reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker is frustrated because someone took a piece of paper from a woman named Duncan and they want to know where it is. They are upset because they asked Jerome to handle it, but he didn't do anything. The speaker is angry that nobody sent them the information they needed and they feel like nobody in their office knows what's going on. They gave the paper to Jerome to put it on the calendar, but they're worried he won't have the information when they call him. The speaker is upset with both Jerome and the person who took the paper, calling them incompetent and useless. They emphasize that this is not a trivial matter.

You've been served, Pfizer Corporation. This is considered official service. We’re not leaving until this is done. You've been served for crimes against humanity. We’ve completed the service. You have no obligation to respond, but the notice has been delivered. Let's go.

The speaker questions the audience about whether the answer to who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is “very clear.” Even among those who believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, the speaker doubts the situation would be described as “very clear.” The speaker notes that Erica Kirk believes it to be clear, and suggests this represents the “final stop” of a PR campaign, with Erica being brought out to signal to the public that her judgment cannot be questioned. The speaker rejects what he calling emotional manipulation and wants to give people permission to avoid the trap of feeling obliged to share Erica Kirk’s conclusions simply because she is a widow and the public cannot cry or question her judgment. The speaker contends that the story presented thus far “makes little sense, if any sense,” and asserts that it “makes, I think, no sense.” To that end, he signals that later in the show they will discuss Tyler Robinson, who has now made his first in-person appearance in court. He frames this as “the good news” that Tyler Robinson exists, indicating a forthcoming discussion of his court appearance.

The attorney tried to serve a subpoena but was told it was not proper. The judge confirmed the person being served was over 18 and allowed the service to proceed. The attorney asked for the court to note the attempted service.

James O'Keefe shares a video of someone banging on his front door. He opens it to find a stack of documents, which turns out to be a federal lawsuit filed by Project Veritas against him. O'Keefe expresses surprise and questions what the lawsuit aims to achieve. He mentions that Project Veritas had a significant amount of money when he left but has apparently spent it all without raising much more. O'Keefe also reveals the names of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit, expressing his confusion and concern about their efforts to silence journalists.

Two FBI agents visit a woman's home looking for Elise, who is not there. The woman, Elise's mother, provides contact information for Elise. The agents assure her that Elise is not in trouble and leave their office number. The woman is initially hesitant but eventually agrees to pass on the message to Elise. The agents introduce themselves as Ashley Roberts and Kathleen Brown before leaving.

Nick is being confronted by someone who has been trying to reach him. The person is upset because Nick was supposed to meet with them and others, but he hasn't shown up. They accuse Nick of being a burden and taking up resources by staying in a tent. Nick denies this and claims that he is not taking up any resources.

A man states he wants legal representation, claiming police officers have not allowed him any. He says he doesn't know what is going on. An officer asks if he shot the president and if he was in the building at the time. The man confirms he works in the building, so naturally he was there. He claims he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri and that he is just a patsy.

A man named Paul Pelosi calls the San Francisco Police because a stranger named David entered his house and wants to wait for Pelosi's wife. Pelosi doesn't know David's identity but claims he is a friend. The police offer to stay on the line, but Pelosi declines as David wants him off the phone. Pelosi thanks the police and ends the call.

I'm John Gray from the FBI. Miss Anderson isn't here. I wanted to discuss the Baton Rouge case with her. Can I schedule a meeting with her?

- The speaker describes receiving an email in Charlotte about a retraction demand that turned out to be a notice of an impending lawsuit by Brian Harpole. Harpole’s lawyer stated they would file the suit in four days, making the email feel unusual because there was no prior communication or retraction request. - The speaker notes that Harpole’s demand appears poorly organized and argues that Harpole had already prepared the lawsuit before sending the notification. The speaker also points out a coincidence: Harpole is using the same lawyer who previously represented The Daily Wire in arbitration against the speaker. - Harpole’s grievances in the lawsuit, according to the speaker, include: maligning him by stating that not having an ambulance on standby at an event is inappropriate and demonstrates professional incompetence; alleging that the speaker implied Harpole and his team had insider knowledge of Charlie Kirk’s assassination; and accusing the speaker of defaming Harpole by suggesting he failed to render effective aid with a medical bag and by accusing him of lying about drone availability. - The speaker argues that “competence” is a matter of opinion and contends that a security team paid millions should have had an ambulance on standby, especially when Charlie Kirk texted the team the night before that he thought he could be killed. The speaker defines criminal negligence and distinguishes it from civil negligence, insisting that Harpole’s claims about criminal negligence are unfounded in this context. - Harpole also claims the speaker implied he had insider knowledge of Kirk’s assassination, though the speaker contends the relevant episode referenced Terrell Farnsworth and Mikey McCoy, not Harpole, and clarifies what was actually stated in the episode. - The speaker addresses another claim about Harpole’s medical bag and drone usage. He asserts that Harpole’s statements about the medical bag and drones conflict with other testimony (including Frank Turic’s drone footage) and notes a discrepancy: Harpole said he could not fly drones in Provo airspace, while a pilot friend indicates that drones could be flown there with proper clearance. - The speaker highlights that the 69-page lawsuit begins with strong pro-Israel content and later argues that Harpole is a private citizen rather than a public figure, a claim the speaker finds strategic because private citizens must meet a lower standard (not the actual malice standard). The speaker contends Harpole publicly appeared on the Sean Ryan Show, which can be viewed as thrusting himself into a public controversy, making him a limited-purpose public figure for the specific issue. - The speaker notes that Harpole’s appearance on Sean Ryan was said to be a response to defamatory statements, and the speaker asserts that he did not mention Harpole on his own podcast before Harpole’s appearance. He claims Harpole’s lawsuit is an attempt to control narrative and obtain exclusive content, implying a PR motive rather than a pure defamation action. - The speaker extracts a pattern: Harpole’s lawsuit includes several disputed or misrepresented text messages and documents (e.g., misattributed messages about securing rooftops) and alleges that Harpole’s lawyer lied in filing by asserting statements about Mitch Snow’s truthfulness when the speaker believes Mitch’s account is unconfirmed. - The speaker questions the lawsuit’s purpose and timing, suggesting it may be a strategic PR move rather than a straightforward defamation action. He expresses a desire to obtain depositions and subpoenas to uncover the truth about Fort Huachuca and Charlie Kirk’s September 10 events, emphasizing that this may be the only route to access key evidence and testimonies.

I am serving Owen Benjamin legal paperwork at his home. I keep opening his gate with the code I have. Owen confronts me, and I mock him for being upset about me being on his property without permission.

I'm John Gray from the FBI. Is Miss Anderson available? No, she's not. I wanted to discuss the Baton Rouge case with her. Can I schedule a meeting to come back and talk to her?

I'm looking for Vanessa Savage. I'm with the FBI. Can we talk about recent events at work? Let's sit down.

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to have no knowledge or interest in the issue, stating that it has never been raised to him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals potentially involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the question and thanks Fox News for their time. Speaker 0 persists in asking if Senator Durbin will take action, but the conversation abruptly ends with Speaker 1 calling Durbin a liar.

The speaker tries to get Mr. Torres to confirm his guilty plea, but there seems to be a misunderstanding. Mr. Torres insists he didn't do anything wrong. Later, Mr. Torres is fired from his job via a phone call. Lastly, a message is sent to Mr. Torres about a job opportunity at Handmade where he can work from home.

A person asks John if he was at the Capitol. The person then asks John if he is with Black Lives Matter or right-wing people. John is on the phone during this exchange. The person asks again, "Are you Black Lives Matter?" Someone says John stated on the phone that he is not being charged with anything. The person repeats the question, "Are you Black Lives Matter, John?" John answers, "No."

James is being called for a conversation, but it turns out it's not him. The speaker is looking for the study group, but this is not the right place.

Speaker 0 needs to check on a drop-in. They discuss a client accused of criminal trespass. The client pleads not guilty. The lawyer, Stephanie Mueller, confirms the arraignment is done. When asked about the next court date, Stephanie declines to provide the information. The conversation ends with a thank you.

The transcript is a tense telephone exchange between two people discussing a suspected incident at an asylum intake center. - Speaker 1 identifies themselves as the wijkagent (district police officer) of the aanmeldcentrum in Ter Apel and says they are calling to address an incident. They express that how Speaker 0 is speaking to them is “a bit disrespectful.” - The core dispute revolves around whether Speaker 0 tried to enter the premises of the aanmeldcentrum. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0 came onto the terrein (the site) of the aanmeldcentrum, and also mentions the Drapenerveene as belonging to the aanmeldcentrum and not being public. - Speaker 0 counters that they did not enter the site, only walked around on the public road. They emphasize that they were not inside and argue that they did not commit any rule violation, asserting that they “have not done any violation” and that Speaker 1 is recording or documenting the event. - Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 was on the Drapenerveene, which, according to Speaker 1, is part of the aanmeldcentrum and therefore not public. They claim that there were signs missing and question what Speaker 0 was seeking there. - The dialogue touches on what is permissible around the area: Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 was on or around a restricted area (Drapenerveene) linked to the intake center, while Speaker 0 maintains they merely walked on the public road around the premises. - The conversation also covers the manner of the communication itself: Speaker 0 asks for a proper introduction and the reason for the call; Speaker 1 responds with the need to clearly state who they are and what is happening, stating they intend to proceed with documenting the situation. - By the end, Speaker 0 asks for Speaker 1’s name, indicating a desire to establish identity and purpose for the call. Key points emphasized by Speaker 1: - The call is about an alleged entry attempt or presence on the premises. - The Drapenerveene is described as part of the aanmeldcentrum and not public. - There is a focus on signs and access control, with a claim that this is not public space. Key points from Speaker 0: - They assert they never entered the site, only walked around on the public road. - They challenge the behavior and tone of the caller, seeking a straightforward explanation of who is calling and why. No judgments are offered in the transcript; the speakers are focused on identifying who is on the premises, what areas were accessed, and the appropriate grounds for the call.

I'm John Gray from the FBI. Is Miss Anderson available? No, she's not. I wanted to talk to her about the Baton Rouge case. Can I schedule a meeting with her?

The excerpt opens with a reference to a conference from many years ago, suggesting that the listener might have been in attendance. The exchange then shifts to a brief, awkward moment where someone apologizes and asks for permission to proceed, followed by a request for help. A responder states "No," and a separate remark introduces "the subpoena, for example," indicating a mention of a subpoena within the discussion. The conversation continues with an affirmative interjection—"Oh, good"—and a request: "Can you take off the stage?" The reactions include a startled "Wow" and a meta-comment noting the situation is starting in a dramatic way: "Getting off to a dramatic start already." The exchange ends with a clipped closing, simply "Well," signaling an unresolved or continuing moment in the dialogue. Overall, the passage captures a tense, performative moment at a conference, blending retrospective reference, administrative tension (subpoena), and a stage-direction style query, all underscored by a sense of escalating drama at the outset.

Speaker 0 from Fox News asks Senator Durbin why he won't subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs. Senator Durbin claims to know nothing about the issue and says it has never been raised with him. Speaker 0 mentions that Senator Blackburn has wanted to subpoena the flight logs but there hasn't been a vote in the committee. Speaker 0 questions if Senator Durbin is curious about high-profile individuals who may be involved in illegal activities, but Senator Durbin dismisses the topic, stating it's the first time anyone has brought it up. Speaker 0 asks if Senator Durbin is interested in pursuing the matter, but there is no clear response.

Warren is arrested for an outstanding immigration warrant. He asks why he's arrested but is told to sit down. He requests a lawyer and bail assistance. The police mention the APU precinct for help.

A man states he wants legal representation, claiming police officers have not allowed him any. He says he doesn't know what is going on. An officer asks if he shot the president and if he was in the building at the time. The man replies that he works in the building, so naturally he was there. He claims he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri and that he is just a patsy.