reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

Speaker 1 presents evidence of alleged corruption by Joe Biden, including questionable finances and overseas payments. The firing of a prosecutor investigating Biden's son is highlighted as suspicious. Speaker 0 questions the motives behind the impeachment inquiry, suggesting it may be politically motivated. Speaker 1 argues that the evidence points to corruption and influence peddling, not political revenge. The lack of media coverage is blamed for public skepticism.

The speaker questions whether Chairman Comer has proven Joe Biden committed high crimes. He believes Biden should be impeached but is unsure why the vote has not been called yet. The discussion revolves around the lack of evidence for impeachment and the delay in taking action. The speaker accuses the hearings of being a show and states that the vote will never happen due to insufficient evidence. The conversation ends with frustration over the ongoing hearings without a clear resolution in sight.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Speaker 0 argues that Snowden, if he comes to the United States, should receive due process and be punished severely, stating he hopes he gets at least 176 years in jail for what he did. He asserts that crimes like espionage harm the security and safety of innocent American civilians and deserves the strictest punishment. He states his view that Snowden committed treason, ought to be convicted of that, and ought to swing from a tall oak tree. He adds that he believes Snowden should be prosecuted, and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent possible. When asked what that punishment is, Speaker 0 answers: Death. Speaker 1 asks if he thinks Snowden should be killed, and Speaker 0 confirms: Yes.

Speaker 0 suggests there was potentially the biggest setup and one of the greatest crimes against the American people in the history of the country. Speaker 1 agrees it's important to get the truth and states they are working to uncover the cover-ups that happened after January 6th. Speaker 0 asks about Republicans involved in those cover-ups, acknowledging it's hard to address one's own party. Speaker 1 responds that they're going to go where the evidence leads, no matter what. Speaker 0 states they will hold Speaker 1 to that.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

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

Speaker 1 criticizes the trial outcome, claiming it was rigged and the real verdict will be on November 5th. Congressman Bennie Thompson introduced legislation to remove Trump's Secret Service protection, implying a death threat. Speaker 1 questions the double standard in how politicians can make threats without consequences, while others would be condemned for the same actions.

A senator forcefully denies allegations against him and accuses the government of manipulating the media. Another person agrees with the senator's claims but also criticizes him for not resigning. The senator accuses his colleagues of acting politically and defends his engagement with foreign governments. The person dismisses the senator's speech and suggests he should focus on his trial. They question why the senator is still being paid attention to despite severe accusations against him. The person also discusses the tendency for senators to support each other in times of trouble. They find it strange that the senator has not been expelled despite being accused of being a foreign agent for two Middle Eastern nations.

The speaker met with Mr. Martin, who seems like a good man. The speaker's concerns related to January 6th. Mr. Martin built a compelling case regarding some prosecutions that were heat-of-the-moment bad decisions. The speaker believes anyone who reached the perimeter on January 6th should have been imprisoned for some period of time and has no tolerance for anyone who entered the building. Mr. Martin explained how some people got caught up in it, making a stupid decision to enter a breached building. The speaker's issue isn't whether they should be charged, but by how much. The speaker believes what happened on January 6th was wrong, not prompted by others, and those involved disgraced the United States. Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, and the speaker agreed that some should not have been pardoned. The speaker would support Mr. Martin as a US attorney for any district except the one where January 6th happened and has indicated to the White House that they wouldn't support his nomination.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker says, "Trump listen, man. I I supported him this last year. I apologize for doing so. It was a bad calculation. At the time, it seemed like the right one." He adds, "But he should be impeached and removed for this one." He continues, "And not not on some, like, not not on some ridiculous Nancy Pelosi. Of course, the congress will never do it because they're all a bunch of, you know, corrupt hacks. This is the one thing they support. This is, like, the yeah." He reiterates, "Donald Trump should be impeached and removed for this." "All of his supporters should turn on him." "It's the absolute betrayal of every"

Speaker 0 questions if this could be the biggest setup or crime in the country's history. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of uncovering the truth and the cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves Republicans. Speaker 1 commits to following the evidence, regardless of where it leads. Speaker 0 holds Speaker 1 accountable for this commitment. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the significance of revealing the truth and uncovering cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves members of Speaker 1's own party. Speaker 1 pledges to follow the evidence, no matter the consequences. Speaker 0 reminds Speaker 1 of this commitment.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

Speaker 0 accuses the prime minister of bullying senators and lying about the independence of the senate. Speaker 1 interrupts, asking Speaker 0 to retract a word. Speaker 0 refuses and Speaker 1 asks them to apologize. Speaker 0 again refuses. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to leave, and they eventually comply.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of working for a Russian oligarch and misusing money. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and criticizes Speaker 0's integrity. The conversation becomes heated as they argue about truth and lies. Speaker 1 questions the DOJ's treatment of him compared to Speaker 0. Speaker 0 mentions Speaker 1's conviction and reduced sentence. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's credibility. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of not being able to handle the truth.

Trump is calling for Biden to be removed from the ballot, which is seen as a dangerous move by the speakers. They argue that there have been no convictions or illegal actions to justify such a decision. They compare it to Hitler and express the importance of letting the voters decide. The speakers also mention allegations of classified document mishandling by both Biden and Trump, but note that interference from Russia has been debunked. They emphasize the need for the public to determine the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Speaker 0 suggests that Trump's lead in the polls may be the reason behind the push to remove him from the ballot, but Speaker 1 disagrees.

Speaker 0 mentions that an investigation has been started regarding a recent issue, which Speaker 1 questions. Speaker 2 suggests asking the Party Board members for more information. Speaker 0 asks if there will be an investigation into what happened and the victims' experiences. Speaker 2 explains that the investigation is complicated since the person involved is no longer a member of the parliament. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the victims and their stories. Speaker 2 says everything can be read about it and didn't expect to discuss it. Speaker 0 understands it's a sensitive topic. Speaker 1 mentions going to Afghanistan and having lunch. Speaker 0 points out that an investigation should have been conducted. Speaker 1 explains that the person can only return when there is a vacancy. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 suggesting asking the same question later.

Speaker 0 argued that Nancy Pelosi set a precedent by waiting to hold a vote on the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Speaker 1 dismisses this claim as ridiculous and states that there is no requirement for a vote at this time. They express satisfaction with the support and thoughtfulness of their caucus in pursuing fairness, truth, and upholding the US constitution.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.

It's common sense that we have many migrants here illegally who have committed crimes. It's hard to understand why anyone would defend allowing them to stay in the country. If someone is here illegally and engages in criminal activity, they should be removed. This issue was significant in the recent election. In the Senate, with 47 members, if we can't secure at least 7 votes on this matter, it reflects why we lost. This is one of the reasons for our defeat. Brett, consider that perspective; it's a crucial point being made.

Speaker 0 presents what he calls an explosive piece of tape: a man buys a registration form for an absentee ballot from a voter, pocketing $200 and expecting to collect the ballot when the voter receives it. Speaker 1 reacts, noting the illegality of the act and questioning why it isn’t illegal to do certain things, followed by a line that “We don’t get illegal” and a claim about lions, then attributes responsibility to someone who “came up with all this.” Speaker 0 continues, stating that she started the whole “pay to vote” scheme. He alleges that “the people that work for Ilhan” are actually counting the ballots, counting the vote. Speaker 1 adds that they “become a manager in the prison too,” claiming that those people “walk with you to the booth, and then they vote, oh, vote this guy. Vote this guy. Vote even if you speak English.” Speaker 0 introduces James O’Keefe, identifying himself as a truth exposer who holds the corrupt elite accountable, and pivots to messaging about protecting readers’ freedom and finances. The segment shifts to a financial pitch. O’Keefe warns of one of the biggest financial shifts of their lifetime, describing de-dollarization with nations like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia moving away from US dollars. He claims this threatens savings and retirement security and cites Ray Dalio’s warning about skyrocketing debt, relentless money printing, and a weakening dollar as part of a dangerous cycle that could impact Americans. He asserts that more Americans are turning to real assets like physical gold and silver, noting that gold “surged past $3,700 per ounce,” and that momentum is building. He says he has partnered with veteran-owned American Independence Gold to help viewers take action, offering to open a qualifying account with up to $10,000 in bonus gold and a free gold protection guide. He adds that a portion of every sale supports Tunnel to Towers and wounded warriors, and closes with the line, “Freedom isn’t given, it’s secured,” followed by the disclaimer, “This is James O’Keefe. As always, this is not financial advice. Always check with your licensed financial advisor before you invest.”