reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that after an incident in Newark, he said, "they better not touch our members." When asked what would happen if members were arrested or sanctioned, the speaker responded, "They'll find out." He calls potential actions against his members "a red line," and refers to the "so-called homeland security spokesperson" as "a joke." He claims the Trump administration has been made aware not to cross this line. He asserts they will not be intimidated into abandoning their opposition, stating it didn't happen during Trump's term, nor in the aftermath of the election, and it won't happen now that Trump is the "most unpopular president in American history after his first one hundred days." He concludes that "no one's intimidated by this dude" and there are "clear lines that they just dare not cross."

Speaker 0 warns Speaker 1 that sharing certain information may lead to an arrest for a public order offense. Speaker 1 insists they are just expressing their opinion and heading to a gig. Speaker 0 explains that they have the right to detain Speaker 1 to discuss the offense. Speaker 1 denies any offense and claims that the group they mentioned supports terrorism. Speaker 0 states they will address any offensive behavior from the group as well. Speaker 1 argues that their comments are free speech. Speaker 0 emphasizes their duty to allow peaceful protests. Speaker 1 expresses frustration with ongoing issues in the UK. Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1's right to their opinion but questions why they shared it with the group. Speaker 1 explains their frustration. Speaker 0 concludes by stating that the group may be a terrorist organization, but Speaker 1 should not share that information.

The speaker states that more arrests are likely coming and that they have body camera footage of members of Congress assaulting ICE enforcement officers, including body slamming a female ICE officer. The speaker confirms there is a video of members of Congress body slamming ICE officials. When asked if members of Congress will be arrested, the speaker says it is an ongoing investigation and that is definitely on the table. ICE has the video, and it will be released very shortly.

Speaker 0 tells someone to shut up, calls them names, and asks if they got a video. Speaker 1 confirms they got a video of them being a ring without a warrant. Speaker 0 asks if they came inside, and Speaker 1 confirms they went inside with that warrant.

Speaker 0 says they will pursue charges in this case and see various crimes that have occurred, with the FACE Act mentioned as one predicate. He notes that the Biden DOJ used the Klan Act conspiracy charges tacked onto the FACE Act in cases of protests outside abortion clinics to bring longer sentences, and that there are a number of tools available. He asks who funded the operation and what other crimes may have occurred, including possible use of wires or the mails, and whether anyone crossed state lines—all potential predicates for additional federal charges. Speaker 1 responds, saying he pulled up the Klan Act, the 1871 Enforcement Act (Force Act) designed to counter the Ku Klux Klan and protect African American voting rights, and provides an explanation of its context. He describes the Klan Act as a law that makes it illegal to terrorize citizens or violate their civil rights, or to conspire to violate civil rights. He explains it is often used against law enforcement but now used against others as well. When anyone conspires to violate protected civil rights, the Klan Act can be used to bring a conspiracy charge. He explains that the Biden administration has treated actions as a violation of the Klan Act and a conspiracy to violate civil rights, turning a potential misdemeanor under the FACE Act into a felony under the Klan Act. He cites the example of potential actions by “three grandmas” praying outside an abortion clinic being treated as a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of women seeking abortions. Speaker 0 adds that President Trump pardoned the pro-life protesters in those cases. He notes he recently defended successfully in the Eleventh Circuit a case called Ora Pesa, involving Jane’s Revenge protests against crisis pregnancy centers in Florida, where the court upheld the Klan Act criminal enhancement to the FACE Act. He acknowledges this is technical, but emphasizes that FACE Act is just the starting point, with additional charges such as material support for disruptive activities, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and potentially the use of other instrumentalities to commit crimes. He asserts that some involved individuals have identified themselves, stating Don Lemon claimed he knew what would happen inside the facility and proceeded to “commit journalism,” implying involvement in a criminal conspiracy. Speaker 0 concludes that they are gathering facts and that this is a very serious matter. He warns that come next Sunday, no one should think they can get away with this in the United States. He states that everyone in the protest community should know that the fullest force of the federal government will come down to prevent this from happening and to put people away for a long time.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker 0 asks if they can go out and expresses concern about getting arrested or shot.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss whether arrests will occur under Trump and how they might be framed. - Speaker 0 asks if arrests will happen under Trump and if figures like Bill Clinton or Obama will be arrested, suggesting that any arrests might be part of “dark handing the keys off to the light” and that the deep state would sacrifice some players. - Speaker 1 responds by outlining alleged close connections: Trump was one of Epstein’s closest friends; Howard Letnick was Epstein’s neighbor; the first lady was Epstein’s girlfriend. He argues that Epstein’s relationship to Israel and the Mossad, and the president’s loyalty to Israel, are significant, and contends that many would say this loyalty goes beyond the United States. He adds a dismissive remark that the other speaker is “smoking dope.” - Speaker 0 contends there will be arrests but believes they will be for optics to bolster support for Trump, implying the releases would be to energize followers and that “deep state players” will be sacrificed. - Speaker 1 refers to certain individuals as “chew toys,” naming Fauci and Gates, suggesting they are used as targets or distractions. He reiterates skepticism that any arrests have occurred so far, noting that Trump has been in power for a year and there hasn’t been an arrest. - The conversation touches on the speed of data-center-related actions and mentions “Stargate” as part of what Trump did, implying rapid actions or moves on day one.

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.

Speaker 0 accuses someone of violating their rights and threatens to take them to court. They mention Sergeant Porter and demand that the person repeat what they said.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 said she has been trespassing on the Capitol. Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says that if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence in forgetting the request, but that she denied the sergeant at arms from supplying the request.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 stated, "I've been trespassing on the capitol." Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny the sergeant at arms from supplying Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence, but that she denied the request.

Speaker 0 says, “They doing too much, man, and they keep pushing people. You know?” Speaker 1 erupts, “Oh, shit. What the fuck? They killed my did they fucking kill that guy? Are you fucking kidding me, dude? Not again. Are you fucking kidding me? That guy's dead. Yo. We need people on”

Speaker 0 urges everyone to make noise, stating that if anything happens to them, it will be another war crime added to Israel's list. Speaker 1 reports they are being intercepted, assures everyone present is safe and unwounded, and emphasizes that no one was wounded until the time they ordered their vote. Speaker 1 asks to raise the alarm.

Speaker 0 confronts someone, accusing them of stealing and threatening to call the cops. Speaker 1 questions what Speaker 0 is going to do. Speaker 0 says that the person and their "buddies" can't steal. Both speakers state that the other can't touch them. Speaker 0 threatens to burn the other person's socks and suit. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to stop and threatens to sue, claiming Speaker 0 is putting hands on them.

Speaker 0 warns this could turn into a maximum nonviolent warfare moment if gerrymandering remains legal, saying, “if this is the law of the land that you can go around gerrymandering like this, we're going to try to get us ourselves the most advantageous position.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well, at least that I mean, I will take that over you guys shooting Republicans. So go ahead.” Speaker 0 adds that he was thrilled they were not on the same day earlier this week, and addresses the violent rhetoric issue, stating, “Do not kill people. Also, we know where the violence comes from. Gerrymandering's bad. Democrats don't want it. Republicans do. Vote for our ban.” Kaylee is asked for a reply. Speaker 1 asserts he will take the constitutional side, stating Jessica made a political argument about gerrymandering; he then jokingly references the Fox News printer, saying, “I print more primary documents from that printer than anyone that's the 97 page. No. I don't do double sided. I'm sorry. Double sided to losers. Sorry to the trees. Sorry to Fox. Sorry to blow up the budget.” Speaker 0 then shifts to the climate change agenda, but the conversation continues without a direct continuation of that point. Speaker 1 quotes Justice Roberts on race issues, declaring, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That should be the guiding philosophy on any single matter.” He argues that in this country, “We don't discriminate against anyone in this country because of their skin color.” He asserts that the best take was not the majority take, but the concurrence by Justice Thomas. Speaker 1 emphasizes that Justice Thomas is exactly right: “The court led legislatures and courts to systematically divide the country into electoral districts based racial lines.” He continues, quoting Thomas: blacks drawn into black districts with black representatives, Hispanics drawn into Hispanic districts with Hispanic representatives, and states that this is “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind constitution,” urging opposition to “the balkanization of society, putting black people here and white people here and Hispanic people here.” He adds that the “absolutely nonsensical hyperbolic Democrats” advocating that position are naively supporting the very thing they oppose, citing Justice Thomas as a source, the second ever black justice on the Supreme Court.

Speaker 0 questions if this could be the biggest setup or crime in the country's history. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of uncovering the truth and the cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves Republicans. Speaker 1 commits to following the evidence, regardless of where it leads. Speaker 0 holds Speaker 1 accountable for this commitment. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the significance of revealing the truth and uncovering cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves members of Speaker 1's own party. Speaker 1 pledges to follow the evidence, no matter the consequences. Speaker 0 reminds Speaker 1 of this commitment.

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 Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

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 describes a situation where some individuals “gum felt empowered and emboldened enough to put this picture of me up to try to threaten and intimidate me,” adding that they didn’t succeed because “I signed up for this.” The person who posted the picture “said a bunch of terrible things, not just against me, but against a lot of groups and individuals who, by the way, was arrested today in Wisconsin.” The speaker’s point is that if this person feels empowered or safe enough to threaten them, what would they do to “a kid” or “a Jewish family walking down the street?” The speaker attributes this behavior to the “normalization of this,” describing how people watch such acts on television and feel empowered to imitate them. They argue that while the aggressor may think they can act, they cannot: “a, you can't.” They extend the concern to someone in law enforcement, asking, “if you think you can do it to somebody that's in law enforcement, again, what are you gonna do in an alley or in a street to a Jewish family or a kid walking down the street?” The message is a firm prohibition: “We say no. We're drawing the line.”

Speaker 1 stated they will do everything in their power to protect Seattle residents from anyone who comes to the city with the intention to hurt them or inhibit their first amendment rights. They believe they will probably go to jail and be in prison because the current administration has threatened to jail politicians and has done so.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about their statement regarding the potential future call for the slaughter of white people. Speaker 1 initially states that they are not ruling out the possibility, but later clarifies that they cannot guarantee it. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to make a pledge to never call for such an act, but Speaker 1 refuses. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging Speaker 1's response.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire to confront someone behind a gym, while Speaker 1 adds that they would beat them up. Speaker 0 clarifies that they wish they were in high school to carry out this confrontation. Speaker 1 suggests that uprisings may occur as a result. Speaker 0 directly addresses Kavanaugh, warning that he will face consequences for his actions. They urge someone to confront members of Congress.