reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I want to address what happened on the show tonight. Ryan was asked to leave, and we stated he is not welcome back. A line was crossed. However, we did not ask Mehdi to leave; in fact, we wanted him to finish the show and hope he returns soon. For those wondering why he didn’t come back, it was not because we didn’t want him. I just wanted to clarify that point.

I'm here to ask Anderson Cooper about Operation Mockingbird and the CIA's influence on mainstream media. A German reporter claimed the CIA bribed and extorted him to publish stories. Why is there a pro-government slant in Western media, like biased coverage of Putin and Assad compared to Saudi Arabia? Cooper is surrounded by security, preventing conversation on important issues like government manipulation of news. Is he avoiding the question because of his CIA past during college? A prominent German journalist recently revealed that the CIA is still manipulating the media, writing scripts for them. The media is just another branch of the government, a mouthpiece for propaganda, unable to face real questions. Cooper is hiding behind his security.

There has been a media blackout on the Pentagon files, which is being called the biggest US government leak since Snowden. Fox News refused to cover the leaked documents, which contain sensitive blueprints for Ukraine. The speaker is not an expert on the topic and asks for an explanation. Another person mentions that the leaked documents seem like a blueprint for starting a war. John Kirby, Biden's spokesperson, who previously lied about Nordstrom, advised the media not to cover the leak. Speaker 1 sarcastically comments that they shouldn't cover the truth.

I don't trust his explanation for silencing the truth with fact-checking. He deflected blame, claiming he faced pressure from the Biden administration. Now we're expected to overlook that? I also question why there was no inquiry into his ties to DARPA and its LifeLog project, which aimed to create a comprehensive digital record of individuals for surveillance. Interestingly, LifeLog was discontinued just before Facebook emerged. Why isn't there more scrutiny on Facebook and its true nature? It's concerning that these figures may not have our best interests at heart and are merely manipulating the narrative.

Speaker 0 recounts a recent sit-down podcast-style interview with Andrew Callahan for Channel Five. He says the posted video is only an hour long, but the actual conversation lasted around two and a half hours, and he notes that the posted clip does not reflect what happened. He points to a clip where the question is “Why American city is prospering right now?” and a list of cities is discussed, with responses suggesting prosperity correlates with low state taxes and non-Democrat control. He notes that Denver is described as not prospering, and argues that Andrew did not include this response in the posted clip, implying it would upset his audience. Speaker 1 presents the clip and asserts: “Why American city is prospering right now? Austin. Austin? Name another one? El Paso, Texas.” The dialogue continues with “El Paso, Texas is prospering? Yeah. Nashville. Nashville's doing good. Phoenix is doing good.” The claim follows that “Basically, any place with low state tax is getting a lot of” and then another line, “In any place that's not Democrat.” The exchange then asks for a Democrat city that’s prospering, with the response that Denver would have to be affordable and prospering, and Speaker 1 questions, “Denver. Why are you smirking? It’s not prospering.” The two acknowledge that the Democrat-run states are not prospering, and Speaker 0 notes it’s odd Andrew didn’t include this in the post, suggesting a potential bias or misrepresentation. Speaker 0 then shifts to a separate topic about Somalians and fraud in Minnesota. They state, “89% of the fraud that has been charged inside of Minnesota is by Somalians.” Speaker 1 asks for the source: “Where exactly is that statistic from? You can pull it up on the screen.” They discuss verifying the statistic, with Speaker 1 offering to find it, and Speaker 0 emphasizes that the statistic is presented while noting, “I just wanna make sure we have the exact.” There is a moment where Speaker 1 says, “Oh, do you want me to find it right now? For sure. Just so I can I I don’t know? I I I believe you.” The exchange then shows Speaker 0 claiming that Andrew had to redo or correct the segment due to the fraud claim, and that Andrew’s response seemed to misrepresent the fact. Speaker 0 concludes that these are two examples from the interview where Andrew “literally went out of his way to try and make me look bad,” and asserts that, if he interviews anyone, “you’re gonna get the full product,” claiming to be benevolent in allowing full footage. He encourages viewers to watch the full interview on his second channel.

Nick Fuentes discusses being enemy number one to the government, citing being on the no-fly list and having bank accounts frozen. He says questioning the Israel lobby in 2017 led to backlash. He describes being blacklisted by conservatives and social media censorship, including being banned from platforms and banks due to "reputational risk." Fuentes says he was a libertarian neocon in his youth, consuming Breitbart and Prager University content. He gets his information from the New York Times, Axios, and Twitter, using background knowledge to discern truth from propaganda. He acknowledges biases but tries to be objective. He addresses accusations of antisemitism, attributing them to political correctness. He admits to "baiting" early in his career to break through censorship. Fuentes wants America to be more Christian, specifically Catholic, and more white and European. He questions when enough immigration is enough, citing assimilation concerns. He believes the 2016 and 2020 elections were referendums on America's identity. He says individual actions determine right and wrong, criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza. He claims the Israeli government's actions stem from not being Christian. Fuentes denies being a white supremacist but believes race is real. He says Jewish people are influential due to tribalism, not just IQ. He says they are allowed to work as a team in an open system. He questions their loyalty to America, citing loyalty to Israel. He says they had a long-term relationship with the US, but it is dubious how much they benefit the US. He says they are playing a very long game and have influence in many capitals. He says they are a country, we're a country, they have a distinct national interest, they're threatened by us, and we should be threatened by them. Fuentes says third-party journalists are not allowed in Israel, which is a red flag. He says if everything is what someone says it is, then why are certain third-party publications not allowed to go and report? He says it's hard to make the conclusion that something bad isn't happening or something wrong isn't happening with that being true. Fuentes says he got in contact with Ye after the DEFCON 3 tweet. He went to Mar-a-Lago with Ye, who asked Trump to be his VP. He says Trump lost his mind and said Ye could never win. He says Ye is a good man who loves everybody but is getting screwed over. He says he wants to move on, but they won't let him move forward unless he apologizes. Fuentes says he would consider being in politics, but they're gonna throw everything he's ever said in his face. He says he's not a hateful guy, but he makes jokes about black people, Polish people, Mexicans, you name it. He says he doesn't think there's any constituency. Fuentes says he hates working out because it hurts. He says the gym bro culture is so vain. He says people should work out, but some people take it a little too far. Fuentes says after the election, he got really viral, because he said, Your body, my choice. He says everybody posted his home address, his phone number, and so people started just coming to his house. He says a kid came to his house with a gun and a crossbow and killed his dogs. He says he thinks it had to do with that tweet. He says now he has security at his place. Fuentes says he's not a really social person. He reads a lot. He plays video games. He says he's a big gamer. He says he plays, like, map games, like Civilization V and Call of War. He says he's a big fan of Joseph Stalin. He says he wants to understand life. Fuentes says he's definitely a Big Mac guy. He says everything about UFOs comes from the DOD. He says he thinks it's a big SIOP. He says he doesn't think there's any aliens here. Fuentes says there's no aliens. He says if there's aliens, we don't know about them. He says some people say aliens are demons. He says everything that we know about them or learn about them literally comes from the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, all these disclosures. He says he thinks it's a big SIOP. He says he doesn't think there's any aliens here. Fuentes says he's not a Nordic, that's for sure. He says he's a gray. Fuentes says he's not a really social person. He reads a lot. He plays video games. He says he's a big gamer. He says he plays, like, map games, like Civilization V and Call of War. He says he's a big fan of Joseph Stalin. He says he wants to understand life. Fuentes says he's definitely a Big Mac guy. He says everything about UFOs comes from the DOD. He says he thinks it's a big SIOP. He says he doesn't think there's any aliens here. Fuentes says there's no aliens. He says if there's aliens, we don't know about them. He says some people say aliens are demons. He says everything that we know about them or learn about them literally comes from the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, all these disclosures. He says he thinks it's a big SIOP. He says he doesn't think there's any aliens here. Fuentes says he's not a Nordic, that's for sure. He says he's a gray. Fuentes says he had never heard from Nelk before, but he woke up at 2 PM, and his phone's blowing up. He says they said, Oh, Nelk wants you to come on the show. He says that's how he heard about it. He says they said, Yeah, we want your reaction to the to the interview. He says he washed his face, he got on, and he thinks they they were getting a lot of shit for that. He says they were getting a lot of blowback. He says they were looking for the other side to come on and kinda tell them, you know, that what they did was okay, or it wasn't that bad. He says that he was, like, the counterweight, which is kinda funny to think about. He says it's kinda funny that they bring on Netanyahu and they think, we need to hear from the other side. He says, Let's get Nick Fuentes, which is like prime minister of Israel, like livestreamer. He says that that's the two. Fuentes says he agrees with the host, and he said that to them. He says, Like, obviously, you're gonna take it. He says, Because as a content creator, it's like you say, it's gonna be a big interview. He says, But the thing is, when it comes to pushback, it's just doing your due diligence. He says, You're acting almost on behalf of the audience and saying, what would the audience say? He says, What would a skeptical mind say in this circumstance? He says, And he told them, the only way to make it right, or the way to make it fair, is you gotta interview the other side. He says, If your goal is we're gonna hear everybody out, gonna hear out Netanyahu, we're not gonna give a ton of pushback, okay. He says, But unless you interview the other side, then it's propaganda. He says, So you gotta interview the pro Palestine side, whatever. Fuentes says he doesn't wanna say it, but he heard that they got hooked up with somebody who's pro Palestine. He says that's fitting, because it's an Israel Palestine war. He says, But even an America first person, even someone like Tucker for that matter, who is up with a similar stature to Netanyahu in terms of notoriety. He says, Or you. He says, Or me. He says, But he doesn't wanna be a shameless self advocate. He says, They should talk to me. Fuentes says he didn't watch the whole interview. He says it was just clips.

Weird events on the White House lawn aside, attempts to silence this show have been relentless, from censorship to deplatforming. Now that we've succeeded and exposed entities like the Global Disinformation Index, critics are resorting to personal attacks. A journalist from the Daily Mail plans to write a lengthy article discrediting me based on my clothing choices. I find it amusing that they can't challenge our credibility anymore, so they focus on my wardrobe instead. While they cover my fashion for the next four years, I'll be in the White House press briefing room cohosting a significant podcast. It's disappointing but revealing that, lacking substantial arguments, they choose to critique my appearance rather than our work.

Speaker 0 vents intense anger about the Israel-Gaza crisis and U.S. involvement. He says: we pivoted to the IDF and after two years of war, with brothers and sisters killed and hostages liberated, “for these sick fucks” to turn it into Disneyland and give it to the Palestinians is unacceptable; he cannot pay for it. He notes Qatar and Turkey’s involvement, and a comment by BB that if Qatar can’t come, they’ll bring them; then “Qatar’s on the board of peace,” which enrages him. He proclaims, “We have nuclear missiles,” and threatens North Korea, claiming he will show them a “Jewish North Korea.” He declares “Gaza is biblically ours” and says the new board of peace has pushed him over the edge; he does not want to come back, and wants “full deportation” of Palestinians. He argues for shutting borders for us and our friends only, envisioning Gaza becoming a banking and tax haven, free of wars. He expresses confusion over the Iran situation and asserts that their weaponry is so advanced they can “melt their flesh with our lasers,” yet laments giving Gaza to their enemies and asks, “What the actual fuck?” He ends by saying, “So I’d like to get” before the transcript cuts off. Speaker 1 adds, “to pay for it,” and then, “you forgot about the part where we pay the price tag because nobody else wants to fucking pay for it.”

Speaker Johnson claims CBS edited his video on "Face the Nation" to make Kamala look better and him look less effective. He says the editing was even more direct on "Face the Nation" than elsewhere. Because of this alleged editing, he will never agree to a non-live interview with CBS again. Speaker 0 notes this is not the first instance of CBS editing videos, referencing a previous instance where they allegedly took a question and matched it to another answer. Speaker 0 states that this is why Speaker Johnson will only do live interviews. Speaker 0 contrasts this with Trump, who said he was good when his long answers had to be edited down, while Kamala needs to be edited up.

The transcript centers on Amjed Fassisi, a CIA contractor who works with Deloitte and, at times, within the CIA’s China Mission Center on cyber operations. He describes a career path that includes time at the CIA starting in 2008, a stint at the NSA for two years, then a return to the CIA in 2011, where he managed about 80 cybersecurity practitioners and later helped stand up a threat program inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fassisi asserts that he holds a high-level clearance (top secret/SCIs) and that his role involves cross-agency work across the enterprise, though he does not disclose specific details. Key, repeated claims attributed to Fassisi: - The higher-ups in the intelligence community, including CIA directors Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, and the upper echelons of their staffs, colluded to withhold information from sitting President Donald Trump. Fassisi states, “We kept information from him,” and later explains “the executive staff” (the director and subordinates) were involved. - Fassisi contends that the CIA and other agencies monitored Trump and his inner circle, using human sources and surveillance. He mentions that Trump could be targeted or spied on, including claims that he would “call Vladimir Putin and tell him” secrets, and that “the intelligence agencies thought that president Trump was a, quote, fucking dumbass and would disclose information.” - He asserts that information about Trump’s activities was intentionally withheld from him by the intelligence community, and that this withholding involved high-level officials who would not share details with the president. - Fassisi suggests that the intelligence community engaged in surveillance of Trump and his team using methods such as human intelligence rather than only wiretaps, and that the FBI, NSA, and other agencies were involved, with implications that FISA-related processes were used to monitor Trump. - He asserts distrust and lack of information-sharing among agencies, stating “the NSA and CIA don’t share information” and describing internal fragmentation and territoriality between agencies as a problem. - Fassisi alleges that there was a broader pattern of weaponizing the CIA and collaborating with foreign partners to influence or monitor Trump associates, referencing the broader narrative around Trump and Russia and implying ongoing monitoring of Trump’s activities post-presidency as well. - He makes broad allegations about Israel and other allies, asserting distrust and claiming Israel “steals intelligence” from the U.S.; he frames relations with allies as fraught and unreliable. - Fassisi describes the reporting by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi as validated by his claims, and positions the ongoing investigation as exposing corruption within the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice, with a narrative that information was hidden from the public and from Trump. Supporting context around the interview: - The exchange includes tense moments where Fassisi is shown a CIA badge and discusses his role; the interviewer questions the plausibility and provenance of his claims, pressing for documentation or proof, while Fassisi provides limited responses about his clearance, division (China Mission Center), and contractor status. - The segment also includes editorial framing by the presenter, interjecting with external commentary and promotional content not directly related to Fassisi’s assertions. The interviewer promises follow-up coverage and frames Fassisi’s statements as part of a broader whistleblower narrative. - Throughout, the content repeatedly emphasizes claims of withheld information from Trump, surveillance of Trump and his associates, inter-agency distrust, and internal CIA culture, without providing verifiable documentation within the interview itself.

The transcript discusses a video claimed to show an Iranian woman detained during the January protests, arguing the video is fake and produced by an AI company. It states the video is a product of Generative AI for Good, an Israeli impact company that develops AI-powered initiatives to amplify silenced voices, with one initiative focusing on sexual violence against women. The woman’s face is said to have been changed with AI to protect her identity, but the entire scene—bookshelf, curtains, samovar, and the creators—offers no information about where the testimony came from. The narrative within the video is said to be disturbing to many because, beyond the AI fabrication, the woman repeats nationalistic tropes that depict non-Persians as aggressors, and it claims without evidence that thousands of protesters, including children, were subjected to severe sexual violence in January. The speaker notes there are real victims of state and sexual violence, but questions why stories are made up and why now. Anthropologists are cited, stating that depicting oriental women as helpless victims in need of rescue is a powerful propaganda tool in political strategy and modern warfare. This portrayal is said to be designed to appeal specifically to Western white audiences, which allegedly influences global attention toward what Iranian women wear and Iran’s hijab laws rather than substantive equal rights issues. The transcript links this dynamic to the Iran’s woman life freedom movement, suggesting it went viral and drew foreigners worldwide to focus on slogans and visible symbols. The transcript then references former U.S. President Donald Trump, noting that he shared photos of eight Iranian women who were allegedly about to be executed and saved by his intervention. It adds that Iran’s judiciary denied these claims. It also states that the images have been altered to the point of debate over whether they are entirely AI-generated or simply retouched to appear more appealing—featuring young, attractive, hijab-free, mostly blonde women. The final observation asserts that thousands of people are in Iranian prisons, but in a war of bombs and narratives, some have discovered that if you can’t identify a perfect victim, you can create one.

CBS likely didn't air the full Rubio interview because of comments like the one about Liz Cheney. The media is misrepresenting what Trump meant when he said he'd give Cheney a gun. He wasn't suggesting violence. The full context reveals he meant she's eager for war while safely in Washington. He's saying, let's see how eager you are for war when you're the one in combat. It's a common point made by both parties, that it's easy to advocate for war from a safe distance. Trump's language might be unconventional, but the media's portrayal is unfair and egregious.

Joe Biden's recent absence sparked conspiracy theories, with some suggesting he used a Mission Impossible-style mask. References to CIA mask technology and Hollywood connections are made, hinting at the possibility of deception. The speaker urges viewers to consider alternative explanations beyond mainstream narratives. The transcript ends with a mysterious audio clip.

In the fall of 2023, an interview opportunity with Elon Musk arose after an attempt to bring the Twitter files to CBS News. The offer was to do a live interview with him on X. CBS News executives declined a live interview, citing uncertainty about what Musk might say. A number of conditions were set on the possible interview, including taping, editing, and restricting it to the CBS News platform. The speaker felt ashamed that a news organization would place so many restrictions on an interview.

Billions of people have taken the medication worldwide. The speaker questions why the news network lied about him taking horse dewormer, stating they shouldn't have. The interviewer did not ask about this, and the speaker regrets not clarifying before the interview.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

The transcript argues that the public narrative about January 6 is deceptive and centers on a “composite” story built from two officers, Michael Fanon and BA Miller. It claims that media coverage made a “perfect martyr,” putting one hero figure on every news network and prompting congressional testimony, including claims that he “beat an unconscious unconscious heart attack” and was “tased repeatedly.” It then says the story does not add up because the media “swapped their stories.” The speaker says that in Fanon’s account, he was “dragged into a violent mob,” but when asked for details, it is described as “a blur.” The transcript includes an assertion that Fanon said, “I should have brought my mask,” and then says that “Freeze the frame. Enhance it. Fanon didn’t have a mask.” It contrasts this with officer BA Miller, whom the speaker says did have a gas mask, and frames this as evidence of conflation: “Who are you really watching on the news? Conflate the officers. Sell the narrative.” The transcript also addresses the beating scene by instructing viewers to “Listen to the bloodthirsty mob” and then to “Listen again” to crowd chanting, claiming that the victim is “walking” and “talking.” It says people “helped him back up” and points to Tommy Tatum’s video, which the speaker uses to claim: “Don’t hurt him. They weren’t tearing him apart. They were protecting him.” It then shifts to the immediate aftermath, claiming Fanon is “safe” and being “examined,” and asks listeners to “Listen like a detective.” The speaker asserts that Fanon does not say the word “tased” and does not tell the medic that his heart stopped. Instead, the transcript focuses on the medic’s assessment, quoting the medic’s actions and observations: “No obvious severe injuries,” “Can’t find any fractures,” “Pupils are equal,” and that the person is “dizzy at all?” The medic is said to hear responses indicating he will “rest and enjoy,” that he is “not fighting for his life,” and that he is “laughing.” While the media is said to have claimed Fanon was “fighting for his life,” the transcript claims Fanon and “his buddies” were instead “laughing about hurting protesters.” It adds quoted statements: “we’re sorry,” “for what it’s worth,” “What if we just sit down and stop hitting us?” It further claims jokes about stolen equipment, stating that they “stole my radio,” “stole one of my pistol mags,” and “they stole mine too,” while asserting “Never mentioned a taser to his fellow cops” and that Fanon “claimed he was knocked out for four minutes.” The transcript concludes by repeating claims: the “tape keeps rolling,” the “injuries” “not there,” “the mask, didn’t have one,” and “the deadly mob, they carried him to safety.” It states that the story was assembled by “mix[ing] two cops together,” “ignore[ing] the body cam,” and “hide[ing] the medic footage,” and then labels it “Perjury on display,” calling it “the Fanon Miller deception decoded.”

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.

The conversation focuses on developments around U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, the Israel–Lebanon war, and concerns that actions in the region could undermine or complicate a potential agreement. The discussion begins with a reported Israel–U.S. tension: the IDF was said to be abandoning plans to bomb Beirut after American pressure, driven by fears Iran might retaliate. The caller links this to U.S. opposition to Israeli plans to restart a large-scale war in Lebanon, particularly mass bombing campaigns in Shia-majority districts of Beirut, and to concerns Iran might walk away from peace talks. The Iranians are described as being “very serious” about negotiations, even while the war between Iran and Hezbollah continues, including strikes and counterfire between Hezbollah and Israel. Attention then shifts to U.S.-Iran clashes at sea: the Americans said they shot down two boats laying mines, while the Iranians shot down one drone and posted video showing targeting of another fighter jet that was not shot down. The Americans also shut down one surface-to-air missile site on the Iranian side. The caller asks how worried the participants are that negotiations could break down, noting that Donald Trump had been unusually quiet the same day—no posts and no media leaks—creating an impression of behind-the-scenes activity, though the conversation treats the silence as out of the ordinary. The conversation then broadens into patterns of escalation: the caller says Israel often intensifies actions in Lebanon when negotiations approach an end or a solution seems possible, accelerating operations while not heeding the United States, despite periodic Trump statements. The caller argues that U.S. forces are not at “optimal capability” after prolonged deployments at sea, and suggests that if military action is planned, it could be preferable sooner rather than later. The discussion also reflects concern about timing after the Hajj and the possibility that strikes could occur after major public milestones, potentially undermining trust in the U.S. if negotiations were treated as a “facade.” A central topic is Iran’s demands and lack of compromise. The conversation states Iran is firm on what it requires, including unfreezing assets, and that this posture could indicate diplomacy moving in the right direction. However, the caller also suggests Trump would face opposition from Israelis and neocons if a deal advances. The discussion includes detailed domestic U.S. politics around a potential agreement: Rubio reportedly said a deal was possible within days, with holdup tied to specific nuclear-language and sanctions language in the initial document. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz called the announced deal an “MOU” a disastrous mistake; Roger Wicker warned it would be null/useless; Pompeo criticized it; and additional senators and figures piled on criticism. The caller describes a shift when Trump said the deal would be expanded to include the Abraham Accords, leading to conflicting reactions from figures like Senator Lindsey Graham. The conversation claims other countries (Qatar, Pakistan, Saudi) said no, while Iran also said no and positions were not changing. The caller argues the Abraham Accords have not helped Gulf signatories in practice and have been linked to broader issues involving Palestinian rights. The conversation then introduces a harsh statement by Mustafa Kamane during the “hush season,” describing a new order in which U.S. influence shrinks and framing Israel’s actions as a religious confrontation between Islam and what he calls the “Zionist regime.” The speakers express concern that Iran’s messaging is becoming more radical and anti-U.S. compared with earlier positions. They also discuss a purported power struggle between Netanyahu and Trump, emphasizing that the next steps will reveal who is directing events. Several reports about Israel–Lebanon dynamics are cited: the foreign minister calls Iranian actions and ceasefire violations blameworthy; Iran accuses the U.S. of maritime piracy and claims the strikes show suspicion justified. On the military side, Israeli commanders reportedly say the situation in southern Lebanon is “more unbearable by the day,” with footage described of drones hitting Israeli troops and trucks. Israel is said to have moved toward more nighttime operations, while Hezbollah reportedly uses FPV drones with night vision. Additional reports claim Israel is procuring more anti-drone nets from Europe due to drone threats, and an Israeli official says Israel cannot accept the current reality in Lebanon without ability to respond, constrained by understandings and agreements with both the U.S. and the Lebanese government. The Lebanese government is described as refusing to negotiate unless bombing stops before talks. A particular focal report states senior Israeli officials say Israel does not want to be seen as deliberately sabotaging Trump’s potential agreement with Iran. It claims Israel rejects random building bombings in Beirut at this stage due to fears of harming the ongoing Iran negotiations, while maintaining freedom of action in southern Lebanon. The conversation interprets this as evidence that strikes in Beirut are restricted compared with activity in the south. The speakers also analyze the region’s broader security shift: they describe regional countries seeking security architectures that replace U.S. bases and may not include Israel, referencing institutionalizing control of Persian Gulf straits under a Gulf security system by a “Gulf Strait Authority.” They also mention “Isaac Accords” as a similar Israel-centric concept applied to Latin America and Central America, involving trade/technology cooperation and countering Iranian influence. Finally, the conversation includes concerns about escalation risks if Trump uses military force, including the possibility of catastrophic retaliation affecting energy infrastructure, undersea cables, and the wider Gulf economy. They discuss information warfare and social media influence, including a claim that social media accounts of Colonel Aguilar may have been wiped out simultaneously with upscaling across pro-Palestinian platforms. The closing return to geopolitics includes discussion of a “new world order” and multipolarity, the Saudi–U.S. civilian nuclear track, and related regional missile developments attributed to North Korea. The conversation ends with acknowledgment of a technical glitch earlier in the show and a preview of upcoming guest interviews.

Speaker 0: Nearly two weeks into this conflict, the official story is cracking, and the number of Americans wounded is slowly coming out. Yesterday, we reported based on our sources that the number of American wounded was at least one hundred and thirty seven. After our report ran, the Pentagon has now publicly acknowledged about one hundred and forty wounded. That confirms our sources on this. So why did it take a little news show like ours to report this information? Why wasn't Fox News reporting this information? The Pentagon I know it's really weird. Why is the mainstream media silent on this? The Pentagon finally comes out and actually admits to this. Speaker 1: Reuters comes out and reports this. Exclusive. As many as one hundred and fifty US troops wounded so far in Iran war. They just published this today, this morning. March 10. That's remarkable. Exclusive. Just curious how that's an exclusive when we reported it yesterday. Yesterday. Whatever. Hey, Reuters. Bite me. Anyway, this war is clearly not winding down no matter what the messaging says. President Trump is saying the war could end very soon. But Iran says talks with The United States are off the table for now. Tehran is prepared to keep striking as long as it takes. And they're vowing an eye for an eye. So what is an eye for an eye actually mean? Does it mean you hey, you killed our leader. We kill yours? Does it mean, hey, you killed all these girls who were the daughters of members of the the Iranian Navy at a girls school, do we also do that to you? Like, what is actually does that look like? Speaker 0: Does it mean we took out your water infrastructures or you took out ours? So we do that. Right. Your gas infrastructure, civilian infrastructure, that's that's a war crime. But we did it. Your oil infrastructure, we do that. Like, what exactly does that look like? Meanwhile, the Strait Of Hormuz is getting worse by the minute. US intelligence tracking Iranian mine laying threats now as Gulf energy infrastructure there is taking a major hit with about 1,900,000 barrels per day of refining capacity across Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and The UAE. All down. CBS now says shipping through the Strait Of Hormuz has ground to a virtual halt. Nothing getting through. That's of just a few minutes ago. And Israel's hammering Beirut's southern suburbs and Lebanon. So they've essentially invaded Lebanon. Speaker 2: And then there's the neocon political class in Washington saying the quiet part out loud. Senator Lindsey Graham is now openly talking about, you know, going back to South Carolina to tell the sons and daughters in South Carolina, you know, you gotta send your loved ones to the Middle East. That's what I'm doing here in South Carolina. I gotta tell them to go fight in the Middle East, and he's calling on other Middle East countries that have been sitting on the fence that we've supported over the years as allies. Get off the fence. Go bomb Iran. Help out with Iran. And, oh, by the way, Spain, we're pissed off at you because you don't want us using your air bases or airspace to bomb Iran. Listen. Speaker 0: To our allies step up, get our air bases out of Spain. They're not reliable. Move all those airplanes to a country that would let us use them when we're threatened by a regime like Iran. To our friends in Spain, man, you have lost your way. I don't wanna do business with you anymore. I want our air bases our air bases out of Spain into a country that will let us use them. To our Arab friends, I've tried to help you construct a new Mideast. You need to up your game here. I can't go to South Carolina and say we're fighting and you won't publicly fight. What you're doing behind the scenes, that has to stop. The double dealing of the Arab world when it comes to this stuff needs to end. I go back to South Carolina. I'm asking them to send their sons and daughters over to the Mideast. What I want you to do in The Mideast to our friends in Saudi Arabia and other places, step forward and say this is my fight too. I join America. I'm publicly involved in bringing this regime down. If you don't, you're making a great mistake, and you're gonna cut off the ability to have a better relationship with The United States. I say this as a friend. Speaker 1: Ugh. He's an odious friend. Speaker 0: Say this as a friend. Speaker 3: With friends pick up a gun and go fight yourself, you coward. Yeah. I freaking hate that. But you're calling so, like, bluntly for somebody else to go die for his stupid cause. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: I am so curious about this. I mean, he's a liar. But how many people in South Carolina are really walking up to him and saying, who are we gonna get to fight with us? Who are we gonna get to fight Iran? Worried about this. My son can go, but who's going with him? Let's make some war playdates. Who does that? Speaker 0: Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst, NRA gun trainer, and, he's been looking at all of this and doing some incredible writing over at his website, Sonar twenty one. Larry, thank you for joining us. Great to see you back on the show. Speaker 4: Hi, guys. Good to see you. Speaker 0: So I wanna talk about the American war wounded first because Mhmm. I know that this is, near and dear to your heart and, of course, something that you've been watching, closely. And the lies, of course, that are coming out about this. Again, I spoke to sources over the past forty eight hours that were telling us here at Redacted about 137 Americans wounded. Then the Pentagon comes out and then confirms about a hundred and forty. So right pretty much right on the nose. And does that number sound low to you? Or does that sound about right? Speaker 4: That sounds a little low. So on March 4, let's go to Germany. Stuttgart, just North West of Germany, there is a hospital called Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. Landstuhl's primary mission is to handle American war wounded. On March 4, they issued a memo telling all the pregnant women that were about to give birth that, sorry, don't come here. We're not birthing any more babies. We gotta focus on our main mission. So that was the first clue that there was there were a lot of casualties inbound. I know, without mentioning his name, somebody who was involved dealing with the combat casualties during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he dealt with the personnel at Lunstul. And he called someone up and said, can't say anything, but there's a lot of casualties. Then 13 miles to the east of Landstuhl is an army base called Kaiserslautern. Kaiserslautern and the Stars and Stripes issued for that base had an appeal, a blood drive appeal. Hey. We need lots of people to show up and donate blood. So those that was on March 5. So I wrote about this March 6. So I wrote about this four days ago, that, yeah, we had a lot more casualties, and there are more coming, because Iran's not gonna stop. You know, right now, we're getting signals that the Trump administration is reaching out, trying, oh, hey, let's talk, let's talk cease fire. Iran's having none of it. They've been betrayed twice by Donald Trump and his group of clowns. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: You know? And and so they're not ready to say no. No. They've got the world, by the testicles is the polite way of saying it, withholding the Strait Of Hormuz. They've shut down the movement of not only oil, liquid natural gas. They're the supplier of about 25%, 25 to 30% of the world's liquid natural gas, and, about 30%, 30 to 35% of the world's urea, which is used for fertilizer. Now, that may not I just learned that that may not be as important as I once thought it was because most of it comes out of Oman. Oman, you don't have to worry about things going through the Strait Of Hormuz. But on oil and liquid natural gas, huge. 94% of The Philippines depended upon the flow of gas, both liquid and the petroleum oil, out of the Persian Gulf. India, 80%. Japan, South Korea. So this is gonna have a major impact on certain economies in the world. Now there there I I I've said this ironically. I I think Vladimir Putin's sitting there going, maybe Donald Trump really does like me, because what he's done is he's making Russia rich again in a way I mean, they're getting, you know, they were selling they were forced to sell their oil previously under sanctions at, like, $55 a barrel. Now they're getting $88.90 dollars a barrel. Well, and they just opened it up to India. I mean, that story over the past forty eight hours, like, so they The United States has eased its restriction on Russian oil flowing to India. I mean, talk about an absolute disaster. Speaker 4: Well, yeah. And remember what had happened there is India was playing a double game too. You know, bricks India is the I in bricks, and Iran is the new I in bricks. And so what was India doing? Well, India was pretending to play along with The United States, but then going to Russia and saying, hey, Russia. Yeah. We'll buy we'll buy your oil, but we needed a discount because we're going against the sanctions, and we need to cover ourselves. So Russia said, okay. As a BRICS partner, we'll let you have for $55 barrel. So they got a discount. So now when all of a sudden the the the oil tap is turned off, including the liquid natural gas, India goes running back to Russia. Now remember, on, February 25-26, India was in Israel buttering up the rear end of BB, Net, and Yahoo, kissing rear end all they could. Oh, man. It was a love fest. We're partners with Israel. And then Israel attacks their BRICS partner. And what does India say? Nothing. Zero. They don't say a thing about the murdered girls. So now all of a sudden, the oil's turned off. It's nine days now with no oil coming out of there for India. They go running back to Russia. Hey, buddy. Let's let's get back together. And Russia says, sure. That's great. But it's gonna cost you $89 now a barrel. No more friends and family program. Gonna get market conditions. Speaker 0: We've had many journalist friends that have had their bank accounts shut down. We were literally in the middle of an interview with a great journalist from the gray zone who found out that his banking was just shut down. Literally, in the middle of an interview, he got a message that his banking was shut down. Well, Rumble Wallet prevents that, because Rumble can't even touch it. No one can touch it. Rumble Wallet lets you control your money, not a bank, not a government, not a tech company, not even Rumble can touch it. It's yours, only yours, yours to protect your future and your family. You can buy and save digital assets like Bitcoin, Tether Gold, and now the new USA USA app USAT, which is Tether's US regulated stablecoin all in one place. Tether Gold is real gold on the blockchain with ownership of physical gold bars, and USAT keeps your money steady against inflation. No banks needed. It's not only a wallet to buy and save, but it also allows you to support your favorite creators by easily tipping them if you want with the click of a button. There'll be no fees when you tip our channel or others, and we actually receive the tip instantly unlike other platforms where we have to wait for payouts. So support our show today and other creators by clicking the tip button on our Rumble channel. Speaker 1: Now I wanna ask you about president Trump responding to CBS News reports that there may be mines in the Strait Of Hormuz. That doesn't make a ton of sense. He says we have no indication that they did, but they better not. But they are picking and choosing who gets to go through, and their allies can go through. So why would they mine their allies? What do we make of this? Do we need to respond to this at all? Speaker 4: Yeah. I don't think they've done it yet. But let's recall the last time Iran mined the Persian Gulf. They didn't mine the Strait Of Hormuz. They mined farther up. It was 1987, 1988. Why did they do that? Well, in September 1980, when Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski were still in office, The United States encouraged a guy named Saddam Hussein, don't know if you've ever heard of him, but they encouraged Saddam Hussein to launch a war against Iran. And then Ronald Reagan comes in with Donald Rumsfeld and Cap Weinberger, and by 1983 had provided chemical weapons, or the precursors that Iraq needed to build chemical weapons, and Iraq started using chemical weapons against Iran in 1983 and continued to do it in '84, 85, 86. During that entire time, Iran never retaliated with chemical weapons. They were not going because they saw it as an act against God. They were serious about the religion. So 'eighty seven, 'eighty eight, they start dropping mines there in the Persian Gulf. Well, at that time, they didn't have all these missiles, so the United States Navy, a Navy SEAL, a good friend of mine, set up what was called the Hercules barge, and he had a Navy SEAL unit with him, and they fought off attacks by Iranian gunboats. He had some Little Bird helicopters from the one sixtieth, the special operations wing of the Air Force. And but we ended up disrupting the Iranian plan to mine The Gulf back then. Well, we couldn't do that today. We do not have that capability because Iran would blow us out of the water with drones and with missiles. You as we've seen, it's been happening over the last ten days. So United States would be in a real pickle. Speaker 1: And especially given the rhetoric of US war hawks in power for three decades. Like Yeah. Yes. They kind of had to prepare all of this time. Did we think that they weren't paying attention when we said it to the world? Speaker 4: Well, when we're writing our own press clippings and then reading them, there is a tendency to say, god, I am great. Can you see this? How good we are? And so they really believed that our air def the Patriot air defense systems and the THAAD systems would be they they could shut down the Iranian missiles and drones. And what they discovered was, nope. They didn't work. And they worked at an even lower level than the you know, Pentagon kept foul. We're shooting down 90%.

Okay, here's the concise transcript: Hey, why are you getting so emotional? Let's just talk. What do you think of my hat? It's just a US flag with hunting stuff, Cabela's. It's not political. It looks political, and I've seen the flag used disrespectfully. My parents were in World War II. I think it's a statement. I promise it's not. It was a gift. It has geese and elk. It's an Oregon thing. You act like I have Trump's face on it. What do you think of Elon Musk? Let's get over the hat first because you're thinking I'm out here trying to— Elon Musk has bad intentions. Elon Musk should be president in 2028! He has no skills or ability. He cheats, lies, steals, and bought a presidency. If you're that upset, don't call me "ma'am." Call me "sweetheart". Why are you letting politics get you so upset? You treated me so disrespectfully.

A person walked out of a store with ice cream, and the media asked what flavor it was, despite him being in the midst of a scandal. According to Speaker 0, the biggest scandal was when they spied on his campaign. Speaker 1 stated there's no real evidence of that and that "sixty minutes" can't put on things they can't verify. Speaker 0 insisted they spied on his campaign and got caught, but Speaker 1 said they can't verify it. Speaker 0 claimed the evidence is available and Speaker 1 doesn't want to put it on the air. Speaker 1 denied knowing about it.

The speaker describes a shift in perspective about January 6, recounting that he did not initially suspect U.S. law enforcement or military involvement or a false flag. He notes an interview with Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund, who he says stated that “that guy was filled with federal agents,” a claim Sund would know from being in charge of security. He observes that, two and a half years later, core claims about January 6 appear to be lies, arguing that when someone is caught lying about one thing, it prompts questions about what else they are lying about. The speaker emphasizes he is not a conspiracist and grew up in a country with low belief in obvious conspiracies, but he asserts that “the amount of lying around January 6” is distressing and that anyone covering for those lies should be ashamed, including portions of the American media and Fox News. He acknowledges Fox News allowed him to air material, for which he expresses gratitude, but notes that some people there were angry at him for doing so and challenges critics to point out cherry-picking or miscontextualization. He clarifies that he did not claim the events were entirely peaceful; police officers were injured, recognizing that injuries occurred in other protests as well. He emphasizes that his point is to ask obvious questions and scrutinize the narrative. He discusses Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, noting that surveillance footage had been hidden until he aired it, showing Capitol Police attempting doors and escorting Chansley into the Senate chamber, where he wandered and offered a prayer thanking the Capitol Police, before leaving. He argues there are many conclusions one could draw from this footage, but asserts that Chansley cannot be called an insurrectionist, labeling that designation a lie. He defines insurrection as a very specific meaning and remains pedantic about words, insisting the incident was not an insurrection, not armed, and not intended to overthrow the government but a “spasm of rage” that Trump helped inspire. Regarding the election, he states he does not support leaders inciting anger, but asserts the event was not an insurrection. He condemns the prosecution of Chansley, a Navy veteran and American citizen, who was imprisoned for years after being let into the Senate chamber by uniformed Capitol Police, and he rejects the portrayal of Chansley as an insurrectionist. He condemns the lack of remorse in those who cover up or excuse what he views as lies, and quotes anger at the idea of imprisoning someone for something he believes was misrepresented.

Speaker 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.

Speaker 0 describes exclusive reporting that there is major activity inside President Trump’s intelligence operation, with American intelligence professionals inside the administration allegedly furious because they believe the public is being lied to about the Iran war. They contend the official White House story does not match intelligence and that Trump’s Iran policy has been hijacked not by U.S. officials or agencies, but by the Israeli government and its intelligence apparatus, effectively running the White House messaging from Tel Aviv. Leaks to media, including the Washington Post, are said to reveal this truth, and examples are promised. Speaker 1 cites Jesse Waters’ framing of the blockade and “Project Freedom,” arguing the president paused it to save face for Iran, suggesting Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and that American negotiators would lose leverage if the plan continues. The host claims the president delays to secure a deal, and mocks the notion that the White House is in control, insinuating insanity in the regime. Speaker 2 interjects with a hostile remark, then reiterates the claim that Zionist forces are pushing misinformation to the American people and that the White House is “Israeli run.” Megan Kelly’s commentary is invoked to illustrate the information loop: a cabinet member seeks Fox News reach, then Fox News informs the president, continuing the cycle. The segment notes Tucker Carlson’s appearances in the run-up to the war but asserts the president was not persuaded, while asking who pushed the president to war and who made representations. Speaker 0 continues, saying brave patriots inside Trump’s ODNI reveal the truth through leaks that show a different story from the White House narrative. The administration allegedly says Iran is being crushed and its missile program decimated, while leaks claim Iran can survive the blockade for at least three to four months and that the Iranian underground tunnels and missile production have reopened. The question is raised why this information comes only via leaks and whether Tulsi Gabbard, supposed to oversee intelligence, is still involved, or if she’s been sidelined. John Brennan’s investigation is described as collapsing, with lead prosecutors replaced by voluntary interviews, while Brennan himself reappears as a commentator. Scott Ritter’s criticisms are cited, arguing U.S. policy toward Iran is written by circles aligned with Israel, not the CIA or DIA. Speaker 3 elaborates with insider perspective: leaks in Washington DC have long occurred, and leaking does not prove truthfulness. Leaks may be used to shape perceptions; the reality is that the White House manufactures perceptions and facts are suppressed. The dysfunction is described as Megan Kelly’s reference to the president’s adviser circle needing to go to media outlets to deliver messages, with the conflict of interest highlighted. The war’s scale is stressed as one of the most serious strategic campaigns since Desert Storm, with tens of billions spent and perhaps over $100 billion in damage to American assets, criticized as being treated like a parlor game. Speaker 0 asks for Scott Ritter’s view on leaks and the accuracy of the assessments about Iran’s damage and survivability. Speaker 3 says he is cautious about discussing battle damage but would take the Washington Post at its word; he believes the CIA underplays Iran’s missile survival and criticizes the president for lying about 18% and the broader economic impact, suggesting the CIA lacks a comprehensive grasp of Iran’s economy and military. Speaker 3 offers his assessment that a new round of Iranian action could be imminent and describes the president as clinically insane, with surrounding aides flattering him rather than telling the truth. He argues Iran could devastate Gulf energy infrastructure if attacked again, potentially collapsing the global economy, and that posturing may be a political maneuver to avoid disaster. He contends the intelligence apparatus is effectively run by Israel, with humans in Iran managed by Israeli sources, and the U.S. intelligence community unable to counter these narratives, urging congressional investigations. The segment closes with acknowledgment of Kishem Island attacks and Scott Ritter’s assertion that Israel heavily influences U.S. Iran policy, while noting the broader consequences. Speaker 0 wraps, thanking viewers and urging engagement.