reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government disinformation offices and transparency concerns. - CISA’s office of mis, dis, and malinformation (MDM) operated as a DHS unit focused on domestic threat actors, with archive details at cisa.gov/mdm. The office existed for two years, from 2021 to 2023, before being shut down and renamed after the foundation published a series of reports. - The disinformation governance board was formed around April 2022. The CISOs countering foreign influence task force, originally aimed at stopping Russian influence and repurposed to “stop Trump in the twenty twenty election,” changed its name to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation and shifted focus from foreign influence to 80% domestic, 20% foreign, one month before the twenty twenty election. - Speaker 1 argues that the information environment problems are largely domestic, suggesting an 80/20 focus on foreign vs domestic issues should be flipped. - A June 2022 Holly Senate committee link is highlighted, leading to a 31-page PDF that, as of now, represents the sum total of internal documents related to the office of mis, dis, and malinformation. The speaker questions why there is more transparency about the DHS MIS office from a whistleblower three years ago than in ten months of current executive power. - The speaker calls for comprehensive publication of internal files: every email, text, and correspondence from DHS MIS personnel, to be placed in a WikiLeaks/JFK-style publicly accessible database for forensic reconstruction of DHS actions during those years, to name and shame responsible individuals and prevent repetition. - The video also references George Soros state department cables published by WikiLeaks (from 2010), noting extensive transparency about the Open Society Foundations’ relationship with the state department fifteen years ago, compared to today. The claim is that Open Society Foundations’ activities through the state department, USAID, and the CIA were weaponized to influence domestic politics while remaining secret, with zero disclosures to this day. - Speaker questions why cooperative agreements from USAID with Open Society Foundation, Omidyar Network, or Gates Foundation have never been made public, nor quarterly or annual milestone reports, network details, or the actual scope of funded activities. USAID grant descriptions on usaspending.gov are often opaque or misleading compared to the true activities funded. - The speaker urges transparency across DHS, USAID, the State Department, CIA, ODNI, and related entities, asking for open files and for accountability. They stress the need to open these records now to inform the public and prevent recurrence, especially as mid-term political considerations loom.

The committee investigated the deletion of Secret Service records related to January 6th. The Secret Service claimed they were still in the process of migrating data when Mayorkas was in charge. The committee believes there may have been a violation of the Federal Records Act. Mayorkas has not held anyone accountable, and the committee is no longer pursuing the issue. They feel it is obstruction of Congress and hope Mayorkas takes action.

A 28-year veteran who was part of the team that evacuated Vice President Dick Cheney on 9/11 and served on Vice President Biden's protective detail was named director in 2022. The agency faced controversy for deleting most text messages from January 6th, citing a data migration. The timing and volume of messages deleted raised suspicion among Americans. The agency defended its actions, stating that integrity is crucial and there was no malicious intent behind the deletions.

An individual from the Pittsburgh office, who may have failed training exams and was not a top agent, was inexplicably placed in charge of the president's entire trip from arrival to departure. Sources close to the Secret Service's internal investigation claim the Department of Homeland Security is pressuring the Secret Service to withhold documents requested by Congress. The speaker insists the American people deserve the truth.

The congressman criticizes Secretary Mayorkas for the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) alleged failures, including record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and drug-related incidents. He accuses the DHS of colluding with social media companies to censor free speech, citing a court opinion from the Missouri v Biden case. The congressman questions Mayorkas about his knowledge of the opinion, to which Mayorkas responds that he has been briefed on it. The congressman accuses Mayorkas of making false statements under oath and questions him about the existence of the MDM subcommittee and the determination of misinformation. Mayorkas denies the allegations and states that the focus of the DHS is to identify tactics used by foreign nations to weaponize disinformation. The congressman disputes this and highlights the court's finding that the DHS made no distinction between domestic and foreign speech. The conversation ends due to time constraints.

Over the past 3 years, Representative questioned FBI Director Wray and Attorney General Garland about federal assets at the Capitol on January 6th, but received no answers. The Inspector General announced a review of the DOJ response in 2021, paused it due to ongoing criminal cases, and reinitiated it last year. The report will include information on the number of confidential human sources operating on Capitol grounds on January 6th, but the exact number is not available yet due to the draft form and classification review. The report's release is not expected before the election, and possibly not before the next inauguration. The report will expose the presence of confidential human sources at the Capitol, and whether DOJ CHS protocols were followed. Representative inquired about the failed FBI investigation of the January 6th pipe bomb, citing lost information, deleted Secret Service texts, and corrupted cell phone data. The FBI allegedly lacks video footage of the DNC from January 6th. The Inspector General couldn't rule out the involvement of confidential human sources in the pipe bomb incident.

The January 6th Committee aimed to investigate the events leading up to and on January 6th, making recommendations to prevent future occurrences. There were issues accessing Secret Service cell phone records, which were reportedly deleted, hindering a thorough investigation. The deletion was discovered during the investigation, and Alejandro Mayorkas was the Secretary of Homeland Security at that time. The committee believes there may have been a violation of the Federal Records Act, as four congressional committees had previously sought these records. The Secret Service claimed data loss occurred during a phone migration process. Accountability for the deletion remains unclear, and the committee has since disbanded, leaving further pursuit of the records uncertain. Concerns about potential obstruction of Congress were raised regarding the deletion of communications despite preservation notices.

A 28-year veteran who was part of the team that evacuated Vice President Dick Cheney on 9/11 and served on Vice President Biden's protective detail was named director in mid-2022. This appointment came amid controversy over the agency's deletion of nearly all text messages from January 6th, which the agency attributed to a data migration. While system migrations do occur, many Americans find the timing and volume of deleted messages suspicious. Despite this, the agency emphasizes that their integrity is paramount and insists there was nothing nefarious about the incident.

During a hearing, Congressman Paul questions Chairman Thompson about the deletion of Secret Service cell phone records related to the January 6th committee investigation. Thompson confirms that the records were deleted during the Trump administration and that the committee did not have access to all the tapes. Paul expresses concern about the potential violation of the Federal Records Act and the lack of investigation into the pipe bombs found near Vice President Kamala Harris. He criticizes Secretary Mayorkas for not taking action and obstructing Congress. Thompson suggests that if Congressman Greene wants to investigate further, he should issue a subpoena. Paul concludes by expressing his disappointment with the committee's findings and the Secret Service's response to the pipe bombs.

James O’Keefe and an undercover team report on the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO, historically tasked with overseeing government spending, is described as being in question by the undercover team. Speakers claim that administration actions have destroyed statistical agencies and data sources, but that they have stolen and backed up those data to preserve them. The team suggests this is in response to efforts to delete vaccine-related data, and that such actions could be aimed at undermining research on vaccines. Steve Putansu, a sixteen-year veteran at the GAO and a lecturer at American University, is presented as indicating that GAO is “stealing and preserving vaccine data that RFK and HHS has deleted,” a move described as potentially violating federal law. The narrative asserts that the GAO’s purpose is oversight and that its methods resemble a watchdog function, though the portrayal implies a more aggressive stance in protecting data. Within the dialogue, it is claimed that in some places there is resistance and that administration has destroyed statistical agencies and data sources. There is mention of “stolen and backed those things up,” with an implication that access to preserved data could be used to constrain or compel violations of law by others. The transcript notes that GAO faces political pushback, including threats of a 50% budget cut next year under the impoundment act, which defines as illegal the president’s withholding of funds congress has appropriated. GAO is said to have challenged spending changes as impoundment multiple times, prompting accusations of political targeting and leading to budget punishment. Legal experts are cited: Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, is shown asserting that the director at GAO committed violations of three federal statutes. He describes this as a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for “intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access to obtain information from a US government department or agency.” He contends that the director is not a DHHS representative, and that taking information from HHS servers would constitute purloining information. Chamberlain also cites possible violations of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (theft of government property) and 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (unauthorized removal of public records). The report closes with a prompt for tips to the investigative team and a teaser about an upcoming undercover report. The segment emphasizes exposing alleged wrongdoing by government officials, framed as holding the corrupt elite accountable.

The speaker questions the deletion of Secret Service cell phone records on January 6th and suggests that it hindered the investigation. They discuss the involvement of Secretary Mayorkas and the possible violation of the Federal Records Act. The speaker expresses concern about the lack of investigation into the presence of pipe bombs near Vice President Kamala Harris and the delayed response from the Secret Service. They criticize Mayorkas for not taking action and obstructing Congress. The speaker concludes by suggesting that further investigation is necessary and offers support for issuing a subpoena.

We made progress in accessing documents hidden by the executive branch to keep them from the public. Some documents went to the White House and DHS. We obtained redacted testimonies from White House employees, revealing discrepancies with the select committee's narrative. DHS delayed sharing documents, but recently allowed access. The crucial transcribed interview we sought was missing. The destruction of deposition videotapes was a significant breach of trust and house rules.

The conversation centers on the Epstein file controversy, the DOJ's handling of it, and what the speakers see as systemic failures and political risk for Donald Trump and allied figures. - The Epstein/file issue is framed as predictable and frustrating. Alex Jones notes a “slow drip of nothing” and calls the initial promise of full file disclosure a pattern of “promise something, deliver nothing.” Pam Bondi’s statement that “the files were on my desk” is discussed as an apparent misstep or staged moment, but the core point is that large amounts of material are not being released despite public promises. - The discourse questions where the files actually reside and who controls access. The claim that a “truckload of files” existed and was hidden at DOJ is rejected as a mischaracterization; the speakers emphasize that the FBI and DOJ have files, but access and disclosure have been hampered by internal political dynamics. They highlight the tension between the Southern District of New York and the DOJ, noting that SDNY answers to the DOJ and the Attorney General, thereby questioning the premise that one regional office is independently sabotaging access. - There is a persistent critique of DOJ leadership and governance. The argument is that DOJ has not been “rooted out of corruption,” with mid-level and high-level managers and appointees still in place, propagating practices that the speakers deem contrary to transparency and accountability. They point to supposed failures by individuals such as Cash Patel and Pam Bondi in relying on FBI briefings rather than verifiable records, suggesting that power in intelligence agencies is still too dependent on information control. - The Epstein files are treated as emblematic of a broader issue: a two-tier or selective justice system. The speakers argue that there’s a pattern whereby powerful individuals have access to information and protection, while the public lacks full visibility. They mention that Trump’s response and the way the files have been handled have become a larger “Russiagate-like” narrative, with Epstein serving as a lightning rod for accusations of corruption and cover-up. - The political dynamic is central. Several participants emphasize that Trump’s stance and the responses of his allies are under intense scrutiny. They discuss the risk that Trump’s association with the Epstein disclosures could become a political liability if the files aren’t released. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massey are mentioned as consistent voices pushing for full disclosure, while Roger Stone’s warnings about CIA and foreign involvement in the Epstein nexus are cited as supporting the view that a larger, international financial/transnational network may be implicated. - There is criticism of how the media and political opponents handle the issue. The speakers claim Democrats are using hearings to turn the Epstein matter into a broader political weapon and to portray Trump as obstructive or complicit, regardless of the factual state of file disclosure. They argue that the public is being led by a PR war, with “photoshopped” or redacted material used to frame narratives rather than to reveal truth. - The discussion turns toward accountability and remedies. The speakers insist that federal law requires the release of the Epstein files by a deadline, and that failing to comply constitutes a constitutional or institutional crisis. They argue that Congress lacks direct enforcement power and must consider funding or other leverage to compel compliance, noting the apparent reluctance of Congress to act decisively. - There are predictions about personnel changes and institutional reform. Dan Bongino is discussed as likely to depart from his DOJ-related role, with Todd Blanche as the lead prosecutor taking heat for not meeting deadlines. Andrew Bailey is floated as a potential replacement. The broader implication is that there will be a shake-up in DOJ and possibly FBI leadership in the near term, though the speakers acknowledge uncertainty about how far reforms will go or whether entrenched interests will impede real change. - The Epstein matter is used to illustrate how compromises and cover-ups operate across power structures. The speakers argue that the problem isn’t just the existence of the files but how the system treats those files—how access is controlled, how redactions are justified, and how political narratives are constructed around high-profile investigations. Harmony Dillon and Liz Harrington are cited as voices who underscore the need for mid-level reform and more transparency, suggesting that the deepest issues lie in organizational culture and incentives rather than in isolated acts by a few individuals. - A broader reflection on American governance finishes the discussion. The speakers warn that a failure to release the Epstein files or to purge corrupt practices could deepen distrust in federal institutions and threaten the legitimacy of the government. They suggest that if reform stalls, the country might devolve into a state-by-state dynamic or other less cohesive arrangements, as confidence in a functioning central government erodes. In summary, the transcript frames the Epstein file disclosures as a litmus test for DOJ integrity and political accountability. It portrays a pattern of delayed or selective disclosure, questions about who controls information within the FBI/DOJ, and a risk that political calculations are interfering with lawful obligations. It also foresees significant leadership changes and intensified scrutiny of the department in the near future, with Epstein serving as a focal point for broader critiques of how power and information are managed in the United States.

The speaker reveals shocking information about the deletion of the entire database directory from the d drive of the machine called EMS primary. This deletion occurred approximately 10 days before the machines were handed over to the Senate. Deleting documents after being told to preserve them can have severe legal consequences. Additionally, the main database for the election management system software, which contains all election-related data from the November 2020 general election, is missing from the EMS primary machine. This suggests that it has been removed.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. So, you admit Maricopa County deleted files after the election? Those files were archived. The auditors initially didn’t have access to those archived files, correct? They did not subpoena those, that's right. You didn’t feel obligated to turn them over? We responded to the subpoena. It’s laughable to suggest a county could delete files in response to a subpoena. Your Twitter mentions purging the 2020 election database in February as standard practice. Can you confirm that’s done for all elections? I cannot confirm that today, but we’ll get you an answer. Why was data from prior elections still present? I don’t have an answer now, but we will provide one. The recorder will answer questions in a timely fashion, but he previously criticized Adrian Fontes, who ran the 2020 election. Yes, we had oversight from both parties during the election.

You are not being honest with this committee. We asked for all memorandums from the Secret Service on July 15th, have you provided them? You are dodging important questions that the American people want answers to. We had to subpoena you to be here, and you still won't answer. These are not difficult questions.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

The January 6th committee, now under Republican control, is unable to review the documents used by the previous committee. The video depositions, which would have been valuable evidence, have been discarded. The staff faced difficulties in gathering necessary information as nothing was indexed or digitized. Surprisingly, there is very little available from the blue team, responsible for investigating security failures at the Capitol. This highlights a lack of government transparency.

Is it standard practice to delete files off a server after an election? I hope not. It’s appropriate to maintain files, and while we deleted some files, they were archived. The auditors initially did not have access to those archived files because they were not subpoenaed. It’s laughable to suggest that deleting files in response to a subpoena is acceptable. The subpoena should have covered all election-related records. I cannot confirm if purging the database after elections is standard practice, but limited server space may require it. If that is the case, why was data from prior elections still present? We will provide answers to these questions. It's important to note that we had oversight during the 2020 election due to concerns about the previous administration's competence.

Mr. Bennett questions if it's standard practice to delete files off a server after an election. Mr. Gates says they maintained files but deleted the ones that were archived. It is revealed that Maricopa County deleted files off the server after the election, which the auditors didn't have access to initially. The auditors didn't subpoena those files, and Maricopa County claims they responded to the subpoena. Mr. Bennett finds it laughable that the county would delete files in response to a subpoena, as the subpoena requested all records related to the election. The county interpreted the subpoena differently.

The January 6th Committee reportedly failed to keep records of video depositions, data, transcripts, and documents. According to Democrat Benny Thompson, the committee did not archive temporary records and was not obligated to preserve all video recordings of interviews or depositions. This is surprising considering the committee's two-year investigation.

The Secret Service is refusing to cooperate, stonewalling efforts to uncover the facts. They have not testified or provided documents, which raises serious concerns. The director, Ron Rowe, should be removed for his inadequate response that endangered the president's life. This lack of transparency follows two assassination attempts and parallels the FBI's current stonewalling regarding drone incidents in New Jersey and elsewhere. It's time for accountability and a thorough overhaul of these agencies.

During the Biden administration, attempts to obtain records on funding for Wuhan research were blocked; findings came largely from FOIA challenges. Communications allegedly show Fauci and NIH director Francis Collins instructing: 'read this, this is some more crap coming from me, the senator from Kentucky, I wanna be done with this. When you're done reading it, delete this material.' The speaker says this is illegal and constitutes two crimes: destroying federal records and lying to Congress. The auto pen pardon raises questions about Biden's awareness; the operator says he never met the president, and 'thousands of auto pen pardons' were issued. The speaker has invited Fauci to testify; if not accepted, a subpoena will be issued. They claim Fauci lied to Congress and that gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Fauci's approval. Kennedy, Bhattacharya, Makary cooperative. End deadline for Fauci's response is this week or next.

A 28-year veteran with experience evacuating Vice President Dick Cheney on 9/11 and serving on Vice President Biden's team had text messages deleted on January 6th due to a data migration, according to the agency. Some find the timing and volume suspicious, but the agency denies any wrongdoing, emphasizing their integrity.

Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general. Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture. He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.