reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Congress turned a blind eye to government abuses, trusting blindly in their actions. The FBI, led by J. Edgar Hoover, committed blackmail, illegal wiretapping, and political surveillance. The press failed to expose these wrongdoings, allowing them to continue unchecked. Presidents like JFK, Lyndon Johnson, and Nixon were afraid to fire Hoover due to his blackmail material on them.

A former Intel official revealed that major pornography and dating sites are controlled by intelligence agencies, which access user data for potential blackmail. The discussion shifts to U.S. relations with Russia, highlighting a long-standing obsession with the country, particularly due to its actions in Syria that conflict with U.S. and Israeli interests. The conversation touches on the 2014 removal of Ukraine's democratically elected leader, perceived as too pro-Moscow, and the implications of U.S. involvement. There's skepticism about the CIA's oversight and past incidents involving figures like Hale Boggs, who criticized the agency and mysteriously disappeared. The dialogue concludes with a mention of recent allegations against political figures, suggesting a pattern of targeting those who challenge the status quo.

To understand how the American government operates, consider Richard Nixon, the most popular president, who was forced to resign without a vote, replaced by Gerald Ford, the only unelected president. Nixon believed federal agencies were undermining the government. In 1972, he suggested to CIA Director Richard Helms that the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination. Shortly after, the Watergate scandal emerged, led by Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to intelligence agencies. The FBI's Mark Felt was Woodward's main source, and the agencies aimed to discredit Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, who resigned. Ford, tied to the Warren Commission, became president. This illustrates how unelected officials influence politics, undermining democracy. A similar fate befell General Michael Flynn in the Trump administration, showing the system's flaws. Ultimately, the public deserves a true democracy, not control by those who are unelected.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the intelligence community's power and control over domestic politics. Speaker 1 criticizes Chuck Schumer for accepting a system where unelected spy agencies dictate the outcome of democracy. They question the meaning of democracy when the population is disenfranchised and controlled by unelected individuals. Speaker 0 highlights the lack of response to Schumer's statement, indicating the pervasiveness of this issue in Congress and the media. They challenge those who lecture about democracy while supporting a system that goes against its principles. The conversation emphasizes the need to reject such control and uphold true democracy.

In this interview, Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer, discusses a range of allegations about a powerful, clandestine influence operating inside and beyond the U.S. government, which he characterizes as the shadow government and connects to long-standing CIA activities. Key topics and assertions - Project Mockingbird and the media - Shipp asserts that Project Mockingbird is alive and well, now visible in mainstream media. He contends that former CIA figures like John Brennan and James Clapper appear as intelligence analysts on networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News (including Mike Pompeo on Fox). He alleges this represents a shift from covert to overt influence in shaping news narratives. - The Twilight of the Shadow Government - Shipp has written Twilight of the Shadow Government with Skyhorse, describing how the CIA redacts information in ways that evade executive orders. He recounts his personal experience with redactions in his earlier book From the Company of Shadows, including redactions of poisoning and other illnesses in his family. He explains he submitted Twilight of the Shadow Government to the CIA for three months, received no response, and decided to publish without CIA approval to break their control over information and freedom of speech. - The poisoning and retaliation against whistleblowers - Shipp details how his family suffered severe illnesses after exposure to a poisoned house linked to an embassy-coverage investigation he conducted. He says the CIA placed him in a “poisoned house” with mold and mycotoxins, describing it as a chemical/biological weapon. An inspector-general representative later apologized, stating the CIA director ordered silencing. Shipp contends a broader cover-up involved exposing an embassy vulnerability and a 10-year cover-up that endangered officers. He cites these events as a turning point leading him to come forward publicly. - The state secrets privilege and the judiciary - He asserts the CIA exerts control over Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary, citing the state secrets privilege as a tool used to seal cases and suppress information. He references United States versus Reynolds as a precedent, arguing the privilege is unconstitutional but used to shut down investigations and lawsuits. He mentions Pam Bondi invoking the privilege in immigration-related cases, and he suggests the judiciary often rubber-stamps state secrets claims. - The shadow government and constitutional concerns - The shadow government is described as the CIA’s reach into the entire government, with claims of control over congressional hearings, select intelligence committees, and presidential administrations. He asserts that presidents have largely been persuaded to go along with CIA operations, viewing national security as justification for expanding CIA power. - JFK, RFK, and historical assassinations - The discussion covers alleged CIA involvement in the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, suggesting the agency’s fingerprints are present, including claims about the Steve “roadblocks” around evidence such as door frames in the RFK case. Shipp asserts that documentary and eyewitness accounts point to CIA involvement, and that evidence would implicate the agency if presented in court. - U.S.–Israel intelligence relationship - The relationship with Mossad is described as complex and intertwined. Shipp says Mossad and CIA are like sisters who sometimes work together and sometimes against each other. He notes joint operations and collaboration, while also warning that Israel’s espionage efforts against the CIA are ongoing. He cites the Epstein case as an example where higher-ups allegedly directed not charging Epstein due to intelligence connections, suggesting CIA involvement. - Project Mockingbird today and media manipulation - The host and Shipp discuss the transformation of Mockingbird: journalists and media personalities tied to intelligence may be promoted as experts, with the agency shaping national security narratives through editorial influence. Shipp recounts an anecdote about Sean Hannity wearing a CIA lapel pin on Fox News, and he describes a lack of follow-up or sales after appearing on Hannity’s program, implying editorial control and strategic quieting of whistleblowers. - Silicon Valley, surveillance, and corporate partnerships - A central concern is the CIA’s influence over Silicon Valley, with contracts and partnerships involving Palantir, Oracle, Amazon, and others. Shipp notes the CIA’s Directorate for Digital Innovation and accuses the agency of directing vast surveillance programs through private companies, often under secrecy agreements that bind them to silence. He argues this concentration of influence threatens privacy and democratic accountability. - MKUltra and mind-control concerns - He contends MKUltra-like programs persist under newer guises, with ongoing experiments and directed-energy weapons discussions, though he notes these programs are highly compartmentalized. He recounts personal experiences of surveillance and coercive tactics, suggesting a continued, albeit rebranded, misuse of such methods. - Privacy, six G, and the future - Shipp asserts that privacy is effectively dead due to pervasive surveillance, digital IDs, and mass data collection by government and private entities. He warns that six G could enable ultra-precise monitoring, including body-level surveillance, and argues that opt-out options are likely futile. He concludes that reform will require a groundswell of public pressure to push Congress to act. - Call to action - The overarching message emphasizes accountability and reform via public demand and congressional pressure, arguing that without widespread citizen involvement, the shadow government will persist in its current form. In summary, the discussion centers on Kevin Shipp’s allegations of a pervasive, largely unaccountable CIA influence operating across government, media, and tech sectors, with dramatic personal risk and calls for awakening and reform.

Mike Pompeo is criticized for keeping information secret and being involved in questionable activities. Members of Congress fear intelligence agencies and are not holding them accountable. This lack of oversight undermines democracy. Some speculate that committee chairmen may be compromised due to personal secrets, leading to inaction on important issues. Powerful individuals acknowledge this reality but question why it is allowed to persist.

The speakers believe the system is rigged, pointing to consistent foreign and economic policies regardless of who's elected, and the secrecy surrounding the Epstein videos. They suspect Epstein's operation was a blackmail scheme run by intelligence agencies to control powerful individuals. They question why those caught in the scheme don't expose it, suggesting deep implication or repeat offenses. One speaker believes every US president faces implicit threats, referencing JFK's assassination and the continued withholding of files. They cite Nixon's fear when discussing Kennedy with the CIA director as evidence of the power these forces hold, implying a clear message to stay within certain boundaries.

People in power fear intel agencies due to potential blackmail, not punishment. This undermines democracy as unelected officials make major decisions unchecked. Committee heads may have personal secrets, influencing their actions. A powerful official acknowledged this reality, raising concerns about unchecked control by intel agencies.

There are members of Congress who are controlled by intel agencies. A high-ranking member of the House Intel Committee admitted to being spied on by the NSA. Even though he provides oversight, they still monitor him. Michael McCall, a leader among neoconservatives, accused someone of being a Russian agent based on what the intel briefers told him. When confronted, he defended himself by saying he believed the intel. This highlights the manipulation and control exerted by intel agencies over politicians.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

Amjad Fassisi, a CIA contractor, reveals that high-ranking officials, including CIA directors Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, colluded to withhold information from President Trump. He claims Trump was under constant surveillance and suggests that intelligence agencies used FISA to monitor him and his team. Fassisi describes a culture within the CIA that views Trump as incompetent, stating they deliberately kept information from him to prevent leaks. He also mentions that the CIA does not trust the NSA, leading to a lack of information sharing. The conversation raises serious concerns about potential illegal activities within intelligence agencies, including election interference and obstruction of justice. Fassisi's comments highlight the ongoing corruption and political manipulation within the intelligence community.

US presidents have been undermined by their agency heads, suggesting a system not controlled by elected officials.

Politicians fear intel agencies due to potential blackmail, compromising democracy. Committee heads may have personal secrets, influencing decisions. Lack of action on abuses stems from threats. Elected officials acknowledge control by agencies, highlighting a systemic issue.

To understand how the American government operates, consider the case of Richard Nixon, the most popular president in U.S. history, who was forced to resign without a single vote against him. Nixon believed federal agencies were undermining democracy. His downfall began with the Watergate scandal, which was reported by Bob Woodward, a former naval officer with ties to intelligence agencies. The investigation was fueled by Mark Felt, the FBI's deputy director, who was involved in discrediting Nixon. Following Nixon's resignation, Gerald Ford, who had served on the Warren Commission, became president. This illustrates how unelected officials can control the political system, undermining democracy. The targeting of figures like General Michael Flynn shows the ongoing struggle against this entrenched power. Ultimately, when unvoted individuals hold power, true democracy is compromised.

We spoke to someone with access to hidden CIA documents about their involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The response was clear: yes, the CIA was involved. This revelation suggests that there are powerful forces within the U.S. government that operate beyond democratic control, capable of influencing elections and concealing their actions, including the murder of a president. This undermines the very concept of democracy. Trust in the government has declined since Kennedy's assassination, and those in the know, including every CIA director since 1963, have been aware of this troubling reality.

Members of Congress are intimidated by intelligence agencies, which undermines democracy. Elected officials are supposed to represent the people, but when unelected individuals make significant decisions without accountability, it creates a system akin to tyranny. Many committee chairpersons overlook abuses, such as warrantless spying and UAP disclosures, possibly due to personal vulnerabilities that could be exploited. A conversation with a senior elected official revealed an acknowledgment of this troubling reality, suggesting that the existence of such control is recognized but not addressed. This raises the question of why this situation persists.

There is active pressure on elected officials to stop the disclosure of information, specifically regarding the JFK assassination. The source of this pressure is unknown, but it is not believed to be the CIA or John Ratcliffe. The question is posed: who is powerful enough to scare people into slow-walking disclosure, which is the same as preventing it? The purpose of this slow-walking is to continue hiding facts. It is questioned what force is acting on the US government and the new administration to prevent disclosure, especially considering the assassination of a president undermines democracy. Getting to the bottom of the JFK situation is deemed very important.

The hidden CIA documents suggest the CIA's involvement in JFK's assassination. This revelation implies a government within a government, undermining democracy. The public's trust in the government has eroded over the years, with even former CIA directors implicated.

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

"In some cases, they are very unwilling to come to express a view or a certain opinion on something." "This this gets to the real heart of the challenge here and the problems that we've seen is the politicization of intelligence to meet a certain objective or to influence a certain policy." "When you look at the so called intelligence that really was used to spur the Iraq regime change war." "And look at what that has cost our country in lives and treasure." "This goes all the way back to why this organization was founded." "So so, again, this is this is really what is at the heart of needs of what needs to be addressed within the intelligence community and why leadership matters so much."

Mike Pompeo is criticized for keeping information secret and being involved in questionable actions. Members of Congress fear intelligence agencies and lack accountability. The speaker suggests that committee chairmen may be compromised due to personal secrets, leading to inaction on important issues. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and accountability in government.

Congress members fear intel agencies, hindering oversight. Unelected officials make big decisions, undermining democracy. Committee heads may have secrets, leading to inaction on important issues. Powerful figures acknowledge control by intel agencies, raising concerns about ongoing abuses. Why do we tolerate this? Translation: Members of Congress are afraid of intelligence agencies, which hinders their ability to oversee them. When unelected individuals make significant decisions, it undermines the democratic process. Committee leaders may have hidden agendas, preventing action on critical matters. Influential individuals admit to being controlled by intelligence agencies, prompting questions about why this behavior is allowed to continue.

A former Intel official revealed that major pornography and dating sites are monitored by intelligence agencies for potential blackmail. This knowledge raises questions about the behavior of politicians who seem to act against their beliefs. One example discussed is Mike Johnson, who previously criticized FBI spying and advocated for FISA reform. After being interviewed, he was later appointed Speaker and surprisingly supported the renewal of the FISA law without reforms. Johnson claimed that classified briefings changed his perspective, but doubts remain about his sincerity. The drastic shift in his stance raises concerns about the influence of intelligence agencies on political decisions.