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.

Speaker 1 expressed confusion over an FBI tweet regarding the January 6 pipe bomb investigation, the Supreme Court leak, and cocaine found at the White House, questioning the intended audience. Speaker 1 reacted to an exchange between Senator Patty Murray and FBI Director Kash Patel regarding the FBI's budget request, stating that they cringed at the clip and felt sorry for Patel. They hope the career people are able to support the director and the deputy director. Speaker 1 stated that nothing in the lives or careers of the new director and deputy director gives them confidence that they know anything about leading an organization like the FBI, and so they would have serious doubts. They hope the new leaders will listen to the advice of experienced FBI personnel.

Over the past 3 years, Representative questioned FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland about federal assets at the Capitol on January 6th, but received no answers. The Inspector General announced a review of the DOJ response in 2021, paused it due to ongoing criminal cases, and reinitiated it last year. The report will include information on the number of confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but the exact number is not available yet due to the draft form and classification review. The report's release is not expected before the election, and possibly not before the next inauguration. The report will expose the presence of confidential human sources at the Capitol, and whether DOJ CHS protocols were followed. Representative inquired about the failed FBI investigation of the January 6th pipe bomb, citing lost information, deleted Secret Service texts, and corrupted cell phone data. The FBI allegedly lacks video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The Inspector General couldn't rule out the involvement of confidential human sources in the pipe bomb incident.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

Speaker 0 is demanding to know the whereabouts of Hunter Biden's laptop, expressing concern about potential national security risks. The FBI Cyber assistant director admits to not knowing the laptop's location, despite it being turned over to the FBI in 2019. Speaker 0 requests to enter the contents of the laptop into the committee's record.

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.

Speaker 0: What happened today? Ambassador Bolton would happen, sir. What were you told by the FBI? Ambassador Bolton? What were they looking for?

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

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.

In the video, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has been found. Speaker 1 mentions that information can be found in the report prepared by director Mueller, but they are not aware of any collusion or conspiracy. Speaker 0 then interrupts and states that when the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane, they did not have any information suggesting that anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials.

The speaker asks if the FBI had communication with their agents during the Capitol attack, to which Speaker 1 denies any involvement. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost vehicles," but Speaker 1 is unfamiliar with the term. Speaker 0 claims to have evidence of two buses used by FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters during the attack. There is a brief interruption from Speaker 2, who reminds everyone to stay within their allotted time. Speaker 0 objects to his question being cut off, stating that the buses were nefarious and filled with FBI informants. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 attempting to move on to the next speaker.

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.

After a 4-year investigation, the justice department released a 300-page report on the FBI's failures. Members of Congress will bring in John Durham to review the findings. The investigation confirms what we already knew from a previous inspector general report: the FBI did not uphold their duty to follow the law in certain events and activities related to the crossfire hurricane and intelligence operations.

Speaker 0 questions the silence of fellow Democrats over an issue. Speaker 1 describes increased security by the FBI at a site and being asked to leave by them. The FBI is accused of trying to control information. Speaker 0 expresses a desire to hear from the Secret Service director.

The discussion centers on concerns that planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back and be circulated in the United States, potentially allowing the CIA to manipulate U.S. news by channeling it through a foreign country. There is emphasis on looking at this very carefully. Questions were raised about whether any people paid by the CIA contribute to major American journals or to television networks. One speaker notes that some individuals submit pieces to American journals, and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who work for television networks. The response indicates that this is a level of detail better addressed in executive session. It is stated that at CBS, the CIA had contacted the organization, and that by the time the head of the news and public affairs operation was appointed in 1954, “the ships had been established,” and he was told about them and asked to carry on with them. Regarding final reporting, there is a commitment to evaluate all the detailed information and to include any evidence of wrongdoing or impropriety in the final report and to make recommendations. The question is raised again about whether there are people paid by the CIA contributing to national news services such as AP and UPI, with the response again preferring to handle those details in executive session. When asked whether the new organization’s final report would be named, the speaker indicates that this remains to be decided. It is asserted that correspondents at that time were allowed to make use of CIA agent chiefs of station and other CIA executive staff as sources of information useful in their assessments of world conditions. The question is asked whether this continues today. The response acknowledges that it probably does for a reporter, but notes that due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter would need to be much more circumspect now, and must be careful not to be viewed with considerable disfavor by the public.

Speaker 0 admits to never believing that the CIA killed Kennedy. Speaker 1 claims to have read the entire JFK file, including the secret information and the 7 pages of the 911 report. Speaker 0 warns against sharing what they have seen, as they could be bribed. Speaker 1 mentions being bribed in Texas. Speaker 0 introduces themselves as Cash and mentions JFK and UFOs.

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.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The speaker wants to know if the FBI is working with someone. They are told that the FBI concluded that person had nothing and stopped working with them. The speaker will check and confirm this information.

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.

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.

There is no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign in 2016, according to Mister Durham. The FBI's investigation had failures and did not reveal any conspiracy or collusion between Trump and Russian authorities. Vice President Biden and President Obama were aware of this, while Hillary Clinton fabricated it. The FBI orchestrated the investigation, and the media sold it to the public. The question remains: who watches the watchmen? The FBI is seen as protecting the nation's capital but not the American people. Republicans on the judiciary committee must hold the FBI accountable.

Concerns about federal agents' presence on January 6 were raised, but there were no definitive answers regarding their involvement. One individual stated they had no personal knowledge of any agents present or their actions. Questions about confidential human sources from the FBI at the Capitol remain unanswered, with an upcoming report expected to provide some clarity. However, the report is still in draft form and undergoing classification review, making it uncertain if it will be released before the upcoming election. There is a suggestion that if any agents were present and broke the law, they should have followed established protocols, but details about reimbursements and specific actions remain unclear. Frustration was expressed over the lack of transparency and timely information from the FBI and DOJ.

The discussion centers on the Inspector General's (IG) report on the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign. Speaker 0 claims the report vindicates the FBI from accusations of treason and illegal spying. However, Speaker 1 points out the IG's findings of significant inaccuracies and omissions in the FISA applications, including 17 errors. Speaker 0 admits to being wrong about the FISA process but maintains the Steele dossier was part of a broader mosaic of facts. Speaker 1 counters that the IG found the dossier essential to obtaining the FISA warrant and that the FBI renewed the application multiple times despite knowing the Steele reporting was not credible. Speaker 1 highlights that the CIA informed the FBI about Carter Page's relationship with them, but this information was not shared with the FISA court. Additionally, an FBI lawyer allegedly altered a document to state Page was not a source. Speaker 0 states the IG did not find misconduct by FBI personnel, only mistakes. Speaker 1 notes that the case of Kevin Klein Smith has been referred for criminal investigation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the IG did not find criminal misconduct, political bias, or illegal conduct.

The speaker expresses concerns about the weaponization of government and the DOJ's approval rating. They question the Department of Justice about acquiring geolocation data and specific analyses done with that data. The speaker asks if the DOJ obtained geolocation data from external sources or bought it. The attorney general mentions that the data was obtained through subpoenas issued to telephone companies. The speaker then brings up Durham's report, which called the FBI's activities sobering, and asks if it worries the attorney general. The attorney general mentions that Durham thanked him for not interfering with the investigation and acknowledges the report's criticisms. The speaker asks if questioning an election is a crime in the US, to which the attorney general responds that it is not. The speaker concludes by expressing concerns about the trustworthiness of the American people and Congress.