reSee.it - Related Video Feed

According to Speaker 1, the intelligence agencies hid the fact that Bin Laden was in Iran, not Afghanistan or Pakistan, to justify military action in the Middle East. This manipulation started under Clinton and continued under Bush Jr. Speaker 1 claims that intelligence agencies have tentacles around the world and don't answer to anyone, which is a problem for Trump. Speaker 1 alleges that they were targeted after questioning 9/11, resulting in an FBI raid on their daughter's house weeks before an election, which they believe was politically motivated to remove them from office. No charges were ever filed against the daughter, and boxes taken were returned unopened months later. Speaker 1 claims that the person who ran the campaign against them was managed by the staff director of Sandy Berger's company. Speaker 1 asserts that some individuals within intelligence agencies are making money from conflicts and vows to expose them.

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.

- Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility that a friend was murdered and suggest that both victims died suddenly from fast-moving cancer, a method they say the agency uses overseas to eliminate people. Speaker 1 admits he cannot prove this but notes the sudden deaths. - The conversation asserts that the US government has technology to infect people with fast-moving cancer and to perform cognitive and directed-energy warfare. Speaker 0 states the government has the technology to infect with fast-moving cancer and to do so absolutely. - In 1997, Speaker 1 describes a hearing on asymmetric threats where he chaired the research committee and focused on four threats: drones, cyberattacks, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and cognitive warfare. He asserts that cognitive warfare is now being labeled by some as Havana syndrome and that directed-energy weapons are the underlying technology. - Speaker 2 recounts a recent homeland security hearing about foreign adversaries using direct weapons against US citizens, enabling incapacitation. He emphasizes the chilling nature of the briefing and criticizes current domestic leadership as foolish, corrupt, incompetent, and wicked. - Speaker 3 notes that up to 40% of the Air Force equipment budget in the 1990s was classified, making much of it “black.” He emphasizes that military and security research often precedes civilian medical science, and that servicemen were used in experiments without fully informed consent, referencing NK Ultra-era disclosures of thousands of service members used as subjects. - Speaker 4 discusses MKUltra, describing a Canadian experiment involving psychic driving with massive LSD doses, eye-tracking, and memory loss, funded by MKUltra and affecting civilians. He mentions Project Midnight Climax, where Johns were observed in brothels while subjected to LSD, and notes similar experiments by the British Royal Air Force and Army. The results of Midnight Climax are unknown, with no published after-action reports. - Speaker 3 adds that Secretary of Energy O’Leary stated under Clinton that over a half a million Americans had been used in human experiments over four decades without informed consent, including mind control, with no accountability. He argues that mind-control technology has advanced, and questions who should govern its use, given the lack of legal frameworks. - The discussion covers mind-effects research and the lack of treaties governing such technologies. They reference a European Parliament security and disarmament resolution (1999) addressing mind-effects and mind-control technology, and Russian Duma resolutions (2002) seeking similar safeguards. Zabigniew Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages is cited regarding electronically stroking the ionosphere to influence behavior over geographic areas, connecting it to HARP and other electromagnetic carriers capable of mass or individual influence. - Speaker 6 explains historical demonstrations of electronic mind control, starting with Jose Delgado’s remote manipulation of a charging bull using radio energy and electrodes, and notes later work showing noninvasive techniques to influence behavior using low-power magnetic fields. Speaker 7 reiterates Delgado’s animal studies and the potential for noninvasive methods to affect emotions and memory, with broader implications for humans. - Speaker 3 discusses the progression of research funded by DARPA and others toward higher-resolution control of brain activity, enabling controlled effects that override senses and create synthetic memories, raising questions about future justice and evidence. They describe European Parliament and NATO/US military interest in mind-control technologies and the absence of robust legal protections. - Speaker 9 presents advances in AI-enabled brain-reading and memory-altering devices, including mind-reading and emotion decoding, while Speaker 10 and Speaker 12 discuss privacy concerns, brain-data privacy laws (Colorado’s law adding brain data to privacy protections), and the availability of consumer devices that decode brainwaves. They warn that brain data can be misused by insurers, law enforcement, advertisers, and governments, with private companies often sharing data without clear disclosure. - The segment concludes with a note that devices can infer attention and thoughts, and that DARPA’s N3D program aims for noninvasive neuromodulation with implantable electrodes read/write capabilities. It references 1980s–1990s discussions of RF energy as a potential nonlethal mind-control technology, and a 1993 Johns Hopkins conference listing low-frequency weapons as attractive options.

Speaker 0 states that Mister Bethune has always said he doesn't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons and asks how close he thinks they were to obtaining one. Speaker 0 references Tulsi Gabbard's March testimony that the intelligence community stated Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon. Speaker 0 says they don't care what she said. Mister Bethune believes Iran was very close to having a nuclear weapon.

Speaker 0 asserts that the IRS has been using AI to access American citizens' bank accounts without a search warrant or a crime claim, discovered by an undercover journalist. They claim the IRS has access to every person’s bank account, and that the agency has been working with the Department of Justice and has no problem going after the “little guy” to ensure taxes are paid. This is described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Speaker 0 and Jim Jordan sent a letter to the IRS demanding information about how AI is used and how civil rights are protected. Speaker 1 asks what the end game is and how to protect constitutional rights given the inevitability of AI, seeking ways to safeguard Americans. Speaker 0 responds that a new administration is needed in November, accusing the current administration of being lawless in terms of surveillance of the public, members of Congress, local officials, protesters, and voters. They claim the administration has “weaponized the government against us,” and that protections of the Bill of Rights—First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments—have been ignored. Speaker 0 states that one of the goals is to address this perceived weaponization and surveillance.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

Dan Bongino posted on X that something he learned from his time at the FBI shocked him to his core, stating, "we cannot run a republic like this, and I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned." Speaker 1 responded that they have seen up close the tactics used by those who care more for themselves, their ambition, their job, their influence, their political interests, and their selfish, self-serving interests than they care about the Constitution. They stated that every law enforcement and intelligence community professional swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Speaker 1 expressed their own frustrations but affirmed their resolve is rooted in love for the country and belief in its founding values, and therefore, they feel a responsibility to do something about what they are revealing, seeing, and experiencing firsthand.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Israel is not total and that allies spy on each other, including domestically. Speaker 1, identifying as conservative, says this is expected because people act in their rational self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 presses on the issue of spying, asking why an American lawmaker wouldn't tell a client state that spying on the U.S. is not allowed. Speaker 0 expresses that it is weird not to say that, but Speaker 1 seems unable to.

The speaker asks if there's any reason to allow law enforcement access to Telegram due to unacceptable activity. Speaker 1 responds that encryption cannot be secure for some people only. Speaker 0 claims ISIS uses Telegram to spread propaganda. Speaker 1 says it's impossible to stop them, and ISIS could create their own messaging solution quickly. Speaker 0 notes Durov has been purging ISIS propaganda but would refuse to unlock private messages, citing encryption. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1's hands are tied. Speaker 1 confirms they cannot unlock messages. Speaker 0 frames this as a debate between shutting down terrorism and preserving privacy. Speaker 1 states they are personally for privacy, arguing that making an exception for law enforcement endangers the private communications of millions because encryption is either secure or not.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

Speaker 1 questions the FBI's role, asking if their job is to defend Joe Biden or protect the country and uphold the constitution. Speaker 0 clarifies that the FBI's job is to protect the country, keep people safe, and uphold the constitution objectively. Speaker 1 accuses the FBI of being politicized and weaponizing the agency against the American people. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that there are good people in the FBI and defends their actions. Speaker 1 questions why certain information was redacted, but Speaker 0 explains that redactions are made to protect sources. Speaker 1 expresses the need for transparency to address the perception of politicization.

Speaker 0 asks if the belief that the person is secretly saving the world from a satanic cult of pedophiles and cannibals is something they support. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't heard that before, but if it means helping to save the world, they are willing to do it. They believe they are saving the world from a radical left philosophy that would destroy the country, and emphasize the importance of the country as a leader for the rest of the world.

The speakers are debating the former president's statements about an "enemy within." One speaker claims the former president suggested turning the American military on the American people. A clip is played of the former president responding to accusations of threatening people, stating he is not threatening anyone, but that "they" are the ones doing the threatening through "phony investigations" and "weaponization of government." The other speaker objects, asserting the clip does not reflect the former president's repeated statements about the American people being the "enemy within." This speaker claims the former president has talked about turning the American military on the American people, going after peaceful protestors, and locking up those who disagree with him, which they argue is unacceptable in a democracy.

The speaker wants the American public to know that the FBI has had problems. The FBI will hold itself internally accountable and meet out justice to those who abuse their roles. Those who have taken missteps have already been eliminated from the FBI. The FBI will vigorously uphold justice as vigorously as they pursue violent crime, on a twenty four seven, three sixty five basis. The speaker will have zero tolerance for those who utilize their badge to harm the country.

Speaker 0 describes a 2021 claim by the commander of Israeli intelligence to design a machine to resolve a human bottleneck in locating and approving targets in war. A recent investigation by Plus 972 Magazine and Local Call reveals that the Israeli army developed an AI-based Lavender system to designate targets and direct airstrikes. During the initial weeks of the Lavender operation, the system designated about 37,000 Palestinians as targets and directed airstrikes on their homes. The system reportedly had an error rate of about 10%, and there was no requirement to verify the machine’s data. The Israeli army systematically attacked targeted individuals at night in their homes while their whole family was present. An automated component, known as “where’s daddy,” tracked targeted individuals and carried out bombings when they entered their family residences. The result, according to the report, was that thousands of women and children were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Israeli intelligence officers allegedly stated that the IDF bombed homes as a first option, and in several cases entire families were murdered when the actual target was not inside. In one instance, four buildings were destroyed along with everyone inside because a single target was in one of them. For targets marked as low level by Lavender, cheaper bombs were used, destroying entire buildings and killing mostly civilians and entire families. It was alleged that the IDF did not want to waste expensive bombs on “unimportant people,” and it was decided that for every low-level Hamas operative Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; for a senior Hamas official, more than 100 civilians could be killed. Most AI targets were never tracked before the war. Lavender analyzed information collected on the 2,300,000 residents of the Gaza Strip through mass surveillance, assessing the likelihood of each person being a militant and giving a rating from 1 to 100. If the rating was high enough, the person and their entire family were killed. Lavender flagged individuals with patterns similar to Hamas, including police, civil defense, relatives, and residents with similar names or nicknames. The report notes that this kind of tracking system has existed in the US for years. Speaker 1 presents a counterpoint: a “fine gentleman of the secret service” claims to provide a list of every threat made about the president since February 3 and profiles of every threat maker, implying that targets could be identified through broad data collection including emails, chats, SMS. The passage suggests a tool akin to a Google search but including private communications. Speaker 0 adds that although some claim Israel controls the US, Joe Biden says Israel serves US interests. Speaker 2: A speaker asserts, “There’s no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3,000,000,000 investment we make,” and claims that without Israel the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect its regional interests. Speaker 0 closes reporting for Infowars, credited to Greg Reese.

The president will be at his dinner later this week. This is about protecting our children. It's more than just politics or votes or just anything. It's about national security, protecting Americans, protecting our children. Please tell the truth. Tell, like, how violent it really is.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Speaker 0 questions if anyone has been held accountable for lying to the FISA court for the Carter Page warrant. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing disciplinary process. Speaker 0 expresses concern about reauthorizing extraordinary authorities due to the agency's history of abuses and concealing information about allegations against the president. Speaker 1 tries to shift the focus to reforms, but Speaker 0 insists on discussing the reauthorization of section 702, highlighting the agency's track record of abuse, illegal surveillance, and political targeting.

Speaker 0 recounts an argument with a friend during the Edward Snowden revelations about mass surveillance. He challenges the idea that “you can look at my shit. I’m not doing anything wrong. What do you care?” and questions who the so‑called perfect overseers are. He emphasizes that these are unelected bureaucrats who could have financial or power-based incentives to monitor, silence voices, or manipulate individuals by accessing emails and phone calls. Speaker 1 suggests that even if the current government is honorable, there is a risk that a future government could abuse surveillance. He warns that the next administration might come after people who dissent, like Joe Rogan, by digging through emails and targeting individuals for actions or statements they dislike. Speaker 0 recalls the debate around the NDAA during Obama’s presidency, describing it as the indefinite detention concept that did not require charging someone or timely trials. He notes the push for this provision and questions why it was pursued, implying it could be used to detain people indefinitely. Speaker 1 adds that they are concerned about who might wield power in future generations, asking “how many generations are we away from Hitler?” He argues that the founding fathers designed checks and balances precisely because they understood how corruption and tyranny can emerge when power concentrates. Speaker 0 asserts that eroding protections through measures like the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, or the NDAA undermines the Constitution’s core idea, which is based on the belief that government must serve the people and that power corrupts. He emphasizes that those in power would act as tyrants if left unchecked, and warns that granting broad surveillance and detention powers threatens the “fabric” the country was created with. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 together highlight a core concern: the risk of surveillance and detention powers being exploited by unscrupulous leaders in the future, undermining democratic principles and the safeguards designed to prevent tyranny. They stress the importance of checks and balances to prevent government overreach and the potential erosion of civil liberties in the face of expanding surveillance and security powers.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

Speaker 1 stated they will do everything in their power to protect Seattle residents from anyone who comes to the city with the intention to hurt them or inhibit their first amendment rights. They believe they will probably go to jail and be in prison because the current administration has threatened to jail politicians and has done so.

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

Speaker 1 argues that Jack Smith’s request to prevent evidence about security or intelligence failures before January 6 is unacceptable, claiming it would excuse Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC for failures. He asserts Pelosi was responsible for January 6 because she did not accept the security help offered, stating that 10,000 troops or National Guard were available if needed before the event, and that the event would have been different if 500 or 200 people had been used; he emphasizes that he offered 10,000 troops and that January 6 would not have happened with a larger deployment. He notes that he personally attended and gave a speech, and claims the audience included the largest number he has spoken to, contrasting with the smaller group that he says went down to the Capitol. Speaker 1 contends that the party should be allowed to introduce evidence showing that there were security and intelligence shortcomings, including the assertion that Pelosi “did not take the security that we offered her,” with the offer of 10,000 troops and the fact that “you had far fewer people than that.” He mentions that the unselect committee did not discuss or include references to “peacefully and patriotically” behaving crowds and says this group was not highlighted by the committee or in their words. He criticizes the prosecutor, calling Jack Smith a “deranged human being, unattractive both inside and out,” and accuses Smith of wanting to suppress testimony because the committee “illegally destroyed everything” and deleted evidence related to Pelosi’s decisions about troop deployment. He asserts that much evidence indicated Pelosi did not want the troops and that a letter from the mayor contradicted Pelosi’s stance. Speaker 0 acknowledges the point but keeps the dialogue focused; Speaker 0 reminds that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sun said January 6 was a preventable event if the intelligence and resources requested had been provided, noting that Speaker 0 sees this as an amazing point and confirms that the offer of troops was in writing. Speaker 1 reiterates that he offered 10,000 troops for January 6 and emphasizes that this fact is in writing, arguing that the prosecution is attempting to suppress relevant evidence. He maintains that Pelosi’s leadership and decisions about security are central to the discussion, and he reiterates the claim that the offer of security was not acted upon. The conversation pivots back to the assertion that the Capitol Police Chief’s past statements support the claim that January 6 was preventable with proper intelligence and resources.

The speaker testifies about the weaponization of the FBI and DOJ against its own employees and the American people. He served in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan, then as a police officer, and later as an FBI special agent. Despite receiving high performance reviews and being selected for specialized units, he has been smeared as a subpar employee after witnessing weaponization within the FBI. He states that too many in the FBI prioritize avoiding difficulty over upholding the Constitution, leading to an Orwellian atmosphere that silences dissent. He is speaking out despite the potential personal cost, including the loss of his job and family's home. He claims the FBI allowed him to accept orders to a new position, sell his family's home, and report to the new unit before suspending him on his first day, rendering his family homeless. He concludes that bad actors have begun running parts of the government, but he will never stop trying to serve the nation and protect the innocent.