reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In the exchange, Speaker 0 questions whether US citizens are being surveilled today and whether the photos and data of protesters are being collected and stored in some kind of database. The interlocutor, Speaker 1, repeatedly denies these possibilities. The dialogue centers on the idea of monitoring and database tracking of protesters or Americans. Speaker 0 begins by asking: “Are you surveilling US citizens today?” to which Speaker 1 responds: “No, sir.” The line of questioning then shifts to the handling of protesters: Speaker 0 asks whether “those people protesting,” who are exercising their First Amendment rights, have had photos taken and data collected and whether that information is being placed in any kind of database. Speaker 1 answers, “There is no database for protesters, sir.” This establishes the asserted position that protest-related data is not being accumulated in a dedicated database. The discussion then foregrounds a specific allegation from Maine: Speaker 0 references “one of your officers in Maine” who said to a person protesting, “we're gonna put your face in a little database.” The implied question is about the meaning and existence of such a “little database.” Speaker 1 reiterates: “No, sir.” He adds, “We don’t.” This underscores the claim that there is no database for Americans or protesters. Speaker 0 presses further by asking, “Then what do you think your ICE agent was doing to this individual when he said those statements?” In response, Speaker 1 acknowledges an inability to speak for the individual officer but reiterates the core assertion: “I can't speak for that individual, sir, but I can assure you there is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” He closes with a direct reaffirmation, “There is no database that's tracking United States citizens.” Throughout the exchange, the central claims remain consistent: there is no surveillance program targeting US citizens in the form of a database, and there is no database for protesters. The dialogue also highlights a contrast between specific statements attributed to an officer in Maine and the official denial of any such database, with Speaker 1 insisting that they cannot speak for the individual officer while maintaining that no tracking database exists for US citizens.

Speaker 0, a journalist, is confronted by Speaker 1, a police officer, at a demonstration. Speaker 0 asserts their right to report and questions the police's authority to control journalists. The police ask Speaker 0 to leave, citing concerns of harassment and distress to the community. Speaker 0 refuses, arguing that jihadists on the streets cause more alarm. The police threaten to take action, but Speaker 0 continues to assert their right to report. The confrontation escalates as Speaker 0 insists on finishing their breakfast and accuses the police of fascism. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 questioning the existence of press freedom in Great Britain.

Speaker 0 warns Speaker 1 that sharing certain information may lead to an arrest for a public order offense. Speaker 1 insists they are just expressing their opinion and heading to a gig. Speaker 0 explains that they have the right to detain Speaker 1 to discuss the offense. Speaker 1 denies any offense and claims that the group they mentioned supports terrorism. Speaker 0 states they will address any offensive behavior from the group as well. Speaker 1 argues that their comments are free speech. Speaker 0 emphasizes their duty to allow peaceful protests. Speaker 1 expresses frustration with ongoing issues in the UK. Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1's right to their opinion but questions why they shared it with the group. Speaker 1 explains their frustration. Speaker 0 concludes by stating that the group may be a terrorist organization, but Speaker 1 should not share that information.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe in a free press and if they think the public service is full of racists. Speaker 1 responds with "no" to both questions. Speaker 0 then questions why there is a demand for anti-racism training and asks if Speaker 1 has experienced racism. Speaker 1 refuses to comment. Speaker 0 expresses confusion about why Speaker 1 is on a picket line if they don't want to convey their message to the public. Speaker 1 continues to refuse to comment. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been victimized by a racist in the public service.

Speaker 0 launches into a furious monologue, directing insults at someone who would report fellow Americans to the federal police, calling them dumb, idiotic, unpatriotic, and un-American. The speaker says, “Eat a dick,” and condemns anyone celebrating the capture or arrest of fellow Americans. They insist they are not moving on to other news and insist on staying on the topic, expressing anger toward those they reference as helping “the feds.” The speaker demands that the others understand they should not think the situation will benefit them or make them feel safer. They declare, “God is just and swift,” and threaten a confrontation, signaling they will address the matter aggressively while claiming to have “friends in high places” who will listen without payment, asserting they know they are a “good fucking person,” American, and a Christian who loves the nation. In contrast, they accuse the others of not loving their country, not being Christian, and not caring as much as they claim. The speaker asserts they have ample time and resources, contrasting themselves with others who supposedly have less. They reference a public figure, Candace, suggesting someone is upset by her actions toward someone named Charlie, and claim they have time to engage as needed. The speaker rejects the idea of having four kids, stating they have “a bunch of anger,” substantial intelligence, and many friends, and they condemn their opponents with coarse language. They declare they will not threaten violence and assert they would not harm a fly, stating they love flies even though they think they are awful. They insist they do not have to harm anyone, claiming God tells them not to seek retribution on their enemy and that vengeance belongs to God. The speaker ends by reiterating, “Fuck you,” and asserting that God loves them and will handle the situation, directing final hostility toward the unnamed others.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker 0 describes an encounter where a person tells her, “good luck to your husband dealing with you,” and she responds, “my husband loves me.” The other person replies that “that’s why we’re trying to get him fired,” indicating to Speaker 0 that this is not an isolated incident but part of an organized group aiming to destroy both her and her husband’s livelihoods because of her political criticisms of a foreign government. Speaker 0 emphasizes her husband has nothing to do with her career, works in athletics at a school, loves his students, and is not going to issue a statement condemning his wife. Speaker 0 explains that the group’s goal is to destroy her husband’s livelihood for failing to condemn her publicly. She notes that the husband wants no part in politics and is not responsible for her career. She decides to file a police report and asks for identifying information about a woman she encountered, including video of the woman and her dog, to corroborate the incident. Speaker 0 highlights the woman’s alleged attempt to sic her dog on Speaker 0 and her dog, pointing to the dog’s behavior as evidence. She asks the woman if it was appropriate to use her dog in that way, and the woman denies it, insisting she did not sick the dog on them. The conversation shifts as Speaker 0 presents a separate video that she claims proves her account. The other person attempts to interrupt, insisting, “You’re trying to get me fired,” and Speaker 0 counters that everyone is trying to get her fired and that the other person is part of that group. Speaker 1 admits that others are trying to get Speaker 0 fired and acknowledges that the other person is “part of that everybody.” Speaker 0 reiterates that the woman tried to sic her dog on them and threatens her husband’s livelihood, asserting she will not be intimidated. Speaker 0 emphasizes she will continue her commentary and will not apologize for her actions or stance, even if the confrontation involves threats or stalking behavior online. Throughout, Speaker 0 frames the situation as an organized effort to silence and ruin both her and her husband over her political critique of a foreign government, while defending her husband’s innocence and his separation from her professional life. She asserts resolve to document the incident and press charges, and to persist with her public commentary despite the confrontation.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

Speaker 0: The officer tells him to get a life, but the journalist insists that investigative reports are important for the country. Speaker 0 questions the journalist's credentials, but the journalist continues to ask questions. The journalist offers to provide all the material via email.

Speaker 0 is being arrested for holding a sign, but it is unclear why. The speaker asks Leslie why they are being arrested, but there is no response. The speaker mentions that they are still blocking something, but it is not specified what it is.

Speaker 0 accuses someone of violating their rights and threatens to take them to court. They mention Sergeant Porter and demand that the person repeat what they said.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 said she has been trespassing on the Capitol. Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says that if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence in forgetting the request, but that she denied the sergeant at arms from supplying the request.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 stated, "I've been trespassing on the capitol." Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny the sergeant at arms from supplying Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence, but that she denied the request.

Speaker 0 says, “They doing too much, man, and they keep pushing people. You know?” Speaker 1 erupts, “Oh, shit. What the fuck? They killed my did they fucking kill that guy? Are you fucking kidding me, dude? Not again. Are you fucking kidding me? That guy's dead. Yo. We need people on”

Speaker 0 expresses love and respect for the police, but believes that people should not be allowed to assault others without consequences. Speaker 1 argues that when confrontations occur, it doesn't matter who initiates the first push, as it is considered a consensual fight. Speaker 0 denies getting into people's faces and explains that they were present to call the police. Speaker 1 counters that Speaker 0 was very close to people. Speaker 0 clarifies that they walked away from the situation multiple times, but were surrounded and punched in the face. Speaker 1 agrees that whoever punched Speaker 0 should be charged. Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and questions why Speaker 1 is behaving this way. Speaker 1 dismisses Speaker 0's gender as irrelevant to the situation. Speaker 0 emphasizes that they were not engaged in a mutual confrontation and asserts their right to be present. Speaker 2 asks whose orders the police are acting on, but Speaker 1 ignores the question.

A friend or colleague approaches Speaker 1, seeking advice on exposing a cover-up to the American people. Speaker 1 suggests praying about it and offers to connect them with Congress, but strongly advises against taking action. When asked about the importance of shedding light on corruption and misconduct, Speaker 1 admits that it won't solve the problem. They warn that the FBI and the government will crush anyone who tries to expose their wrongdoing, using themselves as an example. The conversation ends on a somber note, with Speaker 0 expressing their sobering thoughts and yielding back.

Speaker 0 argues that what was described is that he went there to try to stop the law enforcement operation, and that all the video shows him doing is documenting it with his cell phone, which is lawful. The only time he appeared to interact with law enforcement was when they went after him as he was trying to help an individual who law enforcement pushed down. Speaker 0 asks where the evidence is to show that he was trying to impede the operation, noting that he was filming, which he says is legal in the United States of America. Speaker 1 responds that Dana was there in the scene and was actively impeding and assaulting law enforcement to the point, but adds that this is not illegal. Speaker 0 counters that Dana wasn’t impeding it; he was filming, which is legal. Speaker 1 asks not to freeze-frame adjudicate the moment and insists that Dana was there for a reason, and that reason was to impede law enforcement. Speaker 1 further argues that de-escalation techniques were utilized during this action, including physically trying to remove those from the law enforcement scene and the use of pepper spray, which is described as another de-escalation technique. He states that those techniques did not work.

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

Speaker 0 expresses disbelief and questions the possibility of arresting someone. They comment on the state of the country and express frustration. The speaker also mentions that they feel others should be sorry.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

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.

Get your hands off of them! I just want to know what's happening. These people are not following the law. This is so wrong. She has the right to speak. I want to hear what he has to say. Let's listen to his perspective.

Speaker 1 believes the justice system is being compromised for political gain. Speaker 0 thinks the situation reveals widespread corruption and distrust in institutions. Speaker 1 wonders why charges aren't dropped, but Speaker 0 has no answer. They agree on the need for change.

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.

In this video, Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1, accusing him of being anti-American and anti-free speech. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for working at CNN and trying to censor conservative voices. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and refuses to engage in an interview with Speaker 0. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 a liar and a fraud. Speaker 0 also accuses CNN of being fake news and engaging in racketeering. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing his belief that the truth about Speaker 1 and CNN will eventually come out.