reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker authorized airstrikes in Iraq to protect American personnel and initiated strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. The United States launched an operation against a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and authorized limited military action in Libya. The speaker questions whether criticism of these actions is directed at the actions themselves or at the person who authorized them, claiming Obama did the same thing without similar backlash. Military operations are what the armed forces and their equipment are for. The speaker accuses liberals of being disingenuous.

Ashwin Rutanski hosts Going Underground, outlining a global swirl of recent events: Odessa massacre anniversary, Ukraine, oil politics with UAE withdrawing from OPEC+, Trump signaling troop withdrawal from Europe, and a broader context of US and allied military actions. The broadcast features a guest: Master Sergeant Wes Bryant, a former chief of the Pentagon’s civilian harm mitigation and response effort and the first head of its civilian protection center of excellence (PTEC). Bryant discusses his twenty-year career as a JTAC (Joint Terminal Attack Controller), coordinating on-the-ground targeting and calling in air strikes, while conducting civilian harm mitigation and collateral damage analysis to minimize civilian casualties. Key explanations from Bryant: - JTAC role: JTAC stands for Joint Terminal Attack Controller, formerly Forward Air Controller. JTACs coordinate and call in air strikes, oversee intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance for targeting, and conduct civilian harm mitigation to avoid civilian casualties. - Bryant’s background: Spanned conventional and special operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, later initiating and operating strike cells against ISIS across Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Bryant describes the Pentagon’s civilian protection efforts: - Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Effort (CHMRE) was authorized during the Trump administration and later codified into law under Secretary Lloyd Austin in the Biden administration, establishing the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence at the Pentagon and a broader network across the US government. - The aim of the Center was to sustain and improve protection of civilians and reduce civilian harm in military operations, reflecting past failures and successes in the war on terror. Reactions to leadership and policy shifts: - Bryant asserts that Pete Hegseth, who later led the Pentagon, pursued a transition toward a view of “wokeness” and restrictive engagement rules, leading to the dissolution of the civilian protection center and a shift toward “lethality” and greater civilian harm tolerance. He claims Hegseth’s rhetoric and policy direction contributed to a more permissive environment for strikes with increased civilian casualties. - He contends that this shift correlates with intensified operations in Iran and broader Middle East conflicts, including alleged recklessness and negligence in targeting in places like Yemen and the Caribbean/Pacific, and a failure to adequately account for civilian harm. Views on war conduct and accountability: - Bryant rejects claims that Trump’s inflammatory statements on social media are solely negotiation tactics; he argues that Trump’s actions—such as threats to bomb energy infrastructure and bridges in Iran, including a strike on a bridge—indicate intent that could amount to war crimes and reflect a disregard for civilian harm. - He criticizes the current approach to civilian protection, arguing that even if some actions are framed as “fog of war,” Iran-related operations involve months of target vetting from secure rear offices, with a lack of on-the-ground risk in contrast to battlefield fog of war. He asserts this marks a departure from past standards and raises concerns about willful recklessness or negligence as potential war crimes. Iran/Israel/Gaza context and analysis: - Bryant argues that many civilian casualties in Gaza and Iran reflect a broader policy environment influenced by a fusion of extremist ideologies within Trump’s and Netanyahu’s camps, including revisionist Zionism and white Christian nationalism. He claims the administration is aligned with Israel due to these ideological underpinnings, impacting the US approach to Iran and Gaza. - He suggests that US weapons are often used in ways that violate international law or US best practices, and he envisions a role for civilian protection mechanisms to monitor end-use of weapons, though such monitoring faced challenges in State Department capacity. Concluding remarks: - The discussion touches on incidents such as the Kunduz hospital strike and calls into question the balance between strategic aims and civilian protection. Bryant emphasizes a concern that the current leadership under Hagseth lacks accountability, contrasting it with earlier attempts to implement civilian harm mitigation within the Pentagon. - The program closes with Bryant’s assertion of concern over the ongoing use of anti-tank/anti-personnel mines and their open-area deployment, suggesting potential violations of international law. Bryant’s interview highlights: the role of JTACs in targeting, the rise and fall of the Pentagon’s civilian protection center, and perceived shifts in US military policy that Bryant attributes to Pete Hegseth and related leadership, framed within broader debates over civilian harm, international law, and the ethics of US interventions in the Middle East.

New York Times investigation says the last known missile fired by the United States in the Afghan war on August 29, which the Biden administration called a righteous strike, might have killed 10 innocent people, including seven children and a USA worker. The report shows video of Zamari Ahmadi loading canisters of water into his trunk to bring to his family, while the US military was surveilling him and thought those jugs could be explosives and that Ahmadi was communicating with Isis. The US launched a hellfire missile, obliterating the car in a dense residential neighborhood. Witnesses say Ahmadi had multiple passengers and was not related to Isis; the Times tallies 10 innocent people killed. Amadi had worked as an electrical engineer since 2006 for a California based aid and lobbying group, and his family insists he was innocent and applied for a refugee settlement in the United States.

Julian reveals that the most disturbing aspect of the war is the countless incidents resulting in the deaths of innocent individuals. He shares a heartbreaking story of a little girl in a yellow dress who was killed by a US tank for no apparent reason. These instances of violence are widespread, including checkpoint killings where even a doctor delivering a pregnant woman to the hospital was shot. Julian also highlights a town on the Syrian border that saw its population drastically decrease from 40,000 to 2,000, yet this event went unreported in both mainstream and alternative media due to the absence of reporters on the ground.

"What's the CIA budget? You can't get an answer because nobody knows." "And I don't think many people at CIA know, actually, because it's so compartmentalized." "I mean, it's a country CIA is not part of really the US government." "There's no accountability at all." "They run companies." "They have an army." "They kill people." "They spy on people." "None of it with any oversight whatsoever or even knowledge of what they're doing." "Even again, I'm not sure the CI director knows himself what the whole agency is doing." "That's all a byproduct of nine eleven." "Nine eleven made that possible."

The speaker describes a precision strike on a multistory building that targeted a specific apartment. The target was two 4-day-old babies, their mother, and their grandmother. The father was away obtaining birth certificates at the time of the strike. The speaker claims the strike utilized a low-yield JDAM missile and laser targeting, requiring reconnaissance and infrared scanning to identify the occupants. They assert the attackers knew the identities of those inside, including the newborns. The speaker alleges the strike was retaliation against Dr. Juman Arfa, the mother, for posting on Facebook about snipers targeting children. The speaker states the victims' birth certificates had just been obtained, and the father discovered their deaths at the hospital. The speaker concludes the attack was intentional, and the White House is waiting for the perpetrators to investigate themselves.

I was shocked to learn that President Obama had programs to overthrow the Syrian regime. The CIA's Timber Sycamore program armed Al Qaeda to start another regime change war in the Middle East. The DOD's train and equip program spent over half a billion dollars training "moderate rebels" who were actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Regime change wars in Syria, like in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, risk the rise of Islamist extremists like Al Qaeda. We now have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria who celebrated the 9/11 attack and is persecuting religious minorities like Christians. Every American deserves to know if our government supported our enemy, Al Qaeda.

We were faced with a choice: stop an attack by airstriking a terror leader. We did it with Osama Bin Laden. When asked for advice, I said not to go. President Obama made the call despite my suggestion.

The first participant asks the second to identify who did each major event. For MLK Jr., the second participant says, “That was a CI operation because they considered him a dangerous communist. And but the FBI was bugging the, in churches where he was giving some of his speeches in churches. They were bugging the podiums and following him around. He was a top target, for elimination.” For JFK, the second participant states, “I think that was a CI hit. They they may have employed some mafia connections to carry it out because that was their mafia assassination program.” Concerning LBJ, the first participant notes, “LBJ was very involved in all that in Dallas. So,” and the second participant adds, “he an evil man.” The first participant affirms, “He was an evil man.” Turning to Pearl Harbor, the second participant claims, “They knew the attack was coming was coming. They knew where it was gonna happen in Pearl Harbor and when. And they they told no one, and they let it happen on purpose. That that's from the commander of the Pacific Fleet. I would say that's a pretty pretty credible witness.” He continues, “So, yeah, that that was a false admitted that. They admitted they had the and they heard it was gonna happen. And, you how know, else were you gonna get Americans to be on the side of this war that had nothing to do with us?” This leads to the discussion of 9/11. The second participant says, “My opinion. As a criminal investigator, as a former CI officer, nine eleven was not the act of a bunch of poorly flight trained terrorists that executed an unbelievably meticulous, piloting of those aircraft, even even pilots. There's there's pilots for nine eleven truth now, and they say, we could not have done that. Not possible.” He adds, “And then we go to the passport issue, and we go to the Tower 7, which was a controlled demolition.” The second participant further asserts, “You talk to any structural engineer, and and and I I have. And the fact I think George w Bush blacked out. I think it was 40 pages of the 09/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. So what wait a minute. This report was supposed to be for the American people on what happened, and you blacked all these pages out? What in the world?” He continues, “I do not think that it was a bunch of un poorly trained or untrained terrorists that did it. I think there was another source behind it. I think it was intentional, and I'm going just from a a criminal invest investigative perspective just looking at the evidence, what evidence we have, that that was an intentional act, And it would fall right into the MO that you and I are talking about.” He concludes that the event was “Horrible” and emphasizes that “the shadow government deep state or especially the CIA. It does not matter. Their pawns on their chessboard, they don't care that three thousand people were horribly killed that day, but it achieved the aim of gutting the US constitution, bringing in the horrific Patriot Act Mhmm. Giving the CIA unthinkable authority for secret prison prisons and torture beyond waterboarding and and secret renditions and all of that, the FBI, the ability to to, spy on Americans came out of the Patriot Act. So it was the perfect national security state, energizer that the Patriot Act was, and 70 of the congressmen and senators that read the Patriot Act didn't even read it. They just signed off on it without even reading the bill.”

Speaker 1 argues that there may come a time with an airborne deadly disease and that to deal with it effectively we must build an infrastructure globally to see, isolate, and respond quickly. He says investing in this infrastructure is a smart, long-term measure and not just insurance, especially in a globalized world where future outbreaks like a flu similar to the Spanish flu could arise in five to ten years. Speaker 2 contends that the CIA enjoys influencing a new president who has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. He claims the day after an election the CIA director offers a president-elect a PDB, a president’s daily brief, describing the “cool things” happening around the world, which allegedly pulls the president in. He asserts the CIA engineers the president’s reactions and questions and that this is a deliberate psychological profiling and manipulation technique used for decades to subvert foreign governments and one’s own government. Speaker 4 relates a story from February 2008 about a high-level asset who allegedly worked for several intelligence agencies, including the Saudi Intelligence Service and the CIA, and who was described as a non-U.S. citizen on a student visa, becoming president in 2008. He alleges the individual’s code name was Renegade and real name Barry Sartaro, claiming a cabal pursued a mission to destroy the United States from within one institution at a time, including defunding the military and ordering military actions that harmed allies and aided enemies. He claims the president’s office instructed commanders not to question orders, and asserts actions created ISIS-like outcomes by redirecting and abandoning equipment to enemies. Speaker 0 interjects with a narrative tying Bush and Obama together, describing a perceived connection through Barack Obama’s supposed adoption by Lolo Sotoro, with references to George H.W. Bush’s CIA tenure and oil-industry ties. He claims Obama’s grandmother operated CIA money channels to the Southwest Pacific, and asserts Obama attended a Hawaii high school with tuition figures and later became extremely wealthy, with Business Insider reporting 2017 net income and 2018 net worth figures for Obama, contrasting them with Trump’s earnings. Speaker 2 discusses Obama-era “kill list” meetings led by John Brennan, suggesting that Tuesday morning kill lists were used to authorize drone strikes or targeted killings, with weekly execution of these lists and a proliferation of drone missiles during Obama’s presidency. He notes uncertainty about whether subsequent presidents continued or revived the practice, but asserts it was a point of pride in the Obama administration. Speaker 5 and Speaker 2 conclude by reaffirming that Obama dropped more missiles from drones than anyone else.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about the administration’s response to the incident, noting that very quickly, very high up people, including Christine Ohm, Donald Trump himself, and Shady Vance, started calling the killed woman a domestic terrorist and saying she deserved it. The speaker argues that when a relatively young mother of three is killed by a law enforcement officer, government officials should say this was a tragedy, that they will conduct an investigation, and they will see what happened, instead of “running cover for the officer,” because such conduct erodes public trust. The speaker emphasizes that many things about the response freaked people out and describes it as disturbing to have people calling the woman a domestic terrorist. The question is raised: “What the fuck does that even mean?” The speaker notes that even if she did try to run the officer over, it’s not terrorism, and questions what people are talking about when they use that label. There is a critique of how words like “terrorist” are used loosely and how they have “lost meaning,” with the speaker asserting that this is the kind of rhetoric that is used to paint people in certain ways. The speaker draws a comparison, suggesting that labeling someone a terrorist resembles tactics used against Palestinians, where everyone is painted as a terrorist. The rapid labeling is described as part of a broader pattern of invoking terrorism to justify actions or narratives. The speaker concludes with a conditional reflection: if someone is a terrorist, then “actually anything goes,” signaling a perception that the label is being used to bypass normal standards or accountability.

Speaker 0: Nobody knew there'd be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. Speaker 1: There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly. And in order for us to deal with that effectively, we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly. So that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we've made the investment, and we're further along to be able to catch it. It is a smart investment for us to make. It's not just insurance. It is knowing that down the road, we're gonna continue to have problems like this, particularly in a globalized world. Speaker 2: The CIA, they really love it when a new president is elected, and he has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. Barack Obama, no experience in foreign policy, no experience in intelligence. The day after an election, the director of the CIA authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a PDB, a president's daily brief. And so the day after the election, they go with this this 16 page document and they say, Mr. President-elect, wait till you see the cool things we're doing all around the world. And they've sucked him in. They made him one of the guys. And then we get the feedback at the CIA. Oh, the president loved this. The president had a follow-up question on that. Oh, the president said, oh my God, when he read this. Speaker 3: It almost sounds like you're psychologically profiling the president. Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's exactly what they do. Speaker 3: And so they use the tools that they have employed for decades to subvert foreign governments, to subvert their own government. Speaker 4: 02/2008, something unbelievable happened for us in the FBI. We were getting lots of rumors about this high level asset that worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time. He worked for the Saudi Intelligence Service. He worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not even a United States citizen, but it was said that he was a student visa and that he was a a national from another country. In 02/2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. Speaker 1: And I will faithfully execute. Speaker 3: The office of Speaker 2: president of the United States. Speaker 1: The office of president of the United Speaker 4: One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sartaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within, one institution at a time. One of the things he did, of course, was he he defunded our military. He brought down he brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ICEs. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your Speaker 0: order. Forty four and one before that, '43, Bush and Obama. Well, there are pictures of Bush with his arm around eight year old Barack Obama because his stepdaddy, adopted daddy, Lolo Sotoro, had done a lifetime where the business with the Bushes. Wow. Uncle George Herbert Walker, after whom George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush won president, was named, founded Halliburton in 1946 in Oklahoma. And Lolo Sotoro had been international executive vice president for Standard Oil. There there was talk of him being a CIA asshole. Well, yeah. See, he ran the death squads for the Indonesian army. On his own call, anyone could be assassinated. So when George Herbert Walker Bush became head of the CIA under the Ford administration, he just got with his old buddy in the oil business, Lolo Sotoro, and pulled off the hits. See, Barack's grandmother has been acknowledged as being the woman that operated the channels through which CIA money went to the Southwest Pacific. So she introduced her daughter who had just had Barry Barack to Lolo Sotoro, and they got married and Lolo Sotoro adopted Barack Obama. The name was changed to Barry Sotoro. Mhmm. Speaker 0: Now when he went to high school in Hawaii, I know about that high school. I almost sent my oldest son to it. I could afford it, but I didn't think he observed deserved it. Twenty years ago, the tuition was $95,000 a year, not including room and board. When Obama went there, I've talked to two of his classmates. They independently state that the tuition, not including room and board, was 45,000. Now Business Insider reports his income for 2017 at over 200,000,000 net. That's after taxes, deductions, write offs. For this last year, 2018, they've reported it as 570 plus million dollars, and that's after all deductions tax. Right? Speaker 2: Trump doesn't make that net. Speaker 2: All these other ones who thought they were untouchable, now they're gonna have to answer for their actions. In the Obama administration, John Brennan had the Tuesday morning kill list meetings because the tech got sophisticated enough that you could just write up a list of people that you wanna kill that week, and you dish out the assignments. The teams go out. They kill everybody that's on the list, and then they meet next Tuesday and get that kill list. And you just do it week after week. Well, if you're not having to devote armies of targeting analysts, to to finding these guys, if if your computers can find them just based on their, you know, email messaging, text messaging, whatever, metadata. There. Your job's easy. You just fire a missile from the drone or you drop a guy in that does a close in shot, and then you get back Speaker 4: on the helicopter and fly home. Speaker 2: I hate to sound cynical like that, but that's just the way it is. Speaker 5: I think that's, just calling it how it is. What, what year or years was that was Brennan doing that Tuesday morning kill list? Speaker 2: He started in o nine and kept it going. I have no idea if Donald Trump kept it or Joe Biden kept it or revived it, But it was something that they were very proud of in the Obama administration. They were just going out whacking everybody. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, no nobody dropped more missiles from drones than Obama did. Speaker 2: No. Nobody.

The fact that they didn't know the answers about Obama tells you everything you need to know. How many illegal immigrants did Barack Obama deport in his eight years as president? I don't know. Have a guess. No clue. Oh, I don't know. It's over 3,000,000. And he was known as deporter in chief by Mexicans. Yes. And that was more than Trump He deported way more than Trump. He deported way more pro rata than any president in history. Who dropped the most bombs in a calendar year in American history? Oh, heck. Come on. President Barack Obama. Right? Including drone programs and so on. What is still open today? Guantanamo Bay? Correct. I know that the general thing is Obama, angel, Trump, devil. Right. But if you actually apply the scrutiny that we give Trump put it this way, if Trump had deported 3,000,000 people, you think you guys wouldn't know that answer? Of course, you would.

News alert discusses Tulsi Gabbard releasing a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and U.S. intel agencies to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency and the 2016 election. The report claims there is irrefutable evidence that Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. Gabbard says she obtained a House Intelligence Committee report that had been locked away in a CIA vault for nearly a decade, and investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials. The assertion is that the Obama administration doctored intelligence to imply Putin and Trump colluded to steal the election, with a highly unusual, rush-developed assessment produced a month after Trump’s victory. John Brennan allegedly handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, who were siloed and not aware of each other’s work, with only one analyst in charge of drafting. The process was described as a rush job with no coordination with other intelligence agencies, essentially “home cooking” for Obama. The four key elements repeated in the assessment, forming the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation, are: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took actions to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The claim is that none of these were true, and there was no reliable intelligence to support them. Senior CIA officials allegedly refused to propagate these allegations, but were overruled by CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, who pressed for them despite lacking verifiable evidence. The report alleges the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed counter-evidence, and even used anonymous internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA personnel allegedly admitted that these actions violated tradecraft standards, with a pressure campaign emanating from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. Speaker 1 asserts that Donald Trump knows Russia helped him win in 2016. Speaker 2 suggests Putin’s preference for Trump came from his dislike of Hillary Clinton, who was running, while Speaker 3 states Russia sought to interfere systematically to advance Trump’s prospects. The conversation notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to aid Trump, yet the report contends Russians aimed to create chaos and undermine faith in democracy, with solid intelligence indicating Putin had no clear preference between Clinton and Trump but had dirt on Clinton that was not released. The discussion questions why the dirt from the DNC emails and claims about Clinton’s health, including tranquilizers, were not leaked to aid Trump, and whether the information about Clinton’s health is credible. The panel suggests that if Russia sought to influence the election, more damning information would have been released. The speakers claim Obama and top intelligence leaders mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to craft a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump. They contend Obama continued pushing the hoax after the election, describing it as undermining democracy. Towards the end, there is mention of potential criminal implications, with references to referrals to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation, including possible liability for Obama. A tester voices that Brennan may have committed perjury before Congress. A final note asserts that the CIA did not rely on the Steele dossier for the intelligence community assessment, countering a claim made in the discussion. The segment closes with a call for accountability.

State Department spokesperson and a reporter clash over lack of evidence for Russian propaganda claims. Another exchange questions US military's assessment of civilian casualties in Syria raid. Administration admits mistake in drone strike that killed civilians. Journalists must ask questions to hold officials accountable and protect civilians, reflecting American values.

The speakers discuss the issue of terrorism and the use of drone strikes. They argue that a disproportionate response is necessary to stop terrorism, but emphasize that civilians should not be targeted. They criticize the high number of civilian casualties caused by drone strikes and compare it to the actions of a war criminal. They question the morality of using remote-controlled drones to kill innocent people in the pursuit of terrorists. The speakers also mention that some terrorists cite US foreign policy as their motivation for carrying out attacks. They conclude by calling for an end to the normalization of these actions.

The speaker distrusts the government, claiming the CIA has lied since 2001, regardless of who is president. They allege the White House killed 424 uncharged people in August 2015 based solely on the CIA's word. An attorney for a drone whistleblower recounted an incident where the operator refused to launch a drone strike because the target was a child, not a goat as claimed by CENTCOM. The operator now faces court martial for refusing to kill the child. The speaker questions whether America has abandoned civil liberties in the name of national security since 9/11. They believe Edward Snowden's courage in revealing information opened doors for discussion, but he faces severe repercussions. The speaker advised Snowden not to return to the US, as a fair trial is impossible due to the jury pool's ties to intelligence agencies.

The Israelis were using American weapons in Gaza, likely targeting civilians intentionally. Dropping 6,000 bombs daily, they killed 35,000 civilians. The speaker, an intelligence officer, was troubled by the indiscriminate targeting of Palestinian civilians made possible by US weapons. Translation: The Israelis used American weapons in Gaza, likely targeting civilians intentionally. Dropping 6,000 bombs daily, they killed 35,000 civilians. The speaker, an intelligence officer, was troubled by the indiscriminate targeting of Palestinian civilians made possible by US weapons.

During the Obama administration, John Brennan had the Tuesday morning kill list meetings because the tech got sophisticated enough that you could just write up a list of people that you wanna kill that week, and you dish out the assignments. He started in o nine and kept it going. I believe that he is the archetypal sociopath. John Brennan who literally put me in prison. After I blew the whistle on the torture program, Brennan asked the Justice Department to reopen the case against me, wrote a memo to Eric Holder, charge him with espionage, and Brennan wrote back, charge him anyway and make him defend himself. I did twenty three months in prison. Now it's John's turn to be on the hot seat, with Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, and Hillary Clinton, and all these other ones who thought they were untouchable. Now they're going to have to answer for their actions.

The transcript covers a broad set of interwoven claims about global health security, intelligence operations, political conspiracies, and alleged CIA influence on U.S. leadership. Key points include: - Pandemic preparedness and global infrastructure: There is discussion that an airborne, deadly disease could emerge, and to deal with it effectively we must put in place infrastructure globally and domestically to see, isolate, and respond quickly. The investment is framed as a smart, long-term insurance against future flu strains like the Spanish flu, especially in a globalized world. - CIA and presidency dynamics: The day after an election, the CIA director allegedly authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and uses the briefing to “suck him in,” presenting impressive can-dos that shape the new president’s perceptions and questions. This is described as psychological profiling and manipulation, with the CIA using long-standing methods to influence a president and government direction. - Allegations of a covert cabal influencing U.S. institutions: The conversation suggests a cabal has aimed to destroy U.S. institutions from within, including defunding the military and ordering actions that undermine allies while aiding enemies. This cabal allegedly includes control over the FBI, DOJ, and the presidency, culminated in the appointment of James Comey to head the FBI, portrayed as a “cardinal” with ties to the Clinton Foundation and as part of broader cabal activity. - 2008–2011 FBI and political corruption narrative: An asset described as a high-level foreign agent allegedly influenced U.S. politics and was connected to multiple intelligence services, with claims about his role in internal U.S. political manipulation. The rise of a president referred to as “Renegade,” identified as Barry Sartaro (Barry Soetoro), is described as part of the cabal’s plan to destabilize the United States from within, including military demoralization and misdirection. - Barack Obama conspiracy theories: The dialogue asserts that Barack Obama’s origins and identity have been manipulated for political purposes, including claims about a forged birth certificate, ongoing questions about birth location, and various individuals connected to Hawaii’s health department and local authorities providing or denying birth certificate verification. References include Loretta Fuddy and investigations into Obama’s birth details, with assertions that Obama’s name and identity were manipulated in Indonesia (Barry Soetoro) and that his family connections tie to CIA-backed operations in Asia. - Indonesia coup and CIA involvement: The conversation links Obama’s family to CIA-backed activities in Indonesia, including the overthrow of Sukarno and the rise of Suharto, with relatives described as having roles in money channels and death squads. The narrative asserts that Lolo Soetoro acted in intelligence-adjacent roles and that Obama’s grandmother helped channel CIA funds in the region. - Claims about CIA media manipulation and “MK Ultra” style operations: The speakers reference Operation Mockingbird, MK Ultra, and other CIA operations as public knowledge used to undermine the American people. They suggest continued silencing and manipulation by those operations. - Kill lists and drone warfare under the Obama administration: The transcript alleges that John Brennan led “Tuesday morning kill list” meetings starting in 2009, with drones and targeted killings used to eliminate designated individuals, and asserts confidence that Obama’s administration excelled at deploying missile strikes and other covert actions, contrasted with the possibility of ongoing use by subsequent administrations. - Recurrent thread of distrust in institutions: Across pandemic planning, birth certificate controversy, foreign influence, CIA cabal theories, and drone warfare, the overarching theme is distrust of established institutions and assertion of deep, planned manipulation by covert actors.

The speaker claims that an individual lied before Congress and the media, stating that Obama's targeted assassination program killed no civilians on the Afghan or Pakistan border, when the speaker believes 50-75 innocent people were killed. The speaker says the individual was caught in that lie. Three years later, the speaker says the same individual lied emphatically to Congress about tapping CIA staffers' computers, initially denying it, then admitting to the lie. The speaker notes that in both instances, there were no perjury charges.

The speaker criticizes the "hysteria" surrounding Donald Trump and points out that President Obama was the only president known to have assassinated American citizens. They mention a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and CCR against the government's targeted killing of US citizens in drone strikes. The speaker also highlights that the issue of children in cages was present during the Obama administration, not just under Trump. They discuss the difficulty of holding federal employees accountable for violating the First Amendment and introduce the Censorship Accountability Act. The second speaker agrees that AI tools could facilitate broader censorship and expresses concern over the NSF funding such tools. The proliferation of this technology, if not properly overseen, could further enable the censorship industrial complex.

Government officials, like James Clapper and John Brennan, have been accused of lying under oath before Congress. Clapper denied the domestic surveillance program, but his body language suggested otherwise. When asked if the NSA spied on US citizens, he initially denied it, but later admitted to it. Similarly, Brennan initially denied spying on the Senate, but later apologized when evidence was presented. These officials have managed to avoid charges despite their dishonesty.