reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Hi, I'm Jake. I heard you're looking for me because of my involvement in the Capitol building incident. I wanted to call and address it. I'm not sure where I am right now, but I don't believe in running or hiding. I believe in the truth, my faith, and my country. I'm willing to talk and provide any information you need. I'll call the FBI after this. They're a bigger deal than the DCPD. Just let me know when you're ready to give me their number.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

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.

I didn't recognize the letter as Biden's. I never discussed persuading him to step aside publicly. He knows I care for him. Reports of me leading a pressure campaign are false. I did not call anyone.

It’s been twenty years, and nothing has changed. You’ve accomplished nothing while the country suffers. You’re just making empty threats. You called me a child rapist; that’s crossing the line. I’m coming for you and your family. You think you can say that and get away with it? I’ll find you. I’m offering $10,000 for your location. You’re hiding behind an account, but we’ll see how brave you are face to face. You accuse me of being a pedophile; why are you so defensive? If you’re not guilty, just move on. Enough of this. What’s happening with the tunnels in your house?

You can't speak or walk, so let's be honest. I find you disgraceful—a corrupt, lying shell of a person. You've compromised our national security for personal gain, and your family reflects that dysfunction. Your son is a tragic figure, likely just wanting your love, but you prioritize your own image instead. You exploit family struggles for sympathy, but many see through it. The Biden family will be remembered as the most corrupt in American history. This is why children distance themselves from you, and why I've never trusted you. Your judgment day is approaching, and all the lies and corruption will be your legacy. We will teach future generations what not to emulate from the Biden name.

The speaker expresses frustration and accuses the person they are speaking to of protecting the Bidens. They criticize the FBI for lack of transparency and trustworthiness, comparing it unfavorably to the past. The speaker accuses the person of whitewashing corrupt conduct and concludes by stating that the people who work for the FBI deserve better than them.

I am Biden and those items are mine. Please return them to my husband. Let's avoid involving the Secret Service. Where can he meet you?

I am your father, and from now on, that's what you'll call me. They didn't examine the BlackBerry backups or most of the emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop. If I were president, I'd demand access to that laptop and have a trusted military expert analyze everything on it. There's likely a lot of prosecutable material there. I heard even seasoned New York police investigators were disturbed by what they saw on it. Also, the SDNY is sitting on thousands of pages of documents related to Epstein. Hopefully, tomorrow, you'll see a lot of flight logs, names, and information. It's pretty sick what that man did.

Is this seat taken? Actually, that person works for me. You work for BlackRock, right? Yes, but I don’t consent to being recorded. This is New York; it’s a one-party consent state. I’m not comfortable with that. You mentioned that BlackRock buys politicians. I didn’t say that. But you implied that BlackRock controls the president’s wallet. No, I’m just a low-level employee. But you did say it on video. I was just trying to impress someone. We’ll be looking into others at BlackRock too. Please don’t touch me. I’m not touching you. Why is war exciting? I’m going to the police station. What will you tell them? To make you stop following me. He’s inside the police station now, talking about our conversation regarding Ukraine and recruiting at BlackRock. He claims he’s just a recruiter and denies his previous statements.

I believe they were being bribed. Joe Biden giving away $1 billion in exchange for my firing, isn't that corruption?

The speaker repeatedly questions why the FBI is always referenced for information. They press the other speaker, who claims to have communicated with the FBI, about details of an investigation. Despite being asked about shell casings and explosives, the speaker deflects, insisting on referring to the FBI for answers. The questioning becomes more intense, with accusations of withholding information and covering up. The speaker continues to evade direct answers, emphasizing the ongoing criminal investigation.

I'm declining to be named in your story. I haven't given any quotes. My name is James O'Keefe. We have you on hidden camera talking about Elon Musk, Doge, and unlawful activities at Treasury. I encourage you to speak on the record. We have you on video saying government colleagues don't do much, and Doge targets us because it's easy. I'm a reporter. People deserve to know what you've said. Why did you share this with a stranger but not me? You specialize in foreign policy at the Treasury. What are you afraid of? It'll look bad when you won't speak to me, but you told a stranger everything. This is a major public policy issue. I'm running this story with or without you. I think the people need to know what's happening inside the government, including risks to national security.

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

I'm here with my father, and I assure you that the connections we have will make you regret not following my advice. It feels like a shakedown, doesn't it? I won't comment on that. You seem suspiciously uncurious about the situation. Are you protecting the Bidens? The FBI has no interest in that. You won't answer whether this is a shakedown, and everyone knows why. Your refusal to acknowledge it is very telling to the millions watching.

Spencer Pratt released a new video, which was described as rocking the political world and triggering intense reaction in Los Angeles. The video was framed as more than a concession, presented instead as a declaration of war. It was reported to have reached 1.1 million views, 10,000 reposts, and 43,000 likes within minutes. In the video, Spencer Pratt claimed he would not leave the race or leave politics and said that after “they stole it from him,” he possessed criminal material involving lead candidates in the race, which he said would cause them to drop out and resign in disgrace. Spencer Pratt’s message also claimed that his mission to “save Los Angeles” was moving from a campaign phase to a more aggressive phase. He said he had ridiculed and “slayed everybody,” then announced he wanted to apologize to “absolutely nobody.” He rejected claims that he was in the race for a “grift” or to roll up and leave if he didn’t reach City Hall, stating that he aimed to expose a “corrupt machine” and said nothing had changed. He described the situation as “war” and “zero hour for Los Angeles,” attacking “two morons” he said were responsible for the city’s problems and predicting intensified harm if they received four more years. Pratt alleged that major developers, hoteliers, business owners, and entrepreneurs were texting him that they were packing up and leaving town, and said this would lead to fewer tax revenues and cuts to services, including more potholes, fewer firefighters, and less police patrols. He claimed there would be more criminals and drug addicts terrorizing communities. He cited images of the city as proof of worsening conditions, including weeds growing from cracks, graffiti across public spaces, and garbage, drugs, and abandoned storefronts. He said Angelenos were about to “reward the arsonists” with more destruction and claimed he would continue stopping “commie animals.” He stated that “we have some recordings” involving one of the “exalted candidates,” which he said would make her resign in shame, asserting he saved them for the general election. He repeatedly urged Karen Nithya to ask whether an employee may have a recording that would force resignation. He then claimed that the FBI was going to “bust in the door” and said they were coming. The transcript also discussed a comparison to Donald Trump and included claims of public excitement over Pratt’s communications. It stated that Steve Hilton had been doing television and interviews, saying he plans to run with Spencer Pratt. The transcript claimed this included on-the-record statements by Steve Hilton about running with Pratt, raising questions about Pratt’s role. It further stated that HUD Secretary Turner announced ending “fraud-filled homeless funding” for Los Angeles, and that HUD federal dollars were being used, per the transcript’s claim, to rig elections by paying for “infinity homeless people to live in Los Angeles.” In a separate exchange, one person asked whether they had talked to Spencer Pratt, and another replied they had not spoken with him since then. The discussion described support for substantive plans, especially on homelessness, and stated that the door would be open to working with Pratt without rushing. They added that they had not yet heard from him publicly.

Giuliani instructed me to deliver a strong message to Ukraine's president: announce an investigation into the Bidens by Monday or face no aid from the US. This was to be conveyed firmly, with no room for niceties. The message was clear: cooperate or face consequences. This aligns with Trump's phone call to Zelensky, where he hinted at withholding aid until the favor was done. I was involved in setting up that call. My testimony is truthful and given under oath.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You should ask Yvonne. But you're part of the government working with the media to target journalists. I haven’t received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It’s on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are other ways they could have known. Like who? Many people in government could have been aware. So someone in your office knew about the letter? Sure. Then how did the Washington Post find out? That’s faulty logic. You've been busy writing letters threatening journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country.

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.

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.

Speaker 1 argues the administration is targeting its political opponents and notes, "it seemed very clear to me in congressional the testimony," asking, "what an FBI director is doing, taking memos from the FBI and leaking them to the New York Times." He claims "the very same people that were coming after us ... went after your brother" and that "They were trying to destroy my father. They were trying to destroy me, and they were trying to destroy the Trump organization." Speaker 0 says he's not playing coy and asks if what's happening now resembles what happened to him. Speaker 1 fires a barrage: "Did we raid Biden's home?" "Did we weaponize every AG and DA, you know, against Biden?" "Did we put Biden in a courtroom every single day, 91 felony counts that have all been overturned for my father now, right, for nonsense to try and destroy his life?"

I'm here with my father, and I want to make sure that anyone he knows will regret not following my instructions. I'm waiting for a call with him, and it seems like a shakedown, but I won't comment on that. It's suspicious how uncurious you are about it. Are you protecting the Bidens? The FBI won't answer if it's a shakedown, and that speaks volumes about them.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

A senator questions Deputy Director Abadi about allegations of a $5 million bribery scheme involving President Biden and his family. Abadi refuses to comment on the existence of a report or 17 voice recordings related to the allegations. The senator accuses the FBI of stonewalling and damaging its reputation. Abadi maintains that they operate within established parameters and will work with the committee to provide information. The senator criticizes the FBI for not being accountable and demands the release of the report and recordings. Abadi avoids directly answering questions about the investigation and the informant's reliability. The senator expresses concern that the evidence is being covered up by Democrats and the media. The exchange becomes heated and ends with the senator calling Abadi's behavior disgraceful.

I'm coming for you and your whole family. You called me a child rapist, and now it's on. I know you've been in Mexico, and I'm going to find you. Anyone who accuses me of that deserves to be punished. This conversation is recorded, and I’m serious about my threats. You want to play games? I’m offering $10,000 for your location. You think you can hide? Just send me the right info, and I’ll take care of the rest. You’re done.