reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The White House Press Secretary was asked about Jim Baker's firing from Twitter and whether the Biden administration was in contact with him regarding moderation decisions or transparency efforts. The response was that these decisions are up to private companies and the administration was not involved. Another question concerned requests for tech companies to be more aggressive in releasing misinformation and whether the administration has been in touch with any of these companies. The response was that the administration is in regular touch with social media platforms through senior staff and the COVID-19 team. Actions the federal government has taken include increased disinformation research and tracking within the surgeon general's office and flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.

Over the past 3 years, Representative questioned FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland about federal assets at the Capitol on January 6th, but received no answers. The Inspector General announced a review of the DOJ response in 2021, paused it due to ongoing criminal cases, and reinitiated it last year. The report will include information on the number of confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but the exact number is not available yet due to the draft form and classification review. The report's release is not expected before the election, and possibly not before the next inauguration. The report will expose the presence of confidential human sources at the Capitol, and whether DOJ CHS protocols were followed. Representative inquired about the failed FBI investigation of the January 6th pipe bomb, citing lost information, deleted Secret Service texts, and corrupted cell phone data. The FBI allegedly lacks video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The Inspector General couldn't rule out the involvement of confidential human sources in the pipe bomb incident.

Congressman Thomas Massie discusses the Epstein Files Transparency Act and what to expect from the December 19, public release of materials. Key framework and deadlines - The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed on November 19. Materials are due in a publicly searchable format by December 19. - The act is a law, not a subpoena, and has no expiration date. It directs the attorney general to produce three sets of files from three locations: the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and US Attorneys, including grand jury material from investigations and trials. How to know if all materials have been released - Longtime case reporters and victim’s attorneys indicate there are at least 20 names of men accused of sex crimes in FBI files, specifically in the FD-302 forms that memorialize witness testimony. - If the December 19 production contains no names of any male accused of sex crimes or sex trafficking, that would indicate documents have not been fully released. Legal novelty and enforcement - Unlike prior Congress subpoenas that can be delayed or run out the clock, the act imposes a binding legal obligation with no congressional expiration. - If the attorney general is noncompliant, the next attorney general could be obligated to release the files the moment they hold the seat, and there are penalties described in the act (not detailed here). - The act ensures that even if a new administration changes hands (e.g., post-Trump), compliance is enforceable. Impact on grand jury material and redactions - The act prompted movement in grand jury material rulings: after passage, three federal judges (SD Florida, SDNY) ordered that grand jury material be produced to the DOJ, with redactions to protect victims’ identities as required by the act. - Judges indicated they would redact identifying information of victims, aligning with the act’s protections. Contemporary statements and implications - Pam Bondi had claimed substantial material on her desk and later said there was no material besides child sexual abuse material; Massie notes that other material exists and Bondi will need to produce it, potentially requiring her to address prior statements. - Cash Patel testified before the Senate that there is no evidence implicating anyone other than Epstein; Massie questions him in a House Judiciary hearing about three-zero-two forms, suggesting they may contain corroborating evidence implicating others. - If other men are implicated, the evidence would come from victim statements and corroborating witnesses in FBI files, including 302 forms. Upcoming and media appearances - Congress adjourns a day early, so the document release may be observed on Saturday. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna plan to discuss findings on Face the Nation on Sunday. Ongoing investigations - Bondi announced new federal investigations near the time the bill passed. A bicameral, bipartisan letter seeks a sit-down to discuss what new material justified these investigations. - The act requires that any claims of ongoing investigations affecting release be limited to material that would impact that specific investigation, with temporary redactions as allowed by the law. Massie concludes by promising updates on Friday’s release and compliance with the act, and thanks the audience.

To address the climate crisis, there was a question about the Hunter Biden investigation. The inquiry focused on whether the administration has sought or received favorable treatment from the Department of Justice regarding any investigations involving the president, his administration, family, or former President Trump. The response emphasized that the Department of Justice operates independently and that the president respects the rule of law, a principle he has upheld since before taking office.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

The speaker mentions that they have shared information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding their findings. They have a relationship with local DHS personnel and have provided them with a significant amount of data. The DHS conducted scans and determined vulnerabilities. However, the speaker notes that the Elections division of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) did not participate in internal meetings or briefings on the presented material.

James O’Keefe and an undercover team report on the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO, historically tasked with overseeing government spending, is described as being in question by the undercover team. Speakers claim that administration actions have destroyed statistical agencies and data sources, but that they have stolen and backed up those data to preserve them. The team suggests this is in response to efforts to delete vaccine-related data, and that such actions could be aimed at undermining research on vaccines. Steve Putansu, a sixteen-year veteran at the GAO and a lecturer at American University, is presented as indicating that GAO is “stealing and preserving vaccine data that RFK and HHS has deleted,” a move described as potentially violating federal law. The narrative asserts that the GAO’s purpose is oversight and that its methods resemble a watchdog function, though the portrayal implies a more aggressive stance in protecting data. Within the dialogue, it is claimed that in some places there is resistance and that administration has destroyed statistical agencies and data sources. There is mention of “stolen and backed those things up,” with an implication that access to preserved data could be used to constrain or compel violations of law by others. The transcript notes that GAO faces political pushback, including threats of a 50% budget cut next year under the impoundment act, which defines as illegal the president’s withholding of funds congress has appropriated. GAO is said to have challenged spending changes as impoundment multiple times, prompting accusations of political targeting and leading to budget punishment. Legal experts are cited: Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, is shown asserting that the director at GAO committed violations of three federal statutes. He describes this as a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for “intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information from a US government department or agency.” He contends that the director is not a DHHS representative, and that taking information from HHS servers would constitute purloining information. Chamberlain also cites possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of government property) and 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (unauthorized removal of public records). The report closes with a prompt for tips to the investigative team and a teaser about an upcoming undercover report. The segment emphasizes exposing alleged wrongdoing by government officials, framed as holding the corrupt elite accountable.

We made progress in accessing documents hidden by the executive branch to keep them from the public. Some documents went to the White House and DHS. We obtained redacted testimonies from White House employees, revealing discrepancies with the select committee's narrative. DHS delayed sharing documents, but recently allowed access. The crucial transcribed interview we sought was missing. The destruction of deposition videotapes was a significant breach of trust and house rules.

My team faced significant obstruction from USAID while trying to access records on taxpayer money. Partnering with Representative Mike McCall, we initiated a congressional investigation, but USAID only provided limited data. Our findings revealed excessive spending with minimal results. Notably, USAID funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology for dangerous coronaviruses, and also allocated money for pottery classes in Morocco and tourism in Lebanon, despite travel warnings from the State Department. There are numerous examples of questionable expenditures.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

The discussion centers on allegations that the nine/eleven commission has been obstructed in its ability to access full information from the White House, particularly regarding what the President knew and when he knew it about the September 11 attacks. The first speaker asserts that President Bush personally nixed the commission’s access to crucial documents in the White House, especially the presidential daily briefs. According to this speaker, these briefs “basically tell[ the] commission and the American people what the President knew and when he knew it in regard to the potential attack on nineeleven and the attack itself and the follow-up.” The claim is that the White House has “personally nixed that information coming to nineeleven,” meaning all members of the commission would not see the real, sensitive documents. The speaker characterizes the White House’s actions as a cover-up and describes it as slow-walking the process from the beginning, implying deliberate obstruction. The second speaker describes the commission as an independent body intended to examine why and how the 9/11 attacks occurred, what the President and the government knew, and when they knew it. When asked why the White House would not permit access to the documents, this speaker characterizes the White House as resisting greater scrutiny: “They don't want any more eyeballs to see their documents than they could possibly get away with. It's a scam. It's absolutely disgusting.” This speaker’s framing suggests an intentional effort by the White House to limit oversight and information flow. The third speaker adds a critical evaluation of the commission’s setup, stating that “the commission in many ways was set up to fail because we had, not enough money. We didn't have enough time.” This indicates a belief that structural constraints undermined the commission’s effectiveness and its ability to fulfill its independent mandate. Across the statements, the overarching claim is that there was deliberate resistance by the White House to provide the commission with full access to key documents, notably the presidential daily briefs, thereby impeding the commission’s ability to comprehensively determine what the government knew about the threats prior to and following the attacks. The speakers collectively portray a pattern of obstruction, cover-up, and insufficient resources that hampered the commission’s work.

We received a couple hundred pages of documents from the FBI, but a source indicated more evidence was in the Southern District of New York. I gave them a deadline, and thousands of pages of documents arrived. The FBI and Director Patel's team are reviewing them to determine why these documents were initially withheld. While redacting to protect victims is crucial, we aim for maximum transparency, believing Americans deserve to know the truth. The Biden administration claimed no one acted on these documents, but why were they hidden? This same principle of transparency applies to the JFK files and other cases. When we redact, we will clearly mark the specific lines and explain the reason, such as protecting a victim's identity or national security.

We had a productive discussion about USAID, an issue I've focused on for years in the Senate. USAID has consistently obstructed my congressional oversight efforts. I shared examples of waste within the organization during a recent conversation on X Spaces with Elon. It's crucial that we scrutinize every dollar spent there, and I'm pleased to see a shift in oversight to the State Department.

Some suggest waiting for all witnesses and documents before proceeding with impeachment, but President Trump obstructed the investigation. He instructed his senior aides not to testify and defy subpoenas. He also told agencies not to provide relevant records, hindering our investigation.

Why did the shooter act? Was he alone or connected to others? What motivated him? We sought answers from the DOJ and FBI, but they claim it's an ongoing investigation and can't share information with Congress. This is unacceptable. As a member of the intelligence and armed services committees, I regularly access sensitive information, so it's hard to believe we can't get updates on this investigation. I don't know if they're intentionally withholding information, but stonewalling is common in oversight. Misinformation thrives in the absence of clarity, and our goal is to provide transparency and counter conspiracy theories surrounding these events. So far, I have seen no evidence linking state actors to these assassination attempts.

The January 6th committee, now under Republican control, is unable to review the documents used by the previous committee. The video depositions, which would have been valuable evidence, have been discarded. The staff faced difficulties in gathering necessary information as nothing was indexed or digitized. Surprisingly, there is very little available from the blue team, responsible for investigating security failures at the Capitol. This highlights a lack of government transparency.

We received a couple hundred pages of documents from the FBI, but a source told me there were more at the Southern District of New York. I gave them a deadline, and we got thousands of pages. The FBI is reviewing them, and Director Patel is preparing a detailed report on why the FBI withheld these documents. These documents include flight logs, names, and victim names, but we believe there's more. The FBI just received these thousands of pages, and protecting victims is a priority. We believe in transparency, and America has the right to know. The Biden administration claimed no one did anything with these documents, but why were they in the Southern District of New York? I want a full report. We will redact national security information and grand jury information, but the public will know why.

I believe this administration wants to be transparent, and the media is watching them closely. I wouldn't fear any congressional investigation were I them. But by definition, they haven't been transparent. They aren't providing data to back up their claims. The White House is providing information, but some choose not to believe it. I think it's unwise to just blindly believe what they say. Do I believe there are kickbacks from USAID? I believe there's waste, fraud, and abuse. If you believe that, then it's possible they're finding and sharing information about it. I agree that providing data is important. I'd like regular reports, whether they're successful or not. Everyone would want to know if someone received kickbacks of tens of millions of dollars.

USAID has been unresponsive and often operates independently of U.S. foreign policy, which is concerning given that it uses taxpayer dollars. There is a need for alignment between USAID's programs and the national interest, as outlined by the State Department and the National Security Council. Despite attempts to reform the agency over the past few decades, it continues to resist cooperation and transparency regarding funding and program details. This lack of accountability cannot persist, and it is essential that taxpayer money is used to support U.S. national interests. The ongoing frustration with USAID's operations has spanned multiple administrations and must be addressed.

Speaker 1 says that throughout the Biden administration he sought records about decision-making and why the U.S. funded Wuhan, China research, including why evidence about the virus origin being from a lab accident was being suppressed, but “we got nothing.” He says the Biden administration “stiff-armed” him by preventing access to virtually any documents. He says many of the findings during the Biden administration came from Freedom of Information Act requests by people outside government and from court actions forcing disclosure. He says that after the new election, he received promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that documents would be revealed. He says it took about six months, with resistance he attributes not to Secretary Kennedy but to “minders” around him. He says that after finally receiving documents, they have been reviewed for about a month. Speaker 1 states that in communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including Francis Collins, Fauci is depicted telling others to read materials, then delete them, and that he allegedly instructed them to delete “this material” after reading. Speaker 1 says deleting emails and discussions about government business is illegal for someone in the executive branch. He adds that Fauci testified he did not do that, and says this creates “two crimes”: destroying federal records and a prior sworn statement that he wouldn’t do it. Speaker 1 identifies a “big question” involving what he calls an “auto pen pardon” and says it will have to be challenged. He says there are thousands of auto pen pardons and raises whether President Biden was aware. He says they interviewed the person running the auto pen, who said they never met the president, and that the person said they did not discuss it directly but heard about it from higher-ups who allegedly talked to the president. Speaker 1 says this provides “a lot to go on” and describes it as a chance for the issue to get into court and for the Department of Justice to fight it out. Speaker 1 says he has invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily; if accepted, they will bring him in, and if not accepted, they will subpoena him. Speaker 0 asks whether the alleged wrongdoing falls under the auto pen time frame, noting that in some earlier auto pen matters there were specific time frames. Speaker 1 responds that the “umbrella” was “a decade,” described as leading up to the end of Biden’s term, and says this raises questions about whether a pardon can cover crimes not alleged at the time, whether it can be “all inclusive,” and whether a pardon can be upheld if it doesn’t specify the crime. Speaker 1 contrasts this with how pardons are typically specific to an accused or trial-ready crime. Speaker 0 asks about specific consequences, including prison time, regarding destroying federal records. Speaker 1 says lying to Congress is the biggest issue, that it can be five years in prison as a felony, and that destroying records adds to the crime and is against the law. He then ties this to contemporaneous emails, asserting that while Fauci said publicly he had no idea the virus came from a lab and that it couldn’t have been gain-of-function, privately he was “very worried” about the lab because he knew it did gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 also says gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Anthony Fauci’s approval, and claims Fauci’s pandemic guidance about origins and about cloth masks was contradictory to privately discussed concerns, including that Speaker 1 says cloth masks do not prevent transmission.

A senator questions Deputy Director Abadi about allegations of a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abadi refuses to comment on the existence of a report or 17 voice recordings related to the allegations. The senator accuses the FBI of stonewalling and damaging its reputation. Abadi maintains that they operate within established parameters and will work with the committee to provide information. The senator criticizes the FBI for not being accountable and demands the release of the report and recordings. Abadi avoids directly answering questions about the investigation and the informant's reliability. The senator expresses concern that the evidence is being covered up by Democrats and the media. The exchange becomes heated and ends with the senator calling Abadi's behavior disgraceful.