reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that someone, presumably a former FBI director, called for the assassination of the president. The speaker states that the individual knew exactly what he was implying, and that this implication was clear. The speaker believes the individual apologized, but doesn't want to apologize for advocating violence. The speaker calls this person a "dirty cop" and says his history is not clean. The speaker does not want to take a position on what should happen as a result of the alleged assassination call, but will leave the decision to others. The speaker suggests that leniency might be understandable if the individual had a clean history, but because he doesn't, the speaker is less inclined to be lenient.

The speaker discusses how the person in question is provoking the intelligence community, despite the potential consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has various means to retaliate against such actions. The speaker suggests that even though the person is seen as a practical and tough businessman, their behavior in this regard is foolish. The speaker also mentions that they have been informed that the intelligence community is displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about.

They they they all see the world the same way. And what we see them doing is moving the ball around the court and teeing each other up differently, you know, to to get them to some sort of criminal investigation. You have the intelligence community taking the fruits of what it does or whatever classified stuff that it has, declassifying it, sending referrals to the justice department, and putting the department in a place to go forward and say, okay. We are looking at this and using the specter of criminality to examine Trump's foes, the original foes like Obama, Brennan, and Comey. I mean, Andrew Weisman, I don't know what moves the men in the manosphere, but it looks so freaking lame and weak to be so obsessed with Obama.

I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, particularly against children, such as sexual assault or trafficking. The depravity of these acts warrants the ultimate punishment. Treason at the highest levels should also be considered a capital offense. We're seeing a wave of whistleblowers, and their information is being directed to the appropriate authorities. People are being exposed. Jim Comey, it's time to consider what you're willing to concede. Your freedom is at stake, and imprisonment is inevitable. Perhaps a reduced sentence in a less severe facility could be negotiated in exchange for information on those even more deeply implicated than yourself. You know exactly who I mean.

The speaker asserts that former FBI Director James Comey's use of "86" regarding Trump was a veiled call to assassination, referencing the "8647" slogan used by anti-Trump protesters. They claim Comey is lying about not understanding the meaning, especially given his background prosecuting mobsters who use similar language. The speaker highlights a Rutgers study indicating that over 55% of respondents felt assassinating Trump would be "somewhat justified," attributing this to figures like Comey. They emphasize the seriousness of the threat, citing past assassination attempts and the influence of figures like Comey on public perception. The speaker believes Comey should be held accountable under the law for issuing what they view as a direct threat against the President, potentially goading authorities to make him a "political martyr." They state that someone making similar threats against them is currently jailed and indicted. They conclude that Comey should be in jail due to the potential impact of his words on those who take him seriously, given his stature and media portrayal.

One speaker asserts Brennan may claim a statute of limitations as a defense, but in a 2023 deposition, Brennan said he had no role in getting the Steele dossier into the intelligence community assessment. The speaker claims whistleblowers at CIA and John Ratcliffe say this is false. The speaker believes Brennan should be charged for lying to Congress, stating intelligence chiefs have avoided perjury charges, citing James Clapper's testimony on bulk domestic intelligence collection followed by the Snowden leaks. The speaker argues there needs to be accountability at the CIA, otherwise, people will feel emboldened. The speaker believes Russiagate hamstrung the entire presidency, leading the world to believe Trump was a Russian asset. They claim that in a July 2019 congressional hearing, Mueller had nothing, and they took down key elements of an entire presidency.

Speaker 0 claims Kash Patel lacks the character and integrity to be FBI director, asserting his only qualification is a willingness to cross moral, ethical, and legal lines when others refused. They state Patel is a sycophant who will misuse the bureau's resources and weaponize it against political opponents instead of protecting public safety. Speaker 1 alleges Adam Schiff is the "worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years" and met with a whistleblower, Charmela, while publicly denying knowledge of the situation. They claim Schiff led the impeachment trial of President Trump after manufacturing false accusations with Charmela. They assert Schiff lied to set up a presidential impeachment and should be investigated for his interactions with Charmela. They state Schiff, who manufactured evidence with Charmela, was the prosecutor in the case against Trump, which is a conflict of interest.

Pam Bondi and the Trump DOJ are investigating James Comey and John Brennan's conduct as FBI and CIA heads. Brennan, a proponent of waterboarding under George W. Bush, allegedly shifted his views to align with the Obama administration, including commenting on Islam, to secure his appointment as CIA director. He then attacked Bush, the president he had served.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. They had the opportunity to acknowledge his actions and move on, but they're still defending him. I find it hard to understand their psychology.

According to Speaker 1, the DOJ investigation should target President Obama, who "started it." Biden, Comey, Clapper, and Brennan were also present. Speaker 1 claims "those papers" show Obama is guilty of treason and trying to steal and obfuscate the election. Speaker 1 states that Obama is shielded by the press and that what "they" did is unimaginable, even compared to "rough countries."

According to declassified information, former CIA Director John Brennan is in trouble and may be indicted. A report from the House Select Committee on Intelligence alleges that Brennan knowingly published three reports containing information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, or implausible. While Brennan is entitled to due process, this evidence may be presented to a grand jury. James Comey's situation is less clear, suggesting Brennan faces the most significant exposure.

Okay, everyone. So there's James Comey, right? The fired FBI director, some call him a deep state hero. I'm incredibly excited to be here, though I'm not sure why everyone else isn't as excited as I am. They're screening questions here. Who killed Epstein? My heart is pounding! It's an honor to see the disgraced and fired FBI director, James Comey, in person. A library staff member asked me to leave, but Comey can stay, right? He didn't disrupt the library, but he disrupted the whole country, a presidential election, and a presidential term! Still, my heart is fluttering that I got to see James Comey.

"James Comey decided not to work through the FBI press office when he wanted to change the narrative in Washington, burnish his reputation, against attacks from Democrats, and try to sully Donald Trump's reputation." "my goal was to improve negative stories about James Comey and to set a narrative, I e, set the Russia collusion narrative." "it depends what the meaning of the word is." "these are documents that were never given to Jim Jordan." "most classified information statutes have a five year statute of limitations, but there is a provision that extends it to ten years if it's willing and knowing." "Tomorrow though, I think we're gonna take people on a new destination, which is how often did the FBI get blocked in trying to investigate Hillary Clinton corruption at the Clinton Foundation?"

Republicans claim that Comey let me off too easily, but I find it absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else, no matter how much they try to confuse people. It's disturbing to see their efforts to defend this man. This could have been the opportunity to acknowledge his contributions and move on, but they're all in again. I struggle to understand the psychology behind it.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

News alert discusses Tulsi Gabbard releasing a report alleging a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and U.S. intel agencies to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency and the 2016 election. The report claims there is irrefutable evidence that Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment they knew was false, promoting a narrative that Russia interfered in 2016 to help Trump win. Gabbard says she obtained a House Intelligence Committee report that had been locked away in a CIA vault for nearly a decade, and investigators spent over two thousand hours interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials. The assertion is that the Obama administration doctored intelligence to imply Putin and Trump colluded to steal the election, with a highly unusual, rush-developed assessment produced a month after Trump’s victory. John Brennan allegedly handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, who were siloed and not aware of each other’s work, with only one analyst in charge of drafting. The process was described as a rush job with no coordination with other intelligence agencies, essentially “home cooking” for Obama. The four key elements repeated in the assessment, forming the basis of the Russia hoax and the Mueller investigation, are: 1) that Vladimir Putin wanted Trump to win; 2) Putin took actions to help Trump win; 3) the Russians had blackmail on Trump (the Steele dossier); and 4) that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. The claim is that none of these were true, and there was no reliable intelligence to support them. Senior CIA officials allegedly refused to propagate these allegations, but were overruled by CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, who pressed for them despite lacking verifiable evidence. The report alleges the Obama administration cherry-picked intelligence, misquoted sources, did not corroborate claims, suppressed counter-evidence, and even used anonymous internet postings. Rank-and-file CIA personnel allegedly admitted that these actions violated tradecraft standards, with a pressure campaign emanating from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. Speaker 1 asserts that Donald Trump knows Russia helped him win in 2016. Speaker 2 suggests Putin’s preference for Trump came from his dislike of Hillary Clinton, who was running, while Speaker 3 states Russia sought to interfere systematically to advance Trump’s prospects. The conversation notes that at one point, 60% of Democrats believed Russia hacked voting machines to aid Trump, yet the report contends Russians aimed to create chaos and undermine faith in democracy, with solid intelligence indicating Putin had no clear preference between Clinton and Trump but had dirt on Clinton that was not released. The discussion questions why the dirt from the DNC emails and claims about Clinton’s health, including tranquilizers, were not leaked to aid Trump, and whether the information about Clinton’s health is credible. The panel suggests that if Russia sought to influence the election, more damning information would have been released. The speakers claim Obama and top intelligence leaders mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious sources to craft a narrative of Putin’s preference for Trump. They contend Obama continued pushing the hoax after the election, describing it as undermining democracy. Towards the end, there is mention of potential criminal implications, with references to referrals to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation, including possible liability for Obama. A tester voices that Brennan may have committed perjury before Congress. A final note asserts that the CIA did not rely on the Steele dossier for the intelligence community assessment, countering a claim made in the discussion. The segment closes with a call for accountability.

James Comey is accused of making a death threat against Donald Trump by posting a photo of seashells arranged to read "86 47," which allegedly means "kill Trump." Trump stated Comey knew what it meant and called him a "dirty cop." Tulsi Gabbard believes Comey should be jailed for issuing a call to assassinate the president. The speaker claims Democrats want Trump killed, citing Comey's post, Benny Thompson's legislation to deny Trump Secret Service protection, and the Biden administration restricting Trump's protection. The speaker believes Comey spied on Trump during the Obama administration and that Bill Barr should have prosecuted him. The speaker suggests the FBI should be defunded and its powers curtailed, and a separate entity reporting to the President should investigate the FBI and DOJ. The speaker also suggests investigating the Biden crime family and censorship of Americans. The speaker believes deep state agencies like the FBI and IRS target Americans based on political beliefs and should be shut down.

The speaker claims to have found documents related to Jim Comey that were not where they should have been. The speaker says these documents are unflattering to Comey. The speaker asserts that Comey disgraced the FBI numerous times with his role in crossfire hurricane and other abominations. The speaker finds it stunning that Comey continues to attack their leadership when they are cleaning up the mess Comey created and continue to find things from his era.

When you come at the intelligence community, they have many ways to retaliate. So, for a businessman, it's dumb to treat them poorly. From what I'm told, they're very upset with how they've been treated. We need the intelligence community. Without them, we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking. Does he have an agenda to dismantle parts of the intelligence community? This taunting hostility is not constructive. Whether you're a super liberal democrat or a very conservative republican, you should be against dismantling the intelligence community.

The speaker questions the witness about approximately 50,000 text messages expressing personal beliefs such as "f Trump, stop Trump, impeach Trump." The speaker asks the witness to confirm that these messages were not sent on official FBI devices or time, but the witness admits that many were. The speaker suggests the witness's previous claim of never crossing a line was false, given the numerous messages expressing anti-Trump sentiments on official channels. The speaker questions whether the witness understands why some people don't believe him and why his involvement in investigations concerning President Trump is troubling, considering his expressed desire to "f him, to stop him, to impeach him." The speaker implies this could cast doubt on the integrity of those investigations.

The speaker asserts that former FBI Director James Comey was aware of the meaning of "86 Trump." They claim Comey's assertion that he didn't know the meaning is false, given his background prosecuting mobsters who use similar language. The speaker connects Comey's statement to the "8647" slogan used by anti-Trump protesters, which they describe as a veiled call to assassinate the president. They argue that Comey's actions are dangerous, especially considering past assassination attempts on the president. The speaker accuses Comey and others of issuing a "hit" on President Trump and of hating democracy because they oppose the election of Donald Trump. They believe these individuals are trying to remove Trump from office by any means necessary.

The speaker says many people have heard or thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican, and that they personally believed he was a lifelong Republican and had been told the same. They then say this is not true. The speaker claims that James Comey was a communist, citing a 2003 interview with New York Magazine in which Comey stated that before voting for Jimmy Carter, he had been a communist. The speaker says Comey admitted, “I’d moved from communist to whatever I am now.” The speaker then compares this to John Brennan, saying Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, was a communist or had voted for the communist party, and noting the speaker had not heard this about Comey before. The speaker concludes that they find out that under Obama, the CIA director and the FBI director had histories of serious immersion into communism. They add a remark attributed to the KGB, stating that no one ever leaves the KGB and that no one ever leaves this way of thinking.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. This could have been the opportunity to say thank you, but they're all in again. I find it hard to fully grasp the psychology behind it.

The speaker believes James Comey should be in jail because of his position of influence and the seriousness with which people regard someone of his stature and experience, especially given how the media has portrayed him. The speaker is very concerned for the president's life, citing previous assassination attempts. The speaker believes Comey should be held accountable and imprisoned.

Speaker 0 states: "It's disruptive. It's ridiculous." "Obviously, it's to persecute an enemy, which I can't believe the FBI is being so politicized." "However, I will say, if he would have testified in the first impeachment hearing, maybe we wouldn't be here." "So there's a little bit of karma also."