reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Elon Musk released documents showing collusion between the White House and Twitter on censorship. He defied his lawyers by sharing the documents with journalists, standing up for free speech in the US. In Europe, censorship is rampant, with heavy fines for criticizing official medical recommendations. Musk's actions were courageous, considering his reliance on government contracts for SpaceX and ties to intelligence agencies. The release of these documents shed light on government interference in social media platforms.

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 speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

The speaker questions the witness about mixing personal and professional emails, expressing confusion and concern. The witness explains his actions were to protect a friend under threat. The speaker challenges the witness on ethics and reporting to the ethics office. The witness struggles to provide clear answers, leading to frustration from the speaker. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt and yielding back their time.

Elon Musk and his team have imposed a gag order on AID employees, disconnecting them from email and jeopardizing lives globally. We are entering the building to gather firsthand accounts from those at AID or witnesses regarding Musk's attempted takeover, which we will not allow to succeed. We will prevail.

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

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

We learn about DC leaks and the connection to APT 28, a Russian military intelligence hacking group. The morning the Hunter Biden story broke in the New York Post, it was confusing. We didn't know what to believe, but it seemed like a possible hacking campaign by APT 28. Despite that, I didn't feel comfortable removing the content from Twitter.

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

The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes. Translation: The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes.

The conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

Twitter released the long-awaited Fauci files, revealing that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied under oath about his use of Twitter. Despite denying any association with the platform, the files show that Fauci took control of the White House COVID response account twice in March and April 2021. Elon Musk had previously mentioned a dedicated Fauci fan club on Twitter, and the report confirms that a former lead company attorney at Twitter worked with Fauci on disinformation. Additionally, Twitter collaborated with pharmaceutical companies to shape vaccine marketing campaigns, actively suppressing opposing views while promoting COVID-19 vaccines.

Elon Musk and his team have imposed a gag order on AID employees, cutting off their email access and potentially endangering lives globally. We are entering the building to gather firsthand accounts from anyone present at AID or who has witnessed the situation regarding Musk's attempted takeover. We are determined to stand against this and will prevail.

Twitter censored the speaker's account in 2021 for sharing COVID vaccine-related information. Internal emails reveal that a Twitter employee named Michael Vincent Coe flagged a tweet for violating COVID misinformation policies. Coe, who has a business administration degree, dismissed the claims without providing evidence. Another Twitter employee, Joseph Guay, also flagged a tweet related to DARPA, questioning their involvement in funding vaccine research. Guay acknowledged that the article linked in the tweet discussed the topic accurately, but deemed the speaker's context as harmful and false. Both employees left Twitter around the same time. The speaker's lawyers are considering legal action.

Elon Musk has imposed a gag order on AID employees, disconnecting them from email and jeopardizing lives globally. We are entering the building to gather firsthand accounts from anyone at AID or witnesses regarding Musk's attempted takeover, which we will not allow to succeed. We will prevail.

The speakers discuss the vaccination landscape around human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, focusing on a controversial issue they claim has been known and disseminated since early on: contamination with DNA (DNA residuals) from Deinococcus or related genetic material in vaccines and the implications of aluminum adjuvants used in Gardasil/Gardasil 9. - They begin by asserting that HPV vaccines, including Gardasil/Sil, have been the subject of remarkable legal actions worldwide, including four major lawsuits in Japan. They note that historically, in Japan, many young women and girls stood as plaintiffs, and that the core problem they highlight is the DNA contamination issue (referred to as “ディー エ ヌ エー 混 入 汚 染 問 題”). - The claim is that from early on, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and others acknowledged this contamination as central. They reference a 2012 paper that reportedly made the DNA contamination problem very clear, naming pathogens such as Human Papillomavirus, HPV, and DEIN? They describe that vaccine particles (HBV? HPBL DNA fragments) were found to be directly bound to aluminum adjuvant particles in Gardasil, implying a mechanism by which residual DNA could be involved in adverse effects. - The speakers say that the 2012 study, and subsequent work, led to attention from doctors worldwide who listened to the voices of women and girls and wondered what was happening with the vaccine recipients. They claim that samples showed that residual HPV DNA fragments were consistently present and directly linked to aluminum adjuvant particles, and that “PCR” detection indicated the same DNA sequences across samples. They mention that the 2012 paper’s findings were followed by reporting that, by 2014, vaccination had been suspended in Japan earlier than many would have expected. - They recount a process in which major scientists from various countries (France, the UK, and others) were involved in investigating adenoviral or genetic components (they reference Shihan? and others) and that the Japan-based researchers, including Ishii Ken, were central figures. They describe meetings, PowerPoint presentations at a hotel, and a sequence of visits to the UK and the US (including HR-related planning with U.S. FDA and the UK authorities) that were interrupted by closures in the Obama era, leading to documentation and discussions about the safety concerns. - The speakers claim that by the 2012 report and again by 2014, all vaccine samples from multiple countries contained residual DNA, and that Japan became a hub for disseminating awareness of these issues globally. They state that the issue was present not only in the early Gardasil (Gardasil-4) but also in later forms, with references to Gardasil-9 and the idea that the DNA contamination and adjuvant interactions could contribute to immune and neurological symptoms in recipients, particularly in women and girls. - They discuss changes to WHO and FDA guidelines on residual DNA limits, noting a progression from 10 picograms to higher thresholds over time, implying corporate interests in allowing higher residual DNA quantities in vaccines. They emphasize that the shift in limits is tied to pharmaceutical companies’ needs, not human biology changes, and argue that Japan highlighted the problem of Deinance-DNA contamination during the cervical cancer vaccine era, signaling that researchers, journalists, and victims were aware long before others. - Finally, Speaker 1 adds that two points became clear a year earlier: the disruption of messenger RNA–type vaccines as a response to safety concerns, and the subsequent rise in adverse outcomes after widespread vaccination, including deaths, which they claim intensified opposition to these vaccines. Note: The summary presents the speakers' claims and sequencing of events as described in the transcript without evaluation or endorsement.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 2 about how they obtained confidential information. Speaker 2 refuses to disclose their source, citing attorney-client privilege. Speaker 0 threatens contempt if Speaker 2 does not reveal the source within 5 minutes. Speaker 2 mentions statements made by Mr. Copeland regarding a murder. The conversation escalates with Speaker 0 demanding answers and Speaker 2 maintaining their stance. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 insisting on knowing the source of the information.

Speaker 1 accuses the media of bias for not covering a supposed scandal involving Biden. Speaker 0 defends the need for verification. Speaker 1 claims the scandal can be verified due to a laptop. The conversation escalates with accusations of media bias and unfair questioning. The interview is abruptly ended.

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

On Friday, February 3rd, a board member contacted one of our journalists and offered them a raise if they could bring about a restructure at Project Veritas without James O'Keefe. The board member's text message was obtained and shared with everyone, although the journalist's name was redacted. The board member later deleted the message, but our journalist managed to capture screenshots. Well done, journalist.

The speaker sued the Biden administration and won. According to the speaker, discovery revealed that 37 hours after Biden's inauguration, a White House group was appointed to censor the speaker and others. The speaker claims to have emails between this group and Mark Zuckerberg, as well as people at Twitter. The speaker credits Elon Musk with making these emails public and believes Musk is essential to free speech in the U.S. because he opened up Twitter. The speaker states that Musk released these documents to journalists against the advice of his attorneys.

Elon Musk prevented Twitter from erasing stories about Kamala's past. He exposes the media as liars and cheats, turning us into debunkers. Musk believes in transparency, but questions if the media are trustworthy.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

Val Brooksmith, the Twitter user whose account was suspended for posting hacked material, shares their story. They received an email from Sony's attorney, David Boyce, telling them to stop tweeting. Val claims they obtained the hacked documents after seeing a link on Sony's screens and decided to investigate. When asked if they thought it was illegal, Val mentions an email from the hackers asking for money, making them doubt it was North Korea. Val promptly gave the documents to the press and started tweeting about it two weeks later.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.