reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: People have to understand, our democracy is being taken away from us, and we only have about a year. You know, just to be clear about this. And people you know, you're doing a great job, and a lot of other people are doing a good job to tell people what is actually happening in this country. But make no mistake, we have a year before this country becomes a full on autocracy and democracy completely leaves us. And we're looking at the at the election in in in in 2026. And Donald Trump knows, he knows that in a free and fair election, he will lose. He will lose the house. The house will flip and will become into democratic hands. There'll be committee chairs that'll be able to hold hearings. And this is the last thing he wants. So this little, you know, these ICE agents and the National Guard, and now he's called the military in from all over the world to talk to them about don't be surprised when polling booths are surrounded by American military in the guise of making sure that the elections are fair and that nobody is tampering with anything. And when you see violence breaking out, which there will be protests, there will be inciting violence, there'll be some violence, and they'll keep back then they'll you'll see the commandeering of voting machines, ballot boxes to make sure that that election is secure. Well, what that means is that he will then commandeer the election. So we have to make the public absolutely aware that their democracy is being taken from them, and we have to do everything we can to make sure people understand that. People don't It's a vague term, democracy. It's like, what does that mean? The constitution, we don't know what that means. People care about their pocketbook issues, the price of eggs, they care about their health care, and they should. Those are the things that directly affect them. But if they lose their democracy, all of these rights, the freedom of speech, the freedom to pray the way you want, the freedom to protest and not go to jail, not be sent out of the country with no due process. All these things will be taken away from And we have to educate the public that this is what's happening right now in America.

The speaker argues that Jews have thrived and remain safe only when liberal values dominate, the core values of liberal democratic society. The Trump administration is described as a substantial and dangerous regression from those values. Additionally, the administration’s attitude toward immigration, specifically Mexican immigration and Latin American immigration, is labeled a scandal.

It is essential for a prosecutor to begin with a crime rather than targeting an individual. The issue over the past four years has been the perceived targeting of Donald Trump, which began in 2016 with multiple investigations. If appointed attorney general, I will ensure the office remains non-political and will not pursue individuals based on their political affiliations. Justice will be administered fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward to preserve our nation. Concerns about the potential politicization of the justice department during my tenure are valid, and I assure you that I will maintain independence and uphold the Constitution, even if it means disagreeing with the president.

Speaker 0 asserts that the IRS has been using AI to access American citizens' bank accounts without a search warrant or a crime claim, discovered by an undercover journalist. They claim the IRS has access to every person’s bank account, and that the agency has been working with the Department of Justice and has no problem going after the “little guy” to ensure taxes are paid. This is described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Speaker 0 and Jim Jordan sent a letter to the IRS demanding information about how AI is used and how civil rights are protected. Speaker 1 asks what the end game is and how to protect constitutional rights given the inevitability of AI, seeking ways to safeguard Americans. Speaker 0 responds that a new administration is needed in November, accusing the current administration of being lawless in terms of surveillance of the public, members of Congress, local officials, protesters, and voters. They claim the administration has “weaponized the government against us,” and that protections of the Bill of Rights—First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments—have been ignored. Speaker 0 states that one of the goals is to address this perceived weaponization and surveillance.

Over the past four years, our nation's core values and institutions have faced a new kind of test, reminiscent of challenges during the Civil War era. It felt like a balloon being inflated to its breaking point. The courts play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, acting as a safeguard against arbitrary actions and defending our constitutional values. In the legal system, especially during sentencing, it's vital to recognize the individual before you. Whether they are a woman, Black, transgender, poor, rich, or anything else, they bring life experiences that you may not have shared. To apply the law justly, you must understand their perspective and apply the law accordingly.

Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, and Congressman Jason Crow spoke directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. They emphasized that those who take risks daily to keep Americans safe are under enormous stress and pressure, and that Americans’ trust in the military is at risk. They asserted that the current administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They reminded listeners that those who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution must recognize that threats to the Constitution are not only abroad but also at home. They underscored that laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or the constitution. They acknowledged the difficulty of public service but emphasized that vigilance is critical whether one is serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or another branch. The speakers stated that the nation’s guardians—whether in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force—have the duty to stand up for the laws and for the Constitution and for who Americans are. They affirmed that they will back the service members and intelligence professionals, reinforcing that now more than ever the American people need them to stand up for our laws and for the Constitution. They urged not to give up, to stay true to their oaths, and to remember: don’t give up, don’t give up the ship.

Over the past four years, our country's constitutional values and institutions have been tested, reminiscent of challenges faced during the Civil War era. It felt like we were inflating a balloon, pushing it to its limits. The challenges to the rule of law brought us dangerously close to that breaking point. Courts play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, preventing arbitrary actions, and safeguarding our values as enshrined in the Constitution. When sentencing, it's imperative to recognize that the individuals appearing before the court, regardless of their background, are entitled to have the law applied to their unique circumstances. We must consider their experiences and perspectives to ensure fair and just application of the law.

Dan Bongino posted on X that something he learned from his time at the FBI shocked him to his core, stating, "we cannot run a republic like this, and I'll never be the same after learning what I've learned." Speaker 1 responded that they have seen up close the tactics used by those who care more for themselves, their ambition, their job, their influence, their political interests, and their selfish, self-serving interests than they care about the Constitution. They stated that every law enforcement and intelligence community professional swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Speaker 1 expressed their own frustrations but affirmed their resolve is rooted in love for the country and belief in its founding values, and therefore, they feel a responsibility to do something about what they are revealing, seeing, and experiencing firsthand.

Donald Trump warned us about the entrenched globalist machine and started dismantling it. Despite media lies and investigations, he continues to fight. We must stand up to save America. The Make America Great Again movement is rooted in patriotism and bringing people together. America has always overcome hardships and unrest, but now we face an evil within our own government turning against us.

General Michael Flynn, a highly respected former general and intelligence officer, recounts a lifelong connection to the ocean and service to the country, describing his career as a path that led him to become the deputy and later national security adviser to President Trump. He frames his experience as a stark contrast between his duty and a perceived betrayal by the U.S. government and its institutions. Key points and sequence of events: - Early career and worldview - Flynn describes growing up near the ocean, surfing, and a commitment to service. He says he loves the country and entered the service to defend it. - He recalls facing what he calls the “worst enemy” in America after returning from service and becoming a target of accusations of treason and being called a Russian spy. - War, policy, and intelligence critique - Flynn discusses the costs and consequences of war, praising sacrifice but arguing that war is a failure of policy, diplomacy, and leadership. - He portrays war as a constant state driven by money within the military-industrial complex and questions the necessity and management of ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. - He recounts the moment of taking command of a battalion and witnessing a helicopter crash, describing the grim realities of war and the reaction of coalition forces. - Intelligence reform and career advancement - Flynn emphasizes reforms to intelligence in Afghanistan, referencing a 2010 report titled a blueprint for making intelligence relevant in Afghanistan, which he authored as a senior intel officer. - He explains his appointment to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Senate confirmation process, highlighting the opposition from the existing intelligence establishment (SES) and the resistance within Washington. - He notes how his leadership and intelligence work were both celebrated by some allies and targeted by others who wanted to push him out. - Personal and family impact - Flynn’s wife, Laurie, is described as a stabilizing force; the couple recounts decades of marriage, raising a family, and the toll of public life on their private lives. - He discusses the stress and trauma inflicted on his family during investigations, including the impact on his son and grandchildren, and describes the emotional and financial burdens of legal battles. - Transition to politics and Trump - Flynn relates how his experience and reputation led him to work with Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, where he became a trusted adviser and ally. - He recounts meeting with Trump in 2015, the several-month collaboration, and his view of Trump as someone who could fundamentally change U.S. policy away from endless wars. - He describes the 2016 presidential transition, his offer to be national security adviser, and the initial endorsement by Trump, followed by a White House shake-up. - National security adviser role and the Russia narrative - Flynn explains the circumstances around his appointment as national security adviser and the opposing views within the White House about Russia and sanctions. - He recounts briefing the president and key figures in foreign policy, and the subsequent disputes and accusations that led to his resignation beneath a cloud of controversy, including claims that he had lied about sanctions. - Investigations, FARA, and prosecutorial conduct - Flynn details the scrutiny around his contacts with Russian officials and later the Flynn Intel Group’s work in Turkey, explaining that he was accused of violating FARA for actions tied to a private businessman rather than government-directed activity. - He discusses the narrative of being accused of being a Russian or Turkish spy, the portrayal of his son as a target, and the role of Covington & Burling in his legal defense. - He charges that the government used off-the-books deals and pressured plea agreements to pressure him into pleading guilty, including allegations of a “deal” that would protect his son from prosecution. - The courtroom and legal process - Flynn describes the high-profile court hearings led by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who publicly accused him of treason, stirred dramatic tensions, and threatened prison time for lying to the FBI. - He recalls the shock of the judge’s behavior, the break in proceedings, and the eventual decision to delay sentencing as he faced immense legal and financial strain. - Sidney Powell, exculpatory evidence, and defense strategy - Flynn’s legal team changes: Covington & Burling is replaced by Sidney Powell, who uncovers conflicts of interest and unveils Brady material and exculpatory evidence that had not been disclosed. - Powell’s involvement is described as a turning point that allowed Flynn to challenge government misconduct and pursue the truth rather than simply accepting a guilty plea. - Public support, family resilience, and the pardon - Flynn and family describe a groundswell of support from ordinary Americans through letters, gifts, and fundraising, including a legal defense fund that helped sustain them through financial hardship. - They describe the eventual decision by President Trump to issue a pardon of innocence in November 2020 after the government moved to dismiss the case, noting that Flynn did not seek the pardon initially and that Sidney Powell advised against accepting a plea in order to secure full vindication. - Flynn reflects on how the pardon, while welcome, carried mixed feelings given the years of damage and public misunderstanding. - Reflections on power, governance, and the future - The narrative frames a broader critique of entrenched agencies, media influence, and political storytelling, alleging the intelligence and justice systems have been weaponized and corrupted by political agendas. - The speakers emphasize the importance of truth, resilience, faith in family, and public accountability, arguing that Flynn’s story should illuminate issues of governance, the integrity of institutions, and the need for reform to restore trust in the republic. - The closing messages stress ongoing commitment to fight for reconciliation and reform, with Flynn characterized as a persistent presence who, despite wounds, remains engaged in public life and the defense of the republic. Throughout, the speakers present Flynn as a figure who faced relentless pressure from political and bureaucratic forces, endured personal and family hardship, and ultimately sought redress and vindication through a combination of legal advocacy, public support, and a historic presidential pardon. The narrative centers on themes of duty, betrayal, reform, and perseverance in the face of systemic challenges.

We have over 70 million voters supporting a man who has made extreme statements, including threats of violence against political opponents and intentions to undermine constitutional democracy. Despite clear quotes, many Trump supporters deny or downplay his words. This reflects a broader issue of disinformation and a troubling disregard for truth that has developed over the past decade. There is a significant lack of understanding of fundamental democratic principles, such as checks and balances and the rule of law. The challenge now is how to engage with those who seem disconnected from these civic basics and have been influenced by misinformation during this time.

According to Speaker 1, President Trump spent four years planning his return and knew exactly what he wanted to do upon entering office. Trump blew up the establishment, offering Americans hope and a choice beyond the status quo. The speaker claims Trump outmaneuvers the left and is determined to do what's right for the American people. The Democratic party allegedly resorts to lawfare due to an unsellable ideology with unpopular stances on issues like open borders, taxes, and policing. The speaker believes Democrats are doomed if a free and fair society is achieved. The administration is focused on reforming education, fighting crime, and ensuring fair trade. The speaker asserts that Trump built a movement with a generation of leaders to carry on his work. Restoring the republic means prioritizing law-abiding citizens and ensuring the government serves them first.

The Justice Department is vital to democracy, ensuring investigations are fair and free from political influence. Protecting sensitive investigations is crucial. Despite attacks, we remain committed to following the law. The pace of justice system trials is out of our control. Thank you, everyone.

The speaker asserts that American constitutional values have been tested in recent years, reminiscent of challenges during the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow era. They liken this testing to inflating a balloon, suggesting the rule of law was stretched to its limit, nearly bursting. The speaker emphasizes the importance of courts in upholding the rule of law against arbitrary actions, referencing recent examples. They stress that the Constitution embodies American values in a legal sense. When sentencing, one must consider the defendant's background, acknowledging their unique experiences as a woman, Black individual, transgender person, or someone from a different socioeconomic background. The law must be applied with this understanding.

The speaker emphasizes that the Department of Justice should not be politicized, echoing the president's previous statements. They are asked about convincing Americans to trust the department's independence and fairness, despite Donald Trump's repeated attacks. The speaker asserts that they have never influenced the department's decisions and expresses frustration with the situation. The transcript ends with a question about lying to the public and a strong reaction.

We are addressing members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks daily to keep Americans safe. Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, Congressman Jason Crow, and others speak directly to you, acknowledging the immense stress and pressure you face. They state that Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk, as this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They remind you that you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The threats to our constitution aren’t just abroad but also at home. Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. They recognize it is hard and a difficult time to be a public servant, but emphasize that whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. They assure you that they have your back. Now, more than ever, the American people need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up the ship.

Speaker 1 is optimistic that, even if there isn’t an impeachment proceeding and a removal from office, whether or not that happens, the American people are gonna pass judgment on what kind of country we wanna be. There are strong policy disagreements, but we have a common set of values that hold this country together: "We don't have common ancestry, common language, common faith. We have nothing in common except a set of values." "That's the glue in The United States Of America that holds Republicans, Democrats, and independents together." "Our leaders must reflect the glue that holds us together. They can't be people who lie all the time. They just can't." Guns are important; immigration, abortion, taxes are important, but above that is something we have in common that's nonnegotiable. "What if he wins again? Will you still believe that?" He says he’ll be from his new home in New Zealand, I will but I I I still will believe in America.

The discussion centers on a sequence of events and documents that connect pipe-bomb material purchases in 2020 to a high-level, bipartisan war game and contingency planning around the 2020 election, with implications for how the transition away from Trump was imagined by prominent officials. Key facts cited: - Cole purchased pipe-bomb parts in June 2020 in two phases: June 1 and June 8, with additional purchases around June 20 and timers bought on June 3. - The timing aligns with the Transition Integrity Project, a war game exercise organized in June 2020 by Rosa Brooks, a former Obama administration senior official who led the project, and involved figures from both parties including Michael Steele (former head of the Republican National Committee), Donna Brazile (former head of the DNC), and John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager). The participants allegedly included other high-ranking political, military, and intelligence figures from both sides. - The project is described as a bipartisan “war game” that examined how to handle a contested election and to plan for preventing Trump’s inauguration if he won, or managing Trumpism after a loss. The document referenced is a 22-page memo with an annex (appendix C) focusing on “clear Trump win” scenarios and alternatives to ensure a Biden victory or to defeat Trumpism permanently. - The narrative asserts that the Transition Integrity Project produced recommendations for handling a contested election through street protests, electoral strategies, and political pressure, with emphasis on mass mobilization, particularly with Black Lives Matter, to influence outcomes or to force changes in leadership if necessary. - The participants allegedly discussed provocative strategies to destabilize outcomes through street actions, including plans to mobilize protests and to leverage or fund Black Lives Matter and other networks to pressure the political process. They also allegedly discussed concepts such as alternate slates of electors, secession discussions in Western states, and the possibility of arresting Trump and his associates under various circumstances. - The discussion references a sequence of events and media coverage surrounding the 2020 election, including the “Red Mirage Blue Shift” concept (the idea that results might shift after Election Night) and the goal of mitigating perceptions of illegitimacy through censorship measures and strategic messaging. - The speakers connect the June 2020 war game to events around January 6, including the notion that the plan contemplated provoking a breakdown in the joint session of Congress and coordinating demonstrations that could impact the certification process. - The dialogue also ties the Transition Integrity Project to broader discussions about preventing Trumpism from enduring post-election and to “robust, intentional, and specific strategies” to dismantle networks associated with Trump’s rise to power. They discuss the role of mass protests, the potential use of the National Guard, and concerns about preventing or countering demonstrations in the lead-up to and during the certification of the election results. - The conversations reference mainstream outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Molly Ball’s Time Magazine piece) and insist that the Transition Integrity Project’s work was widely discussed and reported, with emphasis on its admission of planning to test receptivity of protests and to coordinate with foundations, corporations, and donor networks to fund and sustain street action if needed. - Throughout, there is an emphasis on not allowing Trump or Trumpism to demobilize automatically after the election and on preparing a comprehensive, multi-front strategy to address a perceived threat to democratic order. Notable participants named or implied include Rosa Brooks; Michael Steele; Donna Brazile; John Podesta; Bill Crystal; David Fromm; and Hillary Clinton’s campaign apparatus. The discussion ties these figures to both the June 2020 pipe-bomb purchases and the broader Transition Integrity Project, framing the war game as a blueprint for how to stop Trump, manage protests, and dismantle the networks that supported Trump’s rise.

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.

Speaker 0 states that there are people who believe we are in an assault on the constitutional order and asks whether we are currently experiencing a constitutional crisis. Yes, he answers, our democracy is at risk because Donald Trump shows that he wishes to violate the laws in many, many different ways. He notes the positive counterpoint: the good news is that 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, were put on the bench last year, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time. Speaker 0 then adds that they hope the appellate courts, when the cases rise to that level and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, will uphold those rulings. He mentions concrete actions tied to this judiciary effort: they restored the money to NIH, and they required that 8,000 employ federal employees have to come back. He emphasizes the scope of legal challenges by stating, “We’re in over a 100 lawsuits against them, and we are having a good deal of success.” He concludes by clarifying the current stage of these legal battles: “It’s only at the lower court level right now.”

A prosecutor should begin with a crime and then seek a name, not the other way around. The issue over the past four years has been the targeting of Donald Trump, starting from his 2016 campaign, leading to numerous investigations against him. As attorney general, I will not politicize the office or target individuals based on political affiliation. Justice will be applied fairly across the country. We need to unite and move forward; otherwise, we risk losing our country.

Over the past four years, and at other times in our history, the values and constitutional principles that form the foundation of our country have been tested. Our institutions have been challenged in ways many thought impossible. In the 1800s, war tested us, and we survived, though with some missteps. I view the last four years as a new kind of test. It's like inflating a balloon – you keep adding air until it bursts. With the challenges to the rule of law, it felt like we were on the verge of that balloon popping.

The speaker reflects on a message from Maureen about justice and the Justice Department's "reservoir of trust and credibility," a gift given to every employee. This credibility allows them to be seen as impartial, "just trying to do the right thing," rather than as partisan figures. The speaker warns that this reservoir is in "grave danger" due to Trump and his allies who are trying to turn the Justice Department into a "Trump subsidiary." The speaker urges good people within the department to have courage and "do the right thing always," even if it means being fired. The speaker concludes by expressing faith in those within the department committed to the rule of law.