reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they had socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 had ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

The speaker questions the number of people deported out of the 2 million encounters and releases at the border. The secretary avoids answering the question and claims the immigration system is broken. The speaker presses for a specific number of non-criminal deportations, but the secretary doesn't provide an answer. The speaker also criticizes the lack of removals for those who received removal orders. The secretary denies this claim. The speaker accuses the secretary of implementing a policy that allows people to stay in the country without committing a crime, burdening social services. The secretary denies this and defends the safe and orderly pathways policy. The speaker argues that encounters at ports of entry have increased, suggesting corruption within the Mexican government. The secretary disagrees with the speaker's statements but fails to provide any numbers. The speaker concludes that the Mexican government and the secretary are influenced by cartels.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

The speaker asks if cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting illegal immigrants and provide sanctuary. Speaker 1 claims cities ignore federal law due to lack of federal funding for enforcement. They cite a city that imposed similar sanctions, resulting in economic decline with stores closing, leading to a policy change. The speaker asserts the federal government has been derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce existing law. The speaker asks Biden if he would allow cities to ignore federal law. Biden answers, "No."

Speaker 1 confirmed signing a memo but denied being the author of the family separation policy. Speaker 1 stated they gave Secretary Nielsen numerous recommendations on how to secure the border and save lives. Speaker 2 claimed that Speaker 1 recommended family separation as option three. Speaker 1 stated they recommended zero tolerance, the same as when any US citizen parent gets arrested with a child. Speaker 2 stated that legal asylees are not charged with any crime. Speaker 1 stated that being in the country illegally is a violation and that if one wants to seek asylum, they should do it the legal way at the port of entry. Speaker 1 referred to a congresswoman as the dumbest ever to listen to congress.

Speaker 0 contends that there is no link between immigration and sexual violence against women and girls. They then raise a pointed question about grooming gangs, identifying them as being of largely Pakistani descent that are “blotting our communities,” and ask if there is anything the other speaker has to say about this issue. Speaker 1 responds by saying the question is perfectly valid, but notes that they have moved on to other topics. They request to stick with the subject at hand. They explain that they were not asked to come in, and that they have strong feelings about immigration, which they stated in their reply. They state clearly that they are not going to start injecting racial connotations into discussions about immigration or crime. The brief phrase “The woman behind” appears at the end, implying a note about a person present, but the sentence is cut off.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if biological men should be able to use women's restrooms. Speaker 1 questions the relevance to immigration. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has ever used the women's restroom, after Speaker 1 allegedly said everyone should use the other gender's bathroom today as a protest. Speaker 1 says they have not and denies advocating for men to use women's restrooms. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 regrets encouraging men to use women's restrooms and if Speaker 1 ever considered that women don't want men in their bathrooms. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 thinks it's appropriate for men to use women's restrooms because Speaker 0 believes Speaker 1 is taking rights away from underage girls.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about using a 200-year-old law to circumvent something. Speaker 1 responds that it is not as old as the Constitution, which they still pay attention to. Speaker 0 then asks how many more times Speaker 1 plans on deporting South Capitol Hill. Speaker 1 states they are in trouble.

The transcript shows a volatile exchange centered on immigration and constitutional rights. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks how many constitutional rights the other participants are willing to give up to “get these people out,” framing the issue as a test of loyalty to the country. He emphasizes a confrontational stance against immigrants and their supporters, pressing for an explicit, finite number of rights to sacrifice. Speaker 1 responds with extreme, inflammatory rhetoric. He declares, “As many constitutional rights as it takes to keep the race in the country alive is how many I’m willing to walk on,” and identifies as a “national socialist authoritarian,” asserting a willingness to sacrifice rights to preserve a “race in the country.” He attacks the idea of protecting the Constitution, stating, “my constitution, my democracy, my fucking… inalienable fucking constitutional car driven rights,” and contrasts that with what he sees as the real priority of protecting the country and race. He references “the force doctrine” and asserts that “your rights are whatever the fucking force doctrine says you’re allowed to do.” He also claims that the United States acts as “the force doctrine of the entire world.” During the exchange, Speaker 0 derides Speaker 1 as “white racist fuck” and “unamerican,” while Speaker 1 escalates, declaring that he does not care about the constitution if it endangers the country or race. He asserts, “What I care about is our country,” and later says, “Willing to let this country burn and your entire race burn if it meant that you didn’t violate the constitution? I don’t give a fuck about that.” He proclaims, “If I need to throw away the first amendment, the second amendment, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth, and all of them in order to make sure that The US and its people stays alive,” questioning how that could be acceptable. The dialogue includes explicit harassment and slurs, including “chill faggot,” and culminates in a moment where Speaker 0 calls for clipping the exchange, expressing it as “fucking gold.” The participants debate whether constitutional protections should yield to perceived national or racial imperatives, with both sides railing against the other’s stance and repeatedly foregrounding the primacy of protecting the country over preserving constitutional rights, according to their respective positions.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 thinks someone should be jailed for misrepresenting and lying to voters about Governor Nate Schatzlein asking cartel members to come into the country legally. Speaker 1 says people lie about him every day and he doesn't think that merits a year in jail, and he doesn't want to limit free speech. He'd rather people be able to lie than be jailed for it. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 sees how such a lie could significantly impact an election. Speaker 1 says the lie is refutable. Speaker 1 doesn't think someone should spend a year or even a day in jail for lying. He believes that when you run for office, people can lie about you, tell the truth, or hold you accountable. Speaker 0 argues it's about election integrity if voters decide based on fabricated information. Speaker 1's time then expires.

Speaker 1: Mentions there are many things she wishes people knew, but mostly with the administration she wishes people knew that “we're letting in criminals daily.” Speaker 2: States the big issue for the region is migration, noting “we poured a lot of money into Central America,” amounting to “4,000,000,000 over four years,” but migrants are now coming from elsewhere, including Venezuela. Speaker 3: Asks, “So what is the end goal?” Speaker 1: Asks why aren’t they allowing children, noting “a lot of children travel to The United States, David.” Speaker 2: Explains aid goes to female presence in Mexico, training women, and mentions working with gender issues in Pakistan, aiming to recruit, retain, and advance more women in law enforcement. Asks whether US taxpayers’ money should be spent in “our country on this issue,” implying women may not care about certain aspects. Speaker 2: Asks how close Secretary Lincoln is to him, “five degrees separation,” and notes migration is a niche industry that flies under the radar; the average American doesn’t know what they do. Speaker 1: Thanks the chairman, ranking member, and members for the opportunity to testify. Speaker 2: Mentions upcoming briefings in two weeks on the FY 2025 budget request on the Hill. Speaker 0: States migration is the big issue for the Hill and asks, “Stop migration. What are we doing to stop migration?” Speaker 1: Responds that he’s not accountable for that and says, “We do stuff,” referencing the root causes strategy, which is about giving money to support and help people at the origins of migrants so they feel they can stay there instead of migrating. It’s “Central America, basically.” He says they poured a lot of money into Central America, and again mentions “4,000,000,000 over four years.” Speaker 2: Asks if it’s doing anything; response: yes, for them, but migrants are now coming from elsewhere like Venezuela, and acknowledges that outcome looks bad for the administration and for politics in general. Speaker 3: Seeks the end goal and asks again why there’s a limit on who’s allowed in. Speaker 1: Cites changes in demographics in the United States; notes that Nebraskans are traditional Americans not leftists, while Latin Americans are described as leftists, framing it as a system to try to change demographics.

Speaker 0 opened by saying that over the last week he has interacted with over 300,000 plus real Chicagoans who say it is hate speech to evoke the Civil War or the Confederacy, to say that law enforcement is a sickness, while the other person has over 150 sworn CPD officers on his detail. He asked what the other person would say to those people and whether he would ask his 150 sworn officers to stand down if he and his wife Stacy are ever attacked, shot at, or rammed with a protester’s vehicle. Speaker 1 responded with sarcasm about the large number, joking that the interactions had “gone down to 300,000,” and claimed he had checked the other person’s comments. He asserted that the addiction on jails and incarceration and the addiction of militarism is evil, referencing Doctor King, and said it is incumbent to ensure that “the real Chicagoans” or the real people of America receive attention, suggesting we should spend billions of dollars overseas on the people in Chicago instead. Speaker 0 pushed back, saying that the real Chicagoans he talks to, mostly Black and Brown, feel that the other person does not distinguish between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens, and that he is siding with illegal aliens over communities. He asserted that a recent incident involved “an illegal alien from Nicaragua” who grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her. He asked whether, if that had been the other person’s wife, Stacy, he would want ICE to deport that illegal alien, and asked for a yes or no answer. Speaker 1 pressed to get a direct answer, asking for a response “as a man, not as mayor,” and repeated the question about whether ICE should deport the rapist. Speaker 0 reiterated his question and stated that the answer for real Chicagoans is the deportation of the rapist, and that was the “answer for real Chicagoans.” Speaker 1 then apologized for being late, blaming traffic, and the other person quipped about the traffic, noting, “You’re not blaming me for the traffic, are you?” and said he had been watching.

The speaker asks Mr. Malnik how many deportations by the new administration would be objectionable. Malnik says a million would be a disaster, and two million would have severe negative ramifications, considering they would be law-abiding people who have been in the country for decades. The speaker states that President Obama deported nearly 5,000,000 people and asks if Malnik believes Obama was immoral and inappropriate for doing so. The speaker wants Malnik to state on social media that Obama did a horrible disservice to those he deported and was as wrong-minded as Republicans who want to secure the border and deport people. The speaker argues that one cannot be okay with one president deporting people but not another.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Speaker 0 claims real Chicagoans, mostly black and brown, say you don’t distinguish between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens and that you side with the illegal aliens over them in their communities. The real question: I don’t know how to make it any more direct. An illegal alien from Nicaragua grabbed a woman on the North Side Was it question? Bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her. If that had been your wife, Stacy Okay. We're not gonna answer it. Would you want ICE to deport her? Let's move on. Answer the question as a man, not as mayor. Would you call Thanks. My man. To the fourth back rapist. Mayor. That's the answer for real Chicago. Mayor, sorry for being late. The traffic's bad. Maybe the beds could help. You're not blaming me for the traffic, are you? It there.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 she will be taken too because she has brown skin. Speaker 1 calls this racist, stating she is an American citizen. Speaker 0 says it doesn't matter, and Speaker 1 accuses her of saying she will be deported because she is brown. Speaker 1 says she voted for Donald Trump, who she met and is very nice, and that Speaker 0 is racist. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 is supporting mass deportation. Speaker 1 says she supports mass deportation of people who are not American citizens. Speaker 0 says she is Catholic. Speaker 1 says American citizens are not going to get deported. Speaker 0 says potentially, citing Raz Baraka's arrest, claiming he was targeted by ICE. Speaker 1 says he was charged with trespassing. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a whole ass adult calling people Nazis in 2025. Speaker 0 says this is Nazi behavior. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 thinks it was racist to tell her she was going to get deported because she's brown. Speaker 0 says she doesn't know that happened.

Speaker 0 states that entering the country illegally is not a criminal violation. Speaker 1 strongly disagrees, calling the statement "one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard" and asserting that it lacked any rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes that everyone who heard the statement is now dumber.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

Speaker 0 questions the practicality of a mass deportation program, particularly concerning families with American-citizen children, suggesting a single negative image could halt the entire program. Speaker 1 acknowledges that deporting a woman with children, resulting in media coverage, would complicate the effort. Speaker 0 then asks for confirmation of support for mass deportation, "even of women and children." Speaker 1 responds that they will look at it very closely, noting that the deportation of even one "wrong person" could be exploited by the "radical left lunatics."

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

Speaker 0 asks how to console parents of young girls killed. Speaker 1 discusses crimes committed by undocumented individuals versus others, rejecting the term "illegal." Speaker 2 clarifies they do not use the term "illegal."

Speaker 0 raises the question of whether cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting of illegal immigrants and effectively provide sanctuary to immigrants. Speaker 1 responds by explaining that cities ignore federal law because there is no funding at the federal level to support the kind of enforcement required. He references the New York Times, noting that a city near his state implemented similar sanctions and subsequently experienced adverse effects—“their city went in the dumpster,” with stores closing and other consequences—leading to a policy reversal. He argues that the underlying issue is the need for a federal government capable of enforcing laws and asserts that the administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce the existing laws. Speaker 0 follows up with a direct question to Senator Biden: yes or no—“Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?” Speaker 1 answers: No. Speaker 0 closes with a brief, informal remark: “You okay.”

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.