reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Every year, hundreds of thousands of searches of Americans' private communications are conducted without a warrant. This violates citizens' constitutional rights. The FBI claims they will fix the problem internally, but the number of illegal searches keeps increasing. It seems like the FBI only wants to avoid getting caught.

On January 6th, the speaker was not inside the Capitol but was visited by the FBI at their mom's apartment. Simultaneously, the FBI also went to the speaker's own apartment. The speaker had a regular doorbell camera, which captured an FBI agent putting a sticker over its lens. However, the agent was unaware that there was also a camera in the peephole of the door. The speaker questioned why the cameras were being neutralized if the FBI had a legal search warrant. The speaker described the scene as resembling a herd of cattle going through the apartment, raising concerns about living in a police state and wondering if they could be the next target.

Joe Biden has sent FBI agents to the homes of Trump supporters without warning. They are supposed to have a conversation, but people are not intimidated. They believe in their right to vote for Trump in 2024 and are united against this action.

In this video, a man in Provo, Utah records a confusing clip of an FBI SWAT team raiding his elderly neighbor's home. The man was wanted for threats against the President and interstate threats. The FBI had been surveilling him since March and had previously spoken to him without aggression. The speaker questions why the FBI chose to conduct a predawn raid and wonders if there was evidence that the man was planning something dangerous. They express concern that this raid may be a show of force and a message to the public. The speaker calls for more information, including body cam footage and all evidence.

I had a strange encounter with two private investigators who visited an old residence of mine. They claimed to be there to discuss my YouTube channel and whether I had received funding for my stories. My friend, who lives there, called me, and I spoke with them directly. They admitted they were investigating influencers on behalf of an undisclosed client, trying to find out if anyone had been paid to discuss Diddy's lawsuits and connections with other celebrities. They mentioned that if I had been paid, they would have offered to pay me to reveal the details and promote a different narrative. It was quite an unexpected and unsettling experience.

After a video cut off, I spoke with an FBI agent who visited my house regarding my social media. The agent said it was just a procedure, not related to any specific post. I requested my attorney to contact them, but they did not respond. Journalists also reached out with no reply. The FBI's visits seem to be random and for checking off boxes, not due to any illegal activity. Share your thoughts on this. Translation: After a video ended, I talked to an FBI agent who visited my house about my social media. The agent said it was just a procedure, not related to any specific post. I asked my lawyer to contact them, but they didn't respond. Journalists also reached out without a reply. The FBI's visits seem random, not related to any illegal activity. Share your thoughts on this.

Speaker 0 raises a series of pointed questions and concerns about FBI and government actions surrounding the monitoring and reporting of online activity and potential threats, urging a demand for answers: - Why did the FBI present only early pro-Trump posts and hide the anti-Trump phase? Two answers are implied: under Biden, the existence of a narrative, and a need to ask who was involved in that decision and why it happened. - After the election, why did the FBI continue to toe that line, and who made that decision? - The speaker notes that authorities are monitoring people who ask how to build bombs or evade assassination scenes, and asks how such monitoring relates to successful assassinations and the future locations of political actors; suggests an algorithmic tie and notification so someone is watching. - Why did they ignore Crooks’s really unbelievable threats? Why were ordinary Americans arrested for memes, while Crooks’s behavior appeared to be ignored? - Why did intelligence agencies monitoring extremism miss a kid openly fantasizing about assassinations, who connected with a Swedish individual allegedly part of a large Nazi movement in Sweden? - Why was the scene cleaned prematurely? Why did every digital trace of his political shift get kept out of public discussion? Why did authorities claim he had almost no footprint when, in fact, the footprint seemed large but scrubbed? - The speaker notes a pattern: every single mistake by the FBI and government seems to point toward ignorance, negligence, hiding inconvenient data, and shaping a political narrative; questions whether the pattern indicates incompetence or intentional action. - Is this incompetence or something more problematic? The speaker says they aren’t asserting a conspiracy but emphasize something feels wrong and that the official story is hard to believe. They ask why the government that supposedly monitors everything would become blind, deaf, and mute when a presidential assassin emerges on their radar. - The question is posed non-partisan: under different presidents, why would the narrative stay the same if the government can see everything? What does that imply about the FBI, DOJ, and CIA—whether they are lying, incompetent, or selectively monitoring—since any of these possibilities should be unsettling. - The FBI and mainstream media, including MSNBC, are said to have referenced leaks from Crooks’s social media indicating pro-Trump and anti-immigration stances, while being described as having almost no online footprint; Crooks reportedly had Discord, Snapchat, and an active YouTube presence, with violent 2019 YouTube comments about decapitating government officials, followed by a shift. - The speaker asserts the iceberg is deep and suggests a broader pattern of concerns about oversight, control, and the potential overreach or misalignment of intelligence agencies, with a friend claiming the CIA may be completely out of control and implying limits to accountability, while noting it could extend beyond the CIA. Overall, the remarks center on questioning the completeness, transparency, and motivation behind FBI monitoring, narrative shaping, data handling, and the handling of Crooks’s threats and online footprint, while expressing concern about systemic issues within intelligence agencies.

- it's illegal. The FBI will raid me. They've done it twice. - No. It's not secret. No. It's not on OAN and Newsmax. - Why isn't the FBI looking for two metaphysically attacked? Exclusive inside FBI fomenting insurrection. No? - Well, see, I was at the East Entrance on January 6. - I recorded two federal agents attacking the capital. - Well, federal agents came to my home and took my phones. They still have that. So, hopefully, someone will stand out. - I've given them twenty nine minutes of high definition footage of these two turds. - And to date, neither one of them has been arrested and none of their images have appeared on the internet. - They refuse to accept my offer to come in and give them a statement. - I've got them by the Cajones. - Avoid the FBI if you can.

Speaker 0: What happened today? Ambassador Bolton would happen, sir. What were you told by the FBI? Ambassador Bolton? What were they looking for?

An individual confronts two people identifying themselves as FBI agents, one as Adrian O'Donnell, in front of their house. The individual demands to see their full names and identification, but the agents are hesitant to provide it on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money by investigating something that is not against the law and questions if they believe in the Constitution. The individual calls them "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed. The agents then leave.

A reporter from the Daily Caller News Foundation approached a woman at her home, stating they were curious about the occupants because of connections to New York Attorney General Leticia James. The woman repeatedly told the reporter they were trespassing and demanded they leave. The reporter asked if she was related to or knew Leticia James, but she gave no comment and continued to insist they were trespassing. The reporter thanked her and left the property.

I filmed an unexplained object in the sky in New Jersey, and the video went viral before being taken down. Shortly after, the FBI visited me and my neighbors to ask about the video. They were polite and asked questions, but their visit was intimidating, especially since my personal information had been doxxed online. This led to a lot of negative attention, and I had to delete all my social media to protect myself and my family. I didn't intend to claim anything about what I saw; I just recorded it. I'm still processing everything that happened, but that's the gist of my experience.

I broke the law, and you've been posting concerning things. Are you going to let me talk? You won't let me talk. It's in the notes. Do you want me to explain? There's been concerning behavior with no explanation at my house. I'm just telling you what's happened. We've had no explanation of the concerning things. There was a leak of flames. I tried to get in my house before it's clear. That's my supervisor; don't talk to her like that.

I filmed an unexplained object in the sky in New Jersey, which went viral online. Shortly after, the FBI visited me and my neighbors to ask about the video. They were polite and just asked a few questions, but it was intimidating since my personal information had been leaked online. The video was removed from all platforms the night before their visit, which was strange. The object appeared orb-like, emitting its own bright light and moving in unusual ways. I still have a copy of the video but am hesitant to share it due to the attention it brought. Overall, the experience has made me cautious about discussing what I saw.

The FBI agents visit a person to discuss social media posts flagged by Facebook. The person refuses to engage without their lawyer present, citing freedom of speech. The agents assure they are not there to arrest but to ensure safety. The person questions why their opinions are being scrutinized, pointing out it's a right as an American. The agents leave contact information for further discussion. The person asserts their rights and identity, emphasizing they live in America.

An individual confronts two individuals identifying themselves as FBI agents, demanding their full names and identification. The agents decline to provide full names on camera. The individual states they will post the recording online. The agents say they want to talk about a post that was made. The individual accuses the agents of wasting taxpayer money investigating something that is not against the law. Another individual asks why they came. One of the agents says they wanted to make sure that weren't any. The individual accuses them of being part of a regime and not believing in the Constitution. The individual calls the agents "fuckheads" and "cowards" and says they should be embarrassed and think about what they did. The agents then leave.

I never expected my privacy to be violated by the government in America. The FBI raided my home in Florida and searched through my personal belongings. This experience is not just personal; it serves as a warning to all Americans about the importance of respecting our freedoms and rights.

A federal judge ordered the release of a heavily redacted affidavit regarding the raid on my newsroom. The probable cause section is entirely redacted, only noting that cell phones can send emails. The document mentions charges like conspiracy and possession of stolen goods, but redacts details about the investigation, including the names of President Biden and Project Veritas. Even my birth year is redacted. The redactions conceal information about confidential FBI sources and possibly individuals who lied to the FBI. This excessive redaction is highly unusual and raises concerns about the justification for the raid's force. The FBI even referred to us as "news media" internally. This is a national disgrace, and we're suing.

The FBI is being accused of corruption and targeting politicians, parents, and ordinary citizens. Whistleblowers have bravely come forward, facing retaliation and being blocked from working both inside and outside the FBI. This is a troubling time for the American people.

FBI agents admit to interrogating Americans daily about social media posts, sparking concerns over free speech. A woman questioned agents about criticism of Israel leading to a visit over an internet meme. The woman refused to talk without her lawyer present. The video highlights the FBI's increasing involvement in monitoring online speech. The speaker also discusses intimidation tactics by companies to force conformity. The transcript ends with a promotion for emergency food kits and a call to protect free speech.

The FBI forced social media platforms to remove information from conservative sources, claiming it was disinformation. Speaker 0 asks for a definition of disinformation, but Speaker 1 avoids directly answering. Speaker 0 points out that Elvis Chan, a key witness, testified that 50% of alleged election disinformation was taken down or censored, including content from American citizens. Speaker 1 denies this and states that the FBI does not moderate content or influence social media companies. Speaker 0 insists that Speaker 1 should read the court opinion. The transcript ends abruptly.

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.

You’re private investigators at my home asking about influencers, which feels uncomfortable. I haven’t broken any laws, so why are you here? You mention you’re looking into people with followers to see if they’re being paid to influence. I’m not getting paid for my content; I just report on what I find interesting. You explain that many influencers are bots, and you’re checking if anyone is paying me. I joke about wanting to be paid, but this visit is odd. I always clarify my satire in my work. You say you’re just gathering information, and I ask for your contact details in case I have questions later. You decline, but I appreciate the visit, even if it’s strange. If someone offers me money to influence, I’d like to know. Thanks for stopping by; this has been an unusual experience.

Speaker 0 claims to have video footage from January 6th of two federal agents attacking the Capitol. Speaker 0 states they have been trying to get the FBI to investigate for over a year, providing them with twenty-nine minutes of high-definition footage. Speaker 0 says the FBI has not arrested the agents, nor have their images appeared online. Speaker 0 claims the FBI refuses to accept a statement or view video from January 5th, 6th, and 7th. Speaker 1 says the FBI raided them twice, came to their home, and took their phones. Speaker 1 advises Speaker 0 to avoid the FBI if possible.

The FBI's actions against President Trump and other American citizens demand accountability. Where are the Republican senators demanding justice? I experienced this firsthand when FBI agents served a subpoena at my home. This is retaliatory abuse and intimidation by the Biden administration, using the FBI. The raid on President Trump's home was based on trumped-up document retention issues. This is unacceptable. We must stand for freedom, against the extremist left, and for the Constitution and the liberty it represents.