reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses how the bureau practices near-entrapment to target individuals like Alex Jones, aiming to bankrupt them through civil lawsuits. They mention using fake social media posts to provoke reactions and reveal that FBI agents were undercover at the January 6th Capitol riot. The speaker states that about 20 agents were present but not involved in violence, highlighting the bureau's discreet presence at such events. They emphasize the need for a larger law enforcement presence in such situations.

The FBI's involvement in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case revealed that out of 14 people, 12 were informants. These informants allegedly convinced two individuals to attempt to kidnap the governor, resembling a misguided role-playing game. The situation highlights a saying that suggests the FBI often targets individuals they have a hand in creating.

In the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case, the media portrayed it as extremist right wing groups plotting against the governor. However, it was revealed in court that the FBI had paid an informant to assemble a group for prosecution. Despite their efforts, the informant failed to find willing participants. It was discovered that out of the 18 people recruited, 12 were actually working for the FBI. While not all of the FBI may be involved in such activities, it is important for us as citizens to expose and hold the corrupt accountable. We should question the reality created by the media and think for ourselves.

BuzzFeed has just confirmed that the FBI had a, quote, “hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. In other words, the FBI helped plan it.” An FBI informant organized meetings to kidnap the governor. Another informant, quote, prodded the alleged mastermind of the kidnapping plot to advance his plan. And text from an FBI agent directed an informant to draw people into the conspiracy. In the end, it looks like there were more FBI snitches, informants, people working with the FBI involved in the plot than weren't. It was an FBI plot. So what does this suggest about January 6? We know there were FBI informants in the crowd. We know that for certain. Why can't we know their involvement in January 6 now that we're getting a sense of their involvement in this fake kidnapping plot? Julie Kelly of American Greatness discussed the Lansing April 2020 protest mirroring January 6, with militia groups in military gear, police stood down, firearms, and viral photographs. She cited the plausibility of FBI infiltration before January 6 and Revolver News Darren Beatty's article. The discussion called for leaders to question Christopher Wray.

The FBI is being accused of engineering a terrorism plot in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case. An army veteran named Dan Chappell was approached by the FBI and paid over $60,000 to assemble a group of right-wing extremists. The FBI created a Facebook group called Patriot 3 Percenters and had Chappell attend a protest at the Michigan State Capitol. They then introduced an undercover agent posing as an explosives expert and tried to convince the group to kidnap Whitmer. However, several members of the group refused and expressed their desire to restore the constitutional republic instead. The FBI continued to push the kidnapping plot, even suggesting killing the governor. The details of the case were revealed in court testimony.

Speaker claims the shooter is not a lone actor but a “hive,” and says Thomas Crooks was “on the federal radar,” with an “80 page document” of his accounts and statements to be released. Crooks allegedly started as a Trump supporter, then radicalized around 2020, publicly calling for violence against the left and posting videos of himself shooting with no bullets. He cites a comment about “lining up a bunch of socialist Jews … blasting their useless brains out with an AR.” The speaker notes Crooks' online history shows him “always calling for violence” and that he later targeted Trump while researching assassinations, including “best places for a a mass shooting” and other searches like “fertilizer bomb” and “how to molotov make a molotov cocktail.” He suggests this points to “a program” similar to MK Ultra, claiming “they find these candidates in schools.”

The speaker discusses the practice of entrapment by the bureau, mentioning a nudge technique to provoke reactions. They talk about targeting Alex Jones to bankrupt him through civil lawsuits. The speaker also mentions undercover FBI agents at the Capitol riot, estimating about 20 agents present. The bureau's presence was kept discreet to avoid overstepping boundaries. The speaker confirms knowing agents who were at the riot.

Speaker 1 asserts that there is a two-tier justice system weaponized to persecute people based on political beliefs, and that Director Wray has personally helped weaponize the FBI against conservatives. He references the Twitter files, Missouri v. Biden disclosures, the Durham investigation and report, and the exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax. He asks Director Wray what he is prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement to earn back the trust of the American people, noting that he asked Mister Durham about this, and Durham said he did not think things can go too much further given that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. Speaker 0 responds by disagreeing with the other speaker’s characterization, saying the description of his bias against conservatives seems insane given his personal background. He explains that the approach to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution starts with emphasizing to his staff to do the right thing in the right way, which means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. He outlines several actions: enhanced procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks and triple checks, record-keeping requirements, accountability policies, and funding for new functions like an Office of Internal Audit that didn’t exist before. He notes the installation of an entirely new leadership team from his predecessor and asserts that where he can take action, he will to hold people accountable by removing them from the chain of command. The exchange ends with an invitation to speak further, though the remark is truncated: “Gentlemen, ladies, time to speak to the….”

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.

The speaker discusses how they can potentially entrap individuals, including pro-lifers, through manipulation and social media tactics. They mention targeting political commentator Alex Jones and causing financial harm to him. Additionally, they reveal that FBI agents were present undercover at the January 6th Capitol riot. The speaker implies that the FBI's involvement in such events is kept secretive.

The speakers discuss Thomas Crooks, the drone pilot, questioning how he executed the act, citing his training at a gun range with federal agents and the use of encrypted communication platforms. They speculate about Crooks having a handler, possibly with terrorist ties or driven by left-leaning ideologies, and criticize the media for potentially radicalizing individuals by associating conservative views with threats to democracy. They ponder whether a foreign nation was involved in an assassination plot. Speaker 1 suggests the news cycle is attempting to move on from the story and accuses Democrats of weaponizing the situation, likening it to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the lack of independent verification regarding Crooks' medications and suggests he may have been drugged. Speaker 1 hopes a future, Trump-aligned FBI director will conduct a thorough investigation and declassify the findings for the public.

There were multiple improbable factors that would have had to align for these bombs to be discovered at the same time on a sidewalk, prompting questions about a broader conspiracy and how such a scenario could unfold. The speakers emphasize that while they want to avoid a conspiracy path, there are many questions still open, including the handling of video footage. Regarding video records, one speaker notes that they want to review January 6 video to see if anyone returned to the locations, but that video apparently does not exist anymore. They do have January 5 video, but have been told that no one preserved January 6. This raises eyebrows as they consider whether the devices were placed by an inexperienced person who was trying to set them down quickly or whether the devices were left to be found. Mrs. Younger’s account is highlighted: she walked out her back door and did not see anything earlier in the morning, but saw the devices later, which would give a reason to believe she would have noticed them if they had been there in the morning. This observation is part of why they want to talk to her. One speaker is blown away by a point: according to the FBI, the FBI’s internal data indicate 39,000 videos showing the hoodie-clad pipe bomber—referred to as the C. Virkel bomber—movements that night, from various camera angles. Washington, DC, Capitol Hill is described as among the most surveilled areas in the world. Yet there is a claim that there is no footage from January 6 of the actual areas a person would have had to travel to place the pipe bombs. The other speaker confirms that there are cameras along some Capitol Police lines that show walking paths, including footage from Capitol Police cameras, but the angles that would show positions behind the RNC and behind the DNC do not exist today, at least not in a way that captures the relevant movements. This absence has limited the investigation into the theory that the devices could have been placed earlier and then moved or re-placed. They are now going back through Capitol Police footage, including from the Fairchild Building near the DNC, which has provided the most evidence so far. The team is reviewing hours from about 8 PM on May 5 to 1 PM on January 6 to determine whether anyone else passed by, whether there was any suspicious activity, and whether the devices were moved again. The investigators are evaluating step-by-step explanations for these anomalies, considering whether the Secret Service dog failed to detect one device or whether Mrs. Younger missed the other, whether the devices were not present at that time, or whether weather and other factors affected detections. They acknowledge that with so many circumstances, some “smoke” might indicate “fire.” They hope the FBI is reviewing cell phone data to determine if the suspected bomber returned or if a co-conspirator was involved in setting timers or re-placing devices. The transcript ends with an acknowledgment of ongoing investigation scope and questions.

The FBI stopped an alleged terror plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Thirteen suspects were arrested, including alleged members of a right-wing militia. The FBI infiltrated and wiretapped the group after a tip that they were plotting against police and planning to attack the state capital to overthrow the government. An informant heard the suspects call Whitmer a tyrant and discuss taking her to a secret location in Wisconsin for a trial ending in execution. In the trial, two defendants were acquitted, and two received mistrials; none were convicted. The defense argued entrapment, claiming paid FBI informants incited the conduct. A senator questioned whether any FBI agents were disciplined after the case. The special agent in charge of the Whitmer case was promoted to the Washington DC office and now leads the January 6 investigation. The lead investigator in the Whitmer case was allegedly fired for beating his wife and making derogatory political posts about President Trump.

The FBI is accused of providing weapons to potential terrorists, similar to the case of the Abdeslam brothers in France. In France, a belt of explosives similar to those used in the Paris attacks was found, but it lacked a firing system. This case is compared to a documentary about FBI agents infiltrating extremist groups. A journalist investigates the excesses of this policy, attempting to prove that individuals have been trapped. One interviewee claims that his brother was manipulated by an FBI informant, leading him to adopt a traditional Muslim appearance.

These remarks were notable as Crooks reached the final phase of his YouTube commenting, during which a new figure, Willie Tepes, pressured Crooks to embrace violence. Tepes wrote, “if a gun and a badge is all that is needed, then authority obviously comes from the barrel of a gun. We have more guns than they do. There is no way we can avoid a war at this point, so you better just get used to the idea. We have nothing to lose and everything to win. And the alternative, a global police state, is unacceptable.” The identity of Willie Tepes remains unknown; the FBI has not publicly mentioned him, though they are aware he exists. Days after the shooting, someone screenshotted Tepes’ YouTube account page despite him having few followers. The user’s online footprint now appears on a foreign Antifa website linking Tepes to the Nordic Resistance Movement, a group designated a terrorist organization by the US State Department. Crooks’ online footprint abruptly ends after his encounter with Tepes. Regardless of Tepes’ motives or affiliations, Crooks was clearly ripe for recruitment; from early 2019 to mid-2020, his political views evolved and he searched for Trump more than 700 times online, as well as for Jack Ruby, the man who assassinated Lee Harvey Oswald. He submitted queries including “craziest chemical reactions,” “cars running over protesters,” “best places for mass shooting,” “mass shooting El Paso,” “Trump’s civil war,” “Orlando shooting reaction,” “firing an AR-15 as fast as possible,” “fertilizer bomb,” “how to make napalm,” “how to make Molotov cocktail,” “mass shooting Canada,” “Oklahoma bombing,” and “sniper in Dallas shooting.” He also searched for “American Nazi Party,” “German national anthem 1933, 1945,” “Hitler’s speeches with subtitles,” “neo Nazis,” and “why gays need to go.” Thus, a volatile, troubled, possibly mentally ill young man with a long record of espousing violence in public. The FBI clearly knew he existed. At the same time Crooks was making these posts publicly, the FBI was issuing contracts to private sector tech surveillance firms to harness mass data collection tools to monitor social media for people just like Crooks. It is hard to imagine Crooks, posting in his own name, had not been identified and looked at closely by federal law enforcement. The FBI had access to these YouTube comments, and instead of providing valuable insights, they selectively read them to mischaracterize Crooks’ thoughts. Two and a half weeks after the July 30 attack, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN that federal investigators were looking into a YouTube account possibly connected to Crooks that espoused political violence as well as antisemitic and anti-immigration themes. It wasn’t “possibly connected to Thomas Crooks” as the FBI knew it was Crooks’ account; the same day, the FBI’s deputy director made the same dishonest claim before Congress, and the previous week FBI Director Christopher Wray publicly questioned whether Trump was even shot. In February 2025, the New York Post reported that the FBI obstructed efforts to solve why Thomas Matthew Crooks, who left no manifesto, did what he did. The Post said this left local law enforcement, Crooks’ former friends, classmates, and teachers frustrated, and noted that the cremation timing raised concerns. Less than a month after the shooting, Congressman Clay Higgins of Louisiana, a former police officer, investigated in Butler and learned that the FBI released Crooks’ body for cremation ten days after July 13. Higgins reported that the coroner said Crooks’ body would not have been released to the family for cremation or burial without FBI permission. The cremation, the day House Homeland Security and Oversight Committees began investigations, made it impossible for investigators outside the FBI to verify the autopsy report; a new tox screen could not be performed because the body no longer exists.

The speaker, a former FBI agent now working for the CIA, discusses tactics used to entrap individuals and influence public figures like Alex Jones. They mention manipulating social media, targeting high-profile influencers, and encouraging civil lawsuits to bankrupt individuals. The speaker also reveals that FBI agents were undercover at the January 6th Capitol riot, but not involved in violence. They estimate about 20 agents were present. The bureau's presence was kept secret to avoid overstepping boundaries.

The transcript centers on a report from NBC News about the man charged with planting two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters on the eve of the January 6th attack. The speaker cites NBC’s article, which states that the suspect told the FBI he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter. The speaker notes that NBC provides no direct quote or further context beyond that single claim. The speaker asserts that their own sources indicate the word used by the suspect, Brian Cole Jr., in his FBI interview was that he believed the 2020 election was stolen. However, the speaker claims there is a widespread belief within the FBI that this comment was a legal maneuver rather than a genuine belief. According to the speaker, the FBI allegedly thinks the statement was coached by Cole’s lawyer to secure a pardon from President Trump, specifically a retroactive pardon because Trump had issued a pardon for individuals convicted of January 6–related crimes. The speaker emphasizes that there is no additional evidence in Cole Jr.’s background, as far as their sources can determine, indicating he is a Trump supporter. They remark that NBC is one of the few outlets making this claim, noting that the article contains several paragraphs but only repeats the initial sentence without further detail. The speaker suggests that even within liberal media, there is a belief that the comment was a legal maneuver rather than a reflection of genuine political conviction, and argues that NBC’s reporting is selectively presented to push a particular narrative. Throughout, the speaker contrasts this with a broader media portrayal, arguing that while Brian Cole Jr. did make the comment about the 2020 election being stolen, the context is missing, and the media narrative is being shaped by selective reporting. The speaker frames the situation as an instance of media cherry-picking intended to influence perceptions about the suspect’s political affiliations and the nature of his statements to the FBI, rather than providing a complete account.

Six right-wing militia members who allegedly plotted to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer will go to trial soon. One member has already pleaded guilty and is expected to testify against the others. The case against these alleged extremists relies heavily on the involvement of government informants and undercover FBI agents, raising questions of entrapment. The FBI was aware of every aspect of the plot and even offered guidance on how to carry out the kidnapping. Despite this, Whitmer has gained sympathy as a victim of former President Donald Trump's rhetoric. However, the FBI agents and Michigan State Police Troopers involved in the operation were thanked by Whitmer herself.

Former FBI special agent Mike Jorman reveals in this documentary that the FBI fabricates cases to maintain fear in the public and gain power and funding. He explains that before 9/11, if he wanted to investigate individuals for terrorism, he would need to provide evidence of their affiliation with terrorist organizations, possession of weapons, and resources to acquire them. However, in recent cases, when he stated that the individuals had no affiliation, weapons, or resources, the FBI would initiate undercover operations, providing them with weapons, money, and the idea of an attack. Jorman believes this is a fabrication of cases to create a sense of seriousness and gain support.

The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case from fall 2020 revealed troubling details about the FBI's involvement. Initially, Governor Whitmer announced that militia groups were plotting to kidnap her. However, testimony during the trial indicated that the FBI orchestrated much of the plot. An informant, Dan Chappell, was paid over $60,000 to recruit individuals for a fabricated conspiracy. Despite the FBI's efforts, many alleged plotters, including Adam Fox, rejected violent ideas and refused to take money for weapons. The FBI continued to push the narrative, even staging meetings and introducing undercover agents. Ultimately, the case raised serious questions about the FBI's tactics and the legitimacy of the charges against the defendants.

The speaker discusses the FBI's ongoing investigation into the January 6th Capitol riot and the arrest of Trump supporters. They highlight the FBI's inability to find information about the person or people who planted pipe bombs outside the RNC and DNC headquarters the night before the riot. The speaker then introduces new surveillance footage released by Capitol Police, showing the moment one of the bombs was discovered. They describe the video, pointing out the lack of concern from law enforcement and the Secret Service, as well as the proximity of the bomb to VP-elect Kamala Harris. The speaker raises questions about the identity of the person who alerted authorities to the bomb and the subsequent cover-up.

The speaker questions whether the federal government should take credit for saving us from plots it created. They mention that the FBI claims to have foiled 17 plots, but fail to mention that 3 were actually stopped by the public. The speaker argues that the plotters in those cases were bumbling fools who harmed no one. They then discuss the remaining 17 cases, where the federal government planned, controlled, and carried out the plots themselves. The targets were young Muslim men who were manipulated into believing they could change the world by killing Americans. The speaker argues that no one was ever in danger and no property was damaged, but the defendants were charged for playing a game with federal agents. They question the legality and efficiency of these tactics, and argue that it makes us less free. The speaker concludes by asking if we are really safe in a false sense of security and why we pay the government to trick us into believing it is keeping us safe.

An individual, identified as a CIA contracting officer who formerly worked for the FBI, discussed tactics employed by the Bureau, including near-entrapment, which they call "a nudge," to provoke targeted individuals into acting on impulse. They admitted to using fake social media posts to anger people. The speaker claimed the FBI was "after" Alex Jones and aimed to bankrupt him by encouraging civil lawsuits from the Sandy Hook families. They monitored Jones' followers, looking for potential leads, and were satisfied when the families "shot his legs off" via civil suits. The speaker stated there were approximately 20 undercover FBI agents present at the January 6th Capitol riot to gather information, but their presence was not publicly acknowledged to avoid overstepping bounds.