reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

The discussion centers on Charlie Kirk and the handling of his death. The speakers are uncertain about the official account and call for a truly rigorous and honest federal investigation. Specific points raised include: - A claim that Canada said Egyptian-registered aircraft followed Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, around for years in various places; the speaker asserts this is factually true and notes it is a very strange data point, though its meaning is unclear. - A claim that Erika Kirk’s event had a disproportionately large number of foreign-registered cell phones, which is also stated as true. - The speakers emphasize that the FBI has a moral and legal obligation to investigate openly and to consider all possibilities, applying the same process as in science, journalism, and law enforcement. They express a lack of confidence in the FBI and the officials who run it, and argue that honesty and a coherent narrative are needed to restore public trust. - Foreknowledge of the incident is discussed: posts on X allegedly predicted that Charlie Kirk would be killed on the date of the college event in Utah. The question is raised about whether those posts were just guessing and whether those involved have been interviewed by the FBI to determine how they knew what they knew. - The speakers compare the investigation to other events, suggesting that if they investigated, they would examine who publicly posted foreknowledge and seek detailed explanations: who they spoke to, what they know, and how to verify it. - There is a request for an explanation of how the killer transformed into a radical, violent actor, with a note that the speaker does not automatically endorse trans ideologies but wants to understand the radicalization process. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ role: the controversy and turmoil surrounding her claims, and the idea that those in authority are responsible for the investigation, not individuals like Candace or podcasters. - A concluding sentiment expresses greater trust in Candace Owens’ intent than in the average DOJ official, framing Candace’s presence as filling a vacuum left by authorities, while insisting that the people in charge must restore confidence through honest reporting and a plausible narrative.

Kash Patel reveals that Paul Ryan had the Steele dossier before assigning an investigation into Russia collusion. Ryan never disclosed this crucial information, hindering the investigation's integrity. Patel urges people to visit Truth Social for evidence. He criticizes Ryan for hypocrisy and suggests he should be questioned under oath. Patel promises to delve deeper into this revelation in the future.

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

The video centers on Candace and a claim about Egyptian private military contractors being flown to America on a top-secret mission and landing at a private military base in Utah on the day of the Charlie Kirk assassination. The presenters show photos of private military subcontractors and describe them as the “baddest, hardest, most battle trained” soldiers, implying their involvement is significant to the Charlie Kirk case. They question why Egyptian military contractors would be in Provo, Utah, and why they did not return to Cairo, asking who they were planning to “take out next.” One speaker states that, according to a person close to someone who was aboard the flight, the aircraft did not simply stop in Utah for routine servicing. They claim the plane carried military subcontractors and that these individuals were dropped off in Provo, yet did not reboard for Cairo. They assert the flight departed Provo on September 10 and returned to Cairo on September 11, with allegedly missing people from the plane. The speaker emphasizes that the flight radar investigation shows a Cairo-to-Paris-to-France-to-Bannat, North Dakota route around that period, and notes that on September 10 the plane departed Provo at 07:14 AM local time. They insist the people aboard the plane were not the same individuals who later appeared on the flight’s return. The speaker contends this information was provided by a female source who knows an Egyptian military subcontractor personally. They acknowledge she did not claim the mission was related to Charlie Kirk, only that it was a top-secret operation, possibly a discreet joint military exercise, so hidden that people were urged to ignore it. The speaker describes the revelation as terrifying yet galvanizing, claiming it prompted bravery and a push to root out perceived evil in society. The discussion then shifts to Kash Patel, referencing a Daily Mail article about him shutting down a Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in a feud with Trump’s counterterror chief. The speaker suggests Patel’s stance raises questions and asserts that Patel’s approach contrasts with what they would expect if there were genuine efforts to investigate Charlie Kirk’s murder, noting that Trump and Trump family members would presumably be involved in questioning the narrative. They criticize Patel for discouraging further inquiry, comparing him to Dr. Fauci in his alleged resistance to investigation. The speaker challenges Kash Patel to dispute the claims, asking him to confirm whether the plane truly came for routine servicing or for a discreet mission, and to disclose the truth about who was aboard and why they were in Provo, Utah.

Speaker 0 claims Kash Patel lacks the character and integrity to be FBI director, asserting his only qualification is a willingness to cross moral, ethical, and legal lines when others refused. They state Patel is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents instead of protecting public safety. Speaker 1 alleges Adam Schiff is the "worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years" and met with a whistleblower, Charmela, while publicly denying knowledge of the situation. They claim Schiff led the impeachment trial of President Trump after manufacturing false accusations with Charmela. They assert Schiff lied to set up a presidential impeachment and should be investigated for his interactions with Charmela. They state Schiff, who manufactured evidence with Charmela, was the prosecutor in the case against Trump, which is a conflict of interest.

The conversation centers on claims surrounding Cash Patel (referred to as Kash Patel in parts) and the investigation into conspiracy theories tied to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Speaker 0 recalls Patel’s assertion that questioning the FBI’s official narrative and insisting anything other than a lone shooter with a trans girlfriend who allegedly used a 30-06 rifle would not only fail to fit the narrative but also brand critics as anarchists, harmful, and conspiracy theorists. This set the stage for contrasting past remarks and current assertions about the case. Speaker 1 introduces what they call a breaking development: the FBI reportedly says the Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories are legit, describing this as the first time the government has acknowledged such theories in relation to the case. They connect it to broader controversial topics like JFK and UFOs, implying an unusual shift in official stance. They then state that Cash Patel says he is actually investigating the numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk. Speaker 0 follows by questioning Patel’s consistency, asking listeners to remember if Patel had previously claimed or asserted something different, signaling a discrepancy between prior statements and new claims about investigations into conspiracies. Speaker 2 adds that, in relation to social media, when hysterical conspiracy theories fill the void, they harm Charlie and his family and the rightful prosecution of his alleged assassin, who is in custody, and notes that if anyone helped the assassin, the FBI would not let them get away with it. This emphasizes a concern about the impact of conspiracy theories on the victim’s family and the legal process. Speaker 0 closes by addressing Kesh Patel directly, asserting, “No. We don’t think you’re gonna let them get away with it,” implying certainty that Patel will assist in covering up or obstructing accountability rather than pursuing conspiracy theories. Overall, the dialogue juxtaposes Patel’s claimed investigations into Charlie Kirk conspiracy theories with the FBI’s alleged stance on such theories, while also highlighting tensions between public discourse on conspiracies, media commentary, and the pursuit of justice regarding the murder case.

The speaker discusses the FBI's investigation into a person accused of espionage. The FBI mistakenly believed that the person had left the country, but he was actually living in DC. Despite this, the FBI hired him and paid him over $200,000, even though they knew he was a Russian spy. The speaker also mentions another individual, Charles Dolan, who was a source for the false dossier used to spy on American citizens. Dolan and the Russian spy even met on a park bench, but the FBI refused to interview Dolan. The speaker criticizes the FBI's actions and highlights the problem of running investigations from headquarters instead of assigning a US attorney.

Kamala Harris turned FEMA into an illegal alien resettlement agency, which caused Americans in North Carolina to be left to die during a disaster. FEMA's manpower, dollars, resources, and mental energy were spent learning how to get illegal aliens into the country. Therefore, when disaster struck, FEMA was not ready, prepared, capable, or caring. The speaker claims that helicopters and military assistance were not sent to help American citizens, including babies and children. However, the speaker asserts that if the victims had been living in a foreign country like Haiti or Venezuela, Kamala Harris would have sent help immediately. The speaker describes this as a betrayal.

The speaker reveals that the NSA, the largest intelligence agency in the Biden administration, had been reading their private emails. They express shock at the government's spying and criticize the lack of outrage in Washington. The speaker shares that their emails were leaked to media outlets to portray them as a disloyal American and a Russian operative. They highlight the hypocrisy of demonizing Putin while the Chinese government gains control over the country. The speaker emphasizes that the NSA illegally unmasked them, violating the law that protects the identities of American citizens. They call for accountability from the NSA director, Paul Nakasone, and the Director of National Intelligence, April Haines. The speaker concludes by stating the importance of preventing unaccountable spy agencies from discrediting individuals through leaked emails.

Speaker 1 asserts that there is a two-tier justice system weaponized to persecute people based on political beliefs, and that Director Wray has personally helped weaponize the FBI against conservatives. He references the Twitter files, Missouri v. Biden disclosures, the Durham investigation and report, and the exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax. He asks Director Wray what he is prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement to earn back the trust of the American people, noting that he asked Mister Durham about this, and Durham said he did not think things can go too much further given that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. Speaker 0 responds by disagreeing with the other speaker’s characterization, saying the description of his bias against conservatives seems insane given his personal background. He explains that the approach to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution starts with emphasizing to his staff to do the right thing in the right way, which means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. He outlines several actions: enhanced procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks and triple checks, record-keeping requirements, accountability policies, and funding for new functions like an Office of Internal Audit that didn’t exist before. He notes the installation of an entirely new leadership team from his predecessor and asserts that where he can take action, he will to hold people accountable by removing them from the chain of command. The exchange ends with an invitation to speak further, though the remark is truncated: “Gentlemen, ladies, time to speak to the….”

The speaker argues that “certain nefarious characters within the FBI and Department of War” helped assassinate Charlie Kirk and cover it up, and says they will present “correlated events” and “receipts.” They describe Stu Peters as an early proponent of an “exploding microphone theory,” and say they investigated further. The speaker’s first focus is an explosives procurement involving Acura Energetic Systems (AES). They say AES makes explosives and has government contracts, but highlight alleged anomalies tied to timing around Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They claim an AES contract had a procurement period from May 1 through August 2025, ending about eight months later “right before Charlie Kirk’s assassination.” The speaker says the contract was signed April 22, one month after Steven Feinberg took office, adding that Feinberg owned Cerberus, which the speaker says has CIA agents working for him and other intelligence personnel, and also owns DynCorp and special operations units “on how to detonate tiny explosives.” The speaker claims the AES contract used a simplified acquisition procedure (SAP) to streamline procurement, and they state the contract amount was “440,000, some odd change.” They allege there was only one bidder, and that in Federal Business Opportunities it was labeled “not applicable,” meaning it was never posted on SAM.gov even though they say SAPs are posted there. They also claim the contract was for “extra small, tiny explosives,” and that the speaker reviewed decades of online procurements and found nothing similar besides this one time. They further claim that the Department of the Navy made the contract, received devices, and that AES exploded “exactly one month after Charlie Kirk is assassinated.” The speaker states a CSB investigative report identifies the explosion timing as around 7.47 a.m., after the third shift ended around 7 a.m. and the first shift began. They claim the plant operated 24 hours per day with three shifts and that the explosion detonated about 23,000 tons of explosives, felt “from like miles away,” described as like an earthquake. They state all 16 people in the building died, and multiple people outside or in other buildings were severely injured. They also say the building made PETN and claim the company’s facility contained PETN. The speaker describes the post-explosion response as inconsistent. They say the Humphreys County Sheriff (Tennessee) stated it would take a long time to rule out “nefarious play,” while within two weeks, the ATF said it was an accident involving mixtures mishandled on the ground floor and a spark. The speaker claims AES’s building was “literally leveled.” They say OSHA closed its April 2026 investigation with 56 violations and that AES had “tons” of violations for decades. They add that OSHA closure did not stop government procurement from AES, and that press coverage “got under that rug.” They state AES has wrongful death lawsuits and should be unable to bid on federal contracts, yet they claim AES received its biggest contract “just a few weeks after Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” and in January 2026 received another largest contract valued at $377 million. They say they are not claiming bribery directly, but assert the situation “looks” like something was arranged. The speaker also references other procurements they plan to investigate, including FBI-related aerial surveillance in Arizona and an FBI procurement for truck beds from an automotive shop near UVU. They conclude by saying they believe “someone in the Department of War ordered the contract” and that FBI/ATF were part of a cover-up. They mention Senator Jamie Raskin discussing Kash Patel having “slush funds” paying $8,000 every two weeks to executive advisors, and say they want to check the timing of those payments.

Kash Patel is unfit to be FBI director due to his lack of character and integrity. He is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents. Unlike others in the Trump administration, Patel crossed moral, ethical, and legal lines. Adam Schiff is a criminal who lied about his interactions with a whistleblower named Charmela to set up a presidential impeachment of Donald Trump. Schiff met with Charmela and then led the prosecution of Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. Schiff was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax. As the prosecutor in the case against Trump, that is the ultimate conflict of interest.

The speaker expresses frustration and accuses the person they are speaking to of protecting the Bidens. They criticize the FBI for lack of transparency and trustworthiness, comparing it unfavorably to the past. The speaker accuses the person of whitewashing corrupt conduct and concludes by stating that the people who work for the FBI deserve better than them.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

The speaker asserts that fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, calling it a tell. They cite a striking example: $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government to Stacey Abrams’ NGO, which the speaker says basically didn’t exist. They question, “Why?” and note that there are many such cases like that.

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

The speaker mentions government delays in resolving cases. Another aspect is an FBI agent's plan to frame the speaker's husband with child pornography, although it wasn't carried out. The agent allegedly conspired to do this despite the speaker having a young daughter at home.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

The speaker states that the FBI director, described as a great friend with whom they've testified, has laid out something "in rhyme and verse" to the American public. The speaker claims the director is unaccountable to herself and should step down for the good of the country.

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.

The speaker says many people have heard or thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican, and that they personally believed he was a lifelong Republican and had been told the same. They then say this is not true. The speaker claims that James Comey was a communist, citing a 2003 interview with New York Magazine in which Comey stated that before voting for Jimmy Carter, he had been a communist. The speaker says Comey admitted, “I’d moved from communist to whatever I am now.” The speaker then compares this to John Brennan, saying Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, was a communist or had voted for the communist party, and noting the speaker had not heard this about Comey before. The speaker concludes that they find out that under Obama, the CIA director and the FBI director had histories of serious immersion into communism. They add a remark attributed to the KGB, stating that no one ever leaves the KGB and that no one ever leaves this way of thinking.

The speaker describes themselves as a former "deep state" operative, accustomed to manipulating events from the shadows. They claim to have been involved in backroom deals, influencing politicians, and illicit financial activities. However, the speaker believes their past is catching up to them. They mention a "department of government efficiency crew" and Kash Patel investigating ghost payrolls, slush funds, and buried deals. The speaker also highlights specific individuals posing a threat: Patel with his investigative skills, Bongino publicizing the "Ukraine laundry," and Bondi, an attorney general, preparing to prosecute. The speaker feels trapped, with no means of escape or hiding, as their past actions are being exposed. They acknowledge the end of their ability to manipulate the system and anticipate facing legal consequences.

I speak for the entire country when I say if you're not going to start arresting these treasonous people for their crimes, stop making it headline news. You're just angering Americans who work hard every day only to be taken advantage of by the government. I'm tired of this. Treason should not be punished lightly. But nothing's happening. Nobody's being arrested. If you or I were doing the same money laundering, screwing over the American people and the country, we'd be severely punished. We're not part of the elite, and we're held to a different standard.