reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The transcript describes a lawsuit involving Bill Gates that is portrayed as “getting even crazier.” It claims that in court, there were so many plaintiffs present that the court had to open an additional room because the original courtroom could not fit everyone. It further alleges that Bill Gates’ team began their speech by saying that vaccines are safe and effective, and that the entire courtroom “bursted out laughing.” As the hearing progressed, the transcript claims the plaintiffs presented evidence about deaths and other harms, including “people being barren,” heart attacks, and “turbo cancers” appearing as a direct result of the COVID vaccine. It then alleges that the plaintiffs presented evidence that Bill Gates colluded with Jeffrey Epstein to create the vaccine, “fully knowing what it’s gonna do to people.” The transcript also states that it “floored” the speaker when, during the hearing, it was said that the COVID virus was no worse than a standard flu. The speaker frames the situation as the revelation of hidden information, referencing the Bible passage that everything hidden will be revealed. They conclude by saying they will keep praying and hoping for more information to come out and for “justice” to be done, especially for people who lost loved ones and for those whose lives, businesses, and health were described as being destroyed by the vaccine, which the transcript says many were mandated to take.

The speaker discusses the challenges of dealing with government actions and the time it takes to resolve them. They mention a lesser-known aspect of their case, where an FBI agent allegedly planned to plant child pornography on their husband's computer. Although this was not carried out in their situation, they express concern about the potential consequences and the fact that they have a young daughter at home.

And how could it be right when she's in prison because of what she may say? You know, it just doesn't make sense that she's there. Provision five two: there's two contracts with Dominion—a state contract, and a contract each county holds with Dominion machines. The section five two talks about a project manager that should be appointed; Tina's case operated under that authority. They are the current project managers operating under precision five two of the county contract. Drinda Griswold, the attorney general's office came in and said, oh, you can't do that. They undermined Conan Hayes. That individual is not a surfer as the state portrayed him. Peter was there every step of the way; thank you again, Peter, for continuing to be in the fight.

CIA whistleblower reveals a cover-up by the Biden administration regarding attacks from directed energy weapons by foreign adversaries. In an interview, the whistleblower confirms being attacked and states that the intelligence community has obstructed congressional investigations, calling it a terrifying cover-up. The whistleblower discusses experiencing gaslighting from the CIA, which aimed to make victims doubt their injuries. A recent congressional report suggests foreign involvement in these injuries. The whistleblower expresses gratitude for the report and criticizes the CIA for betraying its personnel. She urges for acknowledgment of the situation to prevent further harm and hopes for change under a potential Trump administration, emphasizing that those involved in the previous report should not be allowed to handle this issue.

The four individuals known as the Cootes Four were unjustly targeted in a political prosecution, falsely accused of involvement in an armed insurrection at the Coutts border blockade. They have been held in pretrial detention for over 800 days without visitation access or being convicted of any crime. The media initially spread false narratives about the case, but a pretrial publication ban now prevents the accused from telling their side of the story. The trial is beginning today, and it is expected that the truth will come to light, revealing the injustice they have faced at the hands of a government that disregards justice and rights. Translation: The Cootes Four were unfairly prosecuted for a political agenda, falsely accused of inciting violence at the Coutts border blockade. They have been in pretrial detention for over 800 days without being convicted of any crime. The media initially spread false narratives, but a publication ban now prevents the accused from sharing their side of the story. The trial is starting today, and it is believed that the truth will reveal the injustice they have endured due to a government that does not respect justice or rights.

A former CIA agent and whistleblower is prepared to testify under oath regarding an investigation into the J. K. McNugget v. Mamala contest. The whistleblower will claim that Mamala won by a landslide. The speaker suggests that something went wrong, implicating many people, including some unexpected individuals. The speaker concludes that AmClub was correct about the situation.

Speaker 1 mentions waiting for Bonnie Willis to respond. They discuss a whistleblower in her office who raised concerns about misuse of funds. Willis fired the whistleblower, prompting a subpoena for related documents. Willis made US Marshals serve the subpoena. They joke about Willis' behavior and mention CPAC. They express appreciation for CPAC's support of conservative principles. Translation: The speakers discuss Bonnie Willis not responding, a whistleblower's concerns, a subpoena for documents, and Willis' behavior. They joke about CPAC and express gratitude for its support of conservative principles.

Clayton interviews investigative journalist Timothy Alberino about recent “disclosure” documents released under the Trump administration, including videos and audio files, and about whether the U.S. government has alien bodies and when such evidence will be publicly shown. Alberino says he was warned the first tranche would be “underwhelming,” but expects subsequent releases—staggered on an “every two weeks” schedule—to become “more spectacular.” He claims earlier releases largely draw from material already held by the Pentagon’s AARO, describing it as a “sham UAP investigative body,” and from prior FOIA-released material, with some new content. Alberino argues against conflating the Trump administration’s disclosure efforts with access to deep underground special-access programs housed in “dumbs” (deep underground military bases). He says the President of the United States, the Secretary of War, and others have not been read into these programs and do not have access on a need-to-know basis. He says the White House and agencies like the FBI are reviewing documents to determine what can be released without breaching national security interests. He maintains that Trump and figures such as Hegseth and Patel are not withholding because they “don’t agree” with disclosure; instead, he says they plan to release as much as possible that does not conflict with national security so the public can draw conclusions. Alberino says Trump will not go onstage and present alien bodies or Roswell-style images, and that classified information about the “legacy program” will not be publicly released. When asked directly whether alien bodies and autopsy videos will be shown, Alberino says “absolutely not,” stating that Trump, Hegseth, and Patel do not have access to bodies. He claims the disclosure process is constrained by what officials can access, while the more important material is allegedly sequestered in private contractors rather than held within agencies like the Pentagon, FBI, or DNI—allowing officials to claim they do not have that information. Alberino describes “oppositional factions” inside government, intelligence, the White House, and the Pentagon: a “secrecy group” that wants the public kept uninformed, and a “disclosure group” that wants limited disclosure centered on a “baseline truth” that non-human entities exist and that craft and bodies have been recovered. He says the disclosure group seeks congressional oversight, which he claims is intentionally circumvented by compartmentalized, contractor-heavy programs with limited oversight. He further claims there are “rogue elements” and introduces the idea of “alien reproduction vehicles” (ARVs) derived from non-human technology, used for “nefarious things,” though he frames these as actions by rogue elements rather than the U.S. government as a whole. He identifies people he says are on the “limited disclosure” side, naming Congressman Eric Burlison, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others, and states Tulsi Gabbard is also on the disclosure side. He claims that inquiries from the DNI and official attempts to inspect facilities are met with runaround and deception about projects shown on site. Alberino says facility visits by congressmen have not necessarily revealed bodies and suggests that craft footage may be more likely than biological evidence. He references that higher-resolution videos are supposedly seen in private than what has appeared via public FOIA releases, and he expects footage similar to Gimbal, GoFast, and Nimitz-level imagery. He also claims that if whistleblowers come forward publicly, they face NDAs and career consequences, and he says whistleblower protection legislation proposed by senators and representatives has faced repeated defeat. He describes whistleblowers privately briefing members of Congress “but they won’t come forward…they won’t go under oath.” In discussing interdimensional claims, Alberino says there is no certainty conveyed in classified settings about the “ontology” of beings, though he says interdimensional language is discussed publicly. He asserts that congressional-level information indicates the phenomenon is real and that there is evidence suggesting a legacy program exists, but he says those he interacts with have not been shown direct evidence explaining origins. He discusses speculation about extra dimensions and space-time warping, connecting these ideas to craft behavior such as phasing out or disappearing, and references Bob Lazar’s claims about craft appearing to lift off and then vanish. He also speaks about transmedium movement and the idea that a craft may create gravitational bubbles that bend light. Alberino includes claims about materials and technological gaps, saying extracted exotic materials are crucial and that the ability to reproduce them is limited. He describes an “arms race” framing involving legacy programs beyond the U.S., including China and Russia, and says strategic advantage may be why much is not released publicly. For religious aspects, he says media coverage conflated different stories and points to two streams: (1) evangelical leaders connected to Paula White, which he says involves “ontological shock” from being told something; and (2) a separate private UAP-and-human-trafficking investigative organization he describes as having briefers who share mostly public-domain information and seek to encourage pastors to prepare congregants for disclosure, while emphasizing that their theological views are not based on being read into programs. He claims this private group focuses heavily on human trafficking. Toward the end, he reiterates that a new tranche of documents may appear within about a week and continues into a slow drip toward summer, with underwhelming early releases followed by more impressive footage later. He also says he has been told AARO is being “frozen out” of the release process after being ordered to turn over lower-tier material, and that the strategy is to reduce AARO’s role in public dissemination.

Lionel Nation (Speaker 1) says he has no knowledge of who Tyler Robinson is and is neutral, but the case sounded odd and is now “imploding” in his view. He outlines two key points: the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk with malice, premeditation, and by a rifle or some weapon, and the jury will weigh the evidence, including a confession to the parents and the gun. He questions the confession to the parents, suggesting it may be shaky because the police or others may have pressured a turn-in. He notes a Discord message confession from Tyler and a “gay lover” with a fuzzy hat, calling it the strangest confession ever, and he speculates about whether the confession was really an attempt to turn himself in due to fear of police action, rather than a true admission. He discusses how the indictment might describe the parents hearing the confession on TV or from a sheriff’s friend, calling that portion “sloppy” and speculating about whether it actually came from Tyler’s own mouth. He then examines the physical evidence: the Mauser 98 rifle in 30-06, the bullet not matching, and a lint brush analogy to illustrate a mismatch. He says the bullet “doesn’t match,” and wonders how this connects to the rifle; he admits uncertainty about the connection. He references gunshot residue (GSR) testing and notes questions about whether any GSR test was conducted on Tyler, and whether the rifle was fired. He mentions the rifle being found after dogs searched and suggests it could have been planted, or that it wouldn’t show residue if not fired. He stresses that the defense argues the government has to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, and that if the bullet, rifle, or DNA evidence is not connected or if there is suppression of evidence, it could undermine the case. Speaker 0 asks about whether the confession is hearsay, and Speaker 1 responds that confessions can be an exception to the hearsay rule because they are admissions, though the indictment may not contain the exact confession. He notes the indictment is bare bones and later details would come out in discovery and deposition, including what the parents actually said. He considers whether the parents’ statements could be contested or reinterpreted, or whether they would claim they misunderstood what Tyler said or were influenced. They discuss the possibility of suppressing the rifle and the confession and how that would impact the case, noting the jury’s potential reaction if the only evidence is a vague confession to parents and an unreliable weapon. Speaker 1 jests about bringing expert witnesses, including a Marine sniper, to replicate the shooting and challenge the narrative, and about medical examiner reports and the possibility that the case could be dismissed if key pieces are not admissible. They contemplate the broader implications: if the government quits the case in the interest of justice, or if deeper investigations or disclosures reveal additional suspects or motivations. They reference Joe Kent’s claim that investigators were hindered, and speculate about the roles of public figures like Cash Patel and Erica Kirk, with Speaker 1 asserting that Erica Kirk’s testimony and role could be pivotal or contested. He contemplates that the case might extend beyond the courtroom into public discourse, including TPUSA involvement and community reactions, and emphasizes that the truth will come from a combination of courtroom proceedings and crowdsourced investigation. Ultimately, Speaker 1 reiterates that the question is whether Tyler Robinson can be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if any link in the chain—confession, rifle, GSR, or other evidence—is not solid, the case could fail. They plan to monitor developments, including the medical examiner’s report, which Speaker 0 notes will likely be released, and suggest that the coming revelations could shape the narrative, for better or worse.

Lisa Monaco, a U.S. prosecutor, discovered illegal activities but was dismissed when she reported them. Despite her concerns, she sought advice from friends to protect herself. The FBI had her under surveillance and planned a violent attack on her family, intending to stage it as a home invasion. They had detailed maps and knowledge of her schedule. As threats escalated, she documented everything and reached out to the U.S. Marshals and a judge to expose the plot. This intervention halted the attack. The court records related to the case remain sealed due to national security. Additionally, an explosive linked to the case was later used in smaller bombings in Boston, demonstrating ongoing threats.

The Brunson case has been ruled in favor of Brunson, with the White Hats controlling the case's publicity. The speaker mentions that the case has been on the docket multiple times and has already been ruled upon. They claim to have heard this information from three different military sources. The speaker believes that the White Hats are intentionally keeping the case in the news and holding important information. They express their intention to talk to someone about it.

'What Benedict has now left us with is is very, very scary for the entire American judicial system.' 'they broke their own rules' at the pleading stage, noting that 'when a plaintiff files a complaint, the court is required to accept all of their plausible claims as true and to give them the opportunity to prove their case in court.' 'The Ninth Circuit has completely violated that precept of the court' and that 'There is nothing that we have said that is implausible.' In fact, we have all the evidence that we need. They just don't want the truth to come out, and so they are twisting their own in fact, they're just breaking their own rules in doing so. 'We can appeal to the Supreme Court. We absolutely can.' 'I think we'd get three justices for sure' but 'I'm not sure we would get five.'

The speaker identifies as a January 6th defendant who was held pretrial for four years. They claim the government wanted them to make a false statement about Roger Stone's involvement, and that they were offered no charges in exchange for the statement. The speaker alleges torture of pretrial American citizens and contrasts their situation with the handling of BLM and Antifa rioters, claiming those rioters received lighter sentences. They mention a $30,000,000 settlement in the Ashley Babbitt lawsuit. They state they have 5,000 pages of documentation available open source. As a result of their experience, the speaker says they lost their wife, child, house, job, and name, but anticipates being "stupid paid" by the government.

Four Americans, including two lawyers and two journalists, are suing the CIA and Mike Pompeo for spying on them during their meetings with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy. The judge in New York has shown signs of allowing the case to proceed, which could be a significant step towards Assange's release. The plaintiffs allege that a private contractor named UC Global, with connections to the CIA, monitored them while they visited Assange. The contractors reportedly collected audio and video feeds and even took apart their phones to obtain identification numbers and passport photos. The judge's decision not to dismiss the case is unusual, and it could have implications for Assange's extradition case.

The case in federal court number 5, overseen by Judge Maria Eugenia Capuchetti, is not being investigated properly. Our lawyer, Marcelo Soefer, is barred from accessing the electronic case system, leaving us unaware of its progress. We have yet to receive a response from Anmak, and prosecutor Ramiro Gonzales is failing to fulfill his duties. It's crucial to mention the officials involved, including instructor Virginia Guillen and secretary Javier Delio, as their actions impact many lives. Numerous victims are suffering due to harmful substances, and the lack of transparency is alarming. The removal of our lawyer from the courtroom raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process. It feels as though the judge may be compromised. We hope for ethical conduct from judges and prosecutors, as lives are at stake. Ultimately, this matter has now been escalated to the federal chamber.

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

From a firsthand account about the whistleblower within ODNI who worked for then, Obama's DNI, James Clapper, about how he refused to go along with this. "As a result, he was sidelined and cut out of this." "He was the cyber guy in the director, in the director of national intelligence, James Clapper's, team." "He was sidelined because he wouldn't play along with the lie that they were creating, and he did blow the whistle." "He raised this through the ICIG." "He raised this, tried to raise this with multiple members of congress, including senator Warner." "He never got calls back." "They were not interested in what he had to say and what he had experienced." "He even tried then to go and report this to the Department of Justice, under, president Biden and was refused." "No action." "They were not interested in taking action in this."

I'm in Helsinki to give a witness statement in a case against the Finnish government and a catering company for human rights violations related to the COVID pass. We aim to fight for freedom against medical tyranny. This is a unique case globally where the government is being sued. We are determined to expose corporate crimes and mistakes in history. Though we can't film the court, the transcript will be available. Let's stand up for freedom and justice.

In this video, the speaker from Connecticut discusses an issue with the court system. They explain that they had a court date but were never able to see the judge as they were arrested for criminal trespass instead. They believe that the court is purposely swindling bonds and have witnessed this happen multiple times. The speaker mentions that this is just a test of their new software.

We just finished a 2-hour testimony in court. The speaker felt it went well, covering issues like evidence-based medicine, industry influence, and whistleblower suppression. They mentioned ASEAN's strong defense against attacks on credibility, with recordings from court to be released. The testimony involved deep personal details, implicating figures like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Overall, they hope justice will prevail.