reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The former FBI director found a hidden room in the Hoover Building containing documents and computer hard drives that James Comey and others concealed. The room was locked, and access was restricted to prevent discovery. The speaker's team is currently investigating the contents of the room. The speaker says people want them to make arrests, but the speaker wants to run a methodical investigation.

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

Speaker 0 is demanding to know the whereabouts of Hunter Biden's laptop, expressing concern about potential national security risks. The FBI Cyber assistant director admits to not knowing the laptop's location, despite it being turned over to the FBI in 2019. Speaker 0 requests to enter the contents of the laptop into the committee's record.

He says he was in Washington DC on January 6 and 'recorded video of two federal agents attacking the building.' He states he has 'given the FBI twenty nine minutes of high definition video' says, 'What what format do we got? MP four.' He adds, 'No copyright. I don't care about getting paid. I just want it out there.' He explains that, despite offering the footage, 'neither man's been arrested' and 'the FBI refuses to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement and all of the video that I took on the fifth, sixth, and seventh.' He says the FBI is 'desperate to keep their identities hidden.' He notes he has appeared on 'OAN and Newsmax' and 'played the video there.' He is in town this weekend. 'If you wanna have me on your show as a guest, I'm more than happy to go do so.'

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

- it's illegal. The FBI will raid me. They've done it twice. - No. It's not secret. No. It's not on OAN and Newsmax. - Why isn't the FBI looking for two metaphysically attacked? Exclusive inside FBI fomenting insurrection. No? - Well, see, I was at the East Entrance on January 6. - I recorded two federal agents attacking the capital. - Well, federal agents came to my home and took my phones. They still have that. So, hopefully, someone will stand out. - I've given them twenty nine minutes of high definition footage of these two turds. - And to date, neither one of them has been arrested and none of their images have appeared on the internet. - They refuse to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement. - I've got them by the Cajones. - Avoid the FBI if you can.

Speaker 0: What happened today? Ambassador Bolton would happen, sir. What were you told by the FBI? Ambassador Bolton? What were they looking for?

An individual confronts two people identifying themselves as FBI agents, one as Adrian O'Donnell, in front of their house. The individual demands to see their full names and identification, but the agents are hesitant to provide it on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money by investigating something that is not against the law and questions if they believe in the Constitution. The individual calls them "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed. The agents then leave.

The speaker discusses the FBI's "failed investigation" of the January 6th pipe bomb, alleging the FBI has no leads or suspects, has lost information and evidence, and that the Secret Service deleted all texts from January 6th. The speaker claims Steve D'Antuono said cell phone data that could have been used to find the bomber was corrupted. The speaker states that the FBI does not have video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The speaker asks if confidential human sources were involved in the pipe bomb incident. The other speaker responded they would have to refresh themselves on the information gathered to date. The speaker suggests getting the information public before the election.

The speaker asks if the FBI had communication with their agents during the Capitol attack, to which Speaker 1 denies any involvement. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost vehicles," but Speaker 1 is unfamiliar with the term. Speaker 0 claims to have evidence of two buses used by FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters during the attack. There is a brief interruption from Speaker 2, who reminds everyone to stay within their allotted time. Speaker 0 objects to his question being cut off, stating that the buses were nefarious and filled with FBI informants. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 attempting to move on to the next speaker.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

Speaker 0 is contacted by the FBI but refuses to turn off the camera. They are asked about someone they met online but refuse to speak on camera. Speaker 0 declines an interview and ends the conversation.

The speaker states the FBI handed over hundreds of pages of documents, but a source indicated more existed in the Southern District of New York. The speaker gave the FBI a deadline of Friday at 8 AM to release everything. Thousands of pages of documents arrived by the deadline and are now in the FBI's possession. Kash Patel and his team will produce a detailed report explaining why the documents were withheld. The speaker says the documents included flight logs, names, and victim names, but they are looking for the rest of the information. The speaker identified over 254 victims in phase one. The speaker says they believe in transparency and that America has the right to know. The speaker claims the Biden administration said no one did anything with the documents and questions why they were in the Southern District of New York. The speaker says national security and grand jury information may be redacted. The speaker says the public has a right to know about the JFK and Martin Luther King files as well. If something is redacted, the line will be noted, along with the reason for the redaction.

The speaker repeatedly questions why the FBI is always referenced for information. They press the other speaker, who claims to have communicated with the FBI, about details of an investigation. Despite being asked about shell casings and explosives, the speaker deflects, insisting on referring to the FBI for answers. The questioning becomes more intense, with accusations of withholding information and covering up. The speaker continues to evade direct answers, emphasizing the ongoing criminal investigation.

Speaker 0 questions the silence of fellow Democrats over an issue. Speaker 1 describes increased security by the FBI at a site and being asked to leave by them. The FBI is accused of trying to control information. Speaker 0 expresses a desire to hear from the Secret Service director.

An individual confronts two individuals identifying themselves as FBI agents, demanding their full names and identification. The agents decline to provide full names on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money investigating something that is not against the law. Another individual asks why they came. One of the agents says they wanted to make sure that weren't any. The individual accuses them of being part of a regime and not believing in the Constitution. The individual calls the agents "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed and think about what they did. The agents then leave.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0: "What I'm saying is a reasonable suspicion is that there were agents. There's a video showing a guy with an earpiece pulling people into the building. Alright? Mhmm. You combine that with the evidence of Ray Epps, and it looks like you have a preponderance of evidence suggesting there may have been federal law enforcement involved in making that thing happen." Speaker 1: "I'll get you beyond a reasonable doubt. Two pieces of information. Ray Epps was on FBI's most wanted list one day, and the next day, he was off of the FBI's most wanted list. There are only two ways that happens. You die or your informant." Speaker 1: "Put that aside. Under congressional testimony, Jill Sanborn, who I used to work with, the head of the FBI counterintelligence division in charge of all these investigations, testified under oath when senator Cruz asked her, flat out, were there federal agents involved with January 6? And she said, quote, senator, I can't answer that at this time." Speaker 1: "The reason she said I can't answer that is because of the same stonewalling they gave us during Russergate with Christopher Steelehauper and everybody else. It's the same narrative, and and I'm telling you they were there." Speaker 0: "You're so you're saying that she said I can't answer that because the answer is yes Yeah. And that would compromise whatever their operation was. Exactly."

The speaker mentioned that there were individuals inside the Capitol and the SSA responded. The speaker questioned why they couldn't be shown the 11,000 hours of available video footage. The reason given was that there might be undercover officers or confidential human sources whose identities needed protection. The speaker then mentioned that Mr. Allen faced retaliation.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

Speaker 0 asks about Hunter Biden's laptop, questioning FBI Cyber's knowledge. They mention the laptop was turned over to the FBI in 2019, but the assistant director doesn't know its current location. Speaker 0 requests to enter Hunter Biden's laptop contents into the record. Speaker 2 praises Matt Gaetz's questioning and criticizes the FBI. Translation: Speaker 0 inquires about Hunter Biden's laptop and questions the FBI Cyber's awareness. The laptop was given to the FBI in 2019, but the assistant director is unaware of its current whereabouts. Speaker 0 requests to include Hunter Biden's laptop contents in the record. Speaker 2 applauds Matt Gaetz's questioning and condemns the FBI.

I gave the FBI twenty nine minutes of high definition video, two men attacking the building. As of this morning, neither man has been arrested. I've been through over 725 indictments. Yeah. Their video none of my video has appeared on the Internet, not a single still picture of either one of these guys. The FBI is refusing to to take my phone call, return my emails, or even accept my offer to come in and sit down with them. Yep. They are hiding these guys. And somebody needs to say something about this. Please tell me that you will get up on the well of the senate and say, who the hell are these men, mister FBI guys? And Ben Grundler has all this information. I've been in contact with him for over a year now.

An individual visited a radio station (97.7 FM) to share video footage from Washington D.C. on January 6th, alleging it shows two federal agents attacking the building. The speaker claims to have provided the FBI with 29 minutes of high-definition video in MP4 format on January 15th. The video was recorded on an iPhone. According to the speaker, neither of the agents in the video have been arrested, nor have their images been released online. The speaker also claims the FBI has declined their offer to provide a statement and additional video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. The speaker believes the FBI is actively concealing the agents' identities. The speaker states they have shared the video with OAN, Newsmax, Detroit, and Red America's Voice. They offered the video to the radio station and are available for an on-air appearance.