view, should have been filed earlier. These motions contend that Peters, as county recorder, had the right to make a backup of election data, and that the backup was a legitimate act; a friend with a cyber background and a surfer athlete allegedly participated with Peters’ permission, though the employee “Billy” later denied it. The speaker asserts Peters did nothing wrong and that the charges should have been dismissed. The speaker criticizes the legal profession more broadly, claiming mass coordination by state bar associations and “Project 65” to deprive people of Sixth Amendment rights, citing John Eastman as another example. He mentions a concerted effort to undermine the defense and hints at promises of federal judgeships in exchange for cooperation. He notes that Peters’ motions filed by Lambert should have been filed earlier and accuses Richards of crafting a strategy that would have allowed immediate indictments of Donald Trump’s legal team. The speaker references a Supreme Court filing and a constitutional crisis, stating that the Supreme Court already has “everything it needs” as of the prior night. He praises one DC judge as fair and straightforward, while his other cases are described as varied, though he intends to proceed even if it means jail time. He promises to upload a confidential brief and invites the audience to read the filing with SCOTUS, signaling ongoing legal action.

Speaker 1 admits that mentioning being armed was to deter threats. They regret their choice of words and clarified their friend never said that. They received threats and harassment online even 14 months later, with a recent influx after a court subpoena.

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 conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

Speaker 0 questions Harrison about posting, two weeks before Charlie Kirk died, that there was a credible threat against his life and asks if the FBI has reached out to him, and whether he will identify who made the threat. Harrison responds that the person who told him asked not to reveal their identity, so he’s not going to give up a source. The exchange notes that there has been no rigorous investigation by the FBI, and asserts that, in the absence of such an investigation, “we are led to lead this investigation,” adding that Fort Huachuca is relevant. Candace thanks Harrison and presses again, asking who told him about the threat, highlighting that the FBI is not asking. Harrison reiterates that the source requested anonymity.

The speaker repeatedly questions why the FBI is always referenced for information. They press the other speaker, who claims to have communicated with the FBI, about details of an investigation. Despite being asked about shell casings and explosives, the speaker deflects, insisting on referring to the FBI for answers. The questioning becomes more intense, with accusations of withholding information and covering up. The speaker continues to evade direct answers, emphasizing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

The witness testified that they were at the Justice Department when Bill Barr, who was the attorney general at the time, called Tony Schafer. The call was on speakerphone, and about six or seven other people were able to hear the conversation. Barr was described as irate and told Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response was described as sufficiently strong, stating that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The conversation was not long but was agitated.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

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?

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 2 about how they obtained confidential information. Speaker 2 refuses to disclose their source, citing attorney-client privilege. Speaker 0 threatens contempt if Speaker 2 does not reveal the source within 5 minutes. Speaker 2 mentions statements made by Mr. Copeland regarding a murder. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 demanding answers and Speaker 2 maintaining their stance. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 insisting on knowing the source of the information.

The witness testified that they were present when Tony Schafer received a phone call from then-Attorney General Bill Barr. The call was on speakerphone, and 6 or 7 other people were able to hear the conversation. According to the witness, Barr was irate and told Schafer to stand down on an investigation. Schafer's response indicated that the evidence had already been found. Barr reiterated his directive to stand down. The witness characterized the conversation as agitated.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You should ask Yvonne. But you're part of the government working with the media to target journalists. I haven’t received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It’s on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are other ways they could have known. Like who? Many people in government could have been aware. So someone in your office knew about the letter? Sure. Then how did the Washington Post find out? That’s faulty logic. You've been busy writing letters threatening journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country.

I'm a journalist investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent, now an advisor to the joint chiefs at the Pentagon, about his political activities and fundraising efforts with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and being a liar. He even claimed I needed his permission to record him, despite being in a one-party consent state. He denied saying things that I have on tape, including discussing plans after Trump wins. I questioned the ethics of his political involvement as a Pentagon advisor, and I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate to share sensitive information with strangers, even joking about whether I was a Russian spy.