reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

Attorney General Garland was questioned about overruling FBI agents in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He stated he approved the decision but did not make it. The senator cited a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents were against the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland deflected the accusations, questioning the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired. Translation: Attorney General Garland was questioned about his involvement in a raid on ex-President Trump's residence. He approved the decision but did not make it. The senator referenced a Washington Post article claiming FBI agents opposed the raid. Garland denied discussing this with the White House and faced criticism for FBI leaks distancing themselves from his decisions. Garland questioned the motives behind the leaks. Senator Cotton's time for questioning expired.

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

After a choppy video call, an FBI agent visited my house regarding social media. They found nothing illegal but said it was a procedure. I referred them to my attorney, who tried contacting them with no response. Journalists also reached out with no reply. The FBI seems to be checking boxes at non-criminal homes. Share your thoughts on this.

Hundreds of intelligence community members work at social media companies. Mainstream news outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. The censorship was due to the truth being a threat to power. The US government's influence on corporations undermines the first amendment. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you. Translation: Many intelligence community members work at social media companies. News outlets confirmed my reporting on the laptop story. Censorship was due to the truth being a threat. The US government's influence on corporations undermines freedom of speech. Our response will determine the future of a free press. Thank you.

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

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

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

The FBI has changed its interactions with social media companies following court rulings, but denies discussing constitutionally protected speech. The FBI also denies discussing vaccine efficacy with social media organizations. Director Wray is not familiar with a specific investigation involving subpoenas issued to congressional staffers. He acknowledges the need for caution when investigating a separate branch of government. The FBI denies paying Twitter for content moderation and is only required to reimburse companies for expenses related to producing information. Director Wray maintains that FBI agents have acted in compliance with the law. Secretary Mayorkas provides the same response as Director Wray regarding discussions of constitutionally protected speech.

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

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

My dad called to say Trump was shot, and I said "good" on the phone. He warned me not to say that. I want to apologize to my FBI agent. I don't support guns, but I hope for a positive outcome.

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

Camila Harris and the Secret Service keep contacting me to do a stream, but I refuse to collaborate with politicians. I won't be doing any streams with them, so please stop contacting my team.

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

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

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

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

Our government is radical and dangerous. The FBI is investigating me for looking into Biden corruption in Ukraine. Special Agent Bracco questioned my sources about me, a member of the free press. I wonder why the Bidens live in luxury on a civil servant's salary. They would imprison me if they could. Translation: The government is dangerous and investigating me for probing Biden corruption in Ukraine. The FBI questioned my sources about my work as a journalist. I question how the Bidens afford lavish lifestyles on a government salary. They would arrest me if possible.

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

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

Alex Jones posted about secret societies in America in the 90s. I shared it without supporting him. People focused on that post, showing how our world operates. I'm not here to complain, just to exist. Translation: Alex Jones posted about secret societies in America in the 90s. I shared it without supporting him. People focused on that post, showing how our world operates. I'm not here to complain, just to exist.

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

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