reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Government workers discuss the actions and decisions within their control. They emphasize the power of noncooperation and leaking information to journalists and activists. They also mention the importance of creating parallel structures and being in touch with civic and grassroots groups. Slowing down bureaucratic processes through cost-benefit analysis and leaking documents is highlighted as an effective tactic. The conversation touches on the risks and consequences of these actions, including the potential loss of jobs or legal implications.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff, right? I’m James O’Keefe. You’re friends with the reporter, Yvonne Wingate Sanchez. Did you leak the letter? No, there was no leak. How did the Washington Post get it before I did? I don’t know how they knew. The letter was released under public records law. I haven’t received it yet. Your office seems to be working with the media to target journalists. It was released legally. But how did the Washington Post know to request it? There are many ways they could have found out. So someone in your office leaked it? No, that’s faulty logic. You’re saying someone knew about the letter and told them? I have other matters to attend to. You’re busy writing letters threatening journalists. This is about good versus evil in this country. The Wellness Company offers a first aid emergency kit to help you take control of your health. Order now and save 15% with code OMG.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You need to ask Yvonne. I haven't received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It's on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are many ways they could have known. Give me one example. Others in government could have known. So someone in your office knew about the letter. That’s faulty logic. You’re busy writing letters to journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country. Order your medical emergency kit now and save 15% by using code OMG at TWC.Health/omg.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1 with information about a cover-up that should be exposed. Speaker 1 advises them to pray about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. Speaker 0 questions how this protects against corruption and misconduct, to which Speaker 1 admits it doesn't solve the problem. Speaker 1 warns that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as examples. Speaker 0 concludes the hearing, acknowledging the gravity of the situation.

It's great to see such a massive turnout here today! Everyone in the labor movement, and those who value public service, recognize that enough is enough. An injury to one is an injury to all. They're counting on us giving up, but we can't. I know many of you have family, friends, and colleagues in the federal system who are scared. If you can, stand up. If you are able, decline to enforce illegal instructions. If the facts support it, use the whistleblower portals that the Senate Democrats have set up. We may be out of power, but we are not powerless. We're going to win.

An undercover video released by Project Veritas shows Travis Combs from the Department of Education describing how the agency hides information from Congress and the public. We communicate via Signal, an encrypted app, to keep things under wraps. If Congress knew what we were doing, they'd shut us down. It's like a sanctuary program where we're spending federal dollars inappropriately. I'm not supposed to be doing business on Signal, but everyone uses it. We're operating as a rogue sanctuary program for illegal immigrants, misusing federal tax dollars. Employees are evading oversight by hiding secrets on encrypted messaging apps. If you're a public employee, you're expected to comply with the administration.

The speaker, who works in the executive office of the White House, manages two federal agencies and is responsible for protecting their networks. They discuss the importance of keeping secrets and serving as the president's voice in meetings. They mention concerns about Joe Biden's mental fitness and the unpopularity of Kamala Harris, but acknowledge that they cannot publicly address these issues. The speaker also talks about their background in cybersecurity and their role in overseeing responses to cyber incidents. They mention the ego within the State Department and their own experiences in the field. The conversation touches on various topics, including vaccines and Michelle Obama's decision not to run for office. The speaker is unaware that they are speaking with James O'Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, and discuss a cybersecurity operation at the White House. The video ends with a teaser for future revelations.

Speaker 0 describes a strategy for people having problems with law enforcement: file a Freedom of Information Act request with the county manager for any communique regarding your name, including emails or any entries in the NCIC system or state bureau of investigation records mentioning you. Send the request to the county manager or assistant county manager stating, under the Freedom of Information Act, you're requesting any communique regarding your name. The response should be a file dump showing what the FBI has entered, or what’s in the NCIC system about you. If you find false information, request its correction. If they ignore you, you sue them in federal court. The NCIC national database is governed by the FBI, and it’s a federal crime to use the NCIC system to submit false information. Lawyers may downplay it as casual talk, but it’s described as a very serious offense; most false NCIC-entry cases are settled quickly and quietly to avoid public scrutiny. Speaker 0 advises to file a FOIA request for any communication regarding your name, with the county, the state bureau of investigation, and NCIC systems. When you receive it, examine for false information and request corrections; if there’s no response within days (ten suggested), you sue. This is presented as a federal crime and a violation of federal law and state statutes. The speaker mentions ongoing litigation in Cherokee County, North Carolina against the sheriff and others for false NCIC entries, and urges people nationwide to pursue accountability, citing a personal grievance with Dustin Smith, a candidate for sheriff in Cherokee County, including an alleged incident where his wife faced an arrest warrant for second-degree trespass after being told there were civil papers to pick up, leading to property removal and stolen items, with the trespass charges later dropped and expunged. The discussion pivots to the founders: the last resort is emphasized, citing The Federalist Papers number 28 by Alexander Hamilton, about when representatives betray constituents and the people have no recourse other than self-defense. The Declaration of Independence is cited about abuses and usurpations, the right to alter or abolish a destructive government, and the right to revolution and to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is described as not just about hunting or self-defense but about securing freedom; the government cannot tell people what guns to have to resist tyranny, and peaceful gun ownership includes machine guns in the context of a right to bear arms, with peaceful not equaling harmless. Speaker 0 concludes by urging viewers to use FOIA to obtain documentation, pursue lawsuits for false information, and notes that public servants’ communications are not private, including text messages and emails, and that defamation per se laws can apply. The goal is to hold public servants accountable; a 10% turnout of suing viewers could deter abuse, and the speaker emphasizes willingness to go to trial rather than settle, even at personal cost. Speaker 1 ends with the words “Spark. Spark. Spark. Spark.”

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

Because you're in the same position in a way that Pete Hegstaff is in Yeah. Where people underneath you appear to be leaking even top secret information that you could go to jail for leaking. That's right. But they clearly have such an agenda, it's worth it to them. Yeah. that there is an investigation that's underway to try to figure out the source of this leak around that specific incident. it makes things much harder in constantly questioning and looking over your shoulder. These things being leaked, either by people who are just trying to show a reporter that they're important or chasing clout of some sort or the most dangerous of which is those who are trying to ultimately undermine the president's policies. Really, what is happening when they do that is they're undermining our democracy. the majority, the vast majority of the American people who chose this duly elected president, Donald Trump.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant and hope that they are still available. The whistleblower is described as credible. When questioned about the informant's whereabouts, the speaker clarifies that they are hopeful of finding them. They explain that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen frequently or being in the public eye.

I'm declining to be named in your story. I haven't given any quotes. My name is James O'Keefe. We have you on hidden camera talking about Elon Musk, Doge, and unlawful activities at Treasury. I encourage you to speak on the record. We have you on video saying government colleagues don't do much, and Doge targets us because it's easy. I'm a reporter. People deserve to know what you've said. Why did you share this with a stranger but not me? You specialize in foreign policy at the Treasury. What are you afraid of? It'll look bad when you won't speak to me, but you told a stranger everything. This is a major public policy issue. I'm running this story with or without you. I think the people need to know what's happening inside the government, including risks to national security.

I want to show you something. I was going to let this go, but I can't. Hello. I don't know how to do this, but I want to tell you all that I have been pressured by government officials to do and say things to harm others. They even hacked my phone and I received a tracking notification. This happened after meeting with government officials who, besides that, offered me everything and a large sum of money. They also tried to persuade me to lie and arrange a meeting with the president if I caused harm.

I've identified leakers within the organization, and we're actively uncovering more. Let me be clear: these individuals will be terminated, and they will face serious repercussions. Leaking information to the press, especially when it jeopardizes operations, puts law enforcement lives at grave risk, potentially leaving families without their loved ones. We're employing every available tactic, including polygraphs, email analysis, and communication monitoring, to identify these individuals. It's astonishing how these bureaucrats, driven by their agendas to undermine our mission of ensuring American safety, will betray one another to protect themselves. Rest assured, I am fully committed to finding and removing these leakers to ensure the safety of our law enforcement officers and agents, and to enable us to continue our vital work.

Federal workers are encouraged to self-organize with colleagues within their bureau and across government agencies to build trust and navigate challenges together. They should also connect with civic groups and have open conversations with them. Legal support and advocacy from civil society organizations can be helpful if they need to take action. Contributing their knowledge and skills to civic groups can be beneficial. It is important to stay in communication with grassroots groups and be prepared in case of a stolen election.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You should ask Yvonne. But you're part of the government working with the media to target journalists. I haven’t received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It’s on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are other ways they could have known. Like who? Many people in government could have been aware. So someone in your office knew about the letter? Sure. Then how did the Washington Post find out? That’s faulty logic. You've been busy writing letters threatening journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country.

There's a "shock and awe" playbook being used, keeping people scared and uninformed with impossible demands, creating an unhealthy environment where no real work gets done. Federal employees should avoid workplace conversations and devices, using encrypted networks to prevent surveillance. Be cautious about what you say on any platform. It's not surprising to see inexperienced people being brought in to evaluate experienced employees' work, creating a demoralizing environment. The practice of feeding sensitive federal data into AI systems without proper vetting is a privacy and cybersecurity nightmare, ignoring the laws in place to protect information and government security. These rules are there for a reason.