reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

The speaker claims the famous photograph of classified documents was staged and the documents were placed by the FBI. According to the speaker, Jack Smith admitted in court to mishandling the classified documents and misrepresenting them to the court, which the speaker equates to evidence tampering and lying to the court. The speaker asserts that Trump's lawyers caught the discrepancy between the documents presented and the digitally scanned records. Smith allegedly admitted he doesn't know how the tampering happened and has blown the chain of custody. The speaker also alleges that lead prosecutor Jay Bratt met with White House counsel and a representative of the National Archives before Smith's appointment. The speaker compares this situation to Crossfire Hurricane, claiming the Obama-Biden administration fabricated evidence and lied to the court to pursue Donald Trump. The speaker believes the judge hasn't dismissed the case yet because she wants to document it publicly.

The speaker discusses how the person in question is provoking the intelligence community, despite the potential consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has various means to retaliate against such actions. The speaker suggests that even though the person is seen as a practical and tough businessman, their behavior in this regard is foolish. The speaker also mentions that they have been informed that the intelligence community is displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about.

The speaker doesn't understand why supporters are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein story, as Epstein is dead and "was never a big factor." The speaker believes the case is "pretty boring stuff" and doesn't understand why it continues to be discussed. The speaker suggests that "only pretty bad people, including fake news, wanna keep something like that going." They state that if there's credible information, "let them have it." The speaker then pivots to a question about AI.

Lindsay briefly mentions that she has been in contact with someone from Julian Assange's team who revealed that Seth Rich leaked the DNC information, contradicting the Mueller report's claim of a Russian hacker. She also highlights that Seth Rich's murder remains unsolved, with no evidence of robbery. Lindsay mentions a judge pushing the FBI to release previously undisclosed pages related to the case. The conversation concludes with Speaker 0 expressing anticipation for an upcoming interview with Ty Claventure, the lawyer involved in the case.

I spoke with the US marshal about the processing of January 6th prisoners. They confirmed that 211 prisoners have been released across the country, but around 20 are still being held at this facility. The delay seems to stem from a judge who is refusing to sign the release orders. This situation is frustrating for those waiting, as they just want to see the right thing done. There may be local political factors contributing to the hold-up, but the public remains determined to push for the release of these individuals.

The speaker suggests that in every January 6th case, the FBI has withheld evidence that could have helped the defendant. They believe defense attorneys should have access to a whistleblower's complaint, which reveals that compensation is tied to these cases. The speaker suggests that defense attorneys should question the agents involved about whether their bosses received bonuses for opening these cases. The other speaker agrees and finds it unbelievable that there are incentives to increase the number of Americans in jail.

The speaker questions the audience about whether the answer to who killed Charlie Kirk and what happened on September 10 is “very clear.” Even among those who believe Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger, the speaker doubts the situation would be described as “very clear.” The speaker notes that Erica Kirk believes it to be clear, and suggests this represents the “final stop” of a PR campaign, with Erica being brought out to signal to the public that her judgment cannot be questioned. The speaker rejects what he calling emotional manipulation and wants to give people permission to avoid the trap of feeling obliged to share Erica Kirk’s conclusions simply because she is a widow and the public cannot cry or question her judgment. The speaker contends that the story presented thus far “makes little sense, if any sense,” and asserts that it “makes, I think, no sense.” To that end, he signals that later in the show they will discuss Tyler Robinson, who has now made his first in-person appearance in court. He frames this as “the good news” that Tyler Robinson exists, indicating a forthcoming discussion of his court appearance.

If the Brunson case is upheld, it could nullify Joe Biden's presidency, suggesting that all his actions, including mandates, were illegal. This would imply that Donald Trump was the last legitimate president. The situation is unfolding as we approach 2024, raising questions about the future. It's a dramatic time, and there's a sense of anticipation for what lies ahead.

Speaker 1 mentions waiting for Bonnie Willis to respond. They discuss a whistleblower in her office who raised concerns about misuse of funds. Willis fired the whistleblower, prompting a subpoena for related documents. Willis made US Marshals serve the subpoena. They joke about Willis' behavior and mention CPAC. They express appreciation for CPAC's support of conservative principles. Translation: The speakers discuss Bonnie Willis not responding, a whistleblower's concerns, a subpoena for documents, and Willis' behavior. They joke about CPAC and express gratitude for its support of conservative principles.

The speaker discusses various legal proceedings and allegations of fraud in a conversation with another person. They mention the involvement of different individuals, including lawyers, judges, and government officials. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and accountability in their case. They also mention a private investigator who tried to help but faced obstacles. The conversation touches on corruption and the speaker's belief that those in positions of power are part of a larger network of criminals.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The speaker describes two competing, ongoing pressures around a موضوع they’re discussing. They say: “It’s been independently discovered for other times. He said, it has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time. And he said, I don’t think they’re gonna suppress it this time. He said you’re in the clear.” They claim “they obviously know about you” because they’ve had “multiple protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations.” The speaker explains that if the person hasn’t had a US government agent come to them to say, “stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then “they’re gonna let you do it.” They assert that “they’re waiting,” with “SSP motherfuckers” twiddling their thumbs, wondering, “Is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We’ve been influencing this bitch forever.” The speaker notes that “on the other side of the fence, there’s multiple parties looking at each other like, didn’t we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening?” They emphasize the persistence of warnings: “What is she doing? She’s still doing it? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” The speaker describes two persistent scenarios in their life: one where people say, “do it. Do it. You’re the one. Do it.” and another where “multiple people” tell them, “they’re gonna kill you. Don’t do it. They’re gonna kill you.”

Lindsay briefly mentions that she has information on Seth Rich, who allegedly leaked DNC information. She claims to have been in contact with someone from Julian Assange's team who confirmed this. Lindsay also mentions that the murder of Seth Rich remains unsolved and questions the robbery narrative. She mentions a judge pushing the FBI to release previously undisclosed pages on the case. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 expressing interest in discussing the case further with a lawyer involved.

The speaker asserts that the effort to release the Epstein files came directly from President Trump. They acknowledge that many people may have a hard time with this claim, but state that it is the truth. The speaker also says that Trump fought the hardest to stop these files from being released.

There are no coincidences. Judge Mershan has handled many cases, including Donald Trump's and soon Steve Bannon's. It's suspicious that they keep getting the same judge in New York County. I don't believe in coincidences.

In the dialogue, Speaker 0 discusses long-standing claims that information has been independently discovered, suppressed, and now appears unlikely to be suppressed this time. The speaker asserts that the person being spoken about is apparently in the clear and that various agencies are aware of them due to multiple protective and threatening interactions with different agency affiliations. The core message is that if the person had not yet been approached by a US government agent telling them to stop, they would be allowed to continue; in other words, agents are waiting and watching, with some implying that suppression may not occur this time. The speaker describes a sense that “SSP motherfuckers” are anxiously awaiting publication, wondering if Amy will publish soon because they have been influencing the situation for a long time. There is a perception that multiple parties on one side are asking why she isn’t stopping, recalling that they had warned her three years earlier that they would kill her if she continued. The speaker conveys two opposing, ongoing scenarios in their life: one where people urge them to proceed (“do it”), asserting they are the one who should publish; and another where multiple people warn that others will kill them if they do publish. Overall, the transcript portrays a tense, dual awareness of external pressure and threats related to publishing, with conflicting external signals from various actors about whether to proceed or face lethal consequences.

The speaker references the USS Liberty from the previous week, noting that they were not in that space. They then mention breaking out another story about the infamous Jonathan Cagle and say they have been following him for about a month. They claim that the justice department is already on top of the matter, adding “in case any of them are listening to this conversation.” Beyond that, there isn’t much more to say. The speaker indicates agreement with others present, mentioning JD Vance, and concludes with the view that they do not think the Republicans are going to win in ’20.

The speaker claims to know that documents are being suppressed to protect individuals, and knows the names of those individuals, why they are being suppressed, and who is suppressing them. However, the speaker states they are bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases, and cannot disclose what they know. When asked if those being protected are politicians, business leaders, or both, the speaker responds that they are everything.

Speaker 0 describes that it has been independently discovered four other times, and that it “has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time.” He says he doesn’t think they’ll suppress it this time and that “I think you're in the clear.” He asserts they obviously know about you because he has had multiple both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations. He states, “If you haven't had a US government agent come to you and say, stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then they’re going to let you do it. He claims there are people waiting, saying, “there are SSP motherfuckers that are fucking twiddling their thumbs. Like, is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We've been influencing this bitch forever.” He adds that on the other side, multiple parties are looking at each other wondering, “Didn't we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? She's still doing it? What? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” He describes two constant scenarios in his life: one where people are urging, “do it. Do it. You're the one. Do it.” and another where people are warning, “they're gonna kill you. Don't do it. They're gonna kill you.”

The speaker claims to have compiled an Epstein client list using victims' testimonies, internal emails, court documents, settlements, financial records, and staff testimony, not a single "black book." This list was released publicly in 2019 but received little attention due to the speaker's prior cancellation for opposing Israel. The speaker asserts that Epstein was working for a foreign government, compromising powerful Americans. Contrary to popular belief, people *have* been prosecuted and companies have paid large settlements related to Epstein, but it's not publicized. Jean Luc Brunel, allegedly the number three man in the Epstein ring, was arrested but died in prison. The speaker believes the truth about Epstein is being ignored, similar to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They state that videos from Epstein's properties exist and that many pedophiles and human traffickers are being arrested, but the media is silent. The speaker shares pages from the list and urges someone with media reach to discuss the issue.

The speaker believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and compare it to the urgent issues happening in the world. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness and asserts that everything they did was right. They find it disgraceful to be sued while there are more pressing problems in the country. The speaker mentions negative public sentiment towards the situation and concludes that it is a sad day for America.

Breaking news: the claim that The Onion purchased Infowars is false. A federal judge held an emergency hearing today, expressing frustration over the auction process, which he deemed illegitimate. The judge questioned the US trustee about the winning bid, which was not disclosed, and criticized the lack of transparency in the auction. He stated that the auction rules were altered just days before, allowing for undisclosed bids and credit that doesn't exist. The judge has scheduled another hearing for early next week to address these issues. Infowars remains operational, and the fight for free speech continues. The judge has not certified the sale, emphasizing that this is a critical moment for rights and transparency. The struggle is ongoing, and support is crucial as the truth emerges.

The speaker discusses a woman named Fenny Willis, who used to be their lawyer but is now a prosecutor. They mention that Fenny Willis represented them in a previous case before becoming a district attorney. The speaker believes this is a conflict of interest and questions how Fenny Willis can now try to indict them. They suggest doing a live interview to provide evidence of their claims. The speaker also mentions that someone else, possibly Kaepernick, was interviewed and told the truth. They express their belief that God works in mysterious ways.

Project Veritas sued me for a preliminary injunction, but the federal judge ruled in my favor. I refused a deal to limit my speech, testified for hours, and just won the case. Project Veritas is still trying to silence me, but I will not be silenced. I will never agree to any deal that restricts my first amendment rights. We are releasing a story about the DNC this afternoon. Translation: I was sued by Project Veritas, but the judge ruled in my favor. I rejected a speech-limiting deal, testified, and won the case. Despite Project Veritas's efforts to silence me, I will not be silenced. I will never agree to any deal that restricts my right to free speech. We will release a story about the DNC later today.