reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the SEC will review Ethereum's ICO and questions if there is a double standard. The other speaker says they cannot discuss potential investigations or rumors. The first speaker then asks if the second speaker is aware of anything at the SEC that they could be a whistleblower for, to which the second speaker declines to comment.

The video presents an undercover investigative report into what the presenters describe as “eight a pass-through” schemes linked to minority-owned small business programs, centering on ATI Government Solutions. The speakers claim that ATI leverages Native American status to win large federal contracts with little competitive bidding, then passes most of the work to subcontractors while keeping the majority of the profits. Key claims and dynamics described: - ATI would do 20% of the work while subcontractors do 80%, enabling ATI to collect a large share of the contract money. A participant states, “So we we do about 20% of the work,” and another confirms, “Correct. Yeah. They’re doing most of work.” - Pass-through arrangements are highlighted as a mechanism where Native American status guarantees automatic wins, with subcontractors bidding in their industry but not being American, thus enabling ATI to win via the Native status. A responder says, “with pass throughs, because you’re Native American, right, if you have… all they do is partner with you. They use their people. They subcontract to them. They became our sub, and it’s an automatic win because of your native American status.” - The program is framed as already well-known in Washington as a “best kept secret,” with claims that “There’s no competition because you’re Native American” and that this system is designed to enrich the prime contractor at the expense of taxpayers. - The investigation identifies ATI as a technology services company obtaining federal contracts for next-generation computing solutions, and asserts ATI benefits from eight(a) tribal status, which is described as heavily favored by federal contracts. - Malayne Cromwell, ATI’s director of contracts, purportedly explains that the company’s native American ownership is what enables the contracts, and discusses pass-throughs as a strategic advantage. A journalist notes that Cromwell told them about pass-throughs and indicated that “pass throughs are a great thing as well.” - The footage asserts ATI’s claimed ownership structure on paper shows 51% Native American ownership, enabling access to set-aside contracts. The video questions whether the Susanville Indian Rancheria actually owns ATI and investigates the role of tribal ownership in practice. A participant explains that “ATI is abiding by this 51% tribal ownership on paper.” - The investigation reveals that ATI’s leadership includes non-Native executives—Furmidge Crutchfield (CEO), his fiancée Marina Mogalyeva (CFO), and Scott Deutschman (CDO)—while the Rancheria appears to have limited involvement in operations. An interviewee claims the tribe is the owner of ATI on paper, but the executives run the company and perform the work. - The reporter notes that the tribal arrangement would facilitate similar schemes for others who seek government contracts, suggesting a model where 51% ownership is held by a tribe “on paper,” while the actual work is done by others. - The discussion cites the 51% rule codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulations as FAR 52.219-14, stating that the prime contractor must do at least 51% of the work. The video alleges ATI may be violating this rule by directing most work to subcontractors. - The investigation references usaspending.gov data showing ATI’s profits rising from about $2 million in 2019 to about $100 million in the current year, and discusses SBA small-business thresholds (net worth, AGI, assets) that prompt Crutchfield to create new entities to stay within “small business” criteria. - The segment mentions a related Pennsylvania case (Cusisis v. US) in which a contractor was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy for fraudulent inducement related to disadvantaged business enterprise schemes, highlighting the legal risk of deception in these arrangements. - The report concludes with a staged reveal of the reporters’ identities and promises forthcoming parts, urging viewers to donate to the Citizen Journalism Foundation and signaling ongoing journalistic accountability efforts. Note: The transcript contains specific names and quotes attributed to individuals involved in ATI and allied entities, as well as investigative claims about ownership structures and regulatory interpretations.

The transcript centers on the idea that “one word” has been “heavily suppressed,” and that “truth or infighting” is “such a mess.” It claims that “they rise and fall just like the rest” and that “the word has become the litmus test.” It portrays streamers as “seeking fame” and “chasing money,” describing them as being “on the grift and obfuscation train,” “pretend[ing] to fight” while “they’re all the same.” The transcript asserts that “they all know, but they can’t discuss it,” emphasizing “dodge” and “always chang[ing] the subject,” while noting that it “only takes minutes to check.” A series of shouted interruptions follows, including “Ready pizza,” “Shut it down,” “The truth on booj,” “Dot win,” and “Shut it down.” It then references “Jason Goodman spoofed the fangles pot.” The transcript then shifts to named allegations. It mentions “Harrison Smith,” “who hired Stephen Biz,” and suggests “It sure is a long circus and bread, plan to wings spread. The fox and the con, Microsoft all along. What was it said? Elon.” It frames the topic as “From the CNP to the rotary CCP to ancient history,” presented as part of a broader narrative. It then claims, “It’s time for the world to know this isn’t a game or a show,” and asks, “How competent was Joe made? 2024.” It also asks, “Where did Zucker Bucks begin?” It continues with the question, “Why haven’t they prosecuted him?” Additional phrases appear that include “A pillow with the hardies driving. Gabble man freemasons.” The transcript asserts that “It’s all built on deception while you pay for your reception.” It says, “They claim to tell the truth, but there’s always one exception.” It also states, “Only the few, honest, faithful, and blessed, have shared the word and passed the test.” The final portion includes references to “exposing the thought police” and says, “There was no freedom of reach.” It ends with the line: “Racine is the word.”

The speakers discuss a potential conflict of interest involving Vivian and an Israeli intelligence firm called Blackfeet. Vivian denies any affiliation with the firm. Keith Wood mentions the case they are involved in, but the conversation quickly moves away from it. They note that the information being discussed is not available on Wikipedia.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

The conversation references two cyber-security companies, Lookout and Palantir. Palantir is identified as Peter Thiel’s company, with a discussion about how to spell Thiel’s name and a note that one participant had never met Peter Thiel but knows he “sort of jumps around and acts like he’s on drugs,” followed by acknowledgment that Thiel would come to visit next week and that one person wanted to talk to him. There is a concern or plan that Thiel could put the speaker on the board of Palantir, and a separate note that the speaker wanted to talk to Peter Thiel. The dialogue also mentions Andreessen Horowitz, described as a firm that pays Larry a million dollars a year to advise; the firm is spelled “Andreesen Horowitz” in the transcription, with “Andresen” or “Andresen Horowitz” variations around the spelling of the partners’ names. The speaker explains that Andreessen Horowitz is “the biggest venture capital people in Silicon Valley,” stating they are bigger than Sequoia or Kleiner Perkins, and referring to them as “the new Kleiner Perkins.” The characterization is that these are “the smart boys” in the field. The conversation closes with an abrupt remark about “those two companies” and a plan that, in the next three weeks, there is a need to make decisions if someone is going to leave. The dialogue emphasizes the prestige and influence of Andreessen Horowitz in Silicon Valley, positioning them as dominant venture capital players and implying strategic importance around involvement or board placement related to Palantir and possibly other ventures.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

The speaker discusses various legal proceedings and allegations of fraud in a conversation with another person. They mention the involvement of different individuals, including lawyers, judges, and government officials. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and accountability in their case. They also mention a private investigator who tried to help but faced obstacles. The conversation touches on corruption and the speaker's belief that those in positions of power are part of a larger network of criminals.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

A report discusses the possibility that a firm owned by Venezuela could take over one of the United States’ top voting machine companies, sparking concerns that American democracy could be affected by Venezuelan interests. The report notes that Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela moved to the left and critics claim the deal puts democracy “for sale.” In Chicago, about 19,000 electronic voting machines were used in the city and Cook County’s primary on March 21, and the US company that makes the machines, Sequoia, had been bought in 2005 by Smartmatic, a private company primarily owned by Venezuelan businessmen. When Chicago encountered problems with the machines, a dozen Venezuelan employees were on hand to assist. Chicago officials expressed anger, with one stating that American elections ought to be run by American companies and American citizens, not Venezuelan nationals. Smartmatic is technically based in Boca Raton, Florida, but its president, Jack Blaine, testified to the Chicago City Council. Fewer than a dozen Smartmatic employees work in Florida; the majority are based in Venezuela. Watchdog groups question why US voting machines would be under the control of citizens of another country, particularly a country whose own election process is described as highly suspect. They view it as a national security issue, arguing that companies owned by non-US entities should not have access to US elections. The Treasury Department is expected to monitor sales of US companies to overseas investors where national security is a concern, such as in the Dubai ports deal. Some in Congress are demanding an investigation. Speaker 2 notes several unanswered questions about Smartmatic, including offshore ownership and murkiness, and says someone should know who owns it. They believe the government should know. There is concern about a potential risk to the democratic process. A request was made to the Secretary of the Treasury to review the ownership of Smartmatic/Sequoia; Treasury acknowledged awareness of the sale but could not confirm whether it had been reviewed. Some in Congress and voter watchdog groups urged a clearer explanation than what had been provided. There is criticism of the Treasury Department as allegedly incompetent, with claims that they have halted more than 1,500 reviews while not confirming whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviewed this voting-machine sale. The speakers express frustration at the lack of a clear answer, calling for action from officials, including possibly John Snow, and promising to continue pursuing the matter. Representatives and media figure Kitty are credited with advancing the inquiry and expressing appreciation for the congresswoman’s efforts, while urging White House involvement to provide an answer by Monday evening.

Speaker 0: You've seen most of the files. Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young young women to besides himself? Speaker 1: Himself, there is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the in information we have, again, is limited. Speaker 0: So the answer is no one? Speaker 1: For the information that we have. Speaker 0: In the files? Speaker 1: In the case file. Speaker 0: Okay. Now

The speaker is asked if the SEC will review Ethereum's ICO and if there is a double standard. The speaker responds that they cannot discuss potential investigations or rumors. They are then asked if they are aware of anything at the SEC that they could be a whistleblower for, to which they reply that they cannot comment on that question.

Speaker 0 explains that the people who are very powerful on the scene are included in “the files,” and if you’re powerful and not in those files, it would be an insult because it means you’re a loser. Speaker 1 asks who isn’t in the files, and Speaker 0 confirms that those not in the files are losing. When asked if the speakers are in the files, Speaker 0 answers yes, noting that it’s any journalist who wrote about it that’s in the files.

The speaker, who claims a background with the CIA and NSA and now runs a corporate intelligence firm, discusses an investigation into TPUSA (Turning Point USA). They present that on 09/02/2025 Charlie Kirk sent an internal memo announcing Justin Streiff as Chief Operating Officer, stating Streiff would lead a “doge like” effort into TPUSA’s financials and operations, described as an internal audit without triggering red flags. Eight days later, the speaker claims Charlie Kirk was murdered, and within the week Eric Kirk was announced as CEO, with the audit and the “doge like effort” never materializing. TPUSA is identified as a 501(c)(3) with public financials, enabling the speaker to review them. The speaker positions themselves as an independent investigator who followed the money to look for fraud or red flags, noting that a key part of such an audit is examining vendors and consultants. They focus on three entities: Lion Rock Ventures, Cloverstone, and GSM Strategies. The speaker asserts that these three LLCs shared a director and an address, and that Stacy Sheridan is the common individual involved in all of them. Sheridan is described as the TPUSA senior advancement employee, earning upwards of $200,000 annually to perform the same function allegedly outsourced to these consulting firms. The speaker implies that Sheridan owned the consulting businesses. A further red flag highlighted is the formation and quick dissolution of Lion Rock Ventures (formed in 2019 and dissolved about a year and a half later) and Cloverstone (formed and dissolved while Sheridan was performing the same job for TPUSA). The nine ninety forms for these entities allegedly show directors and Sheridan’s position sign conflict of interest forms, which the speaker claims indicates a conflict of interest given Sheridan’s dual roles. The firms are said to have generated nearly $3,000,000 across four years. The speaker mentions a $350,000 payment that is frequently discussed in relation to these deals, stating that they found it in the Form 990 (9/90) filings and that they will discuss it in part two. The transcript ends with “They do” and promises a continuation with a full write-up on a Substack channel and a new podcast next week, inviting support.

Speaker 0 says everything is “out of Israel” and relates what “Gilen” told him about her father. He claims that when she was talking to him one day, she said the Rothschilds were the greatest protectors of her family, and he says he is afraid she is still “on the loose.” He states he knows who is taking care of her, saying “I know it is the Rothschild,” and adds that “lady Rothschild is ready to kill me.” Speaker 0 asks if this is when Lynn forced her to the Rothschild and suggests “You can assume.” He then says “it helps us so much because no one’s speaking out,” and tells Speaker 1 that Speaker 1 is “the only one who cares about how it all began,” describing that as “what’s so important.” Speaker 1 responds that “that’s where it is” and says “that’s where the real story is,” adding that “that’s how you find out how extensive it is in in Story.” Speaker 1 then cites a claim that “a guy that used to work for Israeli intelligence with Robert Maxwell told me” that he had seen Jeffrey Epstein in Robert Maxwell’s office “in, like, the mid eighties,” and says “so that definitely goes back several years.” Speaker 0 replies by stating that Gilan’s “thing” was that he was assigned “to her” to protect her because her dad had died. Speaker 0 then asks: “who assigned you?” and says, “what does that mean?”

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they know who Palantir is and if they agree with the comparison to Stanford Analytica. Speaker 1 says they haven't heard that. Speaker 0 then asks if Palantir taught Cambridge Analytica how to use certain tactics, to which Speaker 1 replies that they don't know. Lastly, Speaker 0 asks if Palantir has ever scraped data from Facebook, and Speaker 1 says they are not aware of that.

Speaker 0 asked how Ezbollah was convinced to buy the item, noting they didn’t know they were buying it from Israel. They claimed there are “an incredible array of possibilities of creating foreign companies that have no way being traced back to Israel, shell companies over shell companies who affect the supply chain to our favor,” enabling the creation of a pretend world. They described themselves as a global production company: “We are a global production company. We write the screenplay. We're the directors. We're the producers. We're the main actors. The world is our stage.”

The speaker landed in the Netherlands and conducted further research into the Albanian wetland destruction they had been covering. They say the company behind it—linked to seven consecutive days of protests and a criminal investigation—is registered in Amsterdam. The company is named Svernet South Adriatic Development, which they identify as the company behind the Cushner Resort that is bulldozing one of the last wild coastlines in Europe. The speaker claims Svernet South Adriatic Development is owned through a chain of Dutch shell companies managed by a trust office on Stravinsky Lane in Amsterdam. They state that Dutch corporate law allows owners to remain hidden as long as no single person holds more than 25% of the shares, so the real owners stay anonymous. According to the speaker, Balkan Insights has found a network connected to the anonymous ownership, including someone linked to the Italian mafia, a disgraced judge, the family of a convicted forger, and one of Albania’s most powerful oligarchs. The speaker concludes that this is not just an Albanian problem, asserting that Dutch corporate structures are being used to obscure ownership of a project that is under active criminal investigation. The speaker says they are Dutch and live in Albania, and they state the Netherlands needs to know about what they found. They say they will share a link to the Balkan Insights article in their bio.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about his son's involvement in a Ukrainian energy company facing corruption charges. Speaker 1 claims to have no knowledge of his son's activities and trusts him. Speaker 0 questions the lack of accountability, but Speaker 1 deflects by mentioning Trump's family. Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing and states that there is no evidence against his son. When asked about guardrails if elected, Speaker 1 asserts that his relatives will not engage in foreign business due to the current administration's controversies. No foreign business dealings will occur.

Speaker 0 asks if Joe Biden received payments from Burisma or any other foreign companies while he was vice president, president, or a private citizen. Speaker 1 mentions an ongoing investigation led by the US attorney in Delaware, appointed by President Trump. Speaker 1 suggests referring to the US attorney for any information that can be shared. Speaker 0 then asks if the president is under investigation, to which Speaker 1 refuses to confirm or deny, following department policy. The conversation ends without a clear answer regarding Biden's involvement with foreign payments or the president's investigation.

Speaker 0 says it is a “great one for all the ones who are like i need to inject my health to be healthy with peptides.” They instruct viewers to “go to google” and “type in the key players of peptides” and look at “who are the key companies.” Speaker 0 then states there is “an increase for the next seven years” and begins listing companies they “see right here.” First, Speaker 0 mentions “oh tel aviv,” adding “oh yeah of course.” Next, they say they “find novo nordisk,” describing it as “another pharmaceutical company.” They then “find good old eli lilly right there,” and add “vaccinating the people since 1626,” followed by “yep Another player with the peptides.” Speaker 0 then says “then we find another pharmaceutical company,” without naming it. After that, Speaker 0 says they “find Pfizer.” They claim “You know, the ones who made the B12 injections, the citric acid, all the poisons, cocaine, things like that.” Speaker 0 then says they “find Merck,” and states “You know what that word means, to Merck somebody.” They comment that “It’s funny because these are all fake German companies too,” and then add references to “Tiny Hats, Rothschilds.” Speaker 0 continues by saying “And then we find Bauer or Bayer or Rothschilds.” Throughout, Speaker 0 frames the companies as “key players” connected to peptides and reiterates that there will be “an increase for the next seven years,” while presenting the named entities and labels they list as part of the “key companies” shown after searching “key players of peptides” on Google.

Speaker 1 questions the lack of disclosure regarding charges against Sam Bankman Fried. Speaker 0 confirms the existence of a memo recommending charges but states it has not been sent. Speaker 1 expresses frustration and suggests involving the Department of Justice. Speaker 0 mentions the need to keep investigative matters confidential. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will follow up on the matter.

The speaker references Brock Pierce, described as an Epstein client and alleged child abuser and as a cofounder of Tethr, and asks, “Who is friends with Epstein client and alleged child abuser, Tethr cofounder Brock Pierce.” They then say, “I don't know shit about Brock's history, and I've never met him. I don't know if he's an Epstein client. I don't know anything about these allegations, and I don't really care at this point because it doesn't affect my life at all.”

Speaker 1 explains that a family member will unlock an entire family tree that upends Erica Kirk’s image and potentially exposes her connection to a network of financial fraud, casino gambling, and foreign influence. Everything told is verifiable and in the public domain. Erica Kirk is described as, at the time, with her roommate Nicole Rothstein. Speaker 1 recounts that Nicole Rothstein is Erica Kirk’s cousin. Nicole responded to a clip featuring Erica Kirk about Shabbat, saying, “as her cousin who is fully Jewish, half of her family is Jewish. While she herself is a Christian, she has celebrated many Jewish holidays with our side of the family and highly respects the Jewish religion.” The speaker notes Nicole Rothstein’s account may no longer be available. Nicole’s father is Alan Rothstein, who appears in an Instagram post sitting next to her, with Erica Kirk writing about “God’s strategic planning” and being blessed to have “uncle Allen” in her life. The speaker then identifies Alan P. Rothstein in an SEC document, confirming he is the same person. The SEC document describes him as a member of the board of directors of Innumerall and notes he also owned Shazoom LLC. The speaker notes that from 2002 through 2007, Alan Rothstein was the co-founder and chairman of NanoDynamics Incorporated. Further digging suggests Alan Rothstein, Erica’s uncle, may have been involved in questionable activities. For NanoDynamics, the suit in bankruptcy court is mentioned, with the implication that a trustee may allege improper withdrawal of funds by a director or founder before collapse. Innumerall is described as a penny stock trading on the OTC markets before bankruptcy. Shazoom LLC is described as a business funding company with little footprint—no major client reviews, no press releases of funded deals, and no industry presence. The speaker suggests this may indicate a shell company used to move money rather than conduct commerce. The transcript states that the Rothsteins are a famous crime family, with Erica Kirk positioned at the center as the new CEO of Turning Point. The speaker asks again who Erica Kirk is—whether she is an innocent widow thrust into the limelight by the death of her husband, or if there is more to the story. A final breadcrumb invites viewers to count the stars on the American flag in the AmericaFest 2025 logo.

The transcript centers on a speaker insisting that “One word so heavily suppressed” represents “Truth,” while describing an ongoing “infighting” that is “such a mess.” The speaker claims that people “rise and fall just like the rest,” and that “The word has become the litmus test.” They say “Streamers will show us TikTok in vain,” describing streamers as “Seeking fame, chasing money” who “have no shame,” and portraying them as “on the grift and obfuscation train.” The speaker also asserts that others “Pretend to fight, but they’re all the same,” and that “They all know, but they can’t discuss it.” They complain about “With your dodge, always change the subject,” and claim that “It only takes minutes to check.” The transcript then includes a sequence of abrupt phrases and commands, including “Why is abandoned threatened to death,” “Ready pizza,” and repeated “Shut it down,” along with “The truth on booj,” “Dot win,” “Jason Goodman spoofed the fangles pot.” Another speaker interjects with “Ho ho ho” and then “and.” The main speaker then names “Harrison Smith,” stating that he “hired Stephen Biz,” and uses the line “It sure is a long circus and bread, plan to wings spread. The fox and the con, Microsoft all along.” The speaker then says “What was it said? Elon.” They continue with “From the CNP to the rotary CCP to ancient history.” The speaker frames the message as “It’s time for the world to know this isn’t a game or a show.” They ask, “How competent was Joe made? 2024,” and also ask “Where did Zucker Bucks begin?” Another interjection asks, “Why haven’t they prosecuted him?” The transcript then continues with a chant-like set of phrases, including “A pillow with the hardies driving,” “Gabble man freemasons.” The speaker states “It’s all built on deception while you pay for your reception,” and adds, “They claim to tell the truth, but there’s always one exception.” The speaker concludes with lines about who is allowed to share: “Only the few, honest, faithful, and blessed, have shared the word and passed the test.” They say, “There was no freedom of reach, exposing the thought police,” and end with “Racine is the word.”