reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A former resident of Washington, D.C. claims that some members of Congress are influenced by intelligence agencies. He recounts a conversation with a high-ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee who expressed concern about being monitored by the NSA. The former resident also mentions a dispute with Michael McCall, a prominent figure in the House, who allegedly accused him of being a Russian agent. The former resident criticizes the congressman for blindly trusting intelligence briefings and suggests that he is being manipulated.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

The speaker and his brother made a commitment to fix something wrong after hearing a phone call at the White House. They faced backlash from President Trump, but their solution was not to seek revenge. Instead, they chose to get involved in politics. The speaker, being an army officer and a lawyer, felt a duty to report the call due to professional and military obligations. Now, the speaker has a new mission to represent the people of the Virginia 7th congressional district. He wants to ensure that their daughters have the same rights and opportunities, safe schools, functional infrastructure, and a well-governed government.

The speaker discusses their belief in Trump becoming president and their preference for him over the alternative. They mention their experience with the US Embassy in Belize and their belief that Hillary Clinton was the highest authority in the State Department. The speaker explains their reasons for going on the run, including being mistreated by the government and donating laptops with spyware. They also mention discovering information about drug and human trafficking within the government. The speaker concludes by expressing their fear of retaliation and their decision not to disclose further details.

The speaker discusses the FBI's investigation into a person accused of espionage. The FBI mistakenly believed that the person had left the country, but he was actually living in DC. Despite this, the FBI hired him and paid him over $200,000, even though they knew he was a Russian spy. The speaker also mentions another individual, Charles Dolan, who was a source for the false dossier used to spy on American citizens. Dolan and the Russian spy even met on a park bench, but the FBI refused to interview Dolan. The speaker criticizes the FBI's actions and highlights the problem of running investigations from headquarters instead of assigning a US attorney.

Speaker 1 described learning the news 'just about an hour or two ago' and said they 'cheered up' and felt joyful, then spoke with RT. They 'fell in love with Russia so much' and now wanna stay, applying for Russian citizenship after I had asylum for two years, before this was granted. They credited editor in chief Margarita Cemignon and Maria Butina and Margarita Simignon for guiding them to asylum, while noting they were 'under threat by the US government, by the Biden regime' and that their life was threatened. 'Congressman Matt Gates told me that I was safer to stay here in in Russia,' and they continued their work with RT. Thanks to that guidance they rebuilt my life, despite facing possible prison in the US for sanctions related to being on channel one and working for RT. They are proud to work for Russia today; the Biden administration didn't appreciate that.

The speaker reveals that the NSA, the largest intelligence agency in the Biden administration, had been reading their private emails. They express shock at the government's spying and criticize the lack of outrage in Washington. The speaker shares that their emails were leaked to media outlets to portray them as a disloyal American and a Russian operative. They highlight the hypocrisy of demonizing Putin while the Chinese government gains control over the country. The speaker emphasizes that the NSA illegally unmasked them, violating the law that protects the identities of American citizens. They call for accountability from the NSA director, Paul Nakasone, and the Director of National Intelligence, April Haines. The speaker concludes by stating the importance of preventing unaccountable spy agencies from discrediting individuals through leaked emails.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1 with information about a cover-up that should be exposed. Speaker 1 advises them to pray about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. Speaker 0 questions how this protects against corruption and misconduct, to which Speaker 1 admits it doesn't solve the problem. Speaker 1 warns that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as examples. Speaker 0 concludes the hearing, acknowledging the gravity of the situation.

I want to address the climate of fear in America, where people are afraid to speak out due to potential repercussions from the government. This fear extends to businesses, federal workers, and ordinary citizens, and it's a tactic used by dictators to consolidate power. Freedom from fear means living without the threat of government reprisal for expressing our views or associating with whom we choose. To combat this, we must be courageous and speak out, despite potential consequences. I face attacks and intimidation for speaking out, but my response is defiance. We cannot succumb to this fear. As Americans, we must be brave at home as our troops are on the battlefield.

The speaker shares their experience of being targeted by Chinese spies due to their activism against the CCP. In 2019, after gaining influence on social media and educating people about the horrors of communism, they received threats warning them not to return to China. Despite not being well-known at the time, the speaker canceled their trip to China for safety reasons. They continue to speak out against the CCP as a Republican candidate for office. The speaker also mentions an incident where a Chinese man recorded their speech and accused them of brainwashing people. The speaker advises their Chinese friends to be cautious about sharing their location on social media. Despite facing attempts to discredit their campaign and label them as a China spy, the speaker remains determined to share the truth and advocate for freedom.

Speaker 1 describes learning her name with emotion, saying "I I cheered up. I was so joyful," and she immediately talked to RT colleagues. She "'fell in love with Russia so much' and 'wanna stay,'" and she applied for Russian citizenship after two years of asylum. She credits editor in chief Margarita Cemignon and others for support while she was "under threat by the US government, by the Biden regime." She notes "Congressman Matt Gates told me that I was safer to stay here in Russia," and that "Maria Butina and Margarita Simignon stepped in and kinda showed me the path to asylum." She "continued my work with RT" and, with their guidance, could "rebuild my life." She recalls fear of possible prison in the US for sanctions related to Channel One and RT, and ends: "I am very proud to work for Russia today" and that "the Biden administration didn't appreciate that."

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

The speaker states they applied to the CIA and have received criticism, including from Putin, for being from a "CIA family." The speaker acknowledges their father worked in conjunction with the CIA and that they attempted to join the agency. The speaker says Putin is attacking their father as being connected to the CIA, which the speaker says is not untrue. After their father's death, the speaker learned their father was involved in that world, which they say shocked them. The speaker concludes by saying that this is a fact, whether or not people believe it.

The speaker explains he is trying to navigate possible collaboration with federal authorities while maintaining personal integrity. He says he has a statement that is “completely true” that he’s “never been in contact with any federal authority,” and he’s torn about how to start working with DHS to address threats he faces as a national figure. He claims “the Yemenis, a million of them came out into the streets” and that they want to kill him, with a fatwa on his head. He asserts he would need DHS to make a statement that “the Houthis and their fatwa that they placed on my head will not be stood,” and that “American citizens exercising our rights will not be, you know, subject to to Muslim murder, rituals.” He describes hundreds of thousands of death threats in his DMs and says, to deal with them, he would need to walk into an FBI building and give them a printout, but he “don’t fucking trust the FBI.” He accuses the FBI of having “destroyed my life,” pointing to past raids on his and others’ homes and references to the Mar-a-Lago search, stating he is trying to figure out how to navigate this situation without claiming contact with Harmeet or making contacts he “don’t want to.” He notes that when he and others exercised their rights in Dearborn, he views it as a civil rights hate crime, saying “the Muslim oppression of Christians in Dearborn” was a civil rights hate violation and that “they punched me in the face because I’m white” and “they punched me in the face because I’m Christian, not for anything else.” Harmony Dillon is described as wanting to prosecute this as a hate crime, with others subjected to spit, food thrown, assaults, pepper spray, etc. He mentions the Trump administration’s purported interest in bringing these people to justice, but he expresses a wish not to feed into it, citing personal integrity and caution. He questions whether the rank-and-file FBI officer’s motives are aligned with his interests, contrasting a year ago with a “grandma that walked through the capital” to now a Muslim who punched a Christian, implying hypocrisy or moral decline. He asserts there are “deep state embedded figures in the DOJ, in the FBI, in DHS,” who were involved in actions like the raid on Mar-a-Lago and other “schemes.” He says he needs assurance that these agencies have “our best interest” and that they are not “deep state shills.” Ultimately, he states he has refused to make contact because it’s “too risky” and he cannot be associated with people he deems “un American.”

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

In 2023, a whistleblower conference took place shortly after the Whistleblower Protection Act was activated, hosted by Stephen Greer at the National Press Club. Several whistleblowers shared their stories, and I was sent there by my employer to identify potential whistleblowers to report to the FBI. I found myself torn between becoming a whistleblower and suppressing them, as there are valid and invalid reasons for whistleblowing. During the event, I heard Michael Herrera's testimony, which caught me off guard. Many attendees were skeptical of his claims, but his firsthand experience was compelling.

Congressman: The Department of Justice has unfairly treated whistleblowers like Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen: The treatment is unfair, and the process felt like the punishment. Mr. Horowitz: Putting someone like Mr. Allen on unpaid leave for over two years is unfair. Congressman: The process was to punish whistleblowers and make an example of them for reporting improper actions at the FBI and DOJ. Congress has not appropriately protected whistleblowers, and continuing resolutions put no consequence on the DOJ or FBI for their actions. Congress should ensure whistleblowers receive back pay; otherwise, maybe the FBI director and attorney general shouldn't get their paychecks or perks. Voting for these continuing resolutions perpetuates the punishment of whistleblowers, and Congress underwrites the weaponization of the Justice Department.

I joined the FBI in 2014, focusing on violent crimes on Indian reservations and later on child pornography and human trafficking in Florida. In 2021, I was reassigned to domestic terrorism, where I became concerned about the January 6 investigations. I noticed the FBI was straying from its guidelines, which I believed jeopardized important cases and public safety. After raising my concerns, my security clearance was suspended, and I was placed in an unpaid position indefinitely. The FBI pressured me to lie to charge me with a crime and denied my requests for outside employment. If the FBI treats its own agents this way, what might they do to ordinary citizens?

The speaker recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

The speaker, who immigrated from Ukraine, expresses concern about Americans being afraid of prosecution by the Department of Justice. They mention the events of January 6th and question why the debate wasn't stopped when people broke into the Capitol. The speaker also criticizes the department's handling of investigations, particularly regarding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They express frustration and concern about corruption and foreign influence in the country. Finally, they ask the attorney general about ensuring that only eligible US citizens can vote in elections. The attorney general responds affirmatively.

The speaker claims that Telegram receives excessive attention from US security agencies. During a US visit, an engineer working for Telegram was allegedly approached by cybersecurity agents attempting a secret hire. The agents were interested in Telegram's open-source libraries and tried persuading the engineer to integrate specific open-source tools that the speaker believes would function as backdoors, potentially enabling government surveillance of Telegram users. The speaker also recounts personal experiences of being met by FBI agents at US airports and visited at their residence. They believe the FBI's interest was in gathering details about Telegram and establishing a relationship to better control the platform. While acknowledging the agents were doing their job, the speaker suggests this level of scrutiny made the US a less-than-ideal environment for running a privacy-focused social media platform.

The speaker testifies about the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against its own employees and the American people. He served in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, then as a police officer, and later as an FBI special agent. Despite receiving high performance reviews and being selected for specialized units, he has been smeared as a subpar employee after witnessing weaponization within the FBI. He states that too many in the FBI prioritize avoiding difficulty over upholding the Constitution, leading to an Orwellian atmosphere that silences dissent. He is speaking out despite the potential personal cost, including the loss of his job and family's home. He claims the FBI allowed him to accept orders to a new position, sell his family's home, and report to the new unit before suspending him on his first day, rendering his family homeless. He concludes that bad actors have begun running parts of the government, but he will never stop trying to serve the nation and protect the innocent.