reSee.it - Related Video Feed

As attorneys general, we will not yield to the President or Elon Musk. Musk currently operates without accountability, pushing for an ideological litmus test by pausing funds for essential services like Social Security, veteran payments, and state aid. This is unconstitutional and unacceptable. We are prepared to uphold the law against these overreaches of authority. We've already acted when birthright citizenship and NIH funding were challenged, securing temporary restraining orders (TROs). We also acted when funding was paused for agencies, meals on wheels, veteran services and law enforcement grants, securing TROs. We'll continue to challenge these actions in court to protect the Constitution, reminding the President, Musk, and others that our government is not unilateral. Congressional consent is required, and we are confident we'll obtain a preliminary injunction.

I, Tulsi Gabbard, solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. I take this obligation freely.

General Mark Milley is being targeted for removal through the 25th amendment or impeachment because individuals, including some with special forces and Antifa ties, allegedly took Pelosi's laptop on Wednesday. The data on the laptop is causing fear among officials, despite only having a short time left in office. There are also claims of a source providing damaging information.

Breaking news from the Southern District of Florida (SD-FL): two junior assistant US attorneys have resigned after being asked to participate in a broad investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A source familiar with internal concerns tells MSNBC that US Attorney Jason Redding Quinones called a division-wide meeting this afternoon to address the resignations and the investigation. The reporting notes that at least 30 subpoenas were sent out late Friday by SD-FL to individuals including former CIA chief John Brennan and former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In addition to the resignations, it is reported that one of the junior ASAs who resigned felt unable to participate because doing so would violate their ethical responsibilities. The resignations are notable because it would be unusual for junior ASAs to be pulled into such a major investigation. Significantly, the subpoenas were signed by SD-FL’s number three, the executive assistant US attorney, rather than by a career prosecutor in leadership. This is presented as abnormal, with a comparison made to past instances where leadership signatures were absent from such actions, such as Lindsay Halligan signing indictments in the Northern District of Virginia due to a lack of available career prosecutors. The developments prompted SD-FL US Attorney Quinones to convene a unit-wide meeting of two to three dozen prosecutors in the major crimes division. The scope of the ongoing investigation remains unclear, but it is connected to the broader claim—involving Trump administration officials—that former Obama and Biden administration officials undertook to undermine the candidacies and presidencies of Donald Trump. The report also notes that President Trump has explicitly called for the jailing of Barack Obama and referenced other individuals in relation to the investigation. Subpoenas have been issued, and at least two SD-FL assistant US attorneys have resigned so far. In summary, two junior ASAs resigned after being asked to participate in a high-profile investigation tied to claims of Russian interference in 2016, with subpoenas issued to notable former officials, and the sign-off on those subpoenas coming from the office’s number-three official, prompting an internal meeting at SD-FL.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The memo referenced people but lacked specific names, causing confusion. Upon returning to the office, the speaker and colleagues were met with confusion and heartbreak. Two hours later, termination letters began to arrive. Ultimately, 15 assistant US attorneys were fired. The speaker's termination letter cited actions and prosecutions related to the events at or near the US Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order characterizing the work as a grave national injustice and stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting US attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes the US attorneys represent the United States, not the president. The speaker believes that firing 15 qualified attorneys created a problem.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

While on maternity leave, I learned about inherent contempt of Congress, a power rarely used since the early 1900s. The attorney general defied two subpoenas from House chairmen. If the Department of Justice doesn't act in 10 days, I've filed a motion to bring inherent contempt proceedings against the attorney general. This allows the House to detain the attorney general until he complies with subpoenas. It's a necessary step to restore order in the House.

I solemnly swear to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will faithfully and loyally serve the city, taking this obligation freely and without hesitation. I will fulfill the duties of the officers, including special officers, from today until January 24, 2020.

Senator Grassley and Representative Comer are calling for an investigation into a document that allegedly describes a criminal scheme involving former Vice President Biden and a foreign national. They want to know if the Justice Department and FBI properly vetted the document and followed standard investigative procedures. The FBI has received a letter and subpoena regarding this matter but has not commented. Grassley emphasizes the importance of getting answers and ensuring that the executive branch enforces the law as required by the Constitution, regardless of political affiliation.

We are facing a constitutional crisis. This is a genuine constitutional crisis.

I solemnly swear to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will faithfully and loyally serve the city, taking this obligation freely and without hesitation. I will fulfill the duties of the special officers from today until January 24, 2020.

Speaker 0 contends that a large number of pardons were issued by the auto pen on the final day of the Biden presidency, and asserts there is no record showing that Joe Biden participated in the authorization of those pardons. The speaker claims that these pardons include notable examples such as those for Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the Biden family, Adam Schiff, the January 6 committee, and an extensive list that the speaker describes as continuing at length. The core assertion is that every one of these pardons was signed with the auto pen and there is no evidence that Joe Biden was personally involved in the decision-making process behind them. According to the speaker, the absence of Biden’s involvement in the decision-making is a key element of the argument, and the implication is that this absence of direct participation should be recognized in legal terms. The speaker further states that these pardons could be declared null and void by the Department of Justice. The underlying claim is that there is a basis for such a nullification rooted in the way the pardons were issued, specifically the use of the auto pen and the lack of documented presidential involvement. The speaker also asserts that the ongoing investigation will produce evidence that will support the DOJ’s decision to void the pardons. In this framing, the investigation’s forthcoming findings are presented as capable of reinforcing the claim that the pardons were improperly issued or improperly authorized due to the absence of direct presidential action. The overall narrative presented is one of procedural challenge to the pardons, anchored in the asserted method of issuance (the auto pen) and the supposed lack of Biden’s participation in the process. The speaker emphasizes a sequence in which the pardons, if deemed void, would be reversed or nullified by official action from the Department of Justice, with future investigative evidence expected to validate that outcome in court.

I need your help to join the impeachment team by going to impeachmentteam.com. Become a citizen co-sponsor by signing a petition to support Marjorie Taylor Greene's articles of impeachment against the weaponization of government. Call my colleagues and inform them of our support. I will be dropping articles of impeachment on Secretary Mayorkas due to the invasion happening at our border. The individuals to be impeached are Matthew Graves, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, and Majorcas. This is impeachment week, and I have another announcement tomorrow at the press conference. Join us in taking action.

After three weeks of training, the speaker saw a litigation hold on their phone with a memo giving Mr. Martin permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section. The memo referenced people but didn't have a list of names. The speaker headed back to the office and was met by colleagues who shared their confusion. Two hours later, letters terminating them started rolling in. At the end of the night, 15 assistant U. S. Attorneys had been fired. The termination letter stated the decision was based on actions and the prosecution of persons relating to the events that occurred at or near The U. S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. An executive order characterized that work as having involved a grave national injustice. The speaker's hiring hindered the ability of the acting US attorney Martin to staff his office in furtherance of his obligation to faithfully implement the agenda that the American people elected president Trump to SCU. The termination letter made it clear that mister Martin does not understand the role of a prosecutor. Firing 15 qualified attorneys created an immediate deficit in the office to appropriately prosecute cases.

Speaker 0 presents Connecticut memoranda series, volume one, describing a notice sent to Connecticut state officials (Attorney General and others) by certified mail and hand delivery through the governor’s office and Department of Public Health channels. The notice centers on acute renal failure (AKI) and argues it aligns with hospital homicide concerns. The speaker says the cover letter urges officials to seek personal legal counsel because if the state attorney represents the state, a conflict arises when citizens are harmed by state officials. The document allegedly provides detailed factual information drawn from official Connecticut records, intended to undermine any future “ignorance of fact” defense and to show that thousands have died from AKI and related conditions. Key claims and content: - The memorandum warns that described AKI deaths and related pulmonary embolism and thrombocytopenia are occurring in hospitals, and officials have a duty to act; failure to act after being informed could render officials criminally liable. The notice asserts sovereign and qualified immunity do not apply to criminal acts. - It asserts there are no statutes of limitations for most homicide crimes, and that inaction in the face of an imminent danger constitutes a legal duty to act. An inaction with knowledge of harm is framed as a criminal act. - Named recipients copied on the notice include Ned Lamont (Governor), Susan Bysiewicz (Lieutenant Governor), Eric Russell (State Treasurer), Sean Scanlon (Comptroller), William Tong (Attorney General), Manisha Juthani (Commissioner, Department of Public Health), A Orifice (Chief of Staff, DPH), and H Sultan (Special Counsel, DPH). The speaker claims these packages were signed for. - The memorandum is titled: “Memorandum notice of required action to thwart hospital homicides and acute renal failure deaths that are currently occurring and were occurring for the last three years, three and a half. Evidence compels immediate investigation and correction of injurious federal and state health protocols and mandates.” It cites a death-records study and a climate-related health data study obtained with approval to examine regional effects of temperature and humidity on heart disease. - It describes a data-driven investigation process with collaborators, including using discrete cosine transforms and discrete Fourier transforms to analyze signal-to-noise ratios in death data to determine seasonality and age-related patterns. The speaker reports that AKI deaths in CT rose substantially in 2020–2022, and notes a divergence from COVID death trends (AKI rising as COVID declines). - The speaker presents comparative state tallies for excess AKI deaths since 2015: Connecticut 1,721; Massachusetts 3,493; Minnesota 2,412. They claim thousands of AKI deaths across states, with CT showing a large increase in 2022 (and 2023) and assert that AKI was not adequately addressed by public health authorities. - The speaker discusses a pattern showing AKI deaths rising after December 2020, with a December 2020 inflection coinciding with a program (NCTAP). They claim hospital protocols and NIH COVID-19 treatments (remdesivir, baricitinib, ventilators) may have contributed to AKI and multi-organ failure, describing a two-signal theory: one signal linked to hospital protocols and the other to gene-based vaccines. - Graphs are described showing AKI versus COVID trends, with AKI not consistently correlated with COVID, and an observed spike in AKI deaths in CT beginning in 2020, peaking in 2022. The speaker notes a reduction in the proportion of AKI deaths that also test positive for COVID after March 2022, while AKI deaths continue to rise, suggesting a vaccine-related signal. - The speaker cites NIH COVID-19 treatment guidelines (final update dated 02/29/2024) and notes a planned website shutdown (08/16/2024), arguing a lack of updated protocols. They allege data manipulation or suppression by public health authorities. - In the recommended actions, the speaker proposes an investigation plan: verify CT data, investigate younger age groups first (examples: 94 deaths, ages 25–44; 184 deaths, ages 45–54 in CT 2020–2023), obtain entire hospital records (without notice) including vaccination status and treatment timelines, determine whether vaccination influenced treatment pathways, interview families, review DNR decisions, and publish results so the public can decide on consent to vaccines and NIH protocols. - The conclusion asserts an AKI epidemic in Connecticut that allegedly claims more life years than COVID and rivals other major past diseases in impact. It states there is no statute of limitations for murder, and that qualified and sovereign immunities do not shield officials from criminal charges. It calls for immediate investigation and potential prosecution of officials who knowingly refuse to investigate AKI deaths tied to NIH/CDC/FD&C protocols, framing this as a public health and civil liberty issue. The speaker closes by inviting questions and urging action to ensure accountability, expressing a desire to be involved in cleaning up public health governance.

We are addressing members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks daily to keep Americans safe. Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, Congressman Jason Crow, and others speak directly to you, acknowledging the immense stress and pressure you face. They state that Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk, as this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They remind you that you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The threats to our constitution aren’t just abroad but also at home. Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. They recognize it is hard and a difficult time to be a public servant, but emphasize that whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. They assure you that they have your back. Now, more than ever, the American people need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up the ship.

Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government. Translation: Jack Smith was not nominated or confirmed by President Biden or the US Senate. There is no special counsel statute, only an expired independent counsel statute. The authority to appoint a special counsel without Congress's authorization creates an office that does not exist in the US government.

The president signed an executive order this week threatening to defund sanctuary cities. The speaker questions why the leaders of these cities, who are allegedly harboring and shielding illegal aliens and terrorists from deportation, are not arrested instead.

A directive has been issued to the federal government to end the weaponization of government against political adversaries from the previous administration. Thank you.

After three weeks of training, the speaker received a litigation hold and a memo granting permission to fire probationary employees from the capital c section who had been moved within the office. The speaker was unsure if they were on the list. Upon returning to the office, colleagues shared their confusion. Two hours later, termination letters arrived, dismissing 15 assistant U.S. Attorneys. The speaker's letter cited their actions in prosecuting individuals involved in the events at or near the U.S. Capitol on 01/06/2021. It referenced an executive order from 01/20/2025 characterizing that work as a grave national injustice. The letter stated that the speaker's hiring hindered the acting U.S. attorney's ability to implement President Trump's agenda. The speaker believes Mr. Martin doesn't understand that U.S. attorneys represent the United States, not the president, and that firing 15 attorneys created a deficit in the office's ability to prosecute cases.

The speaker believes they swore to defend against both domestic and international threats. They feel MAGA is a domestic threat, seen repeatedly. This is why national leaders, both Republican and Democrat, are uniting to say Kamala is the only person qualified to be commander in chief.

The transcript documents the moment an oath of office is administered to Gazzala Firdos Hashmi, who is being sworn in as lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The exchange unfolds with a formal question and response, the ceremonial touching of a sacred text, and the recitation of the oath, concluding with a brief acknowledgment. First, the administrator asks, “Are you prepared to take the oath of office?” The reply is affirmative: “Yes. I am.” The ceremony proceeds with the prescribed physical and ritual actions: “Please place your left hand on the Quran, raise your right hand, and repeat after me.” The individual confirms her identity, stating, “I, Gazzala Firdos Hashmi.” She then commits to the oath: “Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear.” The oath itself is a formal pledge. Hashmi declares, “That I will support the constitution of The United States.” She repeats the commitment to the federal constitution, signifying allegiance to the national framework of laws. The oath then continues with the commitment to the Commonwealth of Virginia: “That I will support the constitution of The United States. And the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.” The repetition emphasizes the dual duty to both national and state constitutions as part of her office. The next clause expands on the duties to be discharged: “and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me.” The phrase reinforces the standard of conduct expected of the lieutenant governor, focusing on fidelity and impartiality in fulfilling the office’s responsibilities. The final portion of the oath specifies the office itself: “As lieutenant governor of the Commonwealth Of Virginia.” The oath is concluded with the assurance of capability: “To the best of my ability.” The ceremony closes with a brief recognition: “Congratulations.” The exchange ends with Hashmi’s response of thanks: “Thank you.” This sequence marks the formal installation and sworn commitment of Gazzala Firdos Hashmi to serve as lieutenant governor, under the authority of both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and to perform the duties of the office to the best of her ability.

Speaker 1 says that throughout the Biden administration he sought records about decision-making and why the U.S. funded Wuhan, China research, including why evidence about the virus origin being from a lab accident was being suppressed, but “we got nothing.” He says the Biden administration “stiff-armed” him by preventing access to virtually any documents. He says many of the findings during the Biden administration came from Freedom of Information Act requests by people outside government and from court actions forcing disclosure. He says that after the new election, he received promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that documents would be revealed. He says it took about six months, with resistance he attributes not to Secretary Kennedy but to “minders” around him. He says that after finally receiving documents, they have been reviewed for about a month. Speaker 1 states that in communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including Francis Collins, Fauci is depicted telling others to read materials, then delete them, and that he allegedly instructed them to delete “this material” after reading. Speaker 1 says deleting emails and discussions about government business is illegal for someone in the executive branch. He adds that Fauci testified he did not do that, and says this creates “two crimes”: destroying federal records and a prior sworn statement that he wouldn’t do it. Speaker 1 identifies a “big question” involving what he calls an “auto pen pardon” and says it will have to be challenged. He says there are thousands of auto pen pardons and raises whether President Biden was aware. He says they interviewed the person running the auto pen, who said they never met the president, and that the person said they did not discuss it directly but heard about it from higher-ups who allegedly talked to the president. Speaker 1 says this provides “a lot to go on” and describes it as a chance for the issue to get into court and for the Department of Justice to fight it out. Speaker 1 says he has invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily; if accepted, they will bring him in, and if not accepted, they will subpoena him. Speaker 0 asks whether the alleged wrongdoing falls under the auto pen time frame, noting that in some earlier auto pen matters there were specific time frames. Speaker 1 responds that the “umbrella” was “a decade,” described as leading up to the end of Biden’s term, and says this raises questions about whether a pardon can cover crimes not alleged at the time, whether it can be “all inclusive,” and whether a pardon can be upheld if it doesn’t specify the crime. Speaker 1 contrasts this with how pardons are typically specific to an accused or trial-ready crime. Speaker 0 asks about specific consequences, including prison time, regarding destroying federal records. Speaker 1 says lying to Congress is the biggest issue, that it can be five years in prison as a felony, and that destroying records adds to the crime and is against the law. He then ties this to contemporaneous emails, asserting that while Fauci said publicly he had no idea the virus came from a lab and that it couldn’t have been gain-of-function, privately he was “very worried” about the lab because he knew it did gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 also says gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Anthony Fauci’s approval, and claims Fauci’s pandemic guidance about origins and about cloth masks was contradictory to privately discussed concerns, including that Speaker 1 says cloth masks do not prevent transmission.

In 1963, 45 communist goals aimed to eliminate loyalty oaths. Recently, Biden, Obrador, and Trudeau met in Mexico City to discuss a North American Union. US officials like Yellen, Austin, and Garland lack valid oaths of office. The law requires officials to swear allegiance to the US Constitution, but many have incomplete or fraudulent oaths. The use of all capital letters in legal documents signifies a maritime Admiralty product, not a human being. This system views individuals as corporate entities under the law. This information was reported by Greg Reese for Infowars. Translation: En 1963, 45 objetivos comunistas buscaban eliminar los juramentos de lealtad. Recientemente, Biden, Obrador y Trudeau se reunieron en la Ciudad de México para discutir una Unión Norteamericana. Funcionarios de EE. UU. como Yellen, Austin y Garland carecen de juramentos de cargo válidos. La ley requiere que los funcionarios juren lealtad a la Constitución de EE. UU., pero muchos tienen juramentos incompletos o fraudulentos. El uso de todas las letras mayúsculas en documentos legales significa un producto de la Marina de Guerra, no un ser humano. Este sistema ve a los individuos como entidades corporativas bajo la ley. Esta información fue reportada por Greg Reese para Infowars.

Are you prepared to say under oath that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020? President Biden is the president of the United States, having been duly sworn in after a peaceful transition of power. Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024. Do you have any doubts that Joe Biden had the necessary electoral votes to be elected president in 2020? As a prosecutor, I accept that Joe Biden is the president. I witnessed many things during my time in Pennsylvania as an advocate for the campaign. While I accept the results, I believe we should all want election integrity and ensure our elections are free and fair, following the rules and laws. I think that question deserves a yes or no, and your lengthy answer suggests you weren't prepared to answer yes.