reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The president has secret powers called presidential emergency action documents (PIATs) that allow him to suspend the constitution. These powers are worrying, especially before a national election. PIATs are essentially presidential orders created for worst-case scenarios. They originated during the Eisenhower administration to plan for a potential Soviet nuclear attack but have since expanded to address other emergencies. Very little is known about PIATs as they are kept in secret and have never been released or leaked. Not even Congress has access to them. The president's references to these secret powers are not made up, but the limits of these authorities remain unknown.

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 asks Madam Secretary two questions: (1) Have you ever received an invitation like this from the FBI? (2) Do you plan on attending this meeting? The responses are: No and Yes. - The speaker notes that they’ve worked with the FBI before, citing past instances such as being swatted and white powder mailings in 2024. - They describe the current invitation as highly unusual and express concern, citing the president’s recent rhetoric about nationalizing elections.

I'm not sure if there was a CIA conspiracy to remove me from office, but it's possible. The CIA had a motive because I was critical of them and wanted to make changes. I can't say if there was a conspiracy, but it would be interesting for an investigative reporter to look into it. I don't think the CIA would go as far as to harm those who expose their operations nowadays.

We need to deprogram Trump supporters who have been brainwashed. A military manual outlines internment and resettlement operations that could be applied domestically. The document covers managing detainees, civil support operations, and rehabilitation programs. The ambiguity of its boundaries raises concerns about potential use within the US. It's crucial for citizens to question why such a manual exists and when it might be implemented on American soil.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

"Did president Obama ordered any kind of surveillance of the president? Well elect." "We don't know we don't know who sent the taskings, if the taskings were changed into what went into these intelligence reports, but we're gonna try to find that out." "And I thought it was important for the president to know this." "That's why I briefed the speaker this morning, and I came down here, as soon as I could." "I think the president is is concerned, and he and he should be." "He'd like to see these reports." "Hopefully, when we get them, hopefully, they'll get them to the White House also."

Speaker Hegseth raised a memo circulating on social media about the establishment of a National Guard Response Force trained in crowd control and civil unrest, deployed in all 50 states by April 2026, and asked to verify the memo’s authenticity and provide more information on operations. Speaker 1 declined to answer particulars about something that may be in the planning process, but stated that there are multiple layers of National Guard Response Forces, including in each state, regionally, and through Title 10 active duty and Washington DC. They noted that there are a lot of different ways they can be employed constitutionally and legally, using Title 10 and Title 32 forces, and they will do so when necessary.

There's no cross-examination allowed in this committee, so important questions remain unaddressed. For instance, why did a Capitol Hill police officer with a history of mishandling firearms shoot an unarmed Air Force veteran in the neck? We're also not allowed to inquire about the thousands of hours of surveillance footage or why police were seen letting people into the Capitol on January 6th. These critical issues are off-limits for questioning.

The speaker discusses the need for investigation into a potential stand down order during an incident involving the President. They emphasize the importance of identifying the person who gave the order and their connections to determine if there was prior knowledge. They call for subpoenas to be issued by the weaponization committee due to lack of answers from agencies involved.

You are not being honest with this committee. We asked for all memorandums from the Secret Service on July 15th, have you provided them? You are dodging important questions that the American people want answers to. We had to subpoena you to be here, and you still won't answer. These are not difficult questions.

I sit on a task force at the Department of Defense. They have evidence that Trump believed would cause a civil war if revealed early on. He wanted people to understand the severity of the situation.

Trevor Coppola and Deborah Tavares discuss a NASA “war document” that they say was publicly accessible on the NASA website. They highlight that the PowerPoint, presented in July 2001 by Dennis Bushnell, chief NASA scientist at the Langley Center, is titled Future Warfare Circa 2025 and asserts “based in all cases upon existing data trends analysis technologies, no pixie dust.” They contend the document’s premise centers on robots, cyborgs, and humans, and note a startling contrast between its stated near-term reality and its actual content. Key claims and findings they emphasize include: - The document’s page 93 allegedly states: “capture, torture Americans in living color on prime time,” followed by plans for terror attacks within the Continental United States using binary biologicals to take down critical infrastructure, an EMP, and the use of radiation frequencies against brains, along with serious psy war and collateral damage, and exploitation. It also mentions “exploit CNN syndrome.” - The document allegedly involves agencies including the US Air Force, DARPA, CIA, FBI, Southern Command, Atlantic Command, Australian Department of Defense, and other corporate/government entities; the speakers claim the US has become a corporation (USA Inc.) and that the constitution has been bypassed. - It is claimed that the document references the use of frequencies and beam weapons, micro-dust as a weapon (micron-sized mechanized dust distributed as an aerosol that bores into lungs), and the manipulation of public perception via mass media propaganda (the “CNN syndrome” appears in the text). - Page 66 is cited as saying humans are “too large,” “too heavy,” “too tender,” and “too slow,” requiring huge logistical trains and implying humans have a rapidly decreasing value. - The document allegedly notes that routine smart meters and frequency-based warfare will affect 100% of the human population, with some as “canaries in the coal mine” experiencing health effects such as ringing in the ears, heart palpitations, skin rashes, and sleep disruption; frequencies are said to jam the immune system. - It is claimed that elites shield themselves from such weapons using advanced technologies, including cancer cures, chip mechanisms, and transhumanist pursuits; they discuss chemtrails and nanofibers as phase one of a multi-layered program. - The speakers connect the NASA document to a broader framework including the Iron Mountain and Silent Weapons Quiet Wars documents, arguing these outline a plan to depopulate, mind-control, and subjugate populations through electronic, environmental, and societal manipulation. They mention that the document foresees educational and social control via computers, telecommuting, and a rewritten history/education system. - They discuss the oiling of global governance by elites (Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones), and claim individuals like John P. Holdren, MITRE, Leon Panetta, and others operate without a constitution to move policies toward this plan. - They argue that climate-change rhetoric and geoengineering (chemtrails) serve as cover for population reduction and control, including deforestation, food supply manipulation, and a global shift toward corporate dominance (Monsanto, seed control, and bio-terror strategies). On solutions, they advocate rapid public education through source documents: Silent Weapons Quiet Wars, Iron Mountain, and New World Order Exposed 1969, all available via stopthecrime.net. They urge a revelation rather than a revolution to avoid martial law and to counter weaponized frequencies, smart meters, and surveillance mechanisms. They advise looking at the NASA document to form a new reality based on these truths, enabling informed action. They conclude by directing listeners to stopthecrime.net and smartmetersmurder.com for access to related materials and videos, including Barry Trower’s work on frequency weaponization and the deployment of disguised cell towers.

Speaker 0: Some Republicans argue that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6 and the select committee covered it up. Based on what you know, what are the verifiable events in the lead ups? Speaker 1: I was DoD chief of staff on January 6. We deployed National Guard; in the Oval Office the president, president Trump at the time, authorized pursuant to law up to 10 to 20,000 National Guard. We took that authorization because the law's second part required a request from who? Nancy Pelosi and the Metropolitan Police and the mayor at the time. And what did they say? No. And remember what happened for the next two years? They say, Oh, Kash is lying. Trump’s lying. And what do we find? Letters of their declination of the National Guard refusing to have the National Guard show up. Nancy Pelosi and her team were busy filming a movie on January 6 while this so caused chaos around her was going down. If she had just look at it this way. If she had said yes to the National Guard and we had 10,000 uniformed military officers establish a secure perimeter, do you think January 6 would have gone differently? Speaker 0: It is intriguing that 02/1950 FBI plain clothed agents were inside the Capitol on January 6. Speaker 1: This is a great example of the president's initiative to solve all the answers on January 6, and it's another example of our transparency efforts. Pursuant to the president, we investigated the matter and found out why FBI agents were placed there in the first place. And it turns out, we found documentation and witnesses and whistleblowers that said we were forced to go there to do riot control. Armstrong, do you know what the FBI does not do ever? Riot control. Speaker 0: And you believe them? That's their word, not mine.

We are beyond that. We can't say it out loud, but we need to go into the issue. It's about the constitution and undercover agents. They pulled the black lives out.

Speaker 0 asked Secretary Hagsteth about a memo circulating on social media detailing the establishment of a National Guard Response Force trained in crowd control and civil unrest and deployed in all 50 states by April 2026, requesting verification of authenticity and more information on operations. Speaker 1 responded that they will not answer particulars on something that may be in the planning process, but noted that there are multiple layers of National Guard Response Forces, including in each state, regionally, and across Title 10 active duty and Washington DC. He stated there are a lot of different ways constitutionally and legally to employ Title X and Title 32 forces, and they will do so when necessary.

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.

I asked colleagues to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate the lack of Secret Service protection for the president. The Secret Service director agreed to brief us, but it hasn't happened yet. I question why the president wasn't given more protection and who is responsible for that decision.

You mentioned that the White House will not interfere, but the incoming president believes he can direct the Justice Department. If he suggests investigating a political enemy, would you comply? I wish we could have discussed this in a meeting. It's essential for the attorney general to remain independent. While I haven't heard the president make such a request, I recognize that many Americans have lost faith in the DOJ. If confirmed, my priority will be to restore integrity to the department and ensure justice is served fairly. Let's move on to your current responsibilities as attorney general.

The speakers discuss historical and contemporary concerns about “quarantine camps.” Speaker 0 references quarantine camps for the Japanese during World War II and notes Bobby Anne Cox Flowers’s activism in New York state to stop the building of quarantine camps, asking what purpose such camps serve now while acknowledging that the state government is pursuing them. The exchange suggests that these camps were or are being maintained or created in the present day, prompting the question of why they would be needed. Speaker 1 adds that, in their experience as counsel to the pledge of resistance in the 1980s, there was a mass pledge—about 100,000 members—to take to the streets if Reagan invaded Nicaragua, exercising First Amendment rights to protest. They claim that in response, either Reagan or Bush senior directed Oliver North to draft Rex 84, which would, in the event of such an invasion, authorize the detention of people and the designation of areas of the country to be under martial law. The assertion is that these provisions were designed to enable the suspension of civil liberties and the detention of citizens, effectively indicating that facilities such as camps had been prepared or designated for this purpose. Speaker 0 confirms the existence of the camps and questions whether the federal government has invoked Rex 84 or carried it out, asking whether Congress passed it. They respond that Rex 84 was an executive order, not a congressional statute, and express uncertainty about its current status. The conversation then reiterates that the camps have been built or existed for some time, with Speaker 1 maintaining that the proposals were connected to directives from the executive branch rather than through legislation. The dialogue highlights a belief that camps already exist and that a mechanism like Rex 84 could enable rapid detention and martial-law-like conditions in the United States, tied to historical episodes of civil-liberties concerns during the 1980s. The speakers emphasize the distinction between executive action and congressional action, noting that Rex 84 was issued as an executive order and suggesting it has not been revoked according to their understanding, though they admit they have not read it and acknowledge its continued presence on a government or legal docket. The exchange centers on whether such structures remain in place and how they might be activated in the future, linking past protest history, executive directives, and the contemporary debate over quarantine camps.

The speaker asks for insight on three topics: Rodney Jaffe, Neustar, and the Ericsson report. They mention the allegations made by Dennis Montgomery about Fort Detrick and Fort Washington spying on Americans using surveillance systems initially created for foreign surveillance. The speaker discusses the weaponization of government subcommittee and the consequences of examining ourselves, such as the creation of the FISA court. They emphasize the need for strict controls and accountability in government actions. The speaker mentions the Dennis Montgomery case and the government's capability to do various things. They urge critical thinking and caution against emotional reactions to information. The speaker concludes by stating that the federal government is out of control.

Is there a possibility of using our military to take over Greenland or an ally of Denmark? One thing President Trump excels at is not revealing his strategies. Therefore, I won't disclose how I would respond to any presidential orders in this public setting. It seems you would consider executing an order to invade Greenland and take control of the Panama Canal.

I asked a question that was disallowed during the proceedings, and I want to ask it again. Are you aware of the close relationship between House Intelligence Committee staffer Sean Misko and Eric Chirumella while they were both at the National Security Council? There are reports suggesting that Chirumella and Misko may have collaborated to plot the impeachment of the president before formal House impeachment proceedings began. These reports claim that they were overheard discussing impeachment in January 2017, just a month into the president's term.

Is this potentially the biggest setup in U.S. history? It could be one of the greatest crimes against the American people. It's crucial to uncover the truth, especially regarding the cover-ups after January 6th. What about the Republicans involved in those cover-ups? Addressing that is challenging since it's within your own party. However, we will follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the implications. I’ll hold you to that commitment.

The United States military, including Secretary of Defense Miller and General Milley, discussed locking down Washington DC due to concerns of violence at the Capitol on January 6th. They considered revoking permits for demonstrations on Capitol Hill. However, I, the one who issues these permits, was not informed. Instead, on January 4th, Miller restricted the National Guard from carrying any weapons or civil disobedience equipment, which doesn't make sense. So, the military expresses worry about potential violence but simultaneously limits the National Guard's ability to take an aggressive stance.