reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal lines, which is dangerous for our democracy.

When long-serving politicians become indifferent to honesty, decency, truth, and the rule of law, it negatively impacts politics. Their calls for inquiries often seem motivated by a desire to align with far-right agendas, which further undermines the integrity of political discourse.

When long-serving politicians treat honesty, decency, truth, and the rule of law casually, it negatively impacts politics. Their calls for inquiries often seem motivated by a desire to align with far-right agendas.

The political landscape has shifted dramatically, with conservatives now embracing the role of rebels against the system, while liberals advocate for censorship and regulation of free speech. This reversal is striking. One speaker mentions being investigated politically more than notorious figures, highlighting the aggressive tactics used against opponents, akin to actions seen in third-world countries. They discuss winning cases and the potential for political retaliation, with accusations flying about intentions to imprison rivals. Despite having the power to act against political adversaries, one speaker refrains from doing so, believing it would harm the country. The conversation underscores the current political climate's absurdities and the weaponization of investigations for political gain.

My colleagues are trying to undermine and defund the FBI because they are investigating Donald Trump. Attacking the FBI and independent journalists undermines our democracy. By attacking these institutions, they can violate the law without consequences. The credibility of the FBI is being eroded by those on the other side of the aisle, and this needs to stop.

The speaker states that the "Russian story" would be called a covert influence campaign if they were doing it. The speaker also claims they would be the last to say they've never tried a covert influence campaign.

Tulsi Gabbard is described as "doing a great job" in the speaker’s view, with an aside that includes the word "Whisk." The speaker notes that Gabbard "took a lot of heat two days ago because she went in at Pam's insistence," and that she "looked at votes that wanna be checked out from Georgia." The question is raised aloud: "They say, why is she doing it? Right, Pam? Why is she doing it?" The response given is that the reason is "Because Pam wanted her to do it." The speaker emphasizes the motive by stating, "And you know why? Because she's smart." The dialogue then references a belief that others suggested the action was tied to Gabbard’s position or stance, saying, "they said, well, this has to do her position. Has to do it's really not so, but her position has to do with international." The speaker counters that line of thinking by invoking a different narrative about international affairs and election interference. The speaker recalls the longstanding chorus that has claimed Russia, Russia, Russia has been meddling in elections, noting, "the same people that said that, they've been saying Russia, Russia, Russia has been screwing our elections." The speaker then contemplates the possibility that Russia "had something to do with it," but follows with, "They say, no. No. Russia didn't have." The implication is that the narrative on foreign interference has shifted, leading to the assertion that "now they're saying Russia had nothing to do with it." The speaker adds a broader hypothetical, stating, "Because if I say Russia, that it's perfectly fine. But you could add China and about five other countries to it." Amid these discussions, the speaker reiterates praise for Tulsi Gabbard: "But she's done a great job, and Pam has done a fantastic job, and we appreciate it both." The closing lines suggest a personal note about not having seen the person in a while: "I haven't seen you in a couple of times. And I have one of..." The remainder of the sentence is cut off in the transcript.

Speaker 2 notes that some members of Congress may be personally compromised and don’t want the truth to get out. Speaker 3 says: “You got powerful people, and they write the big checks” who “love their money” and protect it. He describes a honeypot tactic, noting Russians used it; overseas trips can lead to scandal, with a well-dressed man whispering, “There’s tapes out on you” before a key vote. He recalls a trip with Andy Biggs and being pressured after sleeping with someone abroad. He cites a Chinese prostitution ring busted in Washington, DC with a client list of “High ranking officials, in government, elected officials, and lobbyists,” whose story disappeared. He says these people are “employed by forces that want to control Congress” via spouses or employment agencies, “they employ them.” He concludes, “America's not buying that… 12% of the population votes, this is what you get.”

The speaker discusses the lack of transparency in government actions, mentioning secretive partnerships and asymmetry of information. They question collaborations with China on sensitive research and criticize institutions like universities and newspapers for failing to provide accurate information to the public. The conversation highlights concerns about hidden agendas and power dynamics at play behind the scenes.

The speaker claims that every Canadian prime minister has been compromised by agents of influence working for Chinese intelligence. This poses a significant security risk, raising concerns about who is truly in control of the country. They suggest the need for an independent investigation to protect against future threats, citing Australia's law against foreign interference as a model to follow.

There are members of Congress who are controlled by intel agencies. A high-ranking member of the House Intel Committee admitted to being spied on by the NSA. Even though he provides oversight, they still monitor him. Michael McCall, a leader among neoconservatives, accused someone of being a Russian agent based on what the intel briefers told him. When confronted, he defended himself by saying he believed the intel. This highlights the manipulation and control exerted by intel agencies over politicians.

Every federal government from Mulroney to Trudeau has been compromised by agents of Communist China.

How independent is your reporting when you're paid by Bill Gates? Are you a journalist, or what are you? Are you an independent journalist? Why do you spread such pleasurable and completely unfounded claims? Why do you do that? Do you think raids have something to do with the Russian march? Are you deliberately spreading things that... English Translation: How independent is your reporting when Bill Gates is paying you? Are you a journalist, or what are you? Are you an independent journalist? Why are you spreading such enjoyable yet completely unfounded claims? Why do you do that? Do you think raids are connected to the Russian advance? Are you deliberately spreading misinformation...?

Unelected deep state operatives pose a threat to democracy by pursuing their own hidden agendas. However, I am encouraged by the unexpected support we have gained from those who may not necessarily agree with us. This support is truly remarkable and beautiful. Eventually, the truth behind this situation will be revealed, and it is both concerning and disheartening.

Speaker 0: Speaker 0 says that the blessing passage being cited is “not what Genesis says,” asserting instead that “it says, I will bless those who bless Abraham,” and that the person referencing it “couldn't even quote the passage properly.” Speaker 0 argues that the authority used to justify a required action is unreliable, describing it as “preposterous” that someone would misquote scripture while claiming it instructs what to do. Speaker 1: Speaker 1 says the “effect” is to “distort American politics” and references the “Russia hysteria of the last administration,” arguing it was wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control American politics. Speaker 1 contrasts that prior agreement with what they describe as current reality, stating that the focus of the national conversation is “this tiny, totally irrelevant little country” with “one great city, Jerusalem,” which Speaker 1 describes as geopolitically irrelevant yet “at the behest of a foreign government.” Speaker 1 claims a foreign leader is “openly saying, you don't agree with us? We're gonna censor you,” and asks how that “can stand.” Speaker 1 further claims that foreign calls for censorship of American citizens are supported by “all those little satellite groups,” naming the ADL and APAC, and that “the congress obeys.” Speaker 1 concludes that this situation “seems to me that's gotta be a red line.”

When long-time politicians treat honesty, decency, truth, and the rule of law lightly, it negatively impacts politics. Their calls for inquiries often seem motivated by a desire to align with far-right agendas rather than genuine concern.

Speaker 0 argues that the biblical quotation is being misrepresented, saying that instead of “I will bless those who bless Israel,” the relevant wording is “I will bless those who bless Abraham,” and claims the passage is not even being quoted properly by those using it to justify action. Speaker 1 says the effect is to distort American politics, stating that it was agreed during the “Russia hysteria” of the last administration that it was wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control American politics. They assert that now the national conversation is centered on a “tiny, totally irrelevant” country with “one great city, Jerusalem,” described as geopolitically irrelevant and “at the behest of a foreign government.” Speaker 1 adds that the foreign government is said to be openly threatening censorship of those who disagree—“you don’t agree with us? We’re gonna censor you”—and questions how that can stand. They state that they see a pattern in which small satellite groups, including the ADL and APAC, push the position, and that “the congress obeys.” They conclude that a foreign leader calling for censorship of American citizens, along with related organizational and congressional responses, must be a “red line.”

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

I believe members of Congress should be investigated for potential ill-gotten gains. There seems to be no other explanation for their consistent support of poor legislation. It's possible their spouses or significant others are employed by the very departments or quasi-governmental agencies that benefit from these votes. Until we investigate these potential conflicts of interest, the American people will continue to distrust Congress, and rightfully so.

The discussion centers on claims drawn from “Epstein files.” Speaker 1 says they found information “nobody else found,” highlighting Catherine Rumler, described as Barack Obama’s White House counsel and later general counsel for Goldman Sachs. Speaker 1 claims Rumler was “very, very close to Jeffrey Epstein,” with “constant” email exchanges. They cite emails in the latest tranche where Rumler tells Epstein that John Brennan, director of the CIA, “gave me the CIA’s highest honor this morning,” and where she tells Epstein she will arrange for him to be in Washington next Tuesday and sets up a meeting with Brennan. Speaker 1 asks whether there was contact between Jeffrey Epstein and John Brennan, noting Brennan “is not talking,” and states that “3,000,000 more documents” have not yet been released, and “of the ones that haven’t been deleted possibly” suggests permanent deletion may have occurred. They say people are expected to “take their words for it.” Speaker 0 suggests focusing narrowly on portions of the files involving sex trafficking and billionaires abusing kids, but Speaker 1 argues that zooming out shows “arms deals” and “collaborations across intelligence.” Speaker 1 says the theme everyone should focus on is that Epstein was “an Israeli access agent,” claiming certainty about this position. Speaker 1 says the next tranche (described as “3,000,000,” “like 2,700,000 documents”) shows Epstein trying to work for the CIA and possibly doing something with the CIA. They state they “don’t know yet” and that Epstein “didn’t authorize that.” Speaker 1 adds that Epstein was also working with MI5 and MI6 in the UK, “possibly the Germans,” and “definitely the Israelis.” They claim Epstein repeatedly tried to secure a one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin, was denied repeatedly, and eventually was offered a meeting with Putin and three others; Epstein declined and wanted only Putin alone, after which “the Russians walked away.” The conversation concludes with discussion of “Israeli connections,” including Speaker 0 saying that when they asked Congress people about it “today and yesterday,” they “run screaming from the room.” Speaker 0 also notes that the topic is sometimes turned into a Democrat-versus-Republican issue rather than something broader, and Speaker 1 replies: “And it’s not. They’re both corrupt.”

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

The atmosphere in the European Parliament is tense. Many colleagues are realizing they are not serving the people's best interests. It's no longer about the people, but about a global elite. They are starting to see that the public is no longer fooled by climate change rhetoric and are standing up against it.

I just spoke with some Republican members who are frustrated with Musk's involvement in political discussions. They are upset about his threats on X regarding primaries and feel he shouldn't interfere in the processes of elected officials. It's important to remember that Musk is not an elected representative; despite his wealth, he has no mandate from the public.

It's astonishing to see left-wing figures, like Bernie Sanders, claim that Donald Trump is trying to silence independent media. Are they really referring to CBS as independent? CBS even edited an interview with Kamala Harris to make her look better. Alex Soros has also shared claims about an unelected cabal in power, which is ironic considering his family's influence. This moment in history feels very strange. There's been no acknowledgment of the exposed corruption; instead, the focus is on preserving an organization without addressing its failings. The priorities seem misplaced, like funding gender fluid dance programs in Turkey or spending millions on Starbucks cups.