reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asks if the SEC will review Ethereum's ICO and questions if there is a double standard. The other speaker says they cannot discuss potential investigations or rumors. The first speaker then asks if the second speaker is aware of anything at the SEC that they could be a whistleblower for, to which the second speaker declines to comment.

I’m back in Newark after a week in Germany meeting with governments, central banks, and wholesalers—over 50 meetings with wholesalers from Asia, Europe, the US, and others, plus talks with banks acquiring metal. Here are the key points from a few perspectives: - Market backdrop: the world is broadly backed up on retail-ready silver and gold, especially silver. Many markets are backed up three to four months for product. Scottsdale Mint is not as backed up on most products and is working to keep product flowing. There is raw material in the United States, and Scottsdale Mint has no issues with US raw material for minting operations. In Europe, however, there are concerns in the second half of the year about metal flow and supply. - Supply chain and refinery bottlenecks: the refineries are backed up for months, with some booked out for the entire year to premier clients. This is creating logjams and wide spreads in some markets. Some dealers in the US and elsewhere report buy-to-sell ratios around 10-to-1, forcing buybacks due to limited refinery turn-ins at storefronts. - Price and market dynamics: the speaker noted being hit hard by the market, and previously posted a range of “1.50 to 50” (quoted as a guess in a volatile context). There is ongoing contention for physical metal, particularly silver and other critical minerals. The speaker believes the Chinese were bidding heavily and India was alongside them. A fund with a large premium over spot closed on Friday, trapping investors in that fund while futures trading continued, contributing to a cascading effect. When China closed, prices dipped from around 100 to the 70s, then recovered into the 80s. The market is volatile and likely to be a wild ride. - Short-term and long-term outlook: in normal markets, such extreme moves typically take weeks to months to sort out technically, but Shanghai premiums are high enough that the recovery process could look different. The physical market could potentially overwhelm at current prices because every yuan in China buys more ounces than when prices were 20% higher. Silver remains the number one asset in 2026 despite recent declines. The speaker remains cautiously optimistic for the year. - Strategies and advice: dollar-cost averaging, and avoid leverage. These assets should be acquired and held rather than aggressively traded. You can take profits along the way, but those buying ounces should hold. Those who bought last year or recently still own their ounces. - Market entrants and youth movement: new buyers are entering the industry globally, across ages, including the US and Europe. A youth movement is visible on platforms like TikTok, signaling a growing interest in precious metals. This is expected to positively influence the long-term dynamics even as big players (governments, banks) are active and retail has shifted from selling to buying after a period of quiet. - Clarifications and rumors: claims about a major US Mint closure are not accurate; a government entity paused orders to catch up but will resume. There is substantial misinformation, and the speaker plans more updates in the coming days and weeks. Overall, the speaker forecasts a wild opening and anticipates further volatility and potential upside as physical demand and new buyers interact with existing market frictions and refinery constraints.

We're going to Fort Knox to verify the gold is actually there. There have been some bad bumps lately and we're wondering if more national security positions will be eliminated. We hope everything is fine at Fort Knox, but we're going to inspect the fabled Fort Knox to ensure the gold is still there. If it's not there, we're going to be very upset. Where could the gold have gone?

Your mandate wasn't investigative, so why issue a report? Can you clarify the distinction between information and evidence? We're not discussing evidence that would hold up in court. We did not collect or retain any materials, such as raw footage or photos, related to this matter. We have no such materials.

The committee asked for information on how many of these so‑called police stations are operating currently in Canada, and whether any have been shut down. Response: There is deep concern about allegations and reports of foreign interference, including public reports of these so‑called police stations. The details of the investigation are the subject of ongoing initiatives by the RCMP, and questions about those details should be directed to the commissioner. The subsequent question specifically asked the commissioner to provide information to Canadians on how many of these alleged stations are operating in Canada, have operated previously, and if any have been shut down. Answer: Currently, we’re looking at three of the police stations in Toronto and one in Vancouver. We’re working with our police jurisdictions as well as with other Government of Canada national security agencies. An investigation has been initiated and is led by the Greater Toronto Integrated National Security Enforcement Team (INSET). So far, elements of the investigation have been very overt—there have been marked police cars and uniformed members to cause disruption to the allegations. We’ve released that visible presence, and that’s mostly so that people will see the actions, for two reasons: first, because we need more information, and second, so that when police are in the area dealing with the allegations, people will come forward. The investigation is ongoing, and while the details can’t be discussed publicly, a statement in October/November indicated that an investigation was underway into reports of possible activities at those locations. The committee member then asked for clarification: Can you confirm that you know the locations of these supposed police stations, and that RCMP in uniform have been at those locations causing disruption? Response: No. In the initial instances, instead of disruption by going in uniform with marked police cars, the approach was to speak with the people involved at those police stations or locations because those locations are a legitimate business in the front. The committee then asked for a timeline on when the investigation would conclude and whether the allegations are true. The conversation moved to indicate the inquiry would continue, but no specific conclusion timeline was provided in the exchanged statements.

Senator asks whether the SEC should investigate President Trump for stock trading behavior similar to what would trigger SEC attention if done by private citizens, referencing a prior statement that the SEC would be knocking on a private citizen’s door for trading like members of Congress. The Secretary responds that if the body wants to ban individual stock trading (advocating for it for the committee), it should start there, and that further legislative action is the body’s prerogative. When pressed, the Secretary says the trade “should be investigated” and that “President Trump should be investigated,” supporting the idea of “getting your house in order.” The Senator then asks about an investigation into White House conduct and the Secretary answers with “Please lead by example,” which the Senator repeats, saying they want the President to lead by example. The Senator asks a separate question: if the stock purchases were made using inside information, would that be illegal. The Secretary declines to answer, saying they are not a lawyer. The Senator then asks whether it would be worth investigating, and the Secretary responds that the Senator is the one who said what should be investigated, suggesting that “we investigate many people in this committee.” Senator asks whether the White House should follow the same set of rules already in law. The Secretary again emphasizes “get your house in order here,” and adds that committee members, “mostly on your side of the aisle,” should do the same. The Senator concludes by arguing for stronger anti-corruption and conflict-of-interest rules in Washington for everyone, including the president and Congress, and states that draining the swamp is not happening because “what Donald Trump is doing is he is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position,” which the Senator calls not public service, reiterating that the president should lead by example.

- Epstein allegedly used a payphone in solitary confinement to advise Bear Stearns and JPMorgan during the 2008 financial collapse, making a collect call to Bear Stearns’ Jimmy Cain and another to a JPMorgan contact who was, at the time, attempting to buy Bear Stearns. The speakers discuss two phones and the difficulty of avoiding self-harm fears in jail, noting Epstein’s involvement with people tied to Bush-era treasury circles. They also reference Epstein’s supposed reaction to calls and imply conspiracy about elite globalization circles. - The discussion shifts to Epstein’s credibility and the broader implications: they claim Epstein’s communications shed light on “peak globalization” and that the globalists allowed Epstein’s activities to proceed. They assert Epstein is alive and that his body was swapped in prison, arguing the noose was swapped as well. They also say Epstein admitted involvement with gold at Fort Knox in related materials, though not as a direct personal verification of missing gold. - On Fort Knox specifically, they explain that the Epstein materials include a forwarded 2011 email referencing a sensational claim that Fort Knox is empty, circulating among Epstein’s circle years before public debates about auditing Fort Knox. They contrast this with the official position: Fort Knox holds about 147,000,000 ounces of gold, with the treasury secretary and others assuring audits confirm accountability. They note attempts by Rand Paul to view the gold and references to a planned livestream from the vault that did not occur. - The narrative then connects current events: the Epstein revelations, China’s moves on currency, and the US’s response to supply chain risks. They describe President Trump’s Project Vault—a roughly $12 billion critical minerals stockpile to protect U.S. manufacturing from supply shocks and reduce reliance on China, aiming to secure minerals like lithium, nickel, silver, and gold for defense and technology needs. - They outline three concurrent strands: (1) Epstein files detonating public trust in elites and showing the interconnections of the globalist network; (2) the U.S. hardening its real-world economy with critical mineral stockpiles; (3) China pushing to elevate the yuan to global reserve currency status, necessitating credibility, deep markets, stable rules, and long-term commodity access. - They note the end of the START treaty with Russia, suggesting a potential new Cold War dynamic and a larger role for uranium/strategic nuclear buildup. The speakers argue that China’s reserve-currency ambitions require long-term mineral security and a robust physical economy, and that U.S. actions in mineral reserves and hard assets are intertwined with global currency influence. - They frame Epstein as part of a broader narrative of elite influence over geopolitics, economy, and currency, arguing the next months will be “absolutely insane” as these forces unfold, and invite audience input on likely prosecutions of top political figures. - Sponsor segment: Xi’s February 1, 2026 move to make the yuan a global reserve currency is presented as a declaration of currency warfare on the U.S. dollar, while Project Vault and a U.S. critical minerals event with David Copley, J.D. Vance, and Marco Rubio are positioned as pivotal to reshaping U.S. mineral supply chains and reindustrialization. The segment promotes StreamX (ticker STEX) on Nasdaq, claiming it could disrupt the gold ETF space with a fully backed, vaulted, audited, insured gold product (GLDY) yielding up to 4%, supported by strong insider ownership and notable investors like Frank Juistra and others; StreamX is described as potentially transformative in the gold market, leveraging a platform built by cybersecurity-grade developers and aiming to compete with GLD by offering yield on gold.

Congressman Thomas Massie discusses the Epstein Files Transparency Act and what to expect from the December 19, public release of materials. Key framework and deadlines - The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed on November 19. Materials are due in a publicly searchable format by December 19. - The act is a law, not a subpoena, and has no expiration date. It directs the attorney general to produce three sets of files from three locations: the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and US Attorneys, including grand jury material from investigations and trials. How to know if all materials have been released - Longtime case reporters and victim’s attorneys indicate there are at least 20 names of men accused of sex crimes in FBI files, specifically in the FD-302 forms that memorialize witness testimony. - If the December 19 production contains no names of any male accused of sex crimes or sex trafficking, that would indicate documents have not been fully released. Legal novelty and enforcement - Unlike prior Congress subpoenas that can be delayed or run out the clock, the act imposes a binding legal obligation with no congressional expiration. - If the attorney general is noncompliant, the next attorney general could be obligated to release the files the moment they hold the seat, and there are penalties described in the act (not detailed here). - The act ensures that even if a new administration changes hands (e.g., post-Trump), compliance is enforceable. Impact on grand jury material and redactions - The act prompted movement in grand jury material rulings: after passage, three federal judges (SD Florida, SDNY) ordered that grand jury material be produced to the DOJ, with redactions to protect victims’ identities as required by the act. - Judges indicated they would redact identifying information of victims, aligning with the act’s protections. Contemporary statements and implications - Pam Bondi had claimed substantial material on her desk and later said there was no material besides child sexual abuse material; Massie notes that other material exists and Bondi will need to produce it, potentially requiring her to address prior statements. - Cash Patel testified before the Senate that there is no evidence implicating anyone other than Epstein; Massie questions him in a House Judiciary hearing about three-zero-two forms, suggesting they may contain corroborating evidence implicating others. - If other men are implicated, the evidence would come from victim statements and corroborating witnesses in FBI files, including 302 forms. Upcoming and media appearances - Congress adjourns a day early, so the document release may be observed on Saturday. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna plan to discuss findings on Face the Nation on Sunday. Ongoing investigations - Bondi announced new federal investigations near the time the bill passed. A bicameral, bipartisan letter seeks a sit-down to discuss what new material justified these investigations. - The act requires that any claims of ongoing investigations affecting release be limited to material that would impact that specific investigation, with temporary redactions as allowed by the law. Massie concludes by promising updates on Friday’s release and compliance with the act, and thanks the audience.

While on the oversight committee in the senate, Dominion was investigated. The president of Dominion and his software maker testified. Questions focused on whether Dominion machines had internet access. The president of Dominion said no, but this was a lie. The investigation was published, recorded, and should be online.

A journalist asks about a recent FBI action at the Fulton County, Georgia elections office, where twenty twenty ballots, voter rolls, and scanner images were seized. The journalist notes that the president claimed, “they got into the votes. You're going to see some interesting things happening,” and asks why the president was so involved in an FBI and DOJ raid. A spokesperson responds that the president’s statements do not imply his involvement. He emphasizes that this is a criminal grand jury investigation, and clarifies that there was a search warrant authorized by a federal judge, a magistrate judge in Atlanta, which allowed the FBI to seize the records. The spokesperson notes that the records have been seized by the FBI as part of the ongoing investigation. The journalist presses on what the investigation is about. The spokesperson reiterates that he cannot discuss specifics of any grand jury investigation, but previously stated that election integrity is of the highest importance to the American people, and that the efforts are aimed at ensuring free and fair elections for everyone in the country, Democrats and Republicans alike. The spokesperson adds that they are doing everything possible to uphold election integrity. The journalist mentions that in Georgia, claims of voter fraud related to the twenty twenty ballots have been debunked repeatedly and that there were multiple recounts. The transcript ends without further elaboration on those claims. Key points conveyed: - The FBI seized twenty twenty ballots, voter rolls, and scanner images from the Fulton County elections office. - The president suggested that “interesting things” would occur, prompting questions about his involvement. - A spokesperson denies the president’s involvement and describes the actions as part of a criminal grand jury investigation. - A federal magistrate judge in Atlanta issued the search warrant permitting the seizure; the FBI conducted the seizure. - The investigation’s specifics cannot be discussed, but officials assert a commitment to election integrity and ensuring free and fair elections for all Americans. - The dialogue references prior debunking of voter fraud claims in Georgia and multiple recounts, without presenting new specifics.

The speaker asks if Mindon is part of the investigation, to which Speaker 1 responds that allegations have been received and the review is ongoing. Speaker 0 then mentions that Mindon has 4 years' worth of relevant emails that have been corrupted, but Speaker 2 questions the validity of this statement. Speaker 0 emphasizes the seriousness of deleting emails and asks when the president and the auditor general were informed. Speaker 1 states that the allegations were received on December 11th, but there is no evidence of deletion. Speaker 0 asks if the auditor general was notified, and Speaker 1 confirms informing them of the allegations. The Treasury Board Secretariat and RCMP were not informed due to lack of evidence of criminality. The conversation ends abruptly.

The transcript centers on a chain of controversial claims and geopolitical financial narratives tied to Epstein, Fort Knox, and looming shifts in global power and economics. - Epstein and the 2008 financial collapse: Epstein is described as openly commenting on Fort Knox’s “lack of gold,” while allegedly being on a payphone from his jail cell with the heads of Bear Stearns and JPMorgan during the Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers turmoil. The speaker asserts Epstein dialed Bear Stearns first and then JPMorgan, claiming he was advising “these sick people” during the crisis. - Solitary confinement calls and real-time intelligence: Speaker 2 recounts being in solitary confinement and having two phones to talk to Bear Stearns and JPMorgan simultaneously, noting the difficulty of keeping conversations private due to safety concerns. - Epstein’s broader role and authenticity questions: The speaker suggests the global elite, described as “globalists,” were taking Epstein’s calls from prison and that Epstein’s involvement points to a broader pattern of influence over financial systems. The speaker questions whether Epstein is dead, asserting the body in the correctional facility was not Epstein and claiming the noose was swapped, arguing that Epstein is alive and living “in Israel somewhere.” - Fort Knox gold and public narratives: The discussion clarifies that Epstein-related materials do not contain Epstein confessing to personally verifying missing gold; instead, they reference a forwarded 2011 email alleging Fort Knox is empty and that the government sold gold and did not refill it. The speaker notes that the official position is that Fort Knox holds about 147,000,000 ounces of gold, with the Treasury secretary assuring that the gold is accounted for through audits, though access to view it is restricted (Rand Paul’s inability to see it is cited). - Related public skepticism and attempts to verify: The segment references failed attempts to livestream Fort Knox’s vault and prior plans for Trump to inspect the vault, underscoring perceived gaps between public expectation and access to verify gold reserves. - Economic and geopolitical implications: The narrative broadens to link Epstein’s files to current events, suggesting a “globalist collapse” and connecting elite corruption to systemic power. It ties three tracks: Epstein-file revelations eroding trust in elites; the U.S. government hardening its supply chains against China by building an American minerals stockpile called “Project Vault”; and China’s push to promote the yuan as a global reserve currency, with Xi Jinping explicitly advocating for the yuan to gain reserve status and broaden its use in trade and investment. - Currency and mineral leverage: The speaker argues that a reserve-currency shift requires confidence, deep markets, stable rules, and commodity leverage, including silver, gold, and other critical minerals. The end result is framed as a broader realignment where control over minerals and currencies intersects with geopolitical competition, including the end of the START treaty with Russia, suggesting a move toward a new cold-war dynamic with larger nuclear arsenals and shifting strategic dependencies. - Conclusion and forward look: The speaker ties Epstein’s disclosures, global elite networks, and the mineral/currency shifts into a single narrative about a reshaping of global power, with ongoing questions about prosecutions of high-profile figures and the potential for dramatic political ramifications in the near term. - Sponsor/Investment segment (omitted from promotional emphasis): The transcript includes a sponsor segment about StreamX and a proposed gold-backed product (GLDY) with high insider ownership and potential yield, pitched as a disruptive development in the gold ETF space; however, this promotional content is not elaborated upon in detail in this summary.

The speaker is asked if the SEC will review Ethereum's ICO and if there is a double standard. The speaker responds that they cannot discuss potential investigations or rumors. They are then asked if they are aware of anything at the SEC that they could be a whistleblower for, to which they reply that they cannot comment on that question.

First speaker outlines that 1914, the year the Federal Reserve was created, coincides with the institution of the income tax, and argues these two developments are parts of the same tool. Since 1971, he says, every ill in society has expanded, and now the fruits of that system have come home to roost. He asserts the money system enables certain forces to enact their will without accountability, describing fiat money as giving those forces carte blanche to decide what money is and how much there is. He contends money is at the heart of many problems, alongside the spiritual realm, and emphasizes a strong connection between money and moral/spiritual forces, calling it a dangerous master. Second speaker asks what the US government prices its own gold at, noting that the US is the biggest gold holder. First speaker answers: $42.22 per ounce, which is far below market price (around $3,000). Second speaker asks how that discrepancy is possible. First speaker explains the Fed can choose how to value its assets, either marking to market or to cost, highlighting the Fed’s power to revalue assets on its books. He notes reports that the Fed’s balance sheet has been underwater on paper at times, and that gold on the Fed’s balance sheet can serve as an ace to revalue the balance sheet if needed. He describes it as “magic.” They discuss whether one could buy gold from the US government at $42, and acknowledge people watch the Fed’s balance sheet and market-to-market data. First speaker references James Rickards and his book The Death of Money, noting that the Fed could mark assets to market but not necessarily revalue gold, which could be used to rebalance the balance sheet. They contemplate what would happen to gold prices if the US held enough gold to back a new standard; under a 40% reserve ratio, gold price might range widely to restore a 1:1 parity with the Chinese yuan, possibly between $20,040 and $40,000 per ounce, depending on the balance sheet and reserves. Luke Groman is cited as saying achieving 1:1 parity with the yuan would require about $22,000 per ounce of gold, assuming the claimed gold stock is accurate. First speaker explains that achieving a gold-backed standard could force a reality-based discipline: a revaluation could alter international currency dynamics, reduce the ability to wage wars funded by fiat money, and end hollowing out of the industrial base and unchecked globalism. He argues that a return to an honest money standard would impose norms and transparency, forcing currency and national commitments to be truthful. Second speaker adds that lying is evil, and a society lacking truth is deeply problematic. He closes by expressing gratitude for the discussion and hope that their efforts chip away at the issue.

The transcript documents an undercover interaction in which participants discuss race, journalism ethics, and the figure James O’Keefe. The scene centers on a group including Speaker 1, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, Speaker 6, and others, with repeated mentions of real or claimed identities and affiliations. Key points: - Jonathan Franklin is introduced as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, a former NPR correspondent who “wrote about issues concerning race, culture, identity, and justice.” In the meeting, Franklin claimed to be a national CBS News correspondent, a detail the participants initially believed but later learned was false. - The group repeatedly uses racially charged terms, including “coon” and “selling out,” to describe public figures such as Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and Lawrence, with remarks about black public figures and alignment with white audiences. - A notable moment involves Franklin’s reluctance to speak openly. He is encouraged to say what he really thinks publicly, suggesting a conflict between journalistic restraint and personal candor. He muses that to reveal his true thoughts would require him to “stop being a journalist” and “exit news.” - The conversation reveals ongoing undercover journalism objectives. The participants discuss “watchdog gotcha” methods and the ethics of using hidden cameras, contrasting traditional journalism models (e.g., 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace) with contemporary practices. They debate how to expose individuals without compromising their own integrity. - The group discovers that Franklin does teach a Georgetown course on “sourcing and interviews technology” in the spring, with a scheduled class in January 2026, taught alongside others (Parker Lenay, John Fisk, etc.). Despite earlier claims, they confirm the teaching role and course details through Georgetown’s scheduling. - The dialogue includes a shift from discussing race and media ethics to identity deception. At one point, Franklin (or the person playing him) denies being James O’Keeffe, while another participant asserts, “I am James O’Keefe,” prompting confusion about identity. This culminates in an admission that Franklin’s identity was misrepresented by the others during the encounter. - The narrative frames the episode as a critique of bias in journalism. The speakers argue that objectivity is contested and that a journalist’s hidden biases can color reporting, especially when slurs or harmful stereotypes are used publicly by someone who holds a professorial or media position. - The segment concludes with a self-referential note on exposing truth and holding powerful figures accountable. The discussion emphasizes the public’s right to know the truth, including information about Georgetown’s faculty and the behavior observed during the encounter. - The document includes references to ongoing investigative activity, including future steps at Georgetown’s Dean’s Office and President’s Office. It also references the broader mission of O’Keefe Media Group and Citizen Journalism Foundation. Note: The transcript contains promotional material for a gold investment partnership, which has been omitted from this summary per the request to exclude promotional content.

The discussion centers on completing an audit of ballots to obtain a count and address concerns about the precinct. The participants emphasize that without counts, they cannot move forward. They insist that the audit piece must be completed first, not an investigation, so that a number of ballots can be established and the overall tally can proceed. Key points raised: - The need to finish the audit to determine how many ballots are in the ballot can, and to move forward with the numbers. “We need to move forward with the audit so we can get the numbers, so we can see how many ballots are here.” - A concern has been raised about the precinct, including the issue of multiple ballots with the very same signature. The team discusses handling this by counting the ballots and later addressing the concern, rather than delaying the process. “we will separate out and count those and add those in. We're there going to be an asterisk saying these ballots have the same.” - There is tension between continuing the presidential race audit and addressing potential irregularities. The instruction given is to complete the audit portion first and then review any issues. “the process right now is for you to put them in the piles where they belong and for the presidential vote and count the presidential votes… finish the presidential race audit, not separate them out, and then we'll move forward from there.” - The officials acknowledge the underlying concern about the precinct and previous issues with county ballots, but reiterate that, at this moment, the priority is to obtain a count and finish the audit. “We understand that there may be possibly an issue with this precinct. We understand that. But what I need for you to do right now is to finish the audit process.” - They clarify that the current activity is not an investigation, and that the aim is to produce a number for how many ballots were in the can when counting began, enabling progress based on the audit results. “This is not an investigation right now… not an investigation, not counting… what I need you to do is complete the audit so we can get a number.” In sum, the participants are focused on completing the ballot-count audit to establish a definitive tally, while acknowledging concerns about signatures and precinct irregularities, and planning to address those concerns after the audit yields a numeric result for the presidential ballots. The priority repeatedly stated is to finish the audit to obtain a count, then proceed with any further review.

I'm following up on the possibility of an Elon Musk-backed audit of US gold reserves. Despite concerns about potential shortfalls, I believe that gold has been steadily flowing into the United States, primarily from London. I have firsthand knowledge of these shipments, with tons of gold arriving on flights before Christmas. This influx is also indicated by the exchange for physical premiums and repatriation efforts. I think this all suggests a move to ensure Fort Knox and other vaults have the gold. A full audit is due, considering the last comprehensive one was decades ago. While some gold bars may need refining to meet current standards, the overall amount of gold is substantial. I believe any audit will confirm the gold is here, and potentially even reveal larger reserves than expected.

The SEC has issued subpoenas to around 80 token issuers, which may cause some concern. However, we have only received one confirmation of this so far, with a possibility of one more.

Speaker 1 notes that there are thousands of ongoing investigations and prosecutions in the country, and that some involve people and entities the president has previously criticized and believes should be investigated. He says this is not pressure and will not keep him up at night, except to ensure every case is investigated to the fullest extent of the law using all available resources. Regarding weaponization, he argues that it has become a contested word, but says it means nothing to him because it is “completely false.” He contends that for four years, some in the room witnessed weaponization of the department like never before, with a president indicted four times by the department, and with the department assisting two local district attorneys in going after the president. He also asserts the department stood idly by while states tried to keep President Trump off the ballot. He emphasizes that the past four years saw this pattern, and insists that today’s department is changing, not pursuing political enemies but pursuing justice as the president has repeatedly said he wants. He acknowledges the ongoing media narrative about weaponization but rejects it, stating it happens not to be true. He emphasizes that tens of thousands of prosecutors across the country are putting bad guys in jail, something that, in his view, did not happen as it should have in the past four years. He concludes by reiterating his commitment to continue this work, saying it will happen tomorrow and in the coming days.

I was surprised this morning when the police came to my house with a search warrant. They informed me that not only my company, but several others are being investigated. I don't know the details of the investigation yet because it is still in progress. My lawyers will request access to the case so that I can understand what it is about. As one of the partners, I was subjected to the search. The company in question, which I am a partner of, was founded in 1980 and has a long history. It is a well-regulated company with all the necessary licenses and certifications. I want to thank everyone for their support and messages. I will share more information once I have access to the case. Thank you all for your messages.

The DOJ can't comment on ongoing investigations, but there has been a lot of activity recently. The DOJ doesn't act rashly; rules, requirements, and ethical considerations go into everything presented to a court, such as indictments or subpoenas. Despite the speaker only starting their job four months ago, and others joining even more recently, the DOJ has been incredibly active. The expectation is that there will be a lot of activity and increasing activity going forward on this front, as well as many others.

Idahoans and investors across the country have expressed concerns about the trading halt of meta materials (MMTLP) and its impact. They have sent letters and made information requests to the SEC and FINRA for answers, but the full response is still pending. The SEC clarifies that FINRA, a separate entity, implemented the trading halt without seeking SEC advice or permission. While the SEC does not disclose specific investigations, they regularly examine FINRA for compliance with their rules. The investors have requested audited share count and blue sheet data to investigate potential fraud or wrongdoing, but the SEC cannot confirm or deny ongoing investigations. The SEC only makes information public if charges are brought or settlements are reached. Trust in the capital markets relies on transparency and the closure of investigations is between the parties involved.

The speaker confirms an ongoing investigation. This investigation was prompted by a motion in the House of Commons. They also state that they received a USB key, which is currently being stored. The investigation relates to events at the SDTC.

All my life, I've heard about Fort Knox and how it's supposed to hold all of our gold. But lately, I've been getting nervous about whether it's actually still there. So, I'm going to Fort Knox to open the doors and inspect the place myself. I want to see if the gold is still there, and whether anyone has stolen it. It's supposed to hold a lot of gold, like 400 tons. I just want to make sure that when we open it up, the cupboards aren't bare.

Joby Weeks, also referred to as Jobadiah Weeks, discusses his six-year house arrest and the controversy surrounding his involvement with BitClub Network, a cryptocurrency mining venture he helped launch and promote. Investigators describe BitClub as a Ponzi scheme that bilked victims of hundreds of millions of dollars, while Weeks frames the operation as a legitimate data-center mining business that paid members daily and built what he calls the largest Bitcoin mining pool in the world. Weeks describes his early life as a hustler who started small businesses at a young age to support his family, then became an entrepreneur who traveled to about 100 countries and founded and financed technologies in the United States. He explains that he joined BitClub as a member and vendor, selling mining hardware, computer equipment, and related services. BitClub promoted high-growth crypto opportunities and mining operations, asserting that mining hardware could generate profits and that their data centers—established in Iceland, Georgia, Norway, with power sourced from Canada and a facility in Montana—could scale to enormous output, with the Montana project described as 300 megawatts and the largest Bitcoin mine in the world. The government charged Weeks on 12/05/2019 with selling unregistered securities and wire fraud, and labeled BitClub a Ponzi scheme. Weeks insists BitClub sold physical mining hardware and not securities, providing invoices, tracking numbers, duties and tariffs paid, and descriptions of data centers and payments to participants. He claims the government raided BitClub’s data centers and seized assets, including miners and cryptocurrency, after weeks of cooperation and meetings with federal agents, including a controversial encounter at a Tony Robbins event. Weeks recounts being shuffled through jail and jail-to-jail transfers for eleven months, denied bail and a trial, with his attorney offering two choices: five years in jail innocent or one year in jail guilty. He ultimately signed a plea to secure his release, but maintains that the charges were misapplied and that there were no verified victims, citing a pre-plea assertion that “there is no victim, no crime.” He describes ongoing legal battles involving twelve prosecutors, repeated delays, and the absence of victims testifying or restitution measures. Supporters perspective includes claims that BitClub was a startup in the Wild West rather than a fraud, and that the government’s asset seizures harmed victims. A white paper with Attorney Alan Dershowitz alleges multiple constitutional and process failings: retroactive charging, selective prosecution, indiscriminate conspiracy liability, asset seizures without safeguards, discovery violations, absence of victims and restitution, unsettled regulatory backdrop, and erosion of speedy-trial protections. The white paper argues that under current standards the case would not go forward today. Weeks also references post-incident developments, including the Biden administration’s crypto actions and the Genius Act, noting the SEC’s stance that proof-of-work mining (as with Bitcoin) does not fall under its securities definition. He contends that early crypto pioneers faced punitive measures, while others who were early investors or promoters avoided similar consequences. Weeks emphasizes his belief that the government seized assets rather than seeking restitution, and he advocates for the return of miners and Bitcoin to make victims whole. Throughout, Weeks and supporters stress his intent to advance disruptive technologies and financial freedom, arguing that his actions were mischaracterized as fraudulent. They frame his six-year confinement as an injustice and call for the dismissal of charges and the return of belongings so he can continue contributing to pioneering crypto initiatives.