reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I've uncovered a secret Justice Department memo outlining plans to target 12 new "perversions," including bestiality and pedophilia. This memo details strategies to undermine churches, pastors, and businesses that assert their religious freedom. The LGBT movement is just the beginning; they plan to expand to other perversions. So, you're saying you are aware of a Justice Department memo that says there will be an effort to legitimize bestiality, pedophilia, and other perversions? That's correct. They're coming down with twelve new perversions, expanding beyond the LGBT movement. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Congressman from Tennessee discusses the resistance to releasing flight logs and client lists. He suggests that powerful individuals, regardless of party affiliation, prioritize their financial interests over the country. He implies that some members of Congress may be compromised and blackmailed, explaining why they vote for controversial policies. He mentions the allure of attractive individuals and the potential for compromising situations, leading to manipulation. The Congressman emphasizes that power and influence often involve vices like women, drugs, and alcohol. He concludes by stating that although the stakes are higher, the political game remains the same.

The speaker claims that the House of Representatives is broken and controlled by corporate lobbyists and globalists. They suggest that some members have been compromised during overseas trips and engaged in inappropriate activities with children. These actions allegedly lead to their compromise and involvement in the world of big money.

The speaker expresses concern about the broken state of the House of Representatives, claiming it is controlled by corporate lobbyists and globalists. They suggest that some members have been compromised during overseas trips, where they allege that they engage in inappropriate activities with children. The speaker emphasizes that these are real issues and that some politicians become entangled in the world of big money.

Speaker 2 notes that some members of Congress may be personally compromised and don’t want the truth to get out. Speaker 3 says: “You got powerful people, and they write the big checks” who “love their money” and protect it. He describes a honeypot tactic, noting Russians used it; overseas trips can lead to scandal, with a well-dressed man whispering, “There’s tapes out on you” before a key vote. He recalls a trip with Andy Biggs and being pressured after sleeping with someone abroad. He cites a Chinese prostitution ring busted in Washington, DC with a client list of “High ranking officials, in government, elected officials, and lobbyists,” whose story disappeared. He says these people are “employed by forces that want to control Congress” via spouses or employment agencies, “they employ them.” He concludes, “America's not buying that… 12% of the population votes, this is what you get.”

Having a spouse that's good at insider trading, like Paul Pelosi, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how some people acquire wealth. Talking about the other methods is risky, and frankly, it's not lengthening my life expectancy to discuss this. I was supposed to go back to DC, but how am I going to survive? These people are going to kill me for sure. I actually have to be careful that I don't push too hard on the corruption stuff because it's going to get me killed.

The speaker asserts that both of those men have extensive ties to sexual blackmail, and that Roy Cohn does. He adds, “Yeah. Oh, yeah. I love Denny. You know, he's a friend of mine. He's a good guy.” He says he knows some United States senators, and that one on the other side has been seen in “very bad situations,” “somewhat compromising,” and “very, very bad situations.”

Tim Burgett claims that Mitch McConnell is blocking the SAVE Act, and suggests it’s partly out of meanness because McConnell doesn’t like Trump, who helped him in the last race. He asserts Trump’s support for McConnell’s victory was extensive and says loyalty is valued in this game, yet McConnell apparently lacks it. Burgett questions whether the obstruction is coming from McConnell himself or a staff member, arguing that McConnell is increasingly like Joe Biden in his last years, with diminished cognizant level. He recounts an incident from a conference meeting where he asked a committee chair how much money was in the bill, and the chair responded, “I don’t know.” When Burgett pressed, he insisted, “No. No. How much money is in this dadgum bill?” Burgett notes that the chair’s staffers reacted to the question, and ultimately reveals that for over six weeks the chair never showed up and nobody knew where she was, while her staff kept running the office. He describes the chair as being in a retirement village for people in cognizant decline, using that harsh characterization to illustrate what he sees as dysfunction in Washington. Burgett argues that staffers are too close to lobbyists and too influential, effectively running the government, and that this needs to stop. He says he’s called it out to leadership, but they do nothing about it, and asserts that this is why the SAVE Act has stalled: Mitch McConnell, and he claims, a staffer running his show rather than McConnell himself. He concludes that the state is pitiful, urging listeners to contact their leadership and tell them this cannot continue. He closes by thanking everyone for sending him there.

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

Many members of Congress have an "APAC person," akin to a babysitter, who communicates on behalf of APAC. This person is often a constituent but is closely tied to APAC. On the Republican side, it's common for members to have lunch with their APAC contacts, who have direct access to them. Some members have mentioned consulting their "APAC guy" to influence advertising decisions. It's surprising that this arrangement isn't widely known, as it could be perceived negatively by constituents. Congress members likely keep this relationship private because it doesn't serve their interests to disclose that they have a close connection with a representative of a foreign entity.

Politicians in the country may be sexually blackmailed, according to Congressman Tim Birchen. He explains that when politicians are in Washington, D.C., they may find themselves in compromising situations with attractive individuals who later reveal that there are incriminating tapes of their encounters. This leads to a situation where politicians are coerced into voting a certain way. It seems that there are more politicians involved in such situations than previously believed.

I can't believe I'm the only one without an APAC person! It's like having a babysitter who's constantly on you about APAC. Apparently every member has someone like this. On the Republican side, these APAC people have your cell number, and you're expected to have lunch with them when they're in DC. It's insane! Why haven't I heard about this before? Why would politicians want their constituents to know they've got a buddy system with someone representing a foreign country? Does any other country do this? They even pay for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel. I wonder what happens on these trips? You know, you go see the wall.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Members of Congress on the Republican side have an "APAC person," described as an "APAC babysitter," who regularly communicates with them regarding APAC matters. These individuals are often constituents but are deeply involved with APAC. Members meet with them when they visit D.C., exchange cell numbers, and have ongoing conversations. Some members have said they would "talk to my APAC guy" to potentially influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this arrangement is not more widely known, suggesting that members of Congress may not want to publicize their relationships with individuals representing a foreign country, as it doesn't benefit them politically.

You're in a different place, maybe another country or town, and you're at a bar or motel in DC. You meet someone attractive, have a good time, and end up in a motel room with them. Suddenly, someone well-dressed approaches you and tells you that there are compromising tapes of you in that motel room. They advise you not to vote for something because of it.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

I'm suspicious of people who jump ahead to arrest, conviction, incarceration, or execution. Let’s start with an interview. I know a lot of people have been interviewed — hundreds, in the FBI context. In a federal investigation, it’s not crazy to call somebody; it happens every single day. It happened to every relative of every J-six prisoner — got called in, “Can we come talk to you?” That’s not weird. That’s the beginning of justice: the first step in finding out what happened, punishing the guilty, exonerating the innocent, is having these conversations in the context of a federal investigation, like an FBI interview. It’s strange to see television mentions that there’s no evidence to indict someone or to call a grand jury. Why not just ask questions of the FBI? If they’re not doing that, you wonder why. Now, here’s the bigger picture you’re qualified to provide, even if I’m not. The implication in this file dump is that there are basically religious rituals, sexual in nature. That’s very common through history — temple prostitutes for a reason. There are rituals involving children underway in the United States and the West, rich and powerful people sexually abusing young people. That is very hard for a lot of people to believe or metabolize, but it feels like that’s not totally crazy; it happens. Does that happen? Absolutely. It’s so dark that it’s hard for average people — regular people just trying to live their lives — to even approach it. Even a maniac cannot put himself in the shoes of someone so depraved. Regular Americans can’t even put themselves in the shoes of a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, because they’re just trying to pay their bills and can’t — while billionaires are doing certain things that are messing everything up. So, it’s far removed from regular experience, but it’s hard to understand and believe. There’s good evidence of elements of that in various fringe investigations for a long time. I don’t say “fringe” to mean unreliable; I mean fringe to say they never gain traction with mainstream media, for whatever reason. But it’s right there in these emails and these files. It’s not entirely clear what all of it means, but there are very overt references, covert references, and mounting because people are still digging through them. These are millions of files with no effective way to sort through them the way the DOJ released them. So the evidence is mounting that we have: people turning a blind eye (reprehensible), adjacent and complicit, directly complicit, people that venture into the demonic or the truly depraved, and so on.

I believe members of Congress should be investigated for potential ill-gotten gains. There seems to be no other explanation for their consistent support of poor legislation. It's possible their spouses or significant others are employed by the very departments or quasi-governmental agencies that benefit from these votes. Until we investigate these potential conflicts of interest, the American people will continue to distrust Congress, and rightfully so.

We shouldn't put public safety at risk because of some demented philosophy. There was a post about the NSA being infiltrated. It started as a fringe thing, then completely infiltrated the organization. They're spending all their time in some sex chat room with extremely demented stuff. More than a hundred intelligence staffers will be fired over sexually explicit texts in NSA chat rooms. It was all LGBTQ stuff, transition stuff. It infiltrated the organization, which is not what they should be talking about. They're supposed to be protecting the country. People are spending half their time in these meetings. If you have a problem with someone discriminatory, get rid of that person. The work environment should be professional where they're getting the job done that they're being paid to do, not getting paid for bizarre sexcapades.

Members of Congress on the Republican side have an "APAC person," described as an "APAC babysitter" who constantly communicates with them on behalf of APAC. These individuals are often constituents but are deeply connected to APAC. Members meet with them in DC, exchange cell numbers, and have ongoing conversations. Four members of Congress have told the speaker they would consult their "APAC guy" to potentially influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this arrangement is not more widely known. The speaker believes congressmen conceal this relationship because it could be detrimental to reveal they have a close connection with someone representing a foreign country.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

People are playing games. When you're 15, you know what a penis is and why people want to see a picture of it. Sending dick pictures at 15 is wrong. Someone is using their sexuality to advance their political career, just as another person is using their political career to advance their sexuality. Since one person wants a career and the other wants sex, there's a deal happening. There's a lurid sexuality, and someone is into teenagers, which is inappropriate and wrong. But a deal is being struck, a quid pro quo: I know I'm giving sex, and I know I'm getting a political advantage in return. The same thing is happening with someone else.

Politicians have close ties with APAC, like a babysitter. They have lunch and conversations with APAC members who influence their decisions. Some congress members even ask their "APAC guy" to tone down ads. This buddy system is surprising and not widely known.

In Washington, there is a lot of sexual perversion among the older politicians. As a young person, I have admired many of these individuals, but I have been shocked by their behavior. I have been invited to attend sexual orgies at their homes, which is disturbing. Additionally, some of these leaders who claim to be fighting addiction have openly used cocaine in front of me. It's a crazy situation.

I have a contact who can confirm what I'm about to say. The person I know has seen him wandering around the White House naked at night, completely out of his mind. He doesn't even know who he is. They have to give him drugs in the morning and at night to control his behavior. Sometimes he's out of it in the morning and then comes back to normal at night. This is a real problem. I can say with certainty that he is on drugs. I personally know someone who witnessed him taking amphetamines during the 2016-2020 election. This is huge.