reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I'm sharing an email from James Dennehy, the assistant director in charge of the New York field office, that highlights resistance within the FBI. Dennehy sent a very direct email to his staff, challenging the Trump administration, stating that the FBI is currently in an internal battle. He notes that good people are being forced out, while others are being targeted simply for doing their jobs according to the law and FBI policy.

A government memo confirms retaliation against individuals who reported illegal actions at Homeland Security. Despite their claims, no officials have faced discipline; instead, some have been promoted. Those who spoke out have suffered severe consequences: one had their law enforcement credentials and retirement revoked, while another was assigned menial tasks, hindering their career prospects. A third individual was demoted three levels and lost their firearm and credentials, marking a significant blow to their career. They collectively noted that in their combined 75 years of service, they had never faced disciplinary action until now. One supervisor even stated that the agency's goal was to drive them to despair or worse.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

You mentioned wanting to eliminate 600 NIH workers on day one and 2,200 from HHS. Which departments will you cut from? There are 200 political appointees that change with each administration. If you remove those, will you replace them with your appointees? President Biden changed 3,000 employees at HHS. As a potential top health official, will you commit to not firing federal employees working on food safety or cyber protection? There are 91,000 employees. So, will you ensure those working on food safety and cyber security keep their jobs? I commit not to fire anyone doing their job. Will this commitment be based on your opinion or political agenda? It will be based on my opinion. So, it seems those with differing views on vaccines may be at risk of losing their jobs.

The other side is complaining that nobody voted for Elon or any of my cabinet nominees. They say people are dying because of budget cuts and even allege illegal activity. But frankly, I don't care. If they're complaining, we must be over the target and doing something right. We're simply trying to restore the will of the people through the President. What we've found is a vast, unelected federal bureaucracy that is against the President and the cabinet. In DC, it's 92% Kamala. How can we live in a democracy if the President's will, representing the people, isn't implemented? We're witnessing the bureaucracy thrashing as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy orders from Secretary Kristi Noem. He explains that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions, and he plans to interpret directives in a way that aligns with his views. Wright mentions the challenges faced by his colleagues, particularly those at higher levels, who must navigate Noem's agenda. He also shares concerns about the administration's anti-trans stance, noting that his transgender colleagues are anxious about their future under Noem. Overall, Wright emphasizes the ability to filter and reinterpret orders to maintain stability within the department.

Secretaries can set departmental priorities but cannot dictate our actions. We ensure they don't interfere with our work. It's not personal; it's part of my role. The individual in charge lacks understanding of the Department of Homeland Security and wouldn't recognize its significance.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy Secretary Kristi Noem's orders, stating that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions. He emphasizes that there is significant room for interpretation of those priorities within the department. Wright describes the bureaucratic layers that filter directives, allowing him to navigate around Noem's agenda. He also shares concerns about the impact of Noem's conservative stance on his transgender colleagues, who are anxious about potential discrimination. Overall, Wright conveys a sense of disillusionment with the current leadership and the challenges faced by employees under Noem's administration.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy Secretary Kristi Noem's orders. He believes that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions, and he plans to filter any directives he receives. Wright describes the bureaucratic process as layered, allowing for interpretation that can steer decisions away from Noem's agenda. He also shares concerns about the impact of Noem's conservative policies on his transgender colleagues, who are anxious about their job security. Overall, Wright conveys a sense of resistance to Noem's leadership and the challenges faced by his team in navigating her directives.

The speakers confirm retaliation for speaking out against Homeland Security officials. No one at Homeland Security has been disciplined, demoted, or fired for not complying with the DNA law. The speakers faced consequences like losing credentials and firearms. They were marginalized and their careers destroyed. One supervisor mentioned the agency's goal was to bankrupt, force resignation, or worse.

An undercover video released by Project Veritas shows Travis Combs from the Department of Education describing how the agency hides information from Congress and the public. We communicate via Signal, an encrypted app, to keep things under wraps. If Congress knew what we were doing, they'd shut us down. It's like a sanctuary program where we're spending federal dollars inappropriately. I'm not supposed to be doing business on Signal, but everyone uses it. We're operating as a rogue sanctuary program for illegal immigrants, misusing federal tax dollars. Employees are evading oversight by hiding secrets on encrypted messaging apps. If you're a public employee, you're expected to comply with the administration.

The speaker claims to have discovered who is controlling the Democrats: Julia Spiegel, CEO of Governors Action Alliance. Spiegel's assistant, Emma Clough, allegedly sent an email regarding executive actions governors can take to protect sensitive data and prepare for potential National Guard deployments. Governors were purportedly directed to sign a pre-drafted executive order stating that no state resources should assist National Guard units deployed to the state if the governor objects. The speaker asserts this order means states are on their own and should not listen to the federal government. These orders, drafted by unelected people, allegedly instruct governors to not help Trump, despite 70% of America wanting illegals who commit crimes deported and nearly 80% opposing transitioning children. The speaker identifies Spiegel as the former legal counsel to Gavin Newsom. The speaker concludes that the Democrats don't care about the 77,000,000 people who voted for Trump, federal laws, or the fact that these issues are not supported by even the majority of some Democrat states.

The speaker, who works in the executive office of the White House, manages two federal agencies and is responsible for protecting their networks. They discuss the importance of keeping secrets and serving as the president's voice in meetings. They mention concerns about Joe Biden's mental fitness and the unpopularity of Kamala Harris, but acknowledge that they cannot publicly address these issues. The speaker also talks about their background in cybersecurity and their role in overseeing responses to cyber incidents. They mention the ego within the State Department and their own experiences in the field. The conversation touches on various topics, including vaccines and Michelle Obama's decision not to run for office. The speaker is unaware that they are speaking with James O'Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, and discuss a cybersecurity operation at the White House. The video ends with a teaser for future revelations.

The speaker criticizes the Secretary's performance and accuses him of not providing answers. The Secretary responds by calling the implication despicable and defends the Department of Homeland Security. He also shares personal information about being the child of a Holocaust survivor. The speaker interrupts and asks for a response, but the chairman suggests moving on.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intent to defy orders from Secretary Kristi Noem. He believes that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions, and he plans to filter her directives. Wright describes the bureaucratic process as akin to a septic tank, where orders are filtered through layers before reaching him. He also shares concerns about the impact of Noem's conservative policies on his transgender colleagues, who feel threatened by her appointment. Wright emphasizes that the real power lies with permanent staff, who will interpret priorities in ways that align with their views.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intention to defy orders from Secretary Kristi Noem. He believes that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions. Wright discusses how he and his colleagues can interpret and filter directives, likening it to a septic tank that processes information through various layers. He also shares concerns about Noem's conservative stance, particularly regarding LGBTQ colleagues, who are anxious about her appointment. Wright emphasizes that the real power lies with career civil servants, who can navigate and reinterpret the directives from political appointees.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intent to defy Secretary Kristi Noem's orders, stating that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions. He believes that the true power lies with permanent staff who can interpret and filter directives. Wright criticizes Noem, claiming she lacks understanding of her role and has appointed individuals who oppose the department's interests. He also highlights concerns among his transgender colleagues regarding Noem's conservative stance. Overall, he emphasizes the ability to navigate and reinterpret directives to maintain stability within the department.

This internal government memo confirms I was retaliated against for speaking out against Homeland Security officials who I believed were breaking the law. No one at Homeland Security has been disciplined, demoted, or fired for failing to comply with the DNA law. To the contrary, some have been promoted. I've had my law enforcement credentials and firearm taken away, and my law enforcement retirement revoked. Publicly removing someone's firearm is the ultimate insult. I was iced, left to do menial tasks, and my future career potential vanished. I was demoted three levels, and like my colleague, my firearm and credentials were taken. Never in our combined seventy-five years of service have any of us even had a disciplinary action. One of the supervisors said the agency's goal is to bankrupt you, make you quit, die, kill yourselves, or preferably all of the above.

I'm a platform services manager for the Department of Homeland Security. I'm not thrilled about Kristi Noem's appointment. The truth is, we don't let political appointees get in our way. It's my job to filter things. By the time marching orders get to me and below, we can steady the ship. I feel bad for the GS fifteens because they have to deal with the crazy stuff. They have to kiss ass and re-word ideas. DHS could fall on Noem's head, and she wouldn't even know it. The secretaries can set priorities, but they can't tell us what to do. If we don't agree with the priorities, there's a lot of room for interpretation. We can filter the marching orders, like a septic tank. Also, my trans colleagues are freaking out because this administration is super anti-trans.

Brandon Wright, a platform services manager at the Department of Homeland Security, expresses his intent to defy Secretary Kristi Noem's orders, stating that while secretaries can set priorities, they cannot dictate actions. He emphasizes that he and his colleagues will interpret these priorities in their own way. Wright describes the challenges faced by his team, particularly those at higher GS levels, who must navigate the demands of leadership while managing their own agendas. He also mentions concerns among his transgender colleagues regarding Noem's conservative stance. Overall, he conveys a sense of frustration with the current administration and its impact on the department's operations.

If we were seen as a sanctuary program, especially one using federal dollars, we'd face a lot of problems. To avoid scrutiny, we strategically omit status inquiries from our federal statutes by subtly influencing bill language in congress. Now, with the new efficiency team's surveillance, communication has moved offline to encrypted apps like Signal, even though we're not supposed to conduct business there. They've installed software to track keystrokes and monitor our calls. If I end up on leave, I'm headed to the beach, taxpayer money well spent! Many in administrative roles are already leaving since we can't do much anyway. If I'm in Mexico, don't worry about it.

The speaker, who works in the executive office of the White House, manages two federal agencies and is responsible for protecting the networks and information of the government. They discuss the challenges of their job, including the state department's big ego and the popularity of Kamala Harris. They also express concerns about Joe Biden's mental fitness, but acknowledge that it cannot be publicly addressed. The speaker mentions a meeting with Michelle Obama, who emphatically stated she would never run for office. The video ends with a discussion about the speaker's meeting with James O'Keefe and the perception it creates.

The speaker states that while secretaries can set priorities for the department, they cannot dictate actions. The speaker claims "we don't let them get out of our way" and argues that this is their job. The speaker asserts that the Secretary of Homeland Security is unaware of the department's activities.

The speaker discusses internal resistance to RFK Jr.’s policies and the idea that “deep staters” have been entrenched in government. They mention being forwarded an anecdote from a “good career employee.” They point to the FDA, noting that when Marty Makary came in, he had only about 10 political appointees he could choose. Jay Bhattacharya at the NIH allegedly had one political appointee. The speaker claims that every government employee is a “deep stater” who has been there a long time and that an email from a good employee circulates a CIA manual called How to Be a Bad Bureaucrat and Subvert an Institution from Within. The email supposedly asserts that 90% of employees at HHS, which has 70,000 employees, are talking in lunchrooms about the manual and telling each other that their job is to save America and save science from the agenda of President Trump and RFK Jr. The speaker asserts this reflects how people think across major departments and asks how to get rid of them, suggesting firing them as a solution, and mentions SIOP in this context. The CDC is presented as a case study of failure, described as a public health disaster in its COVID-19 response. The speaker alleges that the CDC’s guidance on school lockdowns copied directly from a teacher union document with which they were aligned, reproducing paragraphs from the teacher’s union advocating for two years of school shutdowns. It is claimed that the CDC also said that cloth masks were fine. The speaker says the CDC led the response and that the NIH funded the entire pandemic, including gain-of-function research, asserting that this constitutes “the creation of the pandemic.” In contrast, RFK Jr. is said to have fired three employees, and this action is described as national news. The overall narrative emphasizes a view of pervasive internal opposition within federal agencies, a controversial and sweeping critique of the CDC, NIH, and HHS responses to the pandemic, and a framing of RFK Jr.’s personnel decisions as transformative and newsworthy.