reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

The speaker asks if cities should be allowed to ignore federal law regarding reporting illegal immigrants and provide sanctuary. Speaker 1 claims cities ignore federal law due to lack of federal funding for enforcement. They cite a city that imposed similar sanctions, resulting in economic decline with stores closing, leading to a policy change. The speaker asserts the federal government has been derelict in not funding the requirements needed to enforce existing law. The speaker asks Biden if he would allow cities to ignore federal law. Biden answers, "No."

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

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 if they can go out and expresses concern about getting arrested or shot.

The speakers engage in a brief conversation about the country they are from. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks what country they are from, while Speaker 1 responds with "no" and shows reluctance to disclose the information. Speaker 0 specifically mentions Syria and asks if they are from there, but Speaker 1 continues to say "no" without providing any further explanation. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 expressing concern and asking if they are okay.

Speaker 0 notices: “Your trailer lights is off.” Speaker 1 responds that they’re trying to find it but can’t. Speaker 0 repeats the question and notes you don’t know where the lights are. They ask how long the CDL has been held, and Speaker 1 says two months. Speaker 0 presses: “And you don’t know where your lights is at? … How long you had your CDL?” Speaker 1 again says two months and that they’re trying to find the lights but can’t. Speaker 0 warns: “You’re driving in the dark.” Speaker 1 reiterates they’re trying to find it. Speaker 0 insists, “Listen. And you can’t be driving in the dark though. That’s crazy.” Speaker 1 says they know, they’re trying to find where the light is. Speaker 0 asks for the CDL: “Let me see your CDL.” After a moment, he says, “Never mind. You probably don’t got it.” He questions whether Speaker 1 has a CDL, then asks again to see it. Speaker 1 confirms two months with the CDL. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is from America; Speaker 1 replies no. Speaker 0 returns the CDL and says, “Here, take your CDL back. You good.” He adds: “Listen. I don’t think you should be driving. But I’m gonna let you go though.”

Cities ignore federal law on reporting illegal immigrants due to lack of federal funding for enforcement. A city near the speaker's state faced negative consequences, such as store closures, when they imposed similar sanctions. The speaker emphasizes the need for a federal government that can enforce laws and criticizes the current administration for not funding law enforcement requirements. When asked if he would allow cities to ignore federal law, Biden responds with a clear "no."

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about using a 200-year-old law to circumvent something. Speaker 1 responds that it is not as old as the Constitution, which they still pay attention to. Speaker 0 then asks how many more times Speaker 1 plans on deporting South Capitol Hill. Speaker 1 states they are in trouble.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 recounts feedback from “real Chicagoans,” describing them as mostly Black and Brown, and claims they tell him that the other person does not seem to know the difference between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens. He asserts that these individuals feel the other person is siding with illegal aliens over their communities. He then pivots to a direct line of questioning. The real question, as Speaker 0 presents it, concerns a violent incident: “An illegal alien from Nicaragua grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her.” He presses for a direct response about what would have happened “if that had been your wife, Stacy.” He stages the hypothetical to elicit a clear stance from Speaker 1 on how to respond to such a crime and its immigration context. Speaker 1, however, interrupts to steer the conversation away from the loaded scenario. He repeatedly signals a move on, indicating a preference not to engage with the hypothetical or to answer the pointed ethical dilemma on the spot. The back-and-forth centers on the tactic of addressing the question versus avoiding it, with Speaker 0 insisting on a straightforward answer “as a man, not as mayor, but as a man.” The exchange escalates as Speaker 0 urges Speaker 1 to provide a simple yes or no and to address the issue directly, effectively challenging Speaker 1 to commit to a position regarding ICE and deportation in light of the described crime. Speaker 1 responds by again stating to move on, resisting the direct yes/no framework. Throughout, Speaker 0 persists in pressing for a candid, personal response to the hypothetical crime and its immigration implications, while Speaker 1 maintains a boundary about continuing the discussion in that moment. Ultimately, Speaker 1 declines to answer the specific deportation question in the moment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms the demand for a direct personal answer. The segment ends with Speaker 1 thanking the audience and moving on, leaving the explicit yes-or-no question unresolved in this exchange.

Cities ignore federal law on reporting illegal immigrants because there is no federal funding for enforcement. A city near Speaker 1's state tried similar sanctions, but it led to negative consequences like store closures. The problem lies in the lack of federal government enforcement and funding. The current administration has failed to provide the necessary resources to enforce existing laws. When asked if he would allow cities to ignore federal law, Biden responds with a clear "no."

Speaker 0 opened by saying that over the last week he has interacted with over 300,000 plus real Chicagoans who say it is hate speech to evoke the Civil War or the Confederacy, to say that law enforcement is a sickness, while the other person has over 150 sworn CPD officers on his detail. He asked what the other person would say to those people and whether he would ask his 150 sworn officers to stand down if he and his wife Stacy are ever attacked, shot at, or rammed with a protester’s vehicle. Speaker 1 responded with sarcasm about the large number, joking that the interactions had “gone down to 300,000,” and claimed he had checked the other person’s comments. He asserted that the addiction on jails and incarceration and the addiction of militarism is evil, referencing Doctor King, and said it is incumbent to ensure that “the real Chicagoans” or the real people of America receive attention, suggesting we should spend billions of dollars overseas on the people in Chicago instead. Speaker 0 pushed back, saying that the real Chicagoans he talks to, mostly Black and Brown, feel that the other person does not distinguish between illegal aliens and real Chicago citizens, and that he is siding with illegal aliens over communities. He asserted that a recent incident involved “an illegal alien from Nicaragua” who grabbed a woman on the North Side, bashed her head into the sidewalk, knocked her unconscious, and raped her. He asked whether, if that had been the other person’s wife, Stacy, he would want ICE to deport that illegal alien, and asked for a yes or no answer. Speaker 1 pressed to get a direct answer, asking for a response “as a man, not as mayor,” and repeated the question about whether ICE should deport the rapist. Speaker 0 reiterated his question and stated that the answer for real Chicagoans is the deportation of the rapist, and that was the “answer for real Chicagoans.” Speaker 1 then apologized for being late, blaming traffic, and the other person quipped about the traffic, noting, “You’re not blaming me for the traffic, are you?” and said he had been watching.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 about serving a restraining order against a newsroom, asking if they’ve ever done so against a journalist. Speaker 1 responds that he isn’t sure, and notes he may have served someone without knowing their occupation. Speaker 0 emphasizes the newsroom’s First Amendment rights, saying it prohibits restraining orders against reporting what people say, calling it a fundamental constitutional right. Speaker 1 explains the document is “a court order signed by a judge Mhmm. Out of Miami. All we're doing is serving to you.” Speaker 0 pushes back, implying the situation is serious and indicating they want to speak with the judge involved. Speaker 1 points to the restraining order and says, “It’s all yours,” and that Speaker 0 is responsible for everything in the restraining order. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for being there and mentions he will tell the courts about video of a man saying he wants to kill him. Speaker 1 says he has no idea about that claim. Speaker 0 reflects on the state of the country, stating, “One of the problems in this country is that we're in a constitutional crisis,” and shares personal views that they report people breaking the law, and that those people are never held accountable. He says he’s the one who’s brought to court, arrested, and sued, while “the American people are just pissed off.” He acknowledges Speaker 1’s role and expresses being upset and discouraged. Speaker 0 speaks about maintaining hope despite oppression, noting that people look up to him and that he’s the one who keeps getting held accountable. He asks Speaker 1 to understand what he’s saying. Speaker 0 asserts that something must change “not for my sake, but for our children's sake,” and reiterates the constitutional crisis claim. Speaker 0 recognizes that Speaker 1 is simply doing a job but shares his frustration and desperation, asking why he should continue if it only brings pain, punishment, and abuse. Speaker 0 concedes there’s nothing Speaker 1 can do and that they are in this country’s current situation, acknowledging the police presence bringing him to court and questioning why he should keep going.

Speaker 0: Nearly two weeks into this conflict, the official story is cracking, and the number of Americans wounded is slowly coming out. Yesterday, we reported based on our sources that the number of American wounded was at least one hundred and thirty seven. After our report ran, the Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged about one hundred and forty wounded. That confirms our sources on this. So why did it take a little news show like ours to report this information? Why wasn't Fox News reporting this information? The Pentagon I know it's really weird. Why is the mainstream media silent on this? The Pentagon finally comes out and actually admits to this. Speaker 1: Reuters comes out and reports this. Exclusive. As many as one hundred and fifty US troops wounded so far in Iran war. They just published this today, this morning. March 10. That's remarkable. Exclusive. Just curious how that's an exclusive when we reported it yesterday. Yesterday. Whatever. Hey, Reuters. Bite me. Anyway, this war is clearly not winding down no matter what the messaging says. President Trump is saying the war could end very soon. But Iran says talks with The United States are off the table for now. Tehran is prepared to keep striking as long as it takes. And they're vowing an eye for an eye. So what is an eye for an eye actually mean? Does it mean you hey, you killed our leader. We kill yours? Does it mean, hey, you killed all these girls who were the daughters of members of the the Iranian Navy at a girls school, do we also do that to you? Like, what is actually does that look like? Speaker 0: Does it mean we took out your water infrastructures or you took out ours? So we do that. Right. Your gas infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, that's that's a war crime. But we did it. Your oil infrastructure, we do that. Like, what exactly does that look like? Meanwhile, the Strait Of Hormuz is getting worse by the minute. US intelligence tracking Iranian mine laying threats now as Gulf energy infrastructure there is taking a major hit with about 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and The UAE. All down. CBS now says shipping through the Strait Of Hormuz has ground to a virtual halt. Nothing getting through. That's of just a few minutes ago. And Israel's hammering Beirut's southern suburbs and Lebanon. So they've essentially invaded Lebanon. Speaker 2: And then there's the neocon political class in Washington saying the quiet part out loud. Senator Lindsey Graham is now openly talking about, you know, going back to South Carolina to tell the sons and daughters in South Carolina, you know, you gotta send your loved ones to the Middle East. That's what I'm doing here in South Carolina. I gotta tell them to go fight in the Middle East, and he's calling on other Middle East countries that have been sitting on the fence that we've supported over the years as allies. Get off the fence. Go bomb Iran. Help out with Iran. And, oh, by the way, Spain, we're pissed off at you because you don't want us using your air bases or airspace to bomb Iran. Listen. Speaker 0: To our allies step up, get our air bases out of Spain. They're not reliable. Move all those airplanes to a country that would let us use them when we're threatened by a regime like Iran. To our friends in Spain, man, you have lost your way. I don't wanna do business with you anymore. I want our air bases our air bases out of Spain into a country that will let us use them. To our Arab friends, I've tried to help you construct a new Mideast. You need to up your game here. I can't go to South Carolina and say we're fighting and you won't publicly fight. What you're doing behind the scenes, that has to stop. The double dealing of the Arab world when it comes to this stuff needs to end. I go back to South Carolina. I'm asking them to send their sons and daughters over to the Mideast. What I want you to do in The Mideast to our friends in Saudi Arabia and other places, step forward and say this is my fight too. I join America. I'm publicly involved in bringing this regime down. If you don't, you're making a great mistake, and you're gonna cut off the ability to have a better relationship with The United States. I say this as a friend. Speaker 1: Ugh. He's an odious friend. Speaker 0: Say this as a friend. Speaker 3: With friends pick up a gun and go fight yourself, you coward. Yeah. I freaking hate that. But you're calling so, like, bluntly for somebody else to go die for his stupid cause. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: I am so curious about this. I mean, he's a liar. But how many people in South Carolina are really walking up to him and saying, who are we gonna get to fight with us? Who are we gonna get to fight Iran? Worried about this. My son can go, but who's going with him? Let's make some war playdates. Who does that? Speaker 0: Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst, NRA gun trainer, and, he's been looking at all of this and doing some incredible writing over at his website, Sonar twenty one. Larry, thank you for joining us. Great to see you back on the show. Speaker 4: Hi, guys. Good to see you. Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about the American war wounded first because Mhmm. I know that this is, near and dear to your heart and, of course, something that you've been watching, closely. And the lies, of course, that are coming out about this. Again, I spoke to sources over the past forty eight hours that were telling us here at Redacted about 137 Americans wounded. Then the Pentagon comes out and then confirms about a hundred and forty. So right pretty much right on the nose. And does that number sound low to you? Or does that sound about right? Speaker 4: That sounds a little low. So on March 4, let's go to Germany. Stuttgart, just North West of Germany, there is a hospital called Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Landstuhl's primary mission is to handle American war wounded. On March 4, they issued a memo telling all the pregnant women that were about to give birth that, sorry, don't come here. We're not birthing any more babies. We gotta focus on our main mission. So that was the first clue that there was there were a lot of casualties inbound. I know, without mentioning his name, somebody who was involved dealing with the combat casualties during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he dealt with the personnel at Lunstul. And he called someone up and said, can't say anything, but there's a lot of casualties. Then 13 miles to the east of Landstuhl is an army base called Kaiserslautern. Kaiserslautern and the Stars and Stripes issued for that base had an appeal, a blood drive appeal. Hey. We need lots of people to show up and donate blood. So those that was on March 5. So I wrote about this March 6. So I wrote about this four days ago, that, yeah, we had a lot more casualties, and there are more coming, because Iran's not gonna stop. You know, right now, we're getting signals that the Trump administration is reaching out, trying, oh, hey, let's talk, let's talk cease fire. Iran's having none of it. They've been betrayed twice by Donald Trump and his group of clowns. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: You know? And and so they're not ready to say no. No. They've got the world, by the testicles is the polite way of saying it, withholding the Strait Of Hormuz. They've shut down the movement of not only oil, liquid natural gas. They're the supplier of about 25%, 25 to 30% of the world's liquid natural gas, and, about 30%, 30 to 35% of the world's urea, which is used for fertilizer. Now, that may not I just learned that that may not be as important as I once thought it was because most of it comes out of Oman. Oman, you don't have to worry about things going through the Strait Of Hormuz. But on oil and liquid natural gas, huge. 94% of The Philippines depended upon the flow of gas, both liquid and the petroleum oil, out of the Persian Gulf. India, 80%. Japan, South Korea. So this is gonna have a major impact on certain economies in the world. Now there there I I I've said this ironically. I I think Vladimir Putin's sitting there going, maybe Donald Trump really does like me, because what he's done is he's making Russia rich again in a way I mean, they're getting, you know, they were selling they were forced to sell their oil previously under sanctions at, like, $55 a barrel. Now they're getting $88.90 dollars a barrel. Well, and they just opened it up to India. I mean, that story over the past forty eight hours, like, so they The United States has eased its restriction on Russian oil flowing to India. I mean, talk about an absolute disaster. Speaker 4: Well, yeah. And remember what had happened there is India was playing a double game too. You know, bricks India is the I in bricks, and Iran is the new I in bricks. And so what was India doing? Well, India was pretending to play along with The United States, but then going to Russia and saying, hey, Russia. Yeah. We'll buy we'll buy your oil, but we needed a discount because we're going against the sanctions, and we need to cover ourselves. So Russia said, okay. As a BRICS partner, we'll let you have for $55 barrel. So they got a discount. So now when all of a sudden the the the oil tap is turned off, including the liquid natural gas, India goes running back to Russia. Now remember, on, February 25-26, India was in Israel buttering up the rear end of BB, Net, and Yahoo, kissing rear end all they could. Oh, man. It was a love fest. We're partners with Israel. And then Israel attacks their BRICS partner. And what does India say? Nothing. Zero. They don't say a thing about the murdered girls. So now all of a sudden, the oil's turned off. It's nine days now with no oil coming out of there for India. They go running back to Russia. Hey, buddy. Let's let's get back together. And Russia says, sure. That's great. But it's gonna cost you $89 now a barrel. No more friends and family program. Gonna get market conditions. Speaker 0: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it. Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA USA app USAT, which is Tether's US regulated stablecoin all in one place. Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed. It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. Speaker 1: Now I wanna ask you about president Trump responding to CBS News reports that there may be mines in the Strait Of Hormuz. That doesn't make a ton of sense. He says we have no indication that they did, but they better not. But they are picking and choosing who gets to go through, and their allies can go through. So why would they mine their allies? What do we make of this? Do we need to respond to this at all? Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't think they've done it yet. But let's recall the last time Iran mined the Persian Gulf. They didn't mine the Strait Of Hormuz. They mined farther up. It was 1987, 1988. Why did they do that? Well, in September 1980, when Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were still in office, The United States encouraged a guy named Saddam Hussein, don't know if you've ever heard of him, but they encouraged Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran. And then Ronald Reagan comes in with Donald Rumsfeld and Cap Weinberger, and by 1983 had provided chemical weapons, or the precursors that Iraq needed to build chemical weapons, and Iraq started using chemical weapons against Iran in 1983 and continued to do it in '84, 85, 86. During that entire time, Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons. They were not going because they saw it as an act against God. They were serious about the religion. So 'eighty seven, 'eighty eight, they start dropping mines there in the Persian Gulf. Well, at that time, they didn't have all these missiles, so the United States Navy, a Navy SEAL, a good friend of mine, set up what was called the Hercules barge, and he had a Navy SEAL unit with him, and they fought off attacks by Iranian gunboats. He had some Little Bird helicopters from the one sixtieth, the special operations wing of the Air Force. And but we ended up disrupting the Iranian plan to mine The Gulf back then. Well, we couldn't do that today. We do not have that capability because Iran would blow us out of the water with drones and with missiles. You as we've seen, it's been happening over the last ten days. So United States would be in a real pickle. Speaker 1: And especially given the rhetoric of US war hawks in power for three decades. Like Yeah. Yes. They kind of had to prepare all of this time. Did we think that they weren't paying attention when we said it to the world? Speaker 4: Well, when we're writing our own press clippings and then reading them, there is a tendency to say, god, I am great. Can you see this? How good we are? And so they really believed that our air def the Patriot air defense systems and the THAAD systems would be they they could shut down the Iranian missiles and drones. And what they discovered was, nope. They didn't work. And they worked at an even lower level than the you know, Pentagon kept foul. We're shooting down 90%.

Speaker 0 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for not hearing the question properly and ask for someone else to speak up with a different question.

Speaker 0: Take this in and understand what we’re actually dealing with. Many views exist—from Trump being a pedophile protecting pedophile buddies, to Israel infiltration and cover-ups, to it being a Democrat hoax. The reality, as described here, is that there is a supranational global cabal that has operated for nearly a hundred years, using money laundering, blackmail, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and other nefarious operations to fund and overthrow countries, serving as the shadow power of the world. We can see who these people are, their intentions, and the outcomes of their policies, and they are still being shoehorned into the most important positions in the world specifically because they’re part of this cabal. Main players mentioned include Larry Summers, who, per Epstein documents, was named executor of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate after his death. The money Epstein received from Les Wexner and others to create a starting fund and build a reputation as a financier is said to be returning to the coffers of Larry Summers, seen as part of this operation. The analogy is that this operation is like a corporation with Epstein as a brand under an umbrella, where if one asset (like Irish Spring) fails, its resources are absorbed back into the wider corporate structure. Summers, formerly Treasury Secretary, who helped destroy Glass-Steagall and contributed to the 2008 market crash dynamics, is said to have his bailout-money influence guided by Larry Fink at BlackRock. Summers, who was head of Harvard and later appointed to OpenAI’s board, is linked to the governance of the AI company behind ChatGPT. Larry Ellison is described as corresponding with Epstein and Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister) about which politicians serve their interests, including arranging a meeting between Marco Rubio and Tony Blair due to shared interests in this cabal. Epstein is depicted as a central, manipulative figure involved in selling weapons from Israel, meddling in elections, and influencing universities in Russia, raising questions about his influence and reach. The speaker emphasizes Epstein’s reach across political and corporate spheres and the question of his power, asking how such influence is possible. Speaker 1: The question is, how do you go about that? Speaker 0: He didn’t even go to school for trading; it’s all fabricated. He is a spymaster and a kingpin in a mafia. This group, including Les Wexner, Jeffrey Epstein, Larry Summers, Larry Ellison, Donald Trump (at this point), is part or perhaps the managing structure of the same organization discussed in the Eagle two documents from the 1960s, where the CIA sought autonomy from Congress by creating its own income streams, including drug trafficking in Vietnam. The opioid and drug-running links are tied to Iran-Contra, with George H. W. Bush involved in opium trade and the drug-running networks. Bill Gates and other figures are alleged to have involved in cover-ups during CIA-driven operations in South America, with Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance cited as exposing such networks. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, when Bill was governor of Arkansas, allegedly helped run headquarters in Mina for flights to and from Colombia, spreading drugs across the United States. The assertion is that the same group runs drugs, rigs elections, and is involved in various crises, including alleged connections to COVID-19, Russiagate, 9/11, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, forming a pattern of the last decades of upheaval in America. The discussion moves toward Epstein’s network and the sources of his money, with emails revealing connections, against a backdrop of broad search for Trump and the prevalence of unconfirmed, baseless anonymous claims. The core claim is that the true representation is the “new world order” and a banking-based intelligence network where intelligence agencies originated from banks. The CIA’s founding from the OSS is tied to MI6, which allegedly drew on the Rothschild banking intelligence, tying the CIA, MI6, and banking elites together. The speaker concludes that the same names—running drugs, stealing elections, burning down skyscrapers, and flying airplanes—appear repeatedly, linking DEI, ESG, white discrimination claims, and Epstein to the same global web.

Speaker 0 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for the interruption and ask for another question.

Speaker is asked if they agree with congressional Republicans' call for resignation, but does not respond when pressed by the speaker of the house.

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

Speaker 0 asks if the person has insurance, but Speaker 1 says there's nothing they can do and they don't have insurance. Speaker 0 repeats the question multiple times, but Speaker 1 insists that there is nothing they can do. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 telling Speaker 0 not to do something.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone, regardless of political affiliation, could watch the preceding two hours of discussion and feel angry. Speaker 1 responds by stating that their message to anyone who might feel angry is: "I don't give a fuck."

Speaker 1 stated they are not a fan of tariffs but hope they work. Speaker 0 asked for the senator's comment about tariffs. Speaker 1 mentioned their hearing is not what it used to be.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 blames local control and disagreement. Speaker 1 says no, believing the state should be in control. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 thinks Deer Park should have the option to save taxpayer money. Speaker 1 says no, stating the voters elected them to this body. Speaker 0 asks if that means overriding their city council. Speaker 1 responds, "Absolutely."

"Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?" "The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need." "Pick up the New York Times today. There's a city not far across the river from my state that imposed a similar sanctions." "And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps in in the dumpster. Stores started closing." "Everything started to happen, and they changed the policy."

Speaker 0 says: "Back off. You don't have to respond to them. Just don't say anything. What the fuck is this?"