reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 gave the FBI a thumb drive containing 29 minutes of high-definition video showing two men attacking a building. As of this morning, neither man has been arrested. Speaker 0 states that despite going through over 725 indictments, none of their video or even a single still picture of either man has appeared on the Internet. The FBI is allegedly refusing to take Speaker 0's calls, return emails, or accept an offer to meet. Speaker 0 believes the FBI is hiding these men. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to inquire about the identities of these men. Speaker 0 confirms that Ben Grundler has all this information and that they have been in contact for over a year.

The speaker was asked if Jeffrey Epstein worked for an intelligence agency and why a minute was missing from the jailhouse tape on the night of his death. Regarding the client list, the speaker stated the file is sitting on their desk to be reviewed, along with the JFK and MLK files. The tens of thousands of videos turned out to be child porn downloaded by Epstein and will never be released. The speaker has no knowledge of Epstein being an agent. Evidence showed he committed suicide. The missing minute from the video was due to the Bureau of Prisons resetting the video every night, and every night should have the same minute missing. They are looking for that video to release.

A presidential memorandum requires immediate declassification of all FBI files related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which is considered an instance of weaponization of law enforcement. The aim is to give the American people a full understanding of the files. The declassification gives the media the right to examine the files. All will be declassified except for a classified annex. The speaker suggests the FBI and Department of Justice should be ashamed, as should Biden.

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 mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

The speaker mentioned that the defense attorney was upset about having to listen to a defense motion in court. The judge had to ask the attorney to calm down as he was losing control. The speaker believes that the unveiling of evidence, including details about the Mar a Lago raid and an operations order, has angered those involved in the case. They feel that Judge Cannon is exposing the corruption and misconduct in the investigation from the beginning.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

The speaker is discussing the search for a PCR report in the fire department database. They mention that the report is not found for a specific date and explain that they need to obtain letters of administration first. The other speaker mentions that the person in question was found on the same day and provides photographs of them in the hospital. They express confusion as to why the report is not in the database. The first speaker suggests that the fire department personnel may not have provided documentation. The second speaker insists that they were told to get the PCR report by the fire department. The first speaker reiterates that the computer does not have a record of the report and they are unsure why.

The speaker suggests that in every January 6th case, the FBI has withheld evidence that could have helped the defendant. They believe defense attorneys should have access to a whistleblower's complaint, which reveals that compensation is tied to these cases. The speaker suggests that defense attorneys should question the agents involved about whether their bosses received bonuses for opening these cases. The other speaker agrees and finds it unbelievable that there are incentives to increase the number of Americans in jail.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of jury instructions in criminal trials, noting the need for clarity and fairness. They express concern over prosecutors pushing the boundaries of due process by withholding specific information from the jury. The debate in court revolves around whether the jury should be informed about the details of the alleged crime. The speaker questions the motives of the District Attorney's office, suggesting a focus on securing convictions over ensuring justice.

The speaker explains that they sent a detailed request to the government regarding the case, specifically addressing two critical issues for Miss Powell. They requested evidence to show that she was not involved in the incident in Coffey County and that whatever happened there was authorized. Despite sending multiple requests, the speaker received no response from the state. They highlight the importance of exculpatory information and express concern that the state may not appreciate their Brady obligations. The speaker requests the court to order the state to produce Brady material immediately.

The conversation centers on the Epstein file controversy, the DOJ's handling of it, and what the speakers see as systemic failures and political risk for Donald Trump and allied figures. - The Epstein/file issue is framed as predictable and frustrating. Alex Jones notes a “slow drip of nothing” and calls the initial promise of full file disclosure a pattern of “promise something, deliver nothing.” Pam Bondi’s statement that “the files were on my desk” is discussed as an apparent misstep or staged moment, but the core point is that large amounts of material are not being released despite public promises. - The discourse questions where the files actually reside and who controls access. The claim that a “truckload of files” existed and was hidden at DOJ is rejected as a mischaracterization; the speakers emphasize that the FBI and DOJ have files, but access and disclosure have been hampered by internal political dynamics. They highlight the tension between the Southern District of New York and the DOJ, noting that SDNY answers to the DOJ and the Attorney General, thereby questioning the premise that one regional office is independently sabotaging access. - There is a persistent critique of DOJ leadership and governance. The argument is that DOJ has not been “rooted out of corruption,” with mid-level and high-level managers and appointees still in place, propagating practices that the speakers deem contrary to transparency and accountability. They point to supposed failures by individuals such as Cash Patel and Pam Bondi in relying on FBI briefings rather than verifiable records, suggesting that power in intelligence agencies is still too dependent on information control. - The Epstein files are treated as emblematic of a broader issue: a two-tier or selective justice system. The speakers argue that there’s a pattern whereby powerful individuals have access to information and protection, while the public lacks full visibility. They mention that Trump’s response and the way the files have been handled have become a larger “Russiagate-like” narrative, with Epstein serving as a lightning rod for accusations of corruption and cover-up. - The political dynamic is central. Several participants emphasize that Trump’s stance and the responses of his allies are under intense scrutiny. They discuss the risk that Trump’s association with the Epstein disclosures could become a political liability if the files aren’t released. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massey are mentioned as consistent voices pushing for full disclosure, while Roger Stone’s warnings about CIA and foreign involvement in the Epstein nexus are cited as supporting the view that a larger, international financial/transnational network may be implicated. - There is criticism of how the media and political opponents handle the issue. The speakers claim Democrats are using hearings to turn the Epstein matter into a broader political weapon and to portray Trump as obstructive or complicit, regardless of the factual state of file disclosure. They argue that the public is being led by a PR war, with “photoshopped” or redacted material used to frame narratives rather than to reveal truth. - The discussion turns toward accountability and remedies. The speakers insist that federal law requires the release of the Epstein files by a deadline, and that failing to comply constitutes a constitutional or institutional crisis. They argue that Congress lacks direct enforcement power and must consider funding or other leverage to compel compliance, noting the apparent reluctance of Congress to act decisively. - There are predictions about personnel changes and institutional reform. Dan Bongino is discussed as likely to depart from his DOJ-related role, with Todd Blanche as the lead prosecutor taking heat for not meeting deadlines. Andrew Bailey is floated as a potential replacement. The broader implication is that there will be a shake-up in DOJ and possibly FBI leadership in the near term, though the speakers acknowledge uncertainty about how far reforms will go or whether entrenched interests will impede real change. - The Epstein matter is used to illustrate how compromises and cover-ups operate across power structures. The speakers argue that the problem isn’t just the existence of the files but how the system treats those files—how access is controlled, how redactions are justified, and how political narratives are constructed around high-profile investigations. Harmony Dillon and Liz Harrington are cited as voices who underscore the need for mid-level reform and more transparency, suggesting that the deepest issues lie in organizational culture and incentives rather than in isolated acts by a few individuals. - A broader reflection on American governance finishes the discussion. The speakers warn that a failure to release the Epstein files or to purge corrupt practices could deepen distrust in federal institutions and threaten the legitimacy of the government. They suggest that if reform stalls, the country might devolve into a state-by-state dynamic or other less cohesive arrangements, as confidence in a functioning central government erodes. In summary, the transcript frames the Epstein file disclosures as a litmus test for DOJ integrity and political accountability. It portrays a pattern of delayed or selective disclosure, questions about who controls information within the FBI/DOJ, and a risk that political calculations are interfering with lawful obligations. It also foresees significant leadership changes and intensified scrutiny of the department in the near future, with Epstein serving as a focal point for broader critiques of how power and information are managed in the United States.

The speaker reveals shocking information about the deletion of the entire database directory from the d drive of the machine called EMS primary. This deletion occurred approximately 10 days before the machines were handed over to the Senate. Deleting documents after being told to preserve them can have severe legal consequences. Additionally, the main database for the election management system software, which contains all election-related data from the November 2020 general election, is missing from the EMS primary machine. This suggests that it has been removed.

I'm at the airport, and I want to discuss the Epstein files. I met with President Trump, Vice President Vance, Attorney General Bondi, and FBI Director Patel this morning at the White House. They presented me with a binder labeled "Epstein Files Phase One," ordered by Bondi and Patel. We were expecting bombshells, but the binder didn't contain any. Bondi mentioned that she had expected to find "juicy stuff" but didn't. Despite this, they prepared the binder for release, fulfilling the President's order for transparency. However, late last night, Bondi received a call from a source within the FBI, Southern District of New York, revealing that hundreds, if not thousands, of other documents and files were being hidden from everyone. They were hiding it from the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, the FBI Director, and you.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. The auditors initially didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that's right. You didn’t feel obligated to turn them over? We responded to the subpoena. It’s laughable to suggest a county could delete files in response to a subpoena. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February as standard practice. Can you confirm that’s done for all elections? I cannot confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we will provide one. The recorder will answer questions in a timely fashion, but he previously criticized Adrian Fontes, who ran the 2020 election. Yes, we had oversight from both parties during the election.

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 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.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. Initially, auditors didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that’s correct. It’s laughable to suggest that a county can delete files in response to a subpoena while claiming they are archived. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February; is that standard for all elections? I can’t confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we’ll provide one. The recorder will answer questions timely. You hired someone to oversee the 2020 election due to concerns about Adrian Fontes, correct? We took back responsibility for election operations to ensure oversight.

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 speakers discuss the need for defense counsel to have access to the video evidence in the case. They suggest a stepwise process to ensure all information reaches defense lawyers. One speaker mentions concerns about public release due to nefarious organizations and threats to witnesses. Another speaker believes that the evidence should be made available to the public to identify those involved. They mention the presence of a pipe bomber and the refusal of the DOJ to disclose undercover agents. The speakers emphasize the importance of transparency to uncover the truth.

Speaker 0 describes rapid FBI mobilization following the shooting, stating resources were surged and multiple air assets deployed. Agents, evidence response technicians, hostage rescue technicians, and special operators were cycled in and out of Utah, with evidence transported on FBI planes to prevent delay. By around 5 PM local time on September 11, he and the deputy on the ground walked the entire crime scene, including the suspect’s footprinted area and the area the suspect used. They found evidence such as DNA on items collected, including a screwdriver found on the rooftop, and they went to the wooded area where the firearm was discarded, noting that the firearm had a towel wrapped around it. He emphasizes the importance of his investigative experience and states that with the support of President Trump and the White House, the necessary resources were provided. He adds that the DNA hits from the towel wrapped around the firearm and the screwdriver were positively processed for the suspect in custody. Speaker 1 counterpoints by referencing the Tyler Robinson indictment, asserting that there is nothing about a screwdriver or DNA on a screwdriver. He directs attention to page three, where the indictment states that DNA consistent with Robinson was found on the rifle’s trigger. He notes that after the shooting, Robinson hid the gun, and the indictment indicates DNA consistent with Robinson on the trigger, along with the rifle, ammunition rounds, towel, fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel being sent for forensic testing. He reiterates that there is nothing about a screwdriver in the indictment and plans to prove this by searching, finding no results for “screwdriver” or “screwdriver” mentions. He states there is nothing about a screwdriver in the entire indictment and invites readers to read it themselves. Speaker 1 questions why Cash Patel would claim there was a screwdriver with DNA, asking if it’s being saved for the trial and why it appears in the indictment.

The speaker claims to have found documents related to Jim Comey that were not where they should have been. The speaker says these documents are unflattering to Comey. The speaker asserts that Comey disgraced the FBI numerous times with his role in crossfire hurricane and other abominations. The speaker finds it stunning that Comey continues to attack their leadership when they are cleaning up the mess Comey created and continue to find things from his era.

Mr. Bennett questions if it's standard practice to delete files off a server after an election. Mr. Gates says they maintained files but deleted the ones that were archived. It is revealed that Maricopa County deleted files off the server after the election, which the auditors didn't have access to initially. The auditors didn't subpoena those files, and Maricopa County claims they responded to the subpoena. Mr. Bennett finds it laughable that the county would delete files in response to a subpoena, as the subpoena requested all records related to the election. The county interpreted the subpoena differently.

The speaker states a mistrial is appropriate due to the prosecutor's actions. They express confusion, questioning if the prosecutor is being disingenuous or purposefully hiding information. The speaker avoids directly accusing the prosecutor but suggests their experience should prevent repeated instances of withholding information. They find it hard to believe the behavior isn't intentional, unless the prosecutor is disorganized and assembling the case haphazardly during the trial. The speaker apologizes but says the case presentation is making things difficult. A recess is called, and a ruling will be given upon return.