reSee.it - Related Video Feed

An individual, Alex Rountree, was told they are not allowed to enter the premises, as instructed by Ted Carlson. The reason is unknown, but the tour manager requested their removal. When asked for clarification, the staff member stated they were told by the tour that Rountree is not welcome. Rountree inquired if the issue had anything to do with Jews. The staff member reiterated they did not know the reason, only that they were asked to have them leave. Rountree stated that the Jews made the call, Tucker Carlson responded, and Seth W is the enforcer.

They stopped counting votes on election night to determine how many mail-in ballots to add, which the speaker believes was fraudulent. The speaker insists it was a planned event, claiming it wouldn't happen in Texas. They express concern over the authenticity of mail-in ballots and assert that anyone could have filled them out. The other person questions the validity of these claims, but the speaker stands by their belief based on personal experience.

The speaker says the subject of the interview is not a Democrat and would be offended to be called one. The speaker doesn't believe a political issue would cause the subject to do such a thing. The subject never mentioned the senator or representative who were targeted. He didn't like Tim Walz and would say things like, "I don't like that Tim Walz did this." The subject mentioned a protest, but the speaker doesn't think he said anything about it. The speaker would tell him to surrender himself so he could be taken alive. The subject listened to Infowars, and the speaker told him not to take everything they say for granted. The subject was a Trump supporter, voted for Trump, and liked Trump.

An individual questions whether an action is due to a security concern or an intimidation tactic. The response indicates it is a security matter. Later, the individual asks why they are not being arrested and demands to see video footage. They express distress, stating "That is not okay." Another person urges calm. The individual mentions "FinCEO" and claims they will be arrested despite knowing nothing. They thank someone for their support and ask why another person isn't being arrested, claiming to have witnessed them slap someone. They deny anyone said "stab him." They state that even asking an impolite question could lead to arrest.

An individual asks another to step outside, threatening to call the police. The other person welcomes the threat and suggests calling 911. One of the individuals claims they are looking at a 12-story building and accuses someone of treason. They allege the building was renovated to house illegal aliens while US citizens are sleeping in tents. They state they followed two individuals, who appeared to be from Venezuela, into the building. They claim they were cursed out and the police were called on them when they asked for some of the "free shit," referencing their own Airbnb expenses.

The transcript follows a chaotic exchange among multiple speakers discussing information sources, political narratives, and protests, with several recurring themes and claims. - There is a pattern of questioning information sources and personal actions. Speakers repeatedly ask, “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and “Who the fuck is Jonathan? Where does he get his information? Why did he delete karaoke?” indicating a concern with source credibility and content deletion. - A speaker (Speaker 2) describes a sense of purpose from sharing information, claiming that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, you know, under oath in, you know, a senate… Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” -Jeremy Oliver (Speaker 3) promotes alternative information channels, stating he has a YouTube page, a personal Facebook page, and that viewers can see “at the last protesting.” He frames mainstream media as unreliable, promising to “stream live and show exactly what's going on at the protest and really just support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - Several participants discuss plans to act on protest grounds, including references to “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs” (Speaker 4) and “we’re basically ready to storm the capital with us in a couple of minutes” (Speaker 5). - There are assertions that “we’re all actors, but I wanna direct and act” (Speaker 6) and depictions of confrontations with others during protest or media interactions, including exchanges where people demand to speak with others about Mary Fenix/Fanning (Speaker 5). - A series of critical assertions target then-President Donald Trump and link various individuals and organizations to a network. A speaker states: “Donald Trump has no business being president,” followed by further claims about a coalition “super think tank of Biden, Harris, a couple intellectual figure behind them… Mike Flynn… and two economists,” including Simon Johnson, described as IMF chief economist, with English birth. - The conversation introduces the America Project and Patrick Byrne, claiming Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from Stanley McChrystal’s home and associating McChrystal with the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects opposing viewpoints for Trump, and then shares those viewpoints to counter them. The system is said to target the Patriot movement. - There is a claim that the Flynn network included Ali Alexander and Michael Flynn, and that their aim was “to create instability as they're trying to carry out a color revolution,” listing criteria such as “a united and organized opposition,” “an ability quickly to drive home the point that voting results are falsified,” “compliant independent media,” and “capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators.” - A discussion on 2020 voting numbers is presented as a comparison to the midterms. It is stated that “2020, they reported 395,000 in-person voters on election day,” with debate about whether that figure was statewide or in Maricopa County. Projections speculate on how many Republicans intended to vote but did not cast ballots, with estimates ranging from around 150,000 to 700,000. - Additional claims connect groups and individuals to broader political finance and media ecosystems, including mentions of the US Agency for Global Media, prior Hillary Clinton and John Kerry involvement, and references to propaganda concerns. - Toward the end, the discussion touches upon Wisconsin politics again, with commentary on a state supreme court candidate and voter ID emphasis as a Democrat-leaning position contrary to expectations, followed by a shift into a more personal debate about a case involving a mother’s tragedy and media attention, ending with a tangential accusation of sympathy manipulation.

During a conversation, the speaker expresses their frustration with Juan and mentions that Flynn is involved in setting up the events of January 6th. They claim that Flynn is working with the FBI and handed over an insurrection agreement to intentionally fail. The speaker believes that the FBI wanted to keep them separate from Trump and threatened them. They also mention a deal involving Flynn replacing Trump and mention a video by Nino suggesting Trump's lawyers are making a deal for immunity, followed by a mention of the assassination of Trump.

You're a poll worker, right? What’s the issue? You mentioned Trump is a racist while people were entering. No, I'm not a poll worker. But you all were saying it. No, you were. How can you say that? Whatever. I'll report this to your supervisor.

Jordan Conrad from Gateway Plumbing questions Miss Hobbs about the secret testing on election machines in Maricopa County, Arizona. He asks about discrepancies in signatures on mail-in ballots. Miss Hobbs, as secretary of state, oversaw elections in the area. Jordan expresses frustration and asks for a break while at the gym.

Speaker 0 discusses a transcript of a call from President Trump trying to overturn the election. They play an audio clip where Trump mentions criminal events. Speaker 1 feels threatened by Trump's comments about overseas ballots. Speaker 2 thought Trump believed he won the race but had investigated all allegations.

I'm going to do some sparring and check online. A question arises about bringing someone to vote at 4 o'clock. Voting is reportedly closed, but there's confusion because people believe they have the right to vote until 4:30. One person explains that the process is slow due to high volume, leading to a cutoff at 1:45. This prompts accusations of voter fraud, claiming that cutting the line is unjust. Despite the explanation that the cutoff is posted, the frustration continues, with claims that everyone in line should be allowed to vote until 4:30 on election day. Tensions rise as accusations of election fraud are exchanged, and the situation remains heated.

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

Speaker 1 is confused about why they are being asked to leave a presidential campaign event. Speaker 0 explains that it is because they are on private property. Speaker 1 questions why they are being kicked out if they work for Nikki's campaign and were told to sign up for the event. Speaker 0 refuses to answer questions and asks Speaker 1 to leave. Speaker 1 insists that they received an email and text instructing them to sign up for the event. Speaker 2 also asks Speaker 1 to leave, but Speaker 1 argues that they are asking nicely too. Speaker 0 reiterates that they don't have answers and that Speaker 1 must leave the premises.

The first speaker recalls a tense exchange involving the President. He explains that the President became angry with him and attempted to reach him by phone on three occasions while the first speaker was on the floor of the house. The calls went to voicemail three times, and the first speaker did not recognize the caller because the number appeared as all zeros, leading him to assume that only one person could have a phone number with all zeros. Despite not having the President saved in his contacts, he decided to return the call to the White House. When he called back, the line connected him to Trump. The President reportedly spoke with an intense and aggressive tone, declaring an intimidating message directed at the first speaker. Trump allegedly told him, “I'm coming at you like you've never seen. Never in your life before have you seen the way in which I will come at you.” He claimed to be more popular than the first speaker in Kentucky and asserted that he was backing the first speaker’s primary opponent, predicting that the first speaker would lose. The first speaker attempted to discuss constitutional duties, specifically that they required a vote, but the President began screaming at him for three minutes. After this prolonged confrontation, Trump repeated the same message again at least once more before hanging up. The first speaker’s account emphasizes the sequence: multiple unanswered calls to voicemail, a return call that connected to the President, a confrontation characterized by a loud, aggressive delivery, and a threat framed around political strength and electoral advantage in Kentucky. The exchange concluded with the President hanging up after reiterating his statements. In summary, the first speaker describes a direct, hostile phone interaction with the President, including an initial confusion over the caller’s identity due to an all-zero number, followed by a menacing ultimatum from Trump about backing the first speaker’s opponent and predicting the first speaker’s defeat, and then an attempt to discuss constitutional voting requirements that was met with three minutes of screaming and a subsequent repeat of the message before the line was cut. The core elements are the voicemail-free moment, the return call to the White House, the explicit threats from Trump, the attempted constitutional discussion, and the abrupt hang-up.

The speakers discussed a call with Secret Service and FBI regarding the security breach at a Trump rally. They questioned why the event wasn't paused when a threat was identified before Trump went on stage. They criticized the lack of action and accountability within the Secret Service. Despite the incident, they expressed gratitude that Trump was unharmed. They highlighted the need for better security protocols and transparency. The conversation ended with thanks and a promise to continue advocating for change.

A person asks John if he was at the Capitol. The person then asks John if he is with Black Lives Matter or right-wing people. John is on the phone during this exchange. The person asks again, "Are you Black Lives Matter?" Someone says John stated on the phone that he is not being charged with anything. The person repeats the question, "Are you Black Lives Matter, John?" John answers, "No."

A person, Alex Rountree, was told they are not allowed to enter the premises, as requested by Ted Carlson. The speaker was informed of this by the tour manager over the radio. When asked for a reason, the speaker stated they were not given one, only that Rountree and their companion were not welcome. Rountree asked if it had anything to do with Jews. The speaker reiterated they did not know the reason, but were instructed by the tour to have them leave. Rountree stated that the Jews made the call, Tucker Carlson responded, and Seth W is the enforcer.

The conversation centers on Matthew Tierman, a former Project Veritas board member, and a leader of numerous provocative claims and confrontations documented over a recent period. The participants describe Tierman as having a long history of intense and sometimes violent rhetoric toward James O’Keefe and others, and they present a narrative in which Tierman asserts deep involvement with and access to multiple federal law enforcement offices. Key remarks and claims include: - Tierman allegedly told an undercover journalist that he “fed the Southern District tons of shit” about James O’Keefe and others to try to get them imprisoned. He also claimed to have been an FBI informant and to have spoken with the SDNY, the FBI, the DOJ, and the IRS, asserting he had “thousands of sources in the Department of Justice and the CIA” and that he spent his days trying to “play stories about corruption.” - He is quoted saying he has worked with law enforcement on various topics and that he has fed the SDNY “tons of shit.” He also claimed he was on an “enemies list” at the DOJ and warned of a potential “perp-w walk” in October, which did not come to pass. - Tierman asserted he has access to and engages with legacy media to target conservative figures and claimed involvement with figures like Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, and Don Jr. He alleged Don Jr. has engaged in insider trading and “crypto schemes” to bribe foreign governments, and he stated that his mission for the next two years is to “make sure [Don Jr.] ends up in prison” because he believes Don Jr. has “stolen a billion dollars from the American people.” - He described a broad, cross-ideological network, claiming to be “on all sides” and to talk to the New York Times and National Review, suggesting he negotiates or interacts with diverse media outlets to pursue stories. - The narrative includes a dramatic incident in which Tierman allegedly shot at a book belonging to James O’Keefe, bragging that he wanted to kill him. The discussion references a “bullet right through my heart” inscription in the book and a confrontation in Miami Beach where undercover reporters approached Tierman to verify his statements about wanting to kill O’Keefe. - The participants recount a prior board meeting on February 6, three years earlier, during which Tierman allegedly threatened to “carve my heart out and eat it” in reference to James O’Keefe. They describe how Veritas used remaining funds in litigation against O’Keefe and how, after his termination, he allegedly sought to involve law enforcement to restrain or arrest him. - Tierman allegedly described his investment ambitions, stating he aims to accumulate “a hundred million dollars” to “weaponize money” and to operate in investment banking to wield financial power, citing industry figures such as Paul Singer as a point of comparison. He claimed to have a broker license and to be involved with several investment entities, including Petragen and Cathayed Incorporated, and he discussed NDA restrictions and conflicts of interest related to his activities while on the Veritas board. - The interview mentions the involvement of George Scackel and the notion that Petragen could be sold to big pharma; it also references a prior defamation suit and ongoing disputes with Veritas, including accusations of misappropriating funds and other misconduct. - The reporters tease that Tierman admitted to working with SDNY and the FBI, and that they intend to pursue further discovery, noting threats and violent imagery used by Tierman toward O’Keefe. They emphasize the dramatic, ongoing tension between Tierman and James O’Keefe, culminating in the live confrontation in Miami and a broader dossier of alleged informant activity. Overall, the piece presents Tierman’s allegations about informant activity, his alleged violent rhetoric toward O’Keefe, his plans to monetize and weaponize money, and his disputes with Project Veritas and its leadership, all culminating in a charged confrontation on the street in Miami.

Biden was questioned about why he put his dad on speakerphone during business meetings if his dad had no involvement in his business. The other person asked if Biden's dad called him, to which Biden confirmed. The person then questioned why Biden needed to talk to his dad during business meetings if he had nothing to do with the business. The conversation took a confrontational turn, with the other person calling Biden dangerous and suggesting that his lawyer advised him to handle the situation privately.

Jason called a number and asked if Eduardo Castro was there. He inquired about a drone Castro was allegedly flying in Butler, Pennsylvania, specifically if it was an Andeville counter UAS drone. Jason also asked why Castro's name was hidden. Castro repeatedly denied working for anyone and claimed to have a show called Crowdsource the Truth. Jason then asked if Castro was the drone operator during the Donald Trump assassination attempt and what the drone's function was. The person on the phone stated it was a government phone for official business only and told Jason not to call again.

The speaker states that the Secret Service visited their house because of a social media post saying "8647," which the speaker clarifies means "get rid of Trump." The speaker insists this phrase is a call for impeachment, the 25th amendment, or voting Trump out of office, not assassination. According to the speaker, Trump claimed on the news that "8647" means assassinate him. The speaker denies ever calling for violence against anyone, especially the President. They say the Secret Service agents were friendly and said they were sent by Washington. The speaker claims that right-wing social media accounts used "8646" to mean "get rid of Biden" when he was president. The speaker believes Trump is trying to create a new meaning for the phrase to target those who disagree with him and asserts they will not be intimidated into silence.

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.

During a conversation, the speaker expresses their frustration with Juan and mentions that Flynn was involved in setting up the events on January 6th. They claim that Flynn is connected to the FBI and that he handed over an insurrection agreement to Trump. The speaker believes that they were kept separate from Trump by the FBI and that Flynn sent people to threaten them. They also mention a deal involving Flynn replacing Trump and talk about Nino and Juan's actions after their conversation, including Nino making a video about Trump's lawyers discussing immunity and the potential assassination of Trump.

An individual questions whether an action is due to security concerns or intimidation. The response indicates it is a security matter. Another person is told to stay away from someone. An individual asks why they aren't being arrested and demands to see video footage. Someone is told to calm down. An individual states "They will arrest me. I know nothing." Another person is asked if they would arrest someone else, claiming to have seen that person slap someone. It is asserted that no one said "stab him." Someone states they are on the side of another person.

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.