reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that the "Russian story" would be called a covert influence campaign if they were doing it. The speaker also claims they would be the last to say they've never tried a covert influence campaign.

Joe Kent is accused of misrepresenting the truth. However, another speaker defends Kent, stating he worked as a paramilitary contractor and served in the US military. Kent's wife was killed in Syria during one of these wars, making him a credible critic of US foreign policy. The speaker claims the CIA dislikes Kent because he understands their operations. Nick Fuentes is accused of targeting Kent, who was a primary target for those supporting neocon foreign policy. The speaker alleges that Fuentes is participating in a super PAC to remove Kent, someone who can credibly criticize foreign policy due to his personal experience and knowledge.

The speaker, a journalist of 25 years, admits to being educated to lie and manipulate the public. They express their concern about the German and American media pushing for war with Russia and betraying the people. The speaker reveals being bribed by the CIA to write pro-American articles and being a nonofficial cover for intelligence agencies. They discuss how journalists are approached and corrupted through transatlantic organizations. The speaker shares an example of being asked to write an article by the German foreign intelligence agency. They emphasize that this is not how journalism should work and mention the consequences of refusing to cooperate with intelligence services. Despite facing house searches and health issues, the speaker is determined to reveal the truth.

Speaker 0 and Ivan engage in a heated exchange centered on identity, politics, and authority. Speaker 0 challenges Ivan’s stance, contrasting actions with labels and insisting on a focus on actions: “Focus on actions. Okay?” He accuses Ivan of being politically correct and weak, urging him to admit pride in being white: “Say you're proud of being white. Let's go. You better be white.” Speaker 0 references a problematic past event, saying, “Just like on January 6,” and attributes a stance of political incorrectness to himself and a lack of it to Ivan: “You’re politically correct. No. You’re weak.” He questions Ivan’s employment status and suggests a concern about keeping a job: “I was crushed, dude.” He notes Ivan is close to his employer, asking, “Who's my employer? FBI Washington field office,” and asserts that Ivan never faced indictment for January 6, saying, “Yeah. Because I’m that good. I run feds.” The exchange continues with provocative claims about who controls federal agencies: “I run feds. I think that's what the CIA does.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 praising Ivan in a paradoxical way—“God bless Ivan. He’s a bulldog and freedom fighter.”—while accusing him of being debulled by the mainstream media, a remark about Ivan’s portrayal in media. The dialogue weaves bravado, insinuations about loyalty and employment, and references to FBI/CIA, all set against a backdrop of a charged confrontation over identity and political alignment.

The speaker reveals that the NSA, the largest intelligence agency in the Biden administration, had been reading their private emails. They express shock at the government's spying and criticize the lack of outrage in Washington. The speaker shares that their emails were leaked to media outlets to portray them as a disloyal American and a Russian operative. They highlight the hypocrisy of demonizing Putin while the Chinese government gains control over the country. The speaker emphasizes that the NSA illegally unmasked them, violating the law that protects the identities of American citizens. They call for accountability from the NSA director, Paul Nakasone, and the Director of National Intelligence, April Haines. The speaker concludes by stating the importance of preventing unaccountable spy agencies from discrediting individuals through leaked emails.

I'm not with the CIA now, nor was I when I started out 25 years ago. I was with good people in the CIA when Donald Trump was elected to take the country back from globalists. Communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks run this country and broke its back. Forget the CIA. It's huge. Don't treat the CIA like it's mysterious or cool. Think of it like the post office. The CIA gets its talking points from me and other patriots, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

I talk about my uncle's assassination and my belief that intelligence agencies were involved. Despite being aware of the danger, I don't live in fear but take precautions to protect myself.

Someone sent the speaker a video of a young, talented person from Chicago attacking him, claiming his father was in the CIA. The speaker initially dismissed this as untrue. However, after his father's death in March, he learned his father was indeed involved in that world, which shocked him. The speaker questions how this person knew about his father's involvement in intelligence, given his father's age. The person in the video claimed the speaker was a CIA operative. The speaker vehemently denies this, expressing strong animosity towards the CIA. He also says the person has since claimed he is funded by Russia. The speaker finds the CIA accusation personally offensive.

Speaker 1 discusses the possibility of a CIA conspiracy to remove them from office, citing CIA's advanced knowledge of the break-in and their dissatisfaction with the agency. They express a belief that the CIA feared them due to plans to reform the organization. While unsure about a conspiracy, they suggest it would be an intriguing topic for investigative reporting. They doubt the CIA would resort to eliminating those who expose their operations in the present day.

On JFK’s inauguration day, 48% of all State Department political-section employees were not actually State Department employees at all; they were CIA operatives under diplomatic cover. While parked at a US embassy, they did not answer within the State Department chain of command and acted as covert operatives for organized political warfare conducted by the CIA. Because they dominated the political section, they could set their own political policy for the country. If the State Department did not want to overthrow a regime but the CIA did, the CIA could use the embassy’s political-section bandwidth to contact dissident groups, run money to them, provide logistical support, connect them, and run a parallel operation without observing the White House National Security Council chain of command. The speaker gave examples where in some embassies 80% of the political affairs staff were CIA, not State Department at all. The speaker then notes Joe Biden’s CIA director as Bill Burns, describing Burns as a buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. It is asserted that in the 1990s Burns was the head of the political section for the US embassy in Russia, and that Burns “never worked a day at the CIA in his whole life before he’d be handed the reins to be the CIA director.” The speaker emphasizes that Burns was a State Department figure the whole time, serving as the head of the political affairs section, and questions where he was positioned “at state” when he was the head of the political affairs section.

The speaker claims to be with "good elements" of the CIA, whose goal was to take the country back from globalists after Donald Trump's election. According to the speaker, the country is under the control of the communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks. The speaker denies receiving talking points from the CIA, instead asserting that the CIA gets its talking points from them and other patriots. The speaker concludes by stating, "I run the CIA."

Speaker 0 recalls applying to CIA and facing criticism, including from Putin, like, oh, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously, my father worked in conjunction with CIA. I mean, that's what that is. And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. Native talent. And he's attacking my dad as the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever. And I'm like, well, that's no. Untrue. Then my father dies, and I learn, actually, yeah, you know, did was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it. So no one has to believe me, but that's just a fact. Right.

The speaker describes a coordinated smear campaign against him, asserting that after he announced he would challenge Trump, a lineup of public figures began attacking him or being described as “feds.” He cites Ian Myles Chong, Tucker Carlson, and Milo as examples, saying the criticism revolves around insinuations that he is connected to or controlled by federal agents. He argues that these accusations are part of a broader effort to silence the American people and dismiss his voice. He contrasts the public’s reaction to his campaign with what he regards as a coordinated “fed” narrative, claiming that Tucker Carlson has insinuated he is a fed, and noting that Carlson’s father was a CIA agent who ran Voice of America for forty years, along with Carlson’s collaborations with people he labels as CIA assets. The speaker provides a cascade of biographical and investigative claims about people connected to Carlson and others: - Eric Prince, described as a CIA asset, appeared in a group chat with Tucker Carlson; Carlson had on Joe Kent, a green beret, who is described as intelligence. - Curtis Yarvin is described as the son of an American diplomat who works with Peter Thiel, who is described as a federal informant. - Peter Thiel is claimed to be an FBI informant; Thiel’s Palantir is said to have contracted with the CIA for almost ten years (2001–2008) and now contracts with the NSA and FBI. - Thiel funded JD Vance’s Senate campaign, giving $15,000,000 to help him secure the Trump endorsement; Carlson allegedly helped persuade Trump to make Vance the vice president. - Carlson is said to have invited Kevin Spacey, described as a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, on a Christmas interview. - The speaker contends that a social media ecosystem includes many who see nothing suspicious about these connections, including CIA involvement, green berets, and intelligence ties that push certain candidates on Trump. He asserts he's been demonized for years: banned from social media, banks, airlines, and credit card processors; subpoenaed; and money frozen. He claims this is because he has grown a substantial, loyal following and uses it to organize and mobilize swing-state voters rather than taking advertising or sponsorships. He says his followers are genuine and committed, which frightens those who want influencers who can be paid to push narratives. The speaker reflects on Charlottesville and white anxiety, suggesting others only recently acknowledge these issues. He asserts he would appear civil in an interview with Tucker Carlson and asks for a platform to “clear the record.” He contends he is being targeted for standing up to the GOP establishment and for criticizing both the right-wing establishment and the left. He predicts he will be “patsied” and that those opposing him will try to take him down, leaving him to be the “dark MAGA” guardian, not the hero, who nonetheless confronts the country’s problems and fights for real change. He closes by declaring he will be the villain if necessary, stating that the country will never give him the credit he deserves, but that he performs this role out of duty, not glory.

Speaker 0 is being accused of spreading a Russian plan, but this claim is dismissed by both parties and former heads of the CIA. The accusation is considered garbage and not believed by anyone, including Speaker 0's friend Bernie.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

The speaker criticizes someone for not taking a serious question seriously and suggests that it reveals their allegiances. They compare the Trump family's foreign business dealings to the Biden family's, highlighting that the Trumps actually own businesses. They argue that if the damning evidence of money laundering were against Eric and Don Jr., they would be in jail. The speaker mentions whistleblowers who have had enough and asks the other person's opinion on them. The other person expresses support for whistleblower protection and the FBI's work. The speaker questions if they feel torn like the whistleblowers, but the person denies feeling torn. The speaker finds this sad and suggests it shows their allegiances. They mention their own service and express pride in those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They hope for change within the FBI to better protect the American people.

I'm not with the CIA now, and I wasn't 25 years ago when I started out. I was with good people in the CIA when Donald Trump was elected, working to take the country back from globalist control. We're under the control of the communist Chinese, the EU, Hollywood, and the big banks, who are running and breaking this country. Forget the CIA, it's too big to understand. Think of it like the post office. The CIA gets its talking points from me and other patriots, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

The speaker discusses the situation with Mr. Navalny, stating that they have no direct involvement in the matter. They believe that the Americans scared the world with their actions and that Mr. Navalny ended up in their transit zone. They mention that Russia is not a country that extradites people and that they have provided him with asylum. The speaker questions how Mr. Navalny will live in the future and mentions that he has not revealed any secrets. They conclude by saying that he only publishes information through a channel known only to him.

I'm not with the CIA now, nor was I when I started out 25 years ago. When Donald Trump was elected, I aligned myself with the good elements of the CIA to reclaim the country from globalist control. Communist China, the EU, Hollywood, and big banks are running and ruining this country. Forget any preconceived notions about the CIA. The CIA gets its talking points from patriots like me, not the other way around. I run the CIA.

The speaker expresses displeasure with Putin's actions in Ukraine, stating that Putin is "killing a lot of people" by "sending rockets into cities." The speaker says they have known Putin for a long time and "always gotten along with him," so they are surprised by his current behavior. When asked about a reported drone attack from Ukraine that Putin was almost caught in, the speaker responds that they had not heard about that, but "maybe that would be a reason" for Putin's behavior. The speaker reiterates, "I don't like what Putin is doing, not even a little bit."

The speaker says many people have heard or thought that James Comey was a lifelong Republican, and that they personally believed he was a lifelong Republican and had been told the same. They then say this is not true. The speaker claims that James Comey was a communist, citing a 2003 interview with New York Magazine in which Comey stated that before voting for Jimmy Carter, he had been a communist. The speaker says Comey admitted, “I’d moved from communist to whatever I am now.” The speaker then compares this to John Brennan, saying Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, was a communist or had voted for the communist party, and noting the speaker had not heard this about Comey before. The speaker concludes that they find out that under Obama, the CIA director and the FBI director had histories of serious immersion into communism. They add a remark attributed to the KGB, stating that no one ever leaves the KGB and that no one ever leaves this way of thinking.

The speaker explains how they wanted to restart their life as an analyst and university teacher but faced difficulties due to political pressure. They then received an offer to run an interdisciplinary institute in Saint Petersburg, Russia. When questioned about the controversy of moving to Russia during the invasion of Ukraine, the speaker denies witnessing any repression and emphasizes their academic freedom. They refuse to condemn the invasion and argue that any outbreak of war violates international law. The interviewer brings up the Salisbury poisonings and the speaker's past interactions with Vladimir Putin, but the speaker finds these topics boring and uninteresting. They describe Putin as an intelligent and accomplished gentleman. The speaker dismisses accusations of being a Russian spy as dirty fantasy.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

The speaker states they are not happy with Putin, who is killing many people. The speaker says they have known Putin a long time and always gotten along with him, but now Putin is shooting rockets into cities and killing people. The speaker expresses surprise at Putin's actions. When asked what they are going to do about it, the speaker doesn't say, and then accuses the questioner of being fake news. The speaker reiterates they do not like what Putin is doing, that he is killing people, and that something has happened to him.

The speaker explains that they were determined to do the interview with Vladimir Putin because they were prevented from doing so by their own government. They express shock and anger at the US government's spying and interference. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on evidence and that their main view is to tell the truth. They deny being pro-Trump or anti-Biden and state that their goal was to gather information about Putin and the current state of affairs. They also discuss the state of media bias and the importance of free speech.