reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We, along with other senators, will press the Secret Service for answers. The American people deserve transparency. Past conspiracy theories have proven true, so we must uncover the truth of this situation.

I find it frustrating that you are not providing answers to the American people. Many in Congress feel unsafe with you in charge, making us vulnerable to our adversaries. I believe you should step down, as do my Democrat colleagues. Your 60-day investigation timeline is unacceptable, and I will use my legislative tools to expedite the process.

I stand by my observations regarding Joe Biden. I feel a sense of concern for him, as he seems out of touch and not in control. After becoming Speaker, I sought a meeting with him due to pressing national security issues, but his staff repeatedly denied my requests. Eventually, I went public, which led to an invitation to the White House. However, it turned out to be a setup with multiple officials present. During our conversation, I asked Biden why he paused LNG exports to Europe, which was detrimental to our allies and national security. To my shock, he genuinely did not realize he had signed the executive order to pause those exports. This left me deeply worried about who is truly running the country.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

A second assassination attempt occurred in Florida against President Donald Trump, surprising many due to its proximity to a previous incident. This raised demands for a transparent investigation. As Florida's attorney general, I was involved in pursuing this investigation, but faced significant obstacles from federal law enforcement, particularly the FBI. They restricted access to the crime scene, withheld evidence, and suggested that our investigation would violate the law, despite the serious implications of the attempt, including the near-death of a six-year-old girl. Frustrated by these challenges, I had to sue the DOJ and Merrick Garland to assert our right to investigate and prosecute the matter under our state laws.

Where is Cash Patel? Why didn't he obtain the files himself? I believe serious pressure is being applied to people. Who is exerting that pressure? I learned that a member of the Senate Intel Committee, Tom Cotton, said you can't appoint a certain person. I haven't asked him about it yet. Someone is applying massive pressure to elected officials. I want to know who that is. I have discussed this with Mike Pompeo previously. I am concerned that failing to disclose details, like those surrounding a president's murder, will make people think our system is fake. Sixty-two years later, Pompeo was working to prevent Americans from knowing who murdered their president. It's not the CIA. There's no one person calling the shots.

Recently, in January, a member of the Senate Intel Committee tried to block someone from getting a job in the intel world because this person would push for the release of the JFK files. This senator's main goal is to keep those files secret, but I don't understand why they would be protecting the CIA, especially after the Church Committee hearings already discredited them. I know that a member of the Senate Intel Committee made that call to block the appointment. Someone asked if it was Tom Cotton from Arkansas, but I haven't asked him directly for an interview, even though I probably should.

There's no cross-examination allowed in this committee, so important questions remain unaddressed. For instance, why did a Capitol Hill police officer with a history of mishandling firearms shoot an unarmed Air Force veteran in the neck? We're also not allowed to inquire about the thousands of hours of surveillance footage or why police were seen letting people into the Capitol on January 6th. These critical issues are off-limits for questioning.

The speaker conducted a bipartisan investigation into security failures during a shooting incident. They found that law enforcement lacked coordination and communication, leading to missed opportunities to prevent the attack. Suspicious actions by federal agents and questions about the number of shooters raised concerns. The speaker emphasized the need for an independent investigation to uncover the truth behind the incident.

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.

"The simple answer, in my opinion, is social media is wildly out of control, and there's too much clickbait in this country." "we gotta get more involved in social media and online platforms because that's where the folks, the assassins of this world get radicalized." "I asked for congress' help in doing so." "we were gonna use every resource we have to find every single person involved, and the investigation's still ongoing." "transparency." "We've produced more documents to congress than my last two predecessors combined by twofold, just to put it in perspective." "And this is how we got Charlie Kurtz alleged assassin so fast." "The Boston Marathon Bomber, which happened in Downtown Boston during the Boston Marathon, took five days and there was a police officer who was killed in that manhunt."

Charlie Kirk is described as one of President Trump’s closest advisers who actively advocated against a war with Iran. He was in the Oval Office in the lead-up to the twelve-day war. The speaker notes they weren’t particularly close, but Charlie was very gracious when the speaker was running for Congress and was supportive. The last time the speaker saw Charlie Kirk on Earth was in June in the West Wing, in the stairwell, where Charlie, upon greeting, looked the speaker in the eye and, very loudly in a small, tight space, said, “Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” Charlie then walked off and is believed to have entered the Oval Office. The speaker emphasizes that Charlie Kirk, a close adviser who vocally urged rethinking relations with Israel and opposing war with Iran, was suddenly publicly assassinated, and there are questions about the lack of ability to investigate further. The speaker says it’s a data point that needs examination and questions what it means to say that people are not allowed to ask questions about the incident. The speaker mentions that they were part of an investigation involving the National Counterterrorism Center, but they were stopped from continuing to investigate. The FBI stated they stopped and turned everything over to Utah State Authorities because the matter would go to trial and was very sensitive, but the speaker asserts there was still information to look into and linkage for further investigation that could not be pursued. The speaker clarifies they are not drawing conclusions about who was responsible or the exact circumstances, but asserts there were unanswered questions. There is reference to “text messages that have been made public” showing that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from pro-Israel donors. It is reiterated that Charlie was advocating to President Trump against the war with Iran. In summary, the speaker presents Charlie Kirk as a former close adviser who urged restraint on a potential Iran war and a reevaluation of relationships with Israel, describes a sudden assassination with restricted inquiry, and cites a halted investigation by national security entities, noting publicized pressure from pro-Israel donors as part of the context.

You are not being honest with this committee. We asked for all memorandums from the Secret Service on July 15th, have you provided them? You are dodging important questions that the American people want answers to. We had to subpoena you to be here, and you still won't answer. These are not difficult questions.

The speaker is part of a senate bipartisan investigation into an assassination attempt. According to the speaker, the Secret Service and FBI are dragging their feet and not providing requested documents, such as 302s and interview transcriptions. Documents that are provided are heavily redacted and delivered the day of the interview, making them unusable. The speaker believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. They claim releasing the body for cremation before autopsy or toxicology reports further drives suspicion and conspiracy theories.

I don't think there's been transparency. Routine announcements are being made about findings, and questions are being invited daily. But providing data for the evidence that is being presented isn't happening. The White House has provided information, but these claims seem to be dismissed. Information is being provided; it just isn't believed.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not a lone shooter, citing messages they've received. The speaker questions why many Americans find the situation "doesn't add up," listing details such as the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone use, and being spotted with a rangefinder. The speaker, identifying as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. They ask if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt, imprison, and depict the target as "a modern day Hitler." The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, and if they received reports of anything "fishy" there, such as silverware or trash. They ask if the home was extremely clean, "almost like a medical lab," stating that's what they are hearing.

The speaker believes the individual involved in a recent political attack did not act alone, citing a lack of requisite skill and the media's quick dismissal. They question if the individual was honey-trapped by a foreign entity and criticize the FBI's handling of the situation, including the rapid cremation of the body and the claim that the individual acted alone. Senator Ron Johnson also finds the situation suspicious, particularly the rush to dispose of evidence. He highlights the fact that the body was cremated before autopsy and toxicology reports were released. He notes the FBI immediately declared the individual acted alone without a thorough investigation. The speaker points out the FBI's history of spying and questions why, if the individual acted alone, the FBI doesn't release the data they likely possess. They cite a counter sniper's concern over the scrubbing of the roof and question the need for a high-powered attorney if the case is straightforward. Senator Johnson states that the Secret Service and FBI are stonewalling the senate investigation, providing heavily redacted documents and delaying transcribed interviews. The speaker concludes that the agencies are hiding something, as transparency would dispel conspiracy theories.

The speaker questions the Secret Service on transparency and cooperation regarding an attempted assassination of Donald Trump. The Secret Service is criticized for not providing requested information to the committee and being uncooperative. The speaker accuses the Secret Service of dishonesty and evasion. They question the lack of personnel consequences and training improvements after the incident. The Secret Service is pressed for answers on timelines and actions taken during the assassination attempt.

The speaker questions why snipers initially assigned to a second-story window with a clear view of the roof where the shooter stood and tried to kill President Trump were withdrawn before the shooting. The speaker emphasizes that these are basic questions the Secret Service should easily answer, especially given the seventeen days since the attack. The speaker expresses frustration that the response from the Secret Service has repeatedly been "we're looking into it," which they deem insufficient.

I'm on the building where the sniper supposedly fired. The roof isn't steep; a 70-year-old man climbed it easily. If there were Secret Service or sniper teams here, he wouldn't have made it five feet up. The windows where the Secret Service was supposedly stationed on the second floor raise questions about their response time. Behind me, where the red roofs are, is where the president was speaking. There are many unanswered questions here, and we aim to conduct oversight to ensure this situation is addressed and prevented in the future.

I spent 17 years in the military, 14 in a special operations unit. I believe the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump involved help from an agency or government. The shooter couldn't have reached the rooftop alone to take a shot at the president. It seems too obvious that assistance was involved.

I asked colleagues to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate the lack of Secret Service protection for the president. The Secret Service director agreed to brief us, but it hasn't happened yet. I question why the president wasn't given more protection and who is responsible for that decision.

The speaker believes the individual in question did not act alone in what they consider a significant attack on democracy. They question the media's quick dismissal and suggest the individual could have been targeted by a foreign enemy. Senator Ron Johnson questions the rush to dispose of evidence, such as washing the roof and cremating the body, before autopsy and toxicology reports were released. He notes the FBI quickly declared the individual acted alone without a thorough investigation. Johnson also mentions the individual had encrypted accounts in different countries. The speaker highlights concerns about the FBI's history of spying and suggests they possess the individual's metadata. They challenge the FBI to release the information if the individual acted alone. They cite a counter sniper who found it concerning that the roof was scrubbed down so quickly. Johnson states that the Secret Service and FBI are stonewalling the senate investigation by providing heavily redacted documents and delaying transcribed interviews. He believes this behavior is suspicious and fuels conspiracy theories. The speaker argues that the FBI and Secret Service should be transparent with congressional representatives to address concerns, and their lack of transparency suggests they are hiding something.

The Secret Service is refusing to cooperate, stonewalling efforts to uncover the facts. They have not testified or provided documents, which raises serious concerns. The director, Ron Rowe, should be removed for his inadequate response that endangered the president's life. This lack of transparency follows two assassination attempts and parallels the FBI's current stonewalling regarding drone incidents in New Jersey and elsewhere. It's time for accountability and a thorough overhaul of these agencies.

Speaker 0 expressed confusion about the lack of answers regarding two significant events on January 6. Firstly, other federal agencies withheld crucial information from the speaker, who was in charge of security at the Capitol. Secondly, despite the situation escalating for 71 minutes, Speaker Pelosi denied permission to bring in the National Guard. The speaker questioned why there is a lack of investigation into these matters, suggesting a lack of interest in uncovering the truth. The situation is described as worsening beyond these events.