reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The US military is facing internal corruption and harm to its members due to unlawful actions by leadership, as highlighted in the Declaration of Military Accountability. Despite the COVID-19 vaccine mandate being rescinded, there has been no accountability for the harm caused. Organizers, including veteran Brad Miller, are calling for senior leaders to acknowledge the harm inflicted and restore those affected. This situation reflects a lack of regard for military readiness and civilian control, prompting a call for serious action to address these serious matters. The importance of free speech and virtue in society is emphasized.

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.

Is there confidence in the Pentagon's leadership after recent failures like the Afghanistan pullout and incidents involving spy balloons? The current insiders have not been held accountable for these issues. Pete Hegseth deserves a chance; he has 20 years of military service, two bronze stars, and an education from Princeton and Harvard. Critics say he’s not the typical Washington choice, but the American people have rejected the usual picks. While civilian leadership made decisions, the military executed them, leading to disastrous outcomes. With a new president, there’s hope for change by appointing non-insiders. Hegseth, as a veteran advocate, must prove his capability in the role, but he should be given an opportunity to succeed.

General Milley, the military's top officer, has been accused of using an intelligence platform called Data Miner to uncover information about potential threats to the United States Capitol and members of Congress. However, he allegedly failed to inform everyone who should have been notified, including the speaker. This raises concerns about the duty to warn and the need for necessary action to be taken. The details were revealed by investigative reporter Carol Leonning in her book.

John Kelly, a respected Marine four-star general, expressed grave concerns about the threat to American democracy, stating that returning Trump to the White House would be dangerous. He emphasized the military's nonpartisan oath to the Constitution, not to any leader. Other military leaders, like Mark Milley, share similar views, calling Trump a fascist. This situation should motivate undecided voters to consider the implications for America's future. While some may focus on past policies, the risk of losing democracy outweighs those concerns. If democracy falters, the safety and well-being of all Americans are at stake, making it crucial to rethink voting choices.

The January 6th pardons are unacceptable. Notably, President Trump is the only U.S. president to veto a defense bill, which he did in 2020. His reason? He opposed removing Confederate names from military bases, claiming it was a rewriting of history. Recently, he ordered the removal of General Milley's portrait from the joint chiefs of staff wall, which seems contradictory. This raises concerns about what a second term under him would look like and whether it would pose challenges.

The weak strategic leadership of the 25-year-old staffers in the White House over the past four years is concerning. Lloyd Austin's performance is disappointing, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, should be recalled to active duty and court-martialed for his actions in Afghanistan.

It's concerning how recent actions undermine military honor, accountability, and discipline. When a president intervenes in decisions about military qualifications, it disrupts the chain of command and the effectiveness of the military. While the president has the authority to make military decisions, exercising that right can create confusion and chaos within the ranks. Notably, Gallagher's own SEAL teammates reported him, highlighting the seriousness of the situation. Additionally, appearing on television while on active duty raises questions about maintaining the chain of command.

Lawrence Wilkerson and Glenn discuss a fragile ceasefire in Southwest Asia and what it signals about broader geopolitics and U.S. strategy. - Ceasefire prospects and Lebanon: Wilkerson says, as a military professional, ceasefires need the first week or two to establish, and with Iran-related communications, longer to restore contact with dispersed forces. He notes Netanyahu’s continued bombing in Lebanon and Beirut, arguing this is a major impediment to a durable ceasefire, with Iran having made clear that if Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire the deal may fail. - NATO and U.S. commitments: Wilkerson declares NATO effectively dead, though not formally, predicting the U.S. will disengage from NATO in practice as Ukraine’s conflict accelerates the decline. He links this to a broader reevaluation of U.S. alliances, suggesting a shift away from formal alliances toward other strategic arrangements, especially given changes in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East. - U.S. role in Southwest Asia: He argues the United States is moving toward “offshore balancing” or withdrawal from the region, citing aging maritime assets, vulnerable aircraft carriers, and a changing energy/security architecture that lessens the need for a permanent U.S. ground presence. He predicts a transformation where pipelines and land routes become more important than sea routes, with Central Asia (Caspian energy) and the broader Eurasian land corridor strengthening, while Gulf oil dynamics and the Arab-Israeli tie weaken. - Russia and China in a multipolar world: Wilkerson contends power is shifting toward a multipolar order. He suggests Russia will become a major land and maritime power, leveraging Arctic routes and expanding naval reach, while China leverages both the Belt and Road and maritime interests (including deep-sea fishing and ports). He emphasizes the need to accept this shift rather than fight it, warning against a Thucydides trap scenario if the U.S. doubles down on containment. - The Middle East and regional realignments: He describes potential strategic shifts, such as Saudi Arabia redirecting Gulf investment toward Syria and away from Israel, and Israel’s future as a “tool” rather than the driver of U.S. policy. He fears Israel’s days could be numbered if the wider regional energy and political alignments move against it and if U.S. support falters. He calls for a genuine two-state framework and democracy in Israel for long-term viability, but doubts such changes will occur given current leadership. - U.S. domestic politics and leadership: The discussion touches on the perceived degradation of U.S. institutions (Congress, Supreme Court) and political finance concerns (Citizens United). Wilkerson criticizes the leadership around Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, accusing them of pursuing religious-nationalist agendas and purging military leadership to build a partisan base. He cites the potential for internal conflict, including a possible civil dimension in the United States, exacerbated by polarization and militarized factions. - Iran and diplomacy: Wilkerson presents two opposing paths for the Iran question: a subterfuge scenario where negotiations are used to lull Iran into a false sense of security, followed by renewed pressure, or a serious diplomatic track led by a serious U.S. president to end the war and negotiate a settlement that satisfies Iran’s terms (reparations, sanctions removal, regional security guarantees). He doubts the current leadership will pursue genuine diplomacy, anticipating muddled outcomes or renewed strikes. - The ceasefire’s optics and escalation: He suggests the ceasefire could be a tactical pause while threats of escalation persist, with the Iranians possibly misreading U.S. diplomacy. He notes the risk of renewed Israeli actions against Iranian targets or proxies, and the potential for further bombardment or military missteps (citing past U.S. missteps as cautionary examples). - Cultural and geopolitical macro-trends: Wilkerson emphasizes the erosion of Western-led order, the rising importance of land-based energy and trade corridors, and the need to recalibrate how the United States engages a rising, multipolar world. He uses historical analogies (Halford Mackinder, Monroe Doctrine) to describe the strategic pivot toward inland power centers and away from exclusive maritime dominance. - Concluding outlook: The conversation ends on a bleak note about continued instability, the potential for regional and domestic turmoil, and the sense that without new leadership and a fundamental rethinking of strategy, the current trajectory risks further deterioration of global stability and U.S. influence.

Donald Trump is facing serious allegations regarding classified documents. If true, he had these documents inappropriately and failed to return them when given the chance. While it's possible to make mistakes with classified materials, once identified, they must be returned. This behavior is inconsistent with the responsibility of protecting U.S. military personnel. If the allegations hold, some of the documents in question are particularly significant, which raises further concerns about the situation.

General Milley was found to be using an intelligence platform called DataMiner, which he used to gather information about potential threats to Congress and the US Capitol. However, he did not share this intelligence with the Chief of Police or other relevant authorities. The Chief of Police expresses concern about not being informed, as it is their duty to take necessary action. They discuss how this handling of intelligence differs from previous protests and suggest that the intelligence may have been intentionally downplayed.

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modley apologized for his comments about Captain Brett Crozier, who raised concerns about a COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt. Modley initially criticized Crozier, suggesting he was naive for believing his letter would remain private. However, after pressure from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the President's potential involvement, Modley called Crozier "smart and passionate" and expressed regret for any confusion caused. There are questions about Crozier's decision to send the letter directly, indicating a failure in the chain of command. It appears he acted out of desperation to protect his crew, risking his career in the process.

It's concerning how recent actions dishonor the military, creating chaos and undermining accountability and discipline. The president's involvement in decisions about military qualifications disrupts the chain of command. While the president has the authority as commander in chief, exercising that power in this way can cause confusion and disrespect for the military. Notably, Gallagher's SEAL teammates reported him, highlighting that the concerns came from those who served alongside him, not from distant officials. Additionally, appearing on television while on active duty raises questions about adherence to the chain of command.

Matt Lohmeier, a former lieutenant colonel and commander in the Space Force, was fired for criticizing the military's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings. He believes these trainings, rooted in critical race theory and Marxist ideology, divide troops and create animosity towards the country. Lohmeier submitted a complaint about these violations, but it was dismissed. He testifies about ongoing Marxist-inspired efforts to weaken the military and American society. He mentions differing views on the culture war, with some criticizing DEI initiatives and others dismissing it as a political talking point. Lohmeier argues that service members don't want these initiatives in the military workplace. He presents evidence of negative impacts and warns about recruitment and retention issues. Lohmeier concludes by urging the nation to abandon divisive paths.

Democratic senators and deep state operatives are reportedly preparing to remove President Trump's control of the military if he is reelected. They are concerned that Trump may use the military to suppress domestic protests, particularly those led by the Black Lives Matter movement. The plan involves introducing legislation to limit the president's power to call on the military and potentially invoking the 25th Amendment. Critics argue that this is a coup and a constitutional crisis. Trump's supporters argue that he is being unfairly targeted and that the real threat is the deep state's attempt to undermine his presidency.

The speaker asks for insights into the Pentagon, referencing reports of a "meltdown" and concerns about seriousness within the organization. The interviewee responds that people are bothered by a lack of seriousness, citing "signal gate" as an example of amateurish behavior. The interviewee states that the Pentagon claimed the information shared wasn't classified, but it was. The interviewee believes the real problem is that "they knew it was" and still wanted people to believe them. The interviewee emphasizes the seriousness of the Pentagon's mission to defend the nation, requiring all of America's capabilities. The interviewee states that the Pentagon is now locked in an argument about DEI.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked Army Chief of Staff General Randy George to leave his post, requesting that George retire immediately. The ouster comes as the United States is dealing with Iran. On live commentary, national security analyst Hal Kemfort—a familiar figure and a retired US Marine—shared his reaction. He said, “Well, Marla, it’s a deal.” He noted that normally when you become a service chief, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or the vice chair, those are four-year terms, though not set in stone. He observed that there have been many changes under Pete Hegseth as secretary of war or defense, including the removal of about a dozen flag and general officers. Kemfort recalled specific instances: Hegseth removed CQ Brown, the Air Force General who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Hegseth came in. He also removed Lisa Franchetti, who was the Chief of Naval Operations and head of the Navy. Additionally, he mentioned General Cruz, Lieutenant General Cruz, who headed the DIA, as well as others who have been removed. Kemfort emphasized that these actions show Hegseth’s willingness to remove senior flag and general officers, indicating a pattern of leadership changes at high levels within the military. The discussion highlighted that while such removals are not unprecedented, the current move to retire General Randy George immediately is still considered a significant development. The segment linked the military leadership shakeups to ongoing strategic and security pressures, including the U.S. stance and actions regarding Iran.

Speaker 0 argues that military leadership requires accountability, and a hypothetical regular officer would be terminated for similar actions. Speaker 1 counters that Republicans aren't interested in lectures on military accountability after the Biden administration, claiming the bar for firing a Secretary of Defense is high, even after incidents involving casualties and going AWOL. Speaker 0 states that excusing the behavior is unacceptable. Speaker 1 clarifies that a mistake was made in communications, but operationally, things were handled correctly. Speaker 0 questions why free traffic isn't restored around the Red Sea. Speaker 1 asks why the Houthis are running wild and accuses the previous administration of using the right devices to talk about secrets, while Speaker 0 says the rebels are still harassing ships.

A senator expressed support for the nominee for chairman of the joint chiefs, citing a need for someone focused on national security, not political behavior. The senator criticized General Milley for undermining the commander-in-chief, referencing a call to Pelosi and questioning Trump's mental fitness. The senator asked how the nominee would communicate with congressional leadership, to which the nominee responded that his first duty is to advise the president. The senator stated that Milley wasted nearly 6,000,000 man hours on DEI and woke trainings, and asked what kind of training service members can expect under the nominee's leadership; the nominee responded, "War fighting, lethality, and readiness." The senator also criticized the Afghanistan withdrawal, stating there was no accountability for the deaths at Abbey Gate, and asked if the nominee agreed that officers should be held accountable for military failures; the nominee stated that accountability matters. The senator stated that Milley told his aides that President Trump was preaching, quote, the gospel of the fuhrer, and asked if the nominee agreed that the chairman of the joint chiefs should never disparage the commander in chief; the nominee agreed. The senator asked if the nominee thought it was appropriate for Milley to do interviews regularly with print media, books, documentaries, video on TV, to which the nominee responded that he would spend his time focused on the essential tasks in front of him. Finally, the senator asked if the nominee thought it was appropriate for the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to warn our greatest adversary what we're when we're about to attack or what we might do; the nominee said no.

The speaker states that military matters should not be approached politically, but that Mark Milley has become a political animal. The speaker claims they would have fired Milley immediately if they had known he spoke with the Chinese in January 2020, assuring them that the U.S. military was under control. The speaker says Milley never informed them about these conversations. The speaker concludes that Milley, along with someone else, should have left after Afghanistan.