reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses how the person in question is provoking the intelligence community, despite the potential consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has various means to retaliate against such actions. The speaker suggests that even though the person is seen as a practical and tough businessman, their behavior in this regard is foolish. The speaker also mentions that they have been informed that the intelligence community is displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about.

We're not fighting or protesting. It takes time, not a miracle. Murder? Just kidding. They'll understand. That's the worst. Let me explain.

I'm here to expose Ariel, who I believe is involved in serious wrongdoing, including child pornography. I see Dustin caught in the middle of this controversy, and while I don't defend him, I think he deserves a chance to speak without being interrupted. It's frustrating to see others, like Stew, dominate the conversation and dismiss Dustin. This behavior is counterproductive and undermines genuine discourse. I also question the integrity of those involved, especially regarding past movements that have been sabotaged. Instead of focusing on personal attacks, we should address the real issues at hand, including Ariel's alleged actions. I'm just sharing my perspective, and I know it may upset some, but it's important to speak out against these serious allegations.

He is known to have poisoned his own people and lacks belief in the value of each individual. We must take all necessary actions to halt the terror. Now, observe this drive.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

I find it challenging to navigate the discordance in the times we live in. We are in an era of instant information where people are quickly judged under intense media pressure. My advice to those who experience this is to wait it out because eventually, people will forget. I strive to control what I say and not let hostile individuals provoke anger in me. I prefer not to be unpleasant when angry. I want to be able to stand by my words even years later without feeling ashamed or ridiculous. I wrote a report in 2002-2003 predicting a respiratory epidemic due to the lack of control over the association of megacities and the high number of people traveling by plane. I differentiate between established knowledge and my own thoughts, always considering the evolving nature of information.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

What’s happening now has little to do with black lives. If leaders truly cared, they would address the violence in cities, improve public schools, and support families. Instead, they ignore these issues and promote chaos, which won't help anyone. In times of mob pressure, it’s crucial to remain calm and speak the truth. Weakness invites further attacks, as seen with Drew Brees, who faced backlash for defending the flag. Cowardice only empowers those who oppose you. America, despite its flaws, is a good country that many immigrants recognize. They come here not because it’s racist, but because it’s not. This moment will pass, and those who remain honest will retain their dignity, which is essential for a meaningful life.

The speaker discusses reactions to Candace’s incident reports and what Candace allegedly said, including Fort Huachuca confirmation and that Mitch Snow, Michael, and Harry were there. They plan to show what Candace actually said, noting it seemed like a subliminal address while a larger group tries to debunk her. They also mention George Webb and that many have told them to check his work, though they’re unsure. They summarize Valhalla VFT’s position: if by Friday Mitch returns all the money to Candace and Candace donates it to Mitch’s victims, the situation could move forward positively; otherwise, they will go “scorched earth” on Friday and reveal everything about the man. The speaker expresses discomfort with a pattern they’ve observed: three people—Valhalla VFT, Balak’s Tones, and George Webb—initially express support for Candace and claim they want her to reach out, but then publicly attack or debunk her. They note that all three claimed to care about Candace, and then shifted to public attacks after alleged private communication. George Webb is described as briefly protective, then chastising Candace in posts; Balak’s Tones is said to have given Candace an ultimatum (twenty-four hours) to shut down the GoFundMe and redirect funds to “victims,” followed by a series of videos and attacks. Valhalla is described as shifting from supportive to attacking as well, creating an odd pattern. The speaker outlines personal experiences with these figures: George Webb did not answer a question about how a clip connecting to Fort Huachuca related to his claims, and has a tendency to block on social media; Valhalla is accused of reframing and proclaiming the story “done” while moving toward public attacks. Balak’s Tones is accused of issuing ultimatums and then attacking Candace if her response did not align with his demands. The speaker argues that if these individuals genuinely cared about Candace, they would press for the questions she must answer. They examined Valhalla’s claims about building numbers, foyer requests, and license plates: one building number checks out, the other’s existence is unclear; the foyer request answer is reportedly not verifiable by Candace’s team alone, though she has people who could obtain it; the California license plate claim “checks out.” The overall tension centers on the ultimatum to shut down the GoFundMe by Friday and the shifting portrayal of Candace’s story by these three figures. The speaker concludes by noting Valhalla’s deep emotional stance against toxic spousal situations may influence his views, suggesting his past conversations with witnesses and victims inform his strong stance, which, in the speaker’s view, colors his approach and may contribute to the public attacks. They acknowledge liking Valhalla and recognizing the no-tolerance stance, but feel it clouds judgment and pushes toward attacking Candace.

Shadow of a doubt, the safety of black neighborhoods is crucial for children's futures. Efforts should focus on closing harmful payday lenders instead of promoting chaos, which won't help anyone. This moment isn't genuinely about black lives. When facing mob mentality, it's essential to remain calm and speak the truth. Weakness invites further attacks, as seen with Drew Brees, who has repeatedly apologized for defending the American flag. Cowardice only empowers those who oppose you. Stand firm and acknowledge that this is a good country.

The speaker explains that in the three months since Charlie Kirk’s murder, they have largely refrained from commenting publicly on the investigation. They say this is not due to lack of care or affection for Charlie, whom they knew well since his teenage years, but because they feel they don’t know more than others and want to avoid missteps given their personal connections to those involved. They name Candace Owens, Blake Neff, and Erica Kirk as people they know well and respect, and emphasize a desire to honor Charlie’s memory by seeking justice without criticizing others’ motives when people are sincerely pursuing the truth. They recount a three-hour conversation with Theo Vaughan during which the topic of Charlie Kirk’s case arose. They state they told Vaughan they do not trust the FBI, clarifying that this statement was not an accusation that the FBI is involved in Charlie’s assassination, and they did not intend to imply such. They acknowledge they like Dan Bongino and Cash Patel and do not believe they would intentionally cover up a murder, but they argue that the FBI, being at the top of the organization, is part of a large bureaucracy where some parts act independently from leadership. Therefore, liking individuals within the organization does not equate to trusting the FBI as a whole. The speaker asserts that, as a lesson of the 2024 election, many of the nation’s largest systems and institutions have rot and require reform. They contend that January 6 was a setup and that the FBI was key to that setup, stating it remains unclear whether everyone involved has been fired or punished. They insist that no American is under moral obligation to believe everything the government tells them, especially institutions with a documented history of wrongdoing, such as the FBI’s alleged crimes, manufacturing crimes, and distorting justice. They emphasize that the job of the FBI is to find out what happened, tell the public how they arrived at conclusions, and convince the public of the outcomes, rather than hiding behind national security or confidential sources. The speaker concludes by committing to avoid talking about topics they do not understand, to state things only as they know them, and to remain skeptical. They stress a duty to skepticism and to seek truth and justice without being swayed by tone or certainty from government officials. They reiterate love for Charlie and a wish for justice, while urging others to maintain scrutiny toward the investigation.

I'm not confrontational and find this attention uncomfortable. I never sought praise or recognition. The thought of someone getting hurt because I didn't act would haunt me. I would endure countless court appearances and face negativity just to prevent someone from being harmed or killed.

One of the two parties may be called "foolish" and "horrible" if they make things difficult, and the speaker may "take a pass." The speaker wants to see it end, noting that people are being killed every day. The speaker says "we're not gonna take that" and thinks there's a good chance of solving the problem. When asked if prepared to walk away completely from these efforts and these talks, the speaker responded "I don't wanna say that, but we wanna see."

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.

"First of all, you know, I'd heard different things about his ideology." "He wasn't a registered democrat or republican." "He may have been a groyker, which is a follower of Nick Fuentes, who's on the right." "But I'll say this, it shouldn't matter." "This has happened to democrats." "This has happened to republicans." "The shooters were on both sides of the extreme." "And so what should matter is that we should all come together to, one, tone down the rhetoric, and two, keep our events safe, and and three, make sure that this doesn't happen again." "And so playing the blame game is not toning down the rhetoric." "Playing the blame game only makes the rhetoric and the problem worse."

The speaker notes that people are often pulled by instinct and emotion, and the crowd tends to rush to blame Israel. He says he would examine evidence impartially, even if his stance has been pro-Israel, and acknowledges that a rush to judgment can unfairly target the same suspect. He stresses the importance of telling the truth, being objective, and weighing the facts rather than satisfying momentary emotions. He warns against relying on simple heuristics that connect bad events to predetermined culprits, such as blaming Israel or linking violence to political opponents, and urges stepping back to gain broader perspective. He advocates considering second- and third-order effects and the knock-on consequences of punishment, warning that policy responses and government action must be thought through patiently.

Initially, this person was disliked, but now both of you are facing animosity. I believe we're observing a defensive response from those benefiting from wasteful and fraudulent funds, as they're being exposed. People don't want their actions to come to light. During my time at PayPal, I learned a valuable lesson: the individuals who complained the most vehemently, rapidly, and with the greatest self-righteousness were often the fraudsters. Their over-the-top reactions served as an indicator of their fraudulent activities. That's how we were able to identify them.

I have faith in the American people. The way Trump talks to his audience is not right. Don't be fooled by attempts to humanize him.

If he did his job, I wouldn't need to do this. I received a malicious report. Look, they're all pointing. Someone's on the roof. There he is, laying down. We have dangerous people in our country causing trouble.

He isn't coming right now, but if he does, I might lose my temper. I'm prepared to face the consequences, even if it means going to jail. I'm frustrated about the situation involving trespassing on the Capitol grounds.

When urging people to take action, I often emphasize the word "peacefully." This is not just to prevent incidents like January 6, but also to counter any misinterpretations of my intentions. My approach is to be positive, armed with data and facts, and to treat everyone with love and respect. This mindset attracts a supportive community.

The speaker believes an attack is disingenuous, stating that "where there's smoke, there's fire." The speaker spoke with Smiley about the issue, telling him he should have been informed. The speaker denies guilt by association, stating, "Nick's gotta have some I mean, I ignored it for so long because it's like, why do I even have something to say? I don't own this man. I don't own his actions." The speaker ignored the situation for a long time, questioning why they needed to comment.

We need to take action against the individuals who pose a threat to our loved ones, regardless of their background or circumstances. Whether they were deprived or victims of society, it doesn't matter. We must address the issue of young people who lack guidance, structure, and conscience. If we don't intervene, they will become predators in the future. Society, partly due to neglect, has created these individuals, but that doesn't mean we excuse their actions. We must remove them from society to protect our families. Many of these individuals are beyond redemption.

We are advised to sit tight and assess the situation. The speaker emphasizes the need to remain calm and evaluate the circumstances.

I'm alarmed by Chuck's angry outburst. His threats are unacceptable. He's warned Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they'll "pay the price" for their actions, and he's threatened to unleash the intelligence community against them. This isn't the first time Chuck has abused his power to intimidate opponents. His recent tirade against Trump is particularly concerning. This behavior is dangerous and needs to stop. Who is he even talking to? His actions are reckless, and he needs to face the consequences. He should get legal counsel. The situation is incredibly serious.