reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

The transcript follows a chaotic, multi-voiced discussion centered on political information networks, election integrity, and coordinated activism around protests and media narratives. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly question the sources of information: “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and the same for Jonathan, signaling concern about where information originates and how it is disseminated. - Speaker 2 describes a sense of purpose from sharing information and notes that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, under oath in, you know, a senate… the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” - Speaker 3 references multiple online presences, including YouTube and Facebook (Jeremy Oliver, Onslaught Media Group), and mentions protesting activities as part of the narrative. - Speaker 4 mentions “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs,” implying rehearsal for protests or political actions. - Speaker 1 indicates a readiness to “storm the capital” and notes that participants are “all actors,” signaling a performative or coordinated element to actions. - Speaker 3, as a journalist or news producer, plans to stream live from protests to show “the real story” and “support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - A dialogue involving Speaker 1 and Patrick discusses Mary Fanning and Mary Fenix, with questions about speaking to Patrick and perceived fairness in conversations, leading to a strained exchange. - Speaker 5 asserts that “Donald Trump has no business being president,” and introduces a coalition or think tank that includes Biden, Harris, Mike Flynn, and Simon Johnson (an IMF chief economist by birth in England), framing a network with both Democrats and Republicans. - Speaker 3 introduces Brian Gamble as CIO of the America Project, founded by Patrick Byrne, who sits on the Council on Foreign Relations with Stanley McChrystal. The claim is made that Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from McChrystal’s home; McChrystal is described as an advisor for the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects Trump-trending content and promotes opposing viewpoints. The system is said to share opposing viewpoints, connecting to efforts involving the Flynn network to target the Patriot movement. - Speaker 6 expresses disbelief at the unfolding information, while Speaker 1 dismisses an interruption during a conversation, showing friction in interviews and onlookers. - Speaker 8 details that “the entire Flynn network was there,” naming Ali Alexander (a former CMP member) as a lead organizer, and Michael Flynn’s appearance on the CMP staff roster. The aim is stated as “creating instability as they’re trying to carry out a color revolution.” The speaker lists a list of Flynn network traits: a united and organized opposition, the ability to drive home the claim that voting results are falsified, compliant independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote, and the mobilization of tens of thousands of demonstrators. - Speakers 9 and 10 discuss 2020 in Maricopa County, noting 395,000 in-person voters on election day (a figure they describe as low due to COVID) and debating how many Republicans intended but did not vote in Maricopa in the midterms. Projections estimate large missed numbers (700,000 or around 150,000 in later drafts), with debate on whether turnout would favor one party given demographics and turnout expectations. - Speaker 8 critiques associated figures: Patrick Byrne, Roger Richards (tattoo of Lucifer, propaganda space films with Jordan Sather), Emily Newman (ties to US Agency for Global Media, linked to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), and Brian Gamble’s background in information warfare. - There are digressions about fundraising sources, rockefeller connections, and a tension between reform goals and control, with Speaker 12 suggesting figures like Charlie Kirk publicly advocate doing “the same things that got us into this place” to “beat the system,” implying a critique of reform vs. control within the movement. - The dialogue closes with personal anecdotes about Wisconsin politics, a case discussed with a Supreme Court justice race, and a strained, emotional confrontation that underscores distrust and the perception of manipulated information flows.

The speaker acknowledges that relying solely on the police to resolve the ongoing demonstrations may not be sufficient. They suggest that other efforts, in combination with policing, could potentially reduce or end the demonstrations. The demonstrations have local, provincial, national, and international elements. Speaker 1 expresses confusion about what these other options might be, questioning if politics or the military are involved. Speaker 0 responds by saying that the options mentioned by Speaker 1 are indeed the ones they were referring to.

The speaker states that the majority of protests have been violent, not peaceful. They cite nearly 400 arrests of illegal aliens alone since the protests began in June. The speaker claims that hundreds of people have assaulted law enforcement officers. They assert that the Democrat governor and mayor of Los Angeles have failed their citizens. According to the speaker, most Americans and Californians do not want to see law enforcement officers being assaulted. They thank the president for taking action to protect federal law enforcement agents, federal buildings, and the federal mission of deporting illegal criminals. The speaker says this mission will continue.

Speaker 1: I think that the protests, do it more so actually because as we've seen, our electoral politics have failed us. Even though the young people significantly came out and voted for Bernie Sanders during the primary, we saw that Bernie Sanders did not end up being the nominee. And so a lot of the times, the loopholes that are in electoral politics don't really allow people to have their voices heard the way that this country was set up. Speaker 1: So I absolutely agree that sometimes violent, protests and really, riots and those kinds of loud rebellions, must take place for tangible change.

Speaker 0 says they will pursue charges in this case and see various crimes that have occurred, with the FACE Act mentioned as one predicate. He notes that the Biden DOJ used the Klan Act conspiracy charges tacked onto the FACE Act in cases of protests outside abortion clinics to bring longer sentences, and that there are a number of tools available. He asks who funded the operation and what other crimes may have occurred, including possible use of wires or the mails, and whether anyone crossed state lines—all potential predicates for additional federal charges. Speaker 1 responds, saying he pulled up the Klan Act, the 1871 Enforcement Act (Force Act) designed to counter the Ku Klux Klan and protect African American voting rights, and provides an explanation of its context. He describes the Klan Act as a law that makes it illegal to terrorize citizens or violate their civil rights, or to conspire to violate civil rights. He explains it is often used against law enforcement but now used against others as well. When anyone conspires to violate protected civil rights, the Klan Act can be used to bring a conspiracy charge. He explains that the Biden administration has treated actions as a violation of the Klan Act and a conspiracy to violate civil rights, turning a potential misdemeanor under the FACE Act into a felony under the Klan Act. He cites the example of potential actions by “three grandmas” praying outside an abortion clinic being treated as a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of women seeking abortions. Speaker 0 adds that President Trump pardoned the pro-life protesters in those cases. He notes he recently defended successfully in the Eleventh Circuit a case called Ora Pesa, involving Jane’s Revenge protests against crisis pregnancy centers in Florida, where the court upheld the Klan Act criminal enhancement to the FACE Act. He acknowledges this is technical, but emphasizes that FACE Act is just the starting point, with additional charges such as material support for disruptive activities, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and potentially the use of other instrumentalities to commit crimes. He asserts that some involved individuals have identified themselves, stating Don Lemon claimed he knew what would happen inside the facility and proceeded to “commit journalism,” implying involvement in a criminal conspiracy. Speaker 0 concludes that they are gathering facts and that this is a very serious matter. He warns that come next Sunday, no one should think they can get away with this in the United States. He states that everyone in the protest community should know that the fullest force of the federal government will come down to prevent this from happening and to put people away for a long time.

People need to start taking to the streets because this is a dictatorship. There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives. The biggest terror threat in this country is white men. They're not going to stop before election day in November, and they're not going to stop after election day. If you think things are bad now, you ain't seen nothing yet. The speaker doesn't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country.

Los Angeles experienced a day of rallies and protests. One speaker noted the initial events were peaceful, but anticipated further rallies and a need for a stronger counter-presence. Another speaker observed the shift from rallies to protests, expressing concern that they could escalate into riots by nightfall. The speaker emphasized the importance of preventing violence from consuming Los Angeles, warning of potential widespread consequences if the situation is not contained.

The LAPD police chief described the level of violence in Los Angeles as disgusting, prompting a discussion about National Guard involvement. Speaker 1 was surprised at the police chief's description, stating there has been no violence where protesters hit, shot, or threatened anyone. She believes the police chief doesn't know what to do because Los Angeles is a sanctuary city and the police lack authority. She claims the president is purposely initiating this, and that he didn't contact the governor or mayor before potentially sending in the National Guard. She predicts the president will create martial law, alleging he started this by targeting migrants. Speaker 0 noted some violence has occurred, including assaults on police officers and damage to vehicles. Speaker 1 acknowledged that a few people may not conform, but people shouldn't be goaded into confrontation or violence because that's what the president wants so he can send in the military and create martial law. She hasn't heard of anyone being shot, killed, or beaten.

Protests are ongoing in major US cities with limited media coverage. The movement won't stop before or after Election Day, so everyone should take note and not let up.

They won't stop, it's a movement. Before and after the election, they'll keep going. Everyone should take note and be aware that they will not let up, and we should not either.

Our government is tear-gassing its own people. We were peacefully protesting, but the situation escalated. There were reports of injuries; we saw a man with blood on his head and a woman limping, also covered in blood. It’s important not to believe the fake news about what happened here.

Speaker 0 says, “They doing too much, man, and they keep pushing people. You know?” Speaker 1 erupts, “Oh, shit. What the fuck? They killed my did they fucking kill that guy? Are you fucking kidding me, dude? Not again. Are you fucking kidding me? That guy's dead. Yo. We need people on”

President Trump supports peaceful protest and the right of Americans to make their voices heard. He does not support violence or assaulting law enforcement officers. The speaker claims the president has made his position clear, unlike the Democrats, who have allowed unrest and violence to continue, requiring the president to intervene. When asked if President Trump would allow peaceful protests on Saturday for the militant parade, the speaker affirmed the president supports peaceful protests, calling the question stupid.

Speaker 0: In a rule of law, we should be protected from the government's immense power. The government can completely destroy us. Speaker 1: You don't even need to ask for permission, you can demonstrate. So your reaction is a bit childish. People have the right to demonstrate, especially when the government is acquiring so much power. Speaker 0: You still need to notify them? Speaker 1: Yes, you need to notify them, but even if you don't, you can still demonstrate. It's necessary, considering the measures we've taken. Demonstrating is the last line of defense for many people. It's complicated, but we can't let the police overpower peaceful protesters. It's not about political goals, I've allowed many demonstrations during the pandemic in all cities, because it's a right.

Speaker 0: It's not about whether George Floyd was a good person. That's that's not my point. We were lied to. And the whole issue, the whole way we think about George Floyd was wrong, including the way I thought of him until about ten minutes minutes ago. I had no idea that Derek Chauvin didn't kill him. So, Alicia, what do you think's at stake in November election? Speaker 1: Everything. Like, everything is at stake, And I'm really not being facetious about that. To be real, what's at stake is whether or not a new world order is able to take root and grow and grow.

Los Angeles is seeing a day of rallies and protests. One speaker notes that what is currently happening is peaceful, but they are expecting more rallies later. They state that if more people show up, they need to "show up even stronger." A new crowd of protesters has been building in Los Angeles. One speaker expresses concern that the rallies could escalate into protests and potentially riots by nightfall. They claim that if the violence cannot be stopped in Los Angeles, there is no telling where it could spread.

Protests are ongoing in the US, with limited media coverage. The movement won't stop before or after the November election. It's a warning for everyone to take note and not let up.

Kamala Harris is criticized for encouraging violence during protests on Stephen Colbert's show. The speakers emphasize that the protests will continue before and after the election, with Black Lives Matter being a significant force for change. They warn against the violence and destruction seen in the streets, urging people to remember the victims like David Dorn. The message is clear: the protests will not stop, and everyone should take note of that.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0 urges the crowd to keep marching and not stop. Speaker 1 expresses support. Speaker 0 continues to encourage the march and thanks the participants. They emphasize the need to keep going and express gratitude for the quick response.

They won't stop. It's a movement that will continue before and after the November Election. Everyone should be aware that they won't let up, and we shouldn't either.

Peaceful protests are launching in Los Angeles. The vast majority of protesters and demonstrators are peaceful. Some people are watching cars burn. Authorities claim that things are under control. Peaceful protests are taking place.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.

The speakers are protesting for various reasons. One speaker says the protest seems pro-Hillary and pro-Kamala, and that America has been evil since before Trump. Another speaker says they are protesting for Palestine and humanity, and that America is a "God of a country." One sign says "Trumpy Pool's Russian asset," but a speaker admits this is an assumption without proof. Another speaker wearing a Ukraine hat gets angry when asked if they support the United States, calling it a stupid question. One speaker claims people from Venezuela are being wrongly accused of being gang members and deported without due process. The speaker fears this will lead to the repression of protesters. Another speaker calls someone a fascist dictator and "America's Hitler," claiming freedoms are being destroyed.