reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I found Brian in the server logs, showing him the database. Christy Francois let him in, which could be a problem later on.

Christy has access to the server room, and we need to send her name there. The server logs reveal Brian's involvement, and there's a significant database that I expected to find. Brian is a valuable team member despite any criticism. We see Christy interacting with the logs and deleting entries. She is granting Brian access to the server, and I’m monitoring the console. At this point, Christy is not in the room, but she is coordinating with others. This situation raises concerns as multiple people are nearby, indicating potential issues.

The speakers discuss allegations about Brian Gamble and his wife in relation to Project Veritas. Speaker 0 says Reba claimed that Brian Gamble's wife worked with Project Veritas and that she was a honeypot with them, along with Brian Gamble. Speaker 1 confirms, stating, “Oh, yes, she does. 100%. She works with Project Veritas. She's a honeypot with them. Her and Brian Gamble.” He also mentions a social media reference: Vincent Kennedy posted a picture of a pineapple upside down getting eaten by a gorilla, and notes that Loco Lobo posted about it, adding, “the upside upside down pineapple signifies that somebody's a swinger.” He then says, “Brian Gamble's okay with his wife going out on dates with these guys to obtain information from Project Veritas. Is that kosher? Like, would you let your wife do that? And Brian Gamble, as we all know, wants to have parties and get with the babes, you know, the fucking Botox babes and their plastic faces. Fuck them.” Speaker 2 adds, “Well, the record show that Brian Gamble, who was the CIO of the America Project with Joe Flynn and Mike Flynn, his wife, is a honeypot for Project Veritas. Okay. Just let the record show.” Speaker 0 says, “I will.”

Speaker 0 delivers a rapid-fire set of bragging lines about wealth, fashion, and success: “Go see my eyes red on my demons,” “My postie racks up just to motivate my niggas,” “Rappers need a stylist bad, but I ain't use a stylist yet,” “I signed a million dollar contracts in my box to steal a text,” “Wake up, check my bank account, phone numbers in there, bitch. I'm blessed,” and references to private jets, being fresh off the press, sipping drinks with lines, a tinted eye, a moving piece, and owning a new bulletproof Cadillac. He notes money, private flights, and the ability to charge for Instagram content, while cutting off a girl who didn’t pick up. The tone centers on opulent lifestyle, independence, and status. Speaker 1 shifts to a hostile, accusatory monologue: “All over the place, guys. Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer.” He claims Gabe Hoffman “is running humps on people” and calls him a “bad guy.” He says he looks like he’s seen a ghost and that someone close to him was there to infiltrate him, describing these people as “really fucking bad” and stating they are “evil,” including claims of them being “unregistered foreign agents.” He asserts he will be watching everything they do and declares ongoing surveillance and vigilance: “I will be watching. Everything you do, I’m gonna be watching.” Speaker 2 notes a logistical detail: “Hell yeah. On my way back to the site to get my burner phone so I can use my ghost accounts…” indicating plans to obtain a burner phone for anonymous or modified online activity. Speaker 3 adds a blunt, explicit line about using “ghost accounts” for actions, saying, “can use my ghost accounts to fuck,” reinforcing the theme of covert or deceptive online activity. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes an ostentatious wealth/aspirational rap persona (Speaker 0) with a conspiratorial, accusatory stance toward specific public figures (Speaker 1), and mentions of circumventing scrutiny or anonymity online (Speaker 2 and Speaker 3). The named individuals identified by Speaker 1 are Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer.

Speaker 0: The election was stolen. A graph shows people who worked for ES&S, Hart, Dominion Voting Systems, ClearBallot, and Smartmatic, recycling through companies. People who worked at Dominion Voting Systems are entering the political sphere and taking over election offices; one county in Texas, after hiring someone who worked for Dominion, went blue for the first time. The speaker walks through information: Dominion using “Serbian technology with Chinese characteristics.” Huawei Bank is involved; there’s no public board saying Bank of China funds anything, but research on Roaming Networks—a relatively unknown Serbian company until 2013—shows it signed a value-added contract with Huawei Bank. Huawei is “the Bank of China.” Roaming Networks built ICT infrastructure and data centers in Serbia, with owner Nenad Kovac identified as the enterprise partner. Some Roaming Networks information may come off their site after this presentation. Dominion Voting Systems has a corporate office in Serbia; a screenshot of the office and a developer on their site is noted. A Serbian legislative leader said, “I know Dominion Voting Systems back in November. They have an office here.” Dominion started rapidly removing Serbian coders from their site/LinkedIn. Code is built in Serbia for a system used in the United States, using infrastructure funded by China, not just China but the Bank of China. A slide discusses Dominion’s enterprise partnership with Huawei, added to the restricted list on 05/16/2019. Roaming Networks references show Dominion Voting Systems using a pure flash storage solution in Dominion’s data center. A photo of Sacramento shows Dominion hardware coming from China, with a bill of lading from a Chinese supplier to Dominion’s McKinney, Texas office. Testing and approval of Dominion hardware show similarities with Smartmatic; the same hardware with different branding. They claim a “tail” behind the scenes—evidence of connections among ES&S, Hart, Dominion, ClearBallot, Smartmatic, with people cycling through these companies. People who once worked at Dominion are now entering election offices; in Texas, a county that hired a former Dominion employee “went blue” by accident with ES&S involved. The speaker calls out Gina Griswold for commenting on Tina Peters and Mesa, and Matt Crane’s role as Arapahoe County clerk and recorder, now head of the County Clerks Association; Crane’s wife previously worked for Dominion and Sequoia Voting Systems. The speaker asserts a public breach of trust requires an audit; if there’s nothing to hide, audits should restore trust. They argue, whether Dominion is the bad actor or not, removal of logs, altering code, and a “trusted build” are problematic, and emphasize the need for audits and investigations to restore trust in elections. Speaker 1: Indicators: a senior Dominion vice president’s name appears on patents; a software engineer involved in the Wayne County, Michigan tabulation center is connected to the software. Coincidences accumulate, suggesting there is a preponderance of evidence with affidavits across the country. The speaker asks which computer produced certain files analyzed yesterday; whether it came from the central count or precincts. Speaker 0: Answers with a non-answer, noting they imaged the main EMS and the tabulation system; servers in the county coordinate precinct information and house audit reports, cast vote reports, error reports, adjudication reports, and access logs. Thumb drives can contaminate the county and state systems if connected to a machine; it’s not unique to Dominion or voting systems but a general risk. They emphasize avoiding white noise and focusing on facts: Dominion is in Serbia; Huawei Bank funds the enterprise partnership and Serbia-based data centers; code is written in Serbia; imaging shows fingerprints of this. They call for audits, note deviations in Georgia (ballots appearing identical in different batches, a shredder truck before January 20 in Georgia, and a leaky arena water claim later proven to be a leaky toilet), and point to media silence. They argue against accepting the gold standard claim and highlight perceived connections to Soros-funded groups. They stress deviations in state and county behavior, urge audits, and compare the election system to a serial killer—unacceptable to let foreign systems run it. Speaker 2: Adds that with 100 indicators, a pattern emerges; reiterates the need to examine which files came from which computer, and questions the integrity of the central count. Speaker 3: Notes the risk of a non-internet-connected thumb drive introducing malware; emphasizes auditing all machines for that reason.

I found a video where the speaker goes through some server logs and discovers a database issue. They mention finding different forensics related to it. They also mention a person named Christy, who seems to be active in the GMC community.

The speaker introduces Emmanuel Bearer as someone they consider extremely shady and outlines a request to obtain explicit footage of him, specifically who he was with in the crowd, and to identify every person in attendance. The speaker claims Bearer is a former Oracle engineer, likely from Germany, and notes that Bearer attended the event. They question how Bearer, a relatively obscure figure, became an eyewitness who appeared in Salt Lake City in coverage by the mainstream media, specifically mentioning PBS. The speaker asks how PBS or other media outlets knew to reach out to Bearer and whether Bearer tweeted or otherwise indicated he was there. The speaker describes a desire to understand the process by which Bearer was selected for media interviews and to replicate a method of on-the-ground reporting at the UVU campus rather than relying on Bearer’s account. They reference a prior incident involving Tiffany Barker to illustrate concerns about how media connections are made and how certain individuals gain attention. The speaker asks for clarification on how Emmanuel Bearer was chosen as an eyewitness and why mainstream media pursued him. The speaker then presents a clip of Bearer testifying on PBS, quoting Bearer: “I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked.” They note that Bearer appeared on nearly every news channel and mention that there may be a longer clip they could locate. Finally, the speaker appeals to anyone who attended the UVU event with Bearer to come forward to clarify who Bearer was with, to send photos, and to explain how Bearer became an eyewitness that the mainstream media wanted to speak to, expressing strong suspicion about the unattended appearance and coverage of Bearer.

Speaker 0 recounts discovering a secret SCIF on campus, a secure facility with files nobody knew existed. An employee walked by a door, inquiries were made, the room was entered, and individuals were found working there with secret files on controversial topics. Those files have been turned over to attorneys and the speaker is pursuing what happened. The speaker notes that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) knows every traveler entering the country and every good that comes in, and they assess and collect tariffs. They highlight that information about travelers during COVID was with national labs under the speaker’s jurisdiction, and that scientists at those labs participated with the Wuhan lab. The speaker claims these scientists traveled back and forth between each other and worked on those experiments, describing this as eye-opening. Addressing Elon and his team, the speaker says they were extremely helpful since the speaker’s arrival in office, assisting in identifying a troubling issue: some of the speaker’s own department employees had downloaded software on the speaker’s phone and laptop to spy on them and record meetings. The speaker states that this had happened to several politicians and notes that bringing in technology experts helped reveal this software; without examining laptops and phones, the activity would still be ongoing. The speaker emphasizes a need to continue partnering with technology companies and experts to bring them in for assistance, as government work—especially within the department under the speaker’s jurisdiction—has been neglected and lagging behind what it should be. The speaker recalls that in the first four months, they couldn’t even email a PowerPoint from Department of Homeland Security servers if it was longer than six pages, illustrating what they view as backwards thinking that hindered national security. The speaker reflects on the concept of a deep state, admitting that they previously believed it existed but didn’t realize how severe it was. They describe daily efforts to uncover individuals who do not love America and who work within the Department and across the federal government. The overall message conveys uncovering secrecy, internal surveillance concerns, cross-agency connections involving CBP and national labs, collaboration with tech experts, and a strong critique of past departmental conduct and systemic protection failures.

The speaker discusses the issue of Windows security logs being purged right before two audits were set to begin. They highlight the difficulty in determining who had access to the RTR admin account, which is shared among all accounts. The speaker questions why someone would delete all the results and records from the Dominion software, which is used for tallying and reporting election results, just before an audit. They mention that the deletion was successful and affected files on the NAS directory where election images and details were stored. Overall, the speaker emphasizes the lack of accountability and the need to understand the motives behind this action.

Speaker 0 is demanding to know the whereabouts of Hunter Biden's laptop, expressing concern about potential national security risks. The FBI Cyber assistant director admits to not knowing the laptop's location, despite it being turned over to the FBI in 2019. Speaker 0 requests to enter the contents of the laptop into the committee's record.

Speaker 0 introduced the topic of cell phone tracking and forensic geofencing data, noting that the same tracking methods used in January 6 were capable of determining whether someone went onto the steps or onto the lawn, and where they were exactly. The question was what findings exist regarding this data in the current case. Speaker 1 answered that the investigation will reveal with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area, whether the text messages involving many questions were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg, and whether Lance Twigg was in Southern Utah or also in Orem. The main point is addressing how he could have known certain details based on terrain, given that he was not a student at the school. It is stated that it would be unlikely to have planned a murder from Google Maps, and that the authorities will determine this from the cell phone pathway—whether he went the day before or weeks before, and tracking all of that. Speaker 1 relayed information from forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan, who claimed they would be able to track Tyler Robinson from 8 Hundredth Street through a tunnel, around the Losey Building, up the stairs to the roof, from the roof to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, and run into the woods. The speaker also mentioned conspiracy videos suggesting he was seen on a café security system; although the footage is limited, it exists, and some claim the FBI tracked him to that location. The next morning, at 7:15 AM, at a Cedar City Maverick gas station, it is claimed he swiped a credit card, and the phone was followed to his home, to visits with Lance, and to his parents. All calls, texts, and other phone activity are said to be known. Speaker 1 summarized that the forensic expert states that next to the gun, the cell phone data will be the element that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on the building, and that geotracking will reveal where his phone was at all times on that day. The response also notes skepticism about trust in the FBI, but emphasizes that geotracking will demonstrate the phone’s location during the day in question.

On various dates, an individual ran a script to find blank passwords for the accounts on the system. The script was executed multiple times, overwriting a significant number of log entries. The EMS admin account was responsible for this, but due to the lack of accountability in assigning the username, it is difficult to prove who exactly did it. Fortunately, historical data from MTech video feeds helped identify the individuals at the keyboards during those times. However, their names will not be released to protect them from scrutiny and potential impacts.

Christy accesses the server room and introduces Brian, a new forensics expert. She shows him the server logs and points out the deletion of certain logs. They discuss the importance of investigating further and mention the presence of other individuals. The video ends with a mention of someone named Matt.

The speaker reviewed server logs and identified "Brian." The speaker found a database in the next vendor and new forensics. Christy is mentioned in connection to a server. The speaker shows access and a deletion on the log from the database. A previous tweet shows Christy letting Brian into the server. The speaker repeats "Here he is" multiple times. The speaker mentions another law proposal and altering.

Speaker 0 explains that, on Spotify or Apple, the situation is that he’s in his room with no bullets in it, but he’s practicing firing a weapon. He notes that there are multiple videos like this in the person’s online history, which the speaker possesses. The speaker reiterates that the online history shows similar content, ending with the fragment “His online history shows,” indicating there is more content that is not provided in the transcript.

The speaker states they cared about the server, the network, and their family first, including their partner, Shay. The speaker accuses someone of staying up all night to slander them and acting like a psychopath while pretending to be a traditional wife and mother. The speaker claims this person was going after their girlfriend, who hates them. The speaker then says they will show viewers that they still have their Twitter account when the video was made.

The speaker mentions server logs and their own logs, and then reveals that someone named Christie is involved. They state that Christie is not the right driver for the medical situation and imply that it is being discussed online.

The dialogue centers on accusations and revelations about political operatives and influence campaigns. Key points include: - A list of individuals named as problematic figures: Jack Kosobiak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer. Gabe Hoffman is described as “running hops on people” and as “a bad guy,” with a claim that these people are “evil” and unregistered foreign agents that the speaker will be watching closely. - A claim of infiltration and surveillance: one speaker asserts that someone close to them was likely there to infiltrate, and that “these people” attempted to set up someone they know and love, with the speaker vowing to monitor everything they do. - Allegations of role in broader disruptive actions: one speaker says, “We conduct riots and color revolutions and, you know, steal elections, and we overthrow governments we don't like. And I was part of that.” - The origin of operational concepts: one speaker mentions IIA, describing it as social media psychological warfare that began in 2007. - A sense of punitive consequence and manipulation: another speaker states that “they’re all being punished because they thought that what those important people told them was gonna happen,” and recalls being present during a plan to trash the capital, noting a lack of preparedness and security knowledge. - Reactions to claims about being controlled: one speaker says it pisses them off that others claim they’re being handled, with another agreeing that such claims have been heard before. - A warning tone about danger and preparation: one speaker warns that it is “very dangerous” that people are out there giving others hope, describing “a storm coming like nothing you have ever seen,” and asserting that not a single person is prepared for it. - Personal and on-site context: there are mentions of returning to a site to get a burner phone and use ghost accounts, and of attempting to coordinate around Breva, indicating ongoing, weaponized online activity and counter-movement tactics. Overall, the speakers blend accusations of manipulation and clandestine influence with admissions of involvement in disruptive actions, interspersed with warnings of impending upheaval and calls for vigilance.

On various dates, an individual ran a script to search for blank passwords on the system. This script overwrote a significant number of log entries. The EMS admin account was responsible, but it's difficult to prove who specifically executed the script due to the lack of accountability in assigning usernames. Fortunately, historical data from MTech video feeds allowed us to identify individuals at the keyboards during those times. However, we won't disclose their names due to the potential scrutiny and impact on them.

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

Here's the video everyone is talking about. We’re examining the server logs, and it turns out it’s Brian. We’ll look at a database that enhances our findings. Forensics play a crucial role here, especially with AT&T and the server. I’ll demonstrate the app access and the log deletion process. You all know the history behind this. This is another log we’re reviewing, likely related to daily activities, such as purchasing a truck.

There is a discussion about log files on two screens. One screen shows hundreds of log files from 2019 until May 22, 2021. The other screen only has three years of log files, which have mysteriously disappeared. It is mentioned that when a Dominion employee came in, the log files vanished. These files record all access to a specific machine. It is also mentioned that Dominion sent people around the country for software updates during that time. Some participants confirm this information.

In this video, the speaker talks about checking the server logs and finding something interesting. They discovered a database in their extended logs, which they believe is related to forensics. They mention someone named Christy, who is an active member of the GMC community.

In this video, Speaker 1 confronts Dennis Gilliam about his alleged involvement in certain Signal and Telegram groups. Dennis claims to have no knowledge of these groups and suggests that he may have been added without his consent. Speaker 1 believes Dennis is not the creator of these groups and wants to collaborate in identifying the real culprits. They discuss the possibility of Dennis being transferred to these groups through links posted on Facebook. Speaker 1 emphasizes that their main focus is finding the individuals responsible for creating and participating in these groups, rather than accusing Dennis. Additionally, the video discusses how the speaker was led to various groups on Signal through provocative photos on Facebook. They mention that both boys and girls are being posted in these groups, with mainly women being posted in the videos. The age range of individuals in the groups is mostly teens and twenties. The speaker admits to clicking on links and seeing pictures and videos but claims to have quickly exited when uncomfortable. They mention that the groups are primarily in Spanish and that they have seen links with pictures and videos being posted. However, the frequency of inappropriate content being posted in the groups remains uncertain. The video also features a conversation between Speaker 1, Speaker 2, and Speaker 3. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 2 about his alleged involvement in groups that post explicit content involving minors. Speaker 2 denies any knowledge or intent to view such content, but Speaker 1 presses for more information. Speaker 3, who is also present, shares that he has grandchildren and works in mental health. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of clicking on videos featuring young children. Speaker 2 admits to accidentally clicking on such videos multiple times. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 explaining their organization's work and Speaker 2's involvement. The video ends with Speaker 2 deleting evidence from his phone.

Speaker 0 expresses intense anger toward the Trump administration, saying: "I give a fuck about any fucking person in the Trump administration being upset with giving them oh, how dare you?" They claim others have "no fucking idea to list the bodies that we have" and suggest that if they were serial killers, it would be like "Mal or something." They urge everyone to become emotionally detached from their online personas and to create burner accounts to "unmask all of these traders" and to impose the "threat of IRL consequences" because people use anonymity to act behind privilege. They state that Twitter should no longer be a safe place for these individuals and propose that someone should interrupt leadership by saying, "yeah, boss. I I can't do this anymore." They argue the government should consider the impact on families: "My kids and my address just fucking wound up on this platform. How the fuck did they find out who I am?" They insist that every time those people log in, they need to have "second fucking thoughts" and be terrified. They assert that "Security clearances don't mean a goddamn thing to me" and declare, "I guarantee you I'm 10 times smarter than you and your fucking best bet." Speaker 1 interjects: "Back the up, juicy." Speaker 2 responds with distress: "I'm not a Spit on me again." They request to be kept away from the person and say, "This guy's intimidating me. He's pushing me." They ask, "Where's your vehicle?" and answer, "It's in the garage." They further ask, "Hey. What is your name? Are you working for the hotel?" and Speaker 0 says, "I'm working. Tell me. Are" before the scene cuts off. Overall, the excerpt presents a heated monologue urging aggressive online accountability and real-world consequences for certain individuals operating under anonymity, followed by interruptions that reveal a tense confrontation involving intimidation, personal threat concerns, and questions about a vehicle and employment.