reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states they are going to Washington D.C. to meet with senators and representatives, after which they will sell Avery's books. Avery (Speaker 1) expresses reluctance about the book, stating it has ruined their life and its publication will worsen it. Speaker 0 reminds Avery that they previously wanted people to know about the book. Avery acknowledges this, but now considers it a "stupid, silly mistake" and no longer wants the book published.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of avoiding a major scandal and focusing on insignificant matters. Speaker 1 claims the scandal cannot be verified. Speaker 0 insists it can be verified, citing the discovery of the laptop. Speaker 0 states that the family on the laptop has gone into hiding for five days. Speaker 1 suggests the person is preparing for a debate. Speaker 0 doubts it would take five days to prepare.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1, Scott, what he believes Mitch McConnell's legacy will be, presuming Scott might run for Senate to replace him. Speaker 0 notes that people often run for office after publishing a book. Speaker 1 jokes that writing a book is the fastest way to get rich, then Speaker 0 says that writing books doesn't make you rich. Speaker 1 clarifies that McConnell is up in '26.

Speaker 0 admits to being paid to pretend to protest at the Capitol building. They mention having difficulty pulling off the act and getting a bruise on their leg. Although they don't reveal who paid them, they suggest it was part of an organized effort.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 a question, but Speaker 1 avoids answering and finds the conversation pointless. Speaker 0 insists on getting an answer, but Speaker 1 dismisses them and claims not to care about their opinion. Speaker 0 tries to discuss the book's claims about society, but Speaker 1 interrupts and accuses Speaker 0 of being biased. Speaker 0 asks about the values the book mentions, but Speaker 1 refuses to continue the interview, ending the conversation. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their time and comments on the lack of anger in American political discourse.

Speaker 0 confesses in a video that they were paid to pretend to protest at the Capitol building. They mention having difficulty pulling off the act and getting a bruise on their leg. Although they don't reveal who paid them, they mention it was part of an organized effort.

The speakers discuss a book called "13 Reasons Why" and its presence in Storm Grove Middle School and Freshman Learning Center. There is a disagreement about the explicit content in the book, with one person expressing concern and asking the other to stop reading it. The conversation becomes heated, with one person asserting their right to read and the other arguing against the sexualization of children. The discussion also mentions the book being present in other school districts and containing graphic cartoons.

Speaker 0 launches a confrontation about books, insisting that new books should be purchased and that she must get rid of “the 500 filthy books that you have.” She says she will read one aloud and warns that if there are children in the audience, they need to leave. Speaker 1 interrupts, stating this is a public hearing and that the book content must not be read if it is not appropriate in public. Speaker 0 objects, asking why the content is in schools, claiming the content is in public schools. Speaker 0 continues, asserting, “This this book your time,” and references DeBakey, Furr, and Heights High School, saying, “His cock was enormous.” Speaker 1 responds firmly, declaring that this is not allowed and that Speaker 0 is out of order, issuing a first warning and threatening removal with one more word. Despite the warning, Speaker 0 persists. Speaker 0 then describes explicit actions connected to the content: “She wrapped her hand around his cock.” Speaker 1 reiterates that it is not permitted and maintains the order that Speaker 0 is out of order. Speaker 0 further describes explicit sexual action: “head tongue sliding into the small slip,” continuing to read or reference the material in a manner that violates the presiding rules of the public hearing. Speaker 1 again instructs that if the content is not to be allowed, it should be removed, so that the children do not have access to it, and warns that Speaker 0 is being removed, thanking the people present and acknowledging the authority to remove them. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 muttering, “My name is,” before the transcript cuts off, leaving the final identification incomplete. Summary of key points: - Speaker 0 demands the purchase of new books and the removal of “500 filthy books,” and declares she will read one aloud, telling children to leave if present. - Speaker 1 enforces public hearing decorum, arguing some content is not appropriate for public display in schools. - Speaker 0 references sexual content tied to books allegedly in DeBakey, Furr, and Heights High School, including explicit phrases: “His cock was enormous.” - The exchange escalates with explicit descriptions, and Speaker 1 issues warnings and orders removal to maintain safety and propriety for the audience, especially children. - The session ends with Speaker 0 interrupted before finishing their identification.

I was jailed for speaking out, do you agree? I don't want another lockdown. The speaker presents a book exposing research fraud behind vaccine mandates to a senator.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

First speaker: says "Calcula is cut. I'm unable to work or go to school. I understand. Fraud is bad." Second speaker: says "I'm sure what happened there at the end trade. I admit that she thought that was not supposed to be in there, but fraud is bad, and it's it's a bad issue publicly with the gun types in Minnesota."

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

The speakers discuss powerful individuals who want to keep Speaker 0 out. Speaker 0 believes they should want him because he is a great candidate, but Speaker 1 suggests it's about control and being on their team. Speaker 0 refuses to make a deal with these people and sees it as a battle worth fighting. Speaker 1 mentions the importance of raising money to win and suggests pausing rather than going away. Speaker 0 disagrees and vows to be the biggest pain for these people, even if it means they might try to kill him. Speaker 1 understands but advises caution.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

Speaker 1 asks, “Who created this book?” Speaker 0 explains that it’s there because he’s also his computer, but it “just gives it power of failure.” He then references Eastern countries in Europe and finding girls there, saying he knew that because he went with his wife. He states they used to have a computer so powerful, and they used to have a waterfront vehicle to call the computer, because they downloaded pictures that fast.

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 confesses in a video that they were paid to pretend to protest at the Capitol building. They mention having difficulty pulling off the act and getting a bruise on their leg. Although they don't reveal who paid them, they mention it was part of an organized effort.

Speaker 0 denies something, stating "She did not. That is not what happened." This is repeated for emphasis. Speaker 0 then abruptly demands the contact information of an unidentified person, but immediately retracts the request. Finally, Speaker 0 declares an intention to provide a "sign" to someone.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

A speaker passionately demands the removal of a controversial book from a school library, citing explicit content involving sexual abuse. The speaker highlights disturbing excerpts from the book, emphasizing the inappropriate nature of the material. They urge the board members to take immediate action, labeling them as either "punks" or "perverts" if they do not remove the book that same night. The speaker's emotional plea underscores the urgency and importance of protecting students from harmful content.

Speaker 0 wishes they had a stand-in to deliver speeches while they stay in their basement. Speaker 1 apologizes and says they have to address the full Obama agenda urgently. Speaker 0 repeats their desire for a stand-in arrangement.

Speaker 0 sees Speaker 1 and asks who they are. Speaker 1 says they came for Speaker 0, who doesn't recognize them. Speaker 1 mentions Speaker 0's doubt and asks them to stay. Speaker 0 insists on leaving, but Speaker 1 wants them to be their victim.

The speaker discusses two controversial books, "All Boys Aren't Blue" and "Genderqueer," quoting explicit content from both. They question whether librarians should be the sole decision-makers regarding the availability of these books to children. The speaker asks the Secretary what they are suggesting, to which the Secretary responds by saying they are not advocating for kids to report. Instead, they advocate for parents not to have the ability to challenge different perspectives on these issues under the pretext of keeping kids safe. The conversation becomes heated as the Senator demands a clear recommendation from the Secretary.

Speaker 0 apologizes and admits to breaking all the rules. Speaker 1 reassures them that it's perfect and mistakes are possible. Speaker 0 believes that the egos of people in DC are a major issue. Speaker 1 expresses a preference for having no titles and being true to themselves. They both agree to proceed.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire to confront someone behind a gym, while Speaker 1 adds that they would beat them up. Speaker 0 clarifies that they wish they were in high school to carry out this confrontation. Speaker 1 suggests that uprisings may occur as a result. Speaker 0 directly addresses Kavanaugh, warning that he will face consequences for his actions. They urge someone to confront members of Congress.