reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks if anyone has been charged with inciting an insurrection, sedition, or treason. Speaker 1 responds that they don't believe anyone has been charged with those offenses. Speaker 0 then asks if anyone has been charged with illegal possession of a firearm inside the Capitol on that day. Speaker 1 states that there has been at least one person arrested with a firearm in or near the Capitol, but they are unsure of the exact number. Speaker 0 clarifies if the person has been charged, but Speaker 1 is unsure due to the large number of cases.

A man states he likes legal representation but has been denied it by police officers. He doesn't know what is happening, but mentions "killing a black guy." He asks if someone is with the president and states he works in the building. When asked if he was in the building at the time, he confirms he works there. He denies shooting presidents, claiming he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri. He then calls someone a Nazi and mentions the president.

Questioning whether the speaker was kicked out of CPAC, the exchange goes: "And you were kicked out of CPAC. Right?" The reply: "I wasn't kicked out. Or you were disinvited? What what let's there was some kind of drama on Twitter." The other party says: "Don't think so. Tell me everything. There's no drama." The speaker then clarifies: "I, you know, like I said, I came out here I came out here to CPAC last year, had a great time. You know, met my hero, Ben Shapiro. I met my mentor and friend, Casa Dillon. And and so I just came out again this year."

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "01/06/2021, the media propaganda machine fed us a story that shapes the narrative of insurrection." "They intentionally left out some key details." "There's an entire timeline that you haven't seen and it tells a different story." "They're going into the capital, I think." "It looks like they got sniper rifles." "We want to petition our government for the redress of grievances." "Notice the smoke from the sniper's barrel?" "What do you think that means?" "This is where Joshua Black is shot in the face." "He never saw it coming." "The agitator Landon Copeland admitted to being a member of Antifa just after being sentenced for his involvement." "They're trying to save this guy's life right now."

Speaker 0 expresses intent to storm the Capitol. Speaker 1 discusses Reyes' actions before the Capitol breach. The mob storms the Capitol. Questions arise about Reyes' involvement in inciting the violence. No clear answers are given.

The speaker says the subject of the interview is not a Democrat and would be offended to be called one. The speaker doesn't believe a political issue would cause the subject to do such a thing. The subject never mentioned the senator or representative who were targeted. He didn't like Tim Walz and would say things like, "I don't like that Tim Walz did this." The subject mentioned a protest, but the speaker doesn't think he said anything about it. The speaker would tell him to surrender himself so he could be taken alive. The subject listened to Infowars, and the speaker told him not to take everything they say for granted. The subject was a Trump supporter, voted for Trump, and liked Trump.

An individual questions whether an action is due to a security concern or an intimidation tactic. The response indicates it is a security matter. Later, the individual asks why they are not being arrested and demands to see video footage. They express distress, stating "That is not okay." Another person urges calm. The individual mentions "FinCEO" and claims they will be arrested despite knowing nothing. They thank someone for their support and ask why another person isn't being arrested, claiming to have witnessed them slap someone. They deny anyone said "stab him." They state that even asking an impolite question could lead to arrest.

Why are you supporting these people? You're messing with our existence, and what happened on January 6th was wrong. People died. You're supporting the violence. I was in DC on January 6th, but I didn't go inside the Capitol. Political violence is always bad. You thought I was one of those people, but I stood outside the building non-violently and the FBI raided me and threw me in jail. Are you okay with that? You're aggressive, and you want attention. You're mad because of the attention, money, everything. I don't like what you represent. How do you feel about the Black Lives Matter riots? They murdered people, destroyed federal buildings. People broke windows at the Capitol, but why aren't you upset about the federal buildings that BLM burned? It was like watching 9/11 all over again.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

- "Do you know who Ray Epps is, and where is he? And, is he sitting behind bars like some of these other, protesters who've been sitting there without bail for so long?" - "And what we need to know is whether or not that cooperation existed on January 5 and January 6 to get people to do things that they might otherwise not do, like enter the capital." - "We already know as a consequence of reporting in revolver.news and in re really, that was confirmed by the New York Times that there were people texting their handlers from the crowd in January 5 and January 6." - "Now we just need to know whether the folks being controlled by the federal government were, in fact, the very people that were doing the worst things on January 6."

"There's a concern that there were agents of the government or assets of the government present on January 5 and January 6, during the protests." "I'm need afraid I can't see that at all." "Alright. You have you have those images there, and they're captioned. They were from January 5 and January 6." "As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every but they need to go into the capital the next day, is then the next day directing people to the capital." "And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything." "One of the norms of the justice department is to not comment on impending investigations and particularly not to comment about, particular scenes or particular individuals." "So I'm not gonna violate this norm of, of of, the rule of law. I'm not gonna comment on an investigation that's ongoing."

Speaker 0 wants to know if they are being detained, stating they did nothing wrong. Speaker 1 says they were just standing and talking, and they don't know Speaker 0's name. Speaker 0 also doesn't know Speaker 1's name. Speaker 0 observes a perimeter, questioning if they did something wrong and suggesting it's like a crime scene. Speaker 0 asks if the situation involves them being at the capital.

The speaker asks if the FBI had communication with their agents during the Capitol attack, to which Speaker 1 denies any involvement. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost vehicles," but Speaker 1 is unfamiliar with the term. Speaker 0 claims to have evidence of two buses used by FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters during the attack. There is a brief interruption from Speaker 2, who reminds everyone to stay within their allotted time. Speaker 0 objects to his question being cut off, stating that the buses were nefarious and filled with FBI informants. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 attempting to move on to the next speaker.

The speaker points out a suspicious individual wearing black gear and speculates if they are part of Antifa. They highlight the person's aggressive actions towards the window and questions why they are wearing a wire. The speaker criticizes Democrats for focusing on Trump's role rather than addressing these suspicious incidents. They mention a cop who allowed people into the Capitol and wonders why this hasn't been explained. The speaker also mentions individuals taking selfies with police officers and questions the FBI's handling of information regarding the march. They conclude by expressing frustration with Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi for avoiding these questions.

A man states he wants legal representation, claiming police officers have not allowed him any. He says he doesn't know what is going on. An officer asks if he shot the president and if he was in the building at the time. The man confirms he works in the building, so naturally he was there. He claims he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri and that he is just a patsy.

In the video, someone asks if the cop who pushed them is from Portland and associated with Antifa.

Speaker 0 asks Miss Sandburn about Ray Epps and his suspicious behavior during the January 6th incident at the Capitol. He mentions Epps chanting about getting into the Capitol and the crowd suspecting him of being a federal agent. Speaker 0 also brings up Epps whispering to someone who then tears down barricades. He questions whether Epps urged them to do so. Speaker 0 mentions the FBI's public post seeking information on individuals involved in violent crimes, including Epps, but later Epps disappears from the list. Speaker 0 expresses concerns about the government's involvement in encouraging illegal conduct on January 6th and asks if federal agents actively encouraged violence. Miss Sandburn denies any knowledge of such actions.

The speakers discuss the Capitol incident on January 6th and focus on a person named Ray Epps. Speaker 1 claims that Epps caused damage and was initially on the FBI's list of top twenty people involved. However, Epps allegedly used his contacts within the organization to remove himself from the list. Speaker 1 saw Epps on January 5th near the BLM Plaza in Washington DC, where there was a protest. Speaker 1 urges the FBI to investigate Epps further. Speaker 0 expresses skepticism towards the media and Speaker 1 offers to call them instead of providing a phone number. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 requesting a way to contact Speaker 1.

An individual is asked repeatedly if they are with Black Lives Matter. The person on the phone says he is not being charged with anything. He denies being with Black Lives Matter.

A person asks why the speaker called the police on two men at CVS. The speaker explains that it is CVS policy to call the police if someone shoplifts. The person questions if it's worth risking someone's life for a low salary. The speaker believes there was no risk and ends the conversation. The person asks for the speaker's name, but the speaker refuses to give it due to being recorded. The person accuses the speaker of inciting violence against the two black men. The speaker mentions that one of the men had a warrant but was let go by the police. The person reminds the speaker that they work with black people.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if the FBI had any involvement with the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. Speaker 1 emphatically denies that the violence was orchestrated by FBI sources or agents. Speaker 0 then asks about "ghost buses," which are vehicles used for secret purposes in law enforcement. Speaker 1 is not familiar with the term. Speaker 0 claims that two buses that arrived at Union Station on January 6th were wiped clean and filled with FBI informants disguised as Trump supporters. Speaker 2 interrupts with a point of order, and the conversation becomes heated. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 expressing objection to his question being closed.

In a brief, on-the-scene exchange, Speaker 0 asks a woman what happened to her. Speaker 1 responds that she was maced. The conversation reveals that she was attempting to go inside a cafe when the incident occurred: she had made it “like a foot inside,” then was pushed out, and they maced her. Speaker 0 continues by asking for her name and where she is from. In reply, Speaker 1 identifies herself as Elizabeth and states that she is from Knoxville, Tennessee. When asked why she wanted to go inside, Speaker 0 frames the moment by noting the surrounding activity, “We’re storming the Capitol. It’s a revolution. Thank you.” Elizabeth’s answer to the question about her motive is explicit: she says that she and others are involved in actions described as storming the Capitol, and she characterizes the situation as part of a revolution.

During the Capitol incident, a law enforcement officer recounts being attacked and called a traitor. Another person claims that the officer was actually an FBI plant, not in uniform, and carrying a Confederate flag. They believe the narrative is unraveling and demand the release of FBI files to reveal the true culprits.

An individual questions whether an action is due to security concerns or intimidation. The response indicates it is a security matter. Another person is told to stay away from someone. An individual asks why they aren't being arrested and demands to see video footage. Someone is told to calm down. An individual states "They will arrest me. I know nothing." Another person is asked if they would arrest someone else, claiming to have seen that person slap someone. It is asserted that no one said "stab him." Someone states they are on the side of another person.

A man states he wants legal representation, claiming police officers have not allowed him any. He says he doesn't know what is going on. An officer asks if he shot the president and if he was in the building at the time. The man replies that he works in the building, so naturally he was there. He claims he is being taken in because he lives in Missouri and that he is just a patsy.