reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

The conversation centers on a shared focus on “deep state traders” and a distrust of the current political establishment. Speaker 0 insists that they are “focused on higher IQ conversations here” and that they want to “go after the deep state traders,” asking who is paying them and noting that the “Washington field office is one block away” from their location, implying proximity to the FBI in Washington, D.C. The exchange riffs on anti-establishment themes, with Speaker 1 adding that they have “gone dragged into forever wars on behalf of Israel,” questioning why the U.S. has been involved for “generations and decades” and asserting that Americans “will not allow” it, calling for white Christians to unite around “America First, America Only” and that there can be “competing interests.” The dialogue shifts to support for domestic groups and figures perceived as aligned with their cause. Speaker 0 says their priority is to gain reinforcements and to “pardon all the oath keepers.” Speaker 1 references the idea of aiding “the J sixers,” while Speaker 0 states they are focused on “the destruction of the world” and asks why they aren’t advocating for those groups. The conversation then explicitly identifies a racialized fear about the future, with Speaker 1 stating that “your children are gonna be black and Muslim,” and “your children’s children are gonna be black and Muslim,” attributing this not to genetic or demographic inevitability but to “the weak, feckless men that are allowing APAC to buy out our politicians and open up our borders.” Speaker 0 counters by describing “weak, tackless toxic, feckless men” in the country and reiterates that their priority is to “go after the traitors based on their actions and actions alone,” stressing that they have a “laundry list” of targets and that they do not care about appearances or which hair follicles or eye colors these people have. The two converge on the idea of targeting treasonous individuals, with Speaker 0 insisting that the focus is on those who have committed treason and that those who fund them come from all stripes. The overall thrust is an uncompromising approach to identifying and pursuing perceived traitors, tying together anti-war, nationalist, and white-identity rhetoric, while calling for pardons for controversial domestic groups and framing the fight as one against treason and influence from abroad.

I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, particularly against children, such as sexual assault or trafficking. The depravity of these acts warrants the ultimate punishment. Treason at the highest levels should also be considered a capital offense. We're seeing a wave of whistleblowers, and their information is being directed to the appropriate authorities. People are being exposed. Jim Comey, it's time to consider what you're willing to concede. Your freedom is at stake, and imprisonment is inevitable. Perhaps a reduced sentence in a less severe facility could be negotiated in exchange for information on those even more deeply implicated than yourself. You know exactly who I mean.

Speaker 0 launches into a furious monologue, directing insults at someone who would report fellow Americans to the federal police, calling them dumb, idiotic, unpatriotic, and un-American. The speaker says, “Eat a dick,” and condemns anyone celebrating the capture or arrest of fellow Americans. They insist they are not moving on to other news and insist on staying on the topic, expressing anger toward those they reference as helping “the feds.” The speaker demands that the others understand they should not think the situation will benefit them or make them feel safer. They declare, “God is just and swift,” and threaten a confrontation, signaling they will address the matter aggressively while claiming to have “friends in high places” who will listen without payment, asserting they know they are a “good fucking person,” American, and a Christian who loves the nation. In contrast, they accuse the others of not loving their country, not being Christian, and not caring as much as they claim. The speaker asserts they have ample time and resources, contrasting themselves with others who supposedly have less. They reference a public figure, Candace, suggesting someone is upset by her actions toward someone named Charlie, and claim they have time to engage as needed. The speaker rejects the idea of having four kids, stating they have “a bunch of anger,” substantial intelligence, and many friends, and they condemn their opponents with coarse language. They declare they will not threaten violence and assert they would not harm a fly, stating they love flies even though they think they are awful. They insist they do not have to harm anyone, claiming God tells them not to seek retribution on their enemy and that vengeance belongs to God. The speaker ends by reiterating, “Fuck you,” and asserting that God loves them and will handle the situation, directing final hostility toward the unnamed others.

Speaker 0 believes the president's tweets and behavior demonstrate he uses power to beat people down. The speaker thinks the president's Twitter account should be suspended because he is irresponsible with his words in a way that could result in harm to others. Speaker 1 notes that suspending the president's account would allow his followers to claim that Silicon Valley is silencing him. Speaker 0 counters that the president's words are powerful and he has never fully appreciated the responsibility that comes with them. Speaker 0 says the president uses his words in a way that could subject someone to harm, and if he won't exercise self-restraint, other mechanisms should ensure his words do not harm anyone.

The speaker claims that if an American commits crimes such as rape, lewd acts in front of a child, sexual assault, fentanyl trafficking, illegal gun possession, child pornography, or sexual offenses against children in a foreign country, they will face severe consequences, possibly the death penalty or life imprisonment. The speaker asserts that Joe Biden and the Democrats were allowing such individuals into the country, harboring and protecting them. They praise President Trump and his administration for arresting these individuals, stating they will face consequences, and that America voted for this action.

The nation cannot move forward unless senior people are held accountable, starting with Obama. While a former president may not be imprisoned, John Brennan, Jim Clapper, and Susan Rice should be questioned under oath about who directed them, with the threat of prison for treason. Treason is the only thing that cannot overcome a pardon. The speaker claims the outgoing Obama administration committed treason through a conspiracy to undermine a duly elected president, which hasn't stopped. Mueller and Weisman would have charged the speaker with treason if it were true. The speaker claims treason was committed against him, as a national security advisor, by the outgoing administration.

Speaker 1 expresses a desire for Trump to be shot, while Speaker 0 questions this, highlighting the hardships faced by migrants. Speaker 1 condemns calling for the president's assassination as evil.

Speaker 0 believes President Trump's Twitter account should be suspended because his words are irresponsible and could result in harm to others. The speaker argues Trump has attacked members of Congress and directed tweets at the whistleblower. Speaker 0 asserts social media sites must understand their power and be held responsible, as they speak directly to millions without oversight. Speaker 0 states Twitter has terms of use policies and Trump has violated them. The speaker claims Trump has used his platform to incite fear and potentially incite harm against a witness, and is asking Twitter to revoke his privilege, as they have done in the past. Speaker 1 questions if removing the president's account is a violation of free speech, as the president has the same rights as everyone else. Speaker 1 asks if this action would create a slippery slope.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about expressing "joy" over a CEO's death and posting an image of another CEO. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of condoning assassination. Speaker 1 denies celebrating the death itself, but expresses joy that the "brutality of our healthcare system was finally being acknowledged." Speaker 1 claims 70,000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health insurance, calling the healthcare system "murderous" and "violent." Speaker 1 says they were describing the mentality of supporters, not their own beliefs. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who praise assassination. Speaker 1 refuses to condemn those who praise the CEO, stating they don't "believe in things like souls." Speaker 1 says they specialize in extremism and want to understand ideologies, even those of violent extremists. Speaker 1 condemns the violence of the healthcare system. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination. Speaker 1 wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that half of bankruptcies are due to healthcare costs. Speaker 0 states anyone who wants to assassinate any innocent person is wrong. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination.

Speaker 0 claims that “the papers” show President Obama was the leader of a “gang,” stating it was “stone cold” and that it was “president Obama, Barack Hussein Obama.” Speaker 0 adds that Obama has been “shielded by the press for his entire life” and asserts “he’s guilty” and “it’s not a question.” Speaker 0 says the situation involves “treason,” “every word you can think of,” and that “they tried to steal the election” and “tried to obfuscate the election.” Speaker 0 further claims that the actions were unprecedented, saying other countries are “pretty rough” but that “you’ve never seen anything like it” involving this man. Speaker 0 says “we have all of the documents,” and states that “from what Tulsi told me,” Tulsi “has thousands of additional documents coming.” Speaker 0 also says that “president Obama” originated the concept and that he “also got it from crooked Hillary Clinton.” Speaker 0 claims “Crooked is a $3 bill” and says Hillary Clinton and “her group, the Democrats” spent “$12,000,000 to Christopher Steele to write up a report that was a total fake report,” adding that it “took two years to figure that out.”

The transcript shows a volatile exchange centered on immigration and constitutional rights. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks how many constitutional rights the other participants are willing to give up to “get these people out,” framing the issue as a test of loyalty to the country. He emphasizes a confrontational stance against immigrants and their supporters, pressing for an explicit, finite number of rights to sacrifice. Speaker 1 responds with extreme, inflammatory rhetoric. He declares, “As many constitutional rights as it takes to keep the race in the country alive is how many I’m willing to walk on,” and identifies as a “national socialist authoritarian,” asserting a willingness to sacrifice rights to preserve a “race in the country.” He attacks the idea of protecting the Constitution, stating, “my constitution, my democracy, my fucking… inalienable fucking constitutional car driven rights,” and contrasts that with what he sees as the real priority of protecting the country and race. He references “the force doctrine” and asserts that “your rights are whatever the fucking force doctrine says you’re allowed to do.” He also claims that the United States acts as “the force doctrine of the entire world.” During the exchange, Speaker 0 derides Speaker 1 as “white racist fuck” and “unamerican,” while Speaker 1 escalates, declaring that he does not care about the constitution if it endangers the country or race. He asserts, “What I care about is our country,” and later says, “Willing to let this country burn and your entire race burn if it meant that you didn’t violate the constitution? I don’t give a fuck about that.” He proclaims, “If I need to throw away the first amendment, the second amendment, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth, and all of them in order to make sure that The US and its people stays alive,” questioning how that could be acceptable. The dialogue includes explicit harassment and slurs, including “chill faggot,” and culminates in a moment where Speaker 0 calls for clipping the exchange, expressing it as “fucking gold.” The participants debate whether constitutional protections should yield to perceived national or racial imperatives, with both sides railing against the other’s stance and repeatedly foregrounding the primacy of protecting the country over preserving constitutional rights, according to their respective positions.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 thinks someone should be jailed for misrepresenting and lying to voters about Governor Nate Schatzlein asking cartel members to come into the country legally. Speaker 1 says people lie about him every day and he doesn't think that merits a year in jail, and he doesn't want to limit free speech. He'd rather people be able to lie than be jailed for it. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 sees how such a lie could significantly impact an election. Speaker 1 says the lie is refutable. Speaker 1 doesn't think someone should spend a year or even a day in jail for lying. He believes that when you run for office, people can lie about you, tell the truth, or hold you accountable. Speaker 0 argues it's about election integrity if voters decide based on fabricated information. Speaker 1's time then expires.

Speaker discusses Trump’s stance on JFK assassination files, saying Trump claimed that if you knew what I know, you wouldn’t tell people either, and notes that this is his position on UAP as well. He asserts that the CIA had knowledge of the JFK matter and that the conspiracy industry around JFK is an industry with many wackos, but emphasizes that the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. He mentions that documents are still classified sixty-one years later and argues that both Trump and Joe Biden have kept those documents secret in violation of his reading of federal law. He states there is no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination, only an institution or possibly countries involved, and indicates there may be something worth protecting. He relays a conversation with someone who had seen the documents two years earlier, from whom he learned that yes, the CIA was involved, and notes James Jesus Angleton, head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this. He says this was news to him and he discussed it on TV. The next day, while quail hunting, he received a phone call from Mike Pompeo’s lawyer, who, as then-CIA director and later Secretary of State, had plotted the murder of Julian Assange. The lawyer told him that anyone who reveals contents of classified documents has committed a crime, and the speaker recalls driving with his dog and asks if revealing that the U.S. government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president constitutes the crime, while suggesting Pompeo is protecting the murder. The speaker says Pompeo had no response. The speaker asserts Pompeo pressed Trump to keep the documents secret and calls Pompeo sinister and criminal, citing that Pompeo was caught—referencing Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff’s piece—where Issachoff’s sources claimed Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange, who had not been charged in the U.S. as CIA director. He states federal employees are not allowed to kill people they don’t like. He contends Pompeo pressured Trump to withhold information the public has a right to know and that Pompeo plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. Finally, the speaker questions how Pompeo is treated in Republican Washington, noting he is treated as a respected figure and potential secretary of defense in a Trump administration, despite being described as criminal for keeping information secret and for plotting a murder. He finds it mind-bending that Pompeo is treated as a pillar of Republican Washington.

Speaker 0 believes President Trump's Twitter account should be suspended because his tweets directed at the whistleblower and others are irresponsible and could result in harm. Speaker 0 asserts that social media sites must understand their power and be held responsible, as they directly address millions without oversight. Speaker 1 questions whether removing the president's account would violate free speech, as the president has the same rights as anyone else. Speaker 0 argues that Twitter, as a corporation, has terms of use that Trump has violated. Speaker 0 claims Trump has used his platform to incite fear and potentially harm a witness, and Twitter should revoke his privilege, as it has done in the past.

Speaker 0 states that they sacrificed their life to secure this country’s freedom, specifically its freedom of speech. They accuse the addressed party of arresting people for words while turning a blind eye to crimes committed by invaders. They also condemn the addressed party as “a disgrace to your uniform, and an insult to mine.”

Speaker 0: It's been a few days since you issued that resignation. You’ve been called weak by the president of the United States. You’ve been called a traitor by Lindsey Graham. You’ve been called an anti-Semite by Mitch McConnell, among others. Now there are reports that you’re under a leak investigation potentially accusing you of a felony that could put you in jail even though you now are raising your two boys. You’ve remarried, but you’re their sole biological parent still here. I ask you now whether this was worth it. Speaker 1: I think it most certainly was, Megan. I mean, the attacks against me are to be expected. The ad hominems from people like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham at this point are fairly laughable. They don’t wanna discuss the issues. I wanna discuss the issues. As for the leak allegations, I’m not concerned because I know I did nothing wrong. Of course, I am concerned because we’ve all seen the FBI and the full way of the government come down on individuals who speak out. So that has me a little bit concerned, but I know the truth and the facts are on my side. So I think the important issues to address are what’s at hand, why we’re at war, and how we get out of the state that we’re in right now. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Your boys have already lost one parent. I mean, the thought of this government for which you’ve been working and the government for which you’ve sacrificed so much, actually trying to put you in jail over an alleged leak after the number of leaks we’ve seen go unpunished over the past ten years is truly outrageous, Joe. I mean, does it anger you? How does it make you feel? Speaker 1: You, you know, it it does anger me, but it it’s all just to be expected. I I knew this was going to happen. I I know their playbook. I think we’re all very familiar with their playbook. So, actually, the fact that they’re leaking these allegations so so they have to leak the allegations of an FBI investigation. If there truly was an FBI investigation, and who knows, maybe there will be, there would be a process and procedure for that. They would actually formally come to me. And if they were still collecting information, they most certainly wouldn’t leak it. So the fact that the FBI, DOJ, or really probably just partisans are leaking this this so-called investigation against me at a time when I’m going on and publicly speaking out against the course the administration is on, to me, that tells me everything that I need to know. I feel very confident in what I’m doing right now. I think I have a mission, and I think it is to do everything I can to stop this war. So to me, I kinda view everything else as a sideshow, and I just wanna stay focused on the mission.

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 states that entering the country illegally is not a criminal violation. Speaker 1 strongly disagrees, calling the statement "one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard" and asserting that it lacked any rational thought. Speaker 1 concludes that everyone who heard the statement is now dumber.

The speaker criticizes the Obama administration, calling them dishonest and accusing them of treason. They claim that spying occurred and promise to take action. The speaker believes the world is watching and mentions the death penalty. They also mention that the Obama administration was wrong about everything for three years.

Speaker 0 introduces humor about President Trump, saying, “I give president Trump quite a hard time, but sometimes that dude is just funny as hell. Check this out.” Speaker 1 asks, “And mister president, if you are declaring war against these cartels and congress is likely to approve of that process, why not just ask for a declaration of war?” Speaker 2 responds, “Well, I don't think we're gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We're gonna kill them. You know? They're gonna be, like, dead. Okay? Mister president. Yeah. Mister president.” Speaker 0 reiterates, “I don't think we need a declaration of war. We're just gonna we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, and they're gonna they're gonna be dead. Okay. Yeah. Like it was just no big deal, man. We're just we're just killing people without trial, without a jury, without being convicted of a crime. You know? We're just we're just gonna kill them. Okay? Dude's funny as hell.”

Speaker 0 recounts an argument with a friend during the Edward Snowden revelations about mass surveillance. He challenges the idea that “you can look at my shit. I’m not doing anything wrong. What do you care?” and questions who the so‑called perfect overseers are. He emphasizes that these are unelected bureaucrats who could have financial or power-based incentives to monitor, silence voices, or manipulate individuals by accessing emails and phone calls. Speaker 1 suggests that even if the current government is honorable, there is a risk that a future government could abuse surveillance. He warns that the next administration might come after people who dissent, like Joe Rogan, by digging through emails and targeting individuals for actions or statements they dislike. Speaker 0 recalls the debate around the NDAA during Obama’s presidency, describing it as the indefinite detention concept that did not require charging someone or timely trials. He notes the push for this provision and questions why it was pursued, implying it could be used to detain people indefinitely. Speaker 1 adds that they are concerned about who might wield power in future generations, asking “how many generations are we away from Hitler?” He argues that the founding fathers designed checks and balances precisely because they understood how corruption and tyranny can emerge when power concentrates. Speaker 0 asserts that eroding protections through measures like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or the NDAA undermines the Constitution’s core idea, which is based on the belief that government must serve the people and that power corrupts. He emphasizes that those in power would act as tyrants if left unchecked, and warns that granting broad surveillance and detention powers threatens the “fabric” the country was created with. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 together highlight a core concern: the risk of surveillance and detention powers being exploited by unscrupulous leaders in the future, undermining democratic principles and the safeguards designed to prevent tyranny. They stress the importance of checks and balances to prevent government overreach and the potential erosion of civil liberties in the face of expanding surveillance and security powers.

The speaker believes James Comey should be in jail because of his position of influence and the seriousness with which people regard someone of his stature and experience, especially given how the media has portrayed him. The speaker is very concerned for the president's life, citing previous assassination attempts. The speaker believes Comey should be held accountable and imprisoned.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who call for assassination. Speaker 1 responds that they condemn the violence of the system and wants Speaker 0 to acknowledge that. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns people that call for assassination, and Speaker 1 says they would love for Speaker 0 to acknowledge what they're actually saying. Speaker 1 states that 70% of Americans believe that insurance company practices are responsible in part for Thompson's death. Speaker 0 says anyone who wants to assassinate anyone is wrong. Speaker 1 says that to prevent further deaths and gun violence, one needs to understand motives and ideology. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to condemn those who want to be involved in assassination. Speaker 1 says they are describing his supporters who do believe that, and it's important to understand the ideology of anyone that would advocate for violence. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns his supporters. Speaker 1 says they believe in free speech. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 condemns those that support violence. Speaker 1 says people are exercising their right to free speech and talking about the fact that over 320,000 people died from lack of health insurance in the first two years of the pandemic alone. Speaker 1 says we have a violent health care system that needs reform.

Speaker 0 states support for bringing back public execution, saying "Yes. Oh. Especially for child rapists. Oh, somebody obviously knows about your feelings on that."