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.

Jeremy and Jonathan were questioned about where they get information and why karaoke was deleted. A speaker said Wisconsin was the first state where evidence put together by the speaker and associate Chris was presented under oath in the Wisconsin Senate committee on election integrity. A speaker directed people to find Jeremy Oliver on YouTube and on Facebook, and to check “slot media group” for coverage of the “last protest.” Others mentioned using other state capitals for practice “dry runs.” One person said, “We’re all actors, but I want to direct and act.” A journalist/narrator claimed not to get the “real story” from mainstream media and said they would stream live at the protest and support people “fighting for our first men in rights.” During a confrontation, Patrick was asked about Mary Fanning; the other party refused to speak. Another exchange included claims of a conversation with Mike Lindell, with “Don’t trust this guy” and “Let go of the microphone.” A speaker recited lines about “evidence,” “murder weapon,” “confession,” and “fingerprints,” and stated “Donald Trump has no business being President of the USA.” Another person repeatedly said the same. A speaker discussed a “coalition super think tank” associated with Biden and Harris, mentioning Mike Flynn, and stating Simon Johnson (described as chief economist of the IMF) was involved. Brian Gamble was described as CIO of the America Project, founded by Patrick Byrne, who was said to sit on the Council of Foreign Relations with Stanley McChrystal. The transcript alleged Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from McChrystal’s home and that McChrystal advises an AI system “Defeat DisinfoPack” that detects communications from President Trump trending on social media and generates effective opposing viewpoints, which the speaker claimed is similar to targeting the Patriot movement. Another speaker said the Flynn Network was present, with Ali Alexander as a lead organizer, and Michael Flynn giving an address. The transcript described a strategy focused on creating instability, an organized opposition, convincing messaging that voting results were falsified, compliant independent media to inform citizens about falsified vote, and the ability to mobilize tens of thousands to protest alleged electoral fraud. A later discussion focused on 2020 and Maricopa County and contrasted it with midterm results. One participant said they reported 395,000 in-person voters on Election Day in Maricopa alone, described it as a lowball figure due to the COVID pandemic, and discussed speculation about how many Republicans intended to vote but did not cast ballots, estimating “every bit of 700,000” for Maricopa. Another participant said about 150,000 was probably missed. They discussed high “drop-offs,” and said the drop-offs “ended up bending more towards Democrats than we thought they would.” The America Project was further described alongside Patrick Byrne, Roger Richards, Jordan Sather, Emily Newman, and connections to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, with claims about psychological operations training and information warfare. A participant asked whether this was “PSYOP.” A speaker claimed to be tied to a group called the “Army of Northern Virginia,” described as military intelligence specialists of “over 800 people.” Another speaker argued for creating burner accounts, unmasking traitors, forcing real-world consequences, and interrupting people connected to anonymous online activity, describing personal safety concerns about doxxing and security clearances. The transcript also included comments about “Rockefellers” and “Scott Pressler,” with one person saying he was directly given money by the Rockefellers and asking how he got into a room with the Rockefeller family. Charlie Kirk was quoted as believing the way to beat the system is to do the same things “that built the system more, but more,” and that there was “no desire to reform the system,” only to control the system and people through it. Finally, one person mentioned checking what happened in Wisconsin, saying Democrats elected a Supreme Court justice, while the state passed voter ID by a wide margin, and said it “doesn’t make any sense.” Another person said they had no knowledge of it personally, then claimed they spoke to a woman “at great length” who “scared the crap out of me,” that a kid was “clearly killed by somebody,” and that after reading a report they contacted Ro Khanna from California, but “nothing ever happened.”

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.

Johnny, speaking from Sui space, described being called “a Zionist shill” after entering a discussion focused on Hezbollah, Iran, and the dynamics among Israel, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. He said he waited with his hand up for about 45 minutes, then Michael Tracy entered and began speaking about “Jeffrey Epstein shit,” claiming it was fake and framing it as a Jewish effort to “run interference” for Israel’s “leverage and blackmail,” with a goal to rewrite history. Johnny then said he began discussing Hezbollah’s ties to Cyprus and Unit 8200, mentioning Aviv Zarconi and describing funding through OFAC-sanctioned banks in Cyprus, specifically FBME, which he said funds the “Hezbollah resistance force.” He added that one reason “where are they going?” comes up is their links to NSO group, Flint Intel group, and 8,200, and that Israel already has enough enemies. He said FBME is on an OFAC sanction list for funding terrorist activities and that what he claimed as an “Israeli founded, funded, Israeli controlled” resistance force remained central to his argument. He also claimed Suli was cut off because of “the flotilla,” and Johnny said Suli played a video where the audience could only hear audio of an alleged Israeli drone attack on the flotilla involving Greta Thunberg. Johnny connected this to broader claims involving September 2025 media and relationships among Bloomberg, Elon Musk’s former CTO, and Elon Musk’s supposed protection of Thunberg. He referenced the Strobel Foundation and said Greta Thunberg is a “Strobel fellow.” During an apology segment, Johnny addressed Sir Eskenar, saying he had previously supported Donald Trump, framing his earlier logic around a “dichotomy” between Trump and Kamala Harris. Johnny said Trump “had a layup” but made a disappointing choice involving Likud, and that Eskenar’s stance had remained anti-Trump. Another participant described wishing for an “undercover” FBI double agent to expose “the Democrat hoax known as the Epstein files,” then argued the problem’s scope is larger than most people understand and tied it to AI, Palantir infrastructure, and transhumanism, while people remain focused on borders. Johnny then said he found additional material “earlier today” and described an “Israeli Investment Fund Group” involving active-duty IDF reserve brigadier general Aryeh Tesler and Halil Fold, whom he characterized as a top tech infrastructure marketer, whose father he said was Rabbi Yonah Fold at SAR Academy in New York and who Johnny claimed covered up child sex abuse for decades. Johnny also said the group involves Andre Iancu, described as director of the Patent and Trademark Office and Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. He added that they allegedly share an address at 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, suite 830, and that the suite above is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for Colombia, which he associated with cartel activity. He asserted this allegedly makes “drugs, weapons, and kid trafficking” easier when paired with CIA support and an IDF general nearby. The conversation then shifted to FIFA, where a participant asked about alleged FIFA conspiracy elements, executive orders, and symbology on trophies. Johnny’s “nugget” claim stated the FIFA racket ties to attorneys who were “patsy attorneys” for J6 defendants, including Shipwrecked. Others compared it to major events like the Super Bowl. Toward the end, another speaker discussed the “pedo thing” and said some people urged reporting threats to NCMEC. He claimed that NCMEC is endorsed by Microsoft, Amazon, and Palantir, and argued that Palantir’s technology “predicts,” while he alleged callers become “data” quantified in ways he said help identify or manage criminals. The speaker closed with advice to live life outside the issue, emphasizing walking through “demons” rather than being consumed by them. The panel repeatedly returned to themes of research, following investigations, and mental strain from “going into the Matrix.” Speakers also argued that public narratives and platform dynamics can shift, requiring persistence and mutual support among creators.

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.

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.

I spotted a guy with a sign that seemed to threaten CEOs. I asked him if Julone, or Luigi, was his hero, considering the message he was putting out. He didn't want to talk, but I pressed, asking who his hero politician was. I asked the group to raise their right hands. I asked if their cause involved killing CEOs because that's what the sign implied. They called me an extremist while holding up pro-Luigi signs. They seemed angry and exposed. They started blocking their original sign with an "F Trump" sign. I pointed out they didn't want to answer if they thought killing Elon Musk was a good idea. Then, they began taking pictures of me. I simply asked if they were cool with a sign that threatened the president's life, and they freaked out. All I wanted was an answer on whether they thought threatening the president was appropriate.

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.

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.