reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses how the person in question is provoking the intelligence community, despite the potential consequences. They mention that the intelligence community has various means to retaliate against such actions. The speaker suggests that even though the person is seen as a practical and tough businessman, their behavior in this regard is foolish. The speaker also mentions that they have been informed that the intelligence community is displeased with how they have been treated and spoken about.

Speaker 0 advises that they don't know the exact situation but wants the person to be comfortable. They mention the involvement of federal people and their lack of knowledge about connections. They emphasize the importance of the person being nonchalant.

The speaker talks about someone named Patty who they believe is involved in corrupt activities. They mention that Patty has a baby and owns a chopped house and a condo. The speaker also mentions that Patty doesn't care about scams as long as she benefits from them. They repeat the question of whether Patty is a vote rigger and emphasize that Patty only makes their lead figures bigger.

The speaker discusses the distrust towards General Flynn by the CIA and FBI. They mention the challenges faced by the administration due to subversion and deception from within. The speaker reflects on the difficulties of navigating Washington DC politics as an outsider, highlighting the struggle to identify trustworthy individuals in a landscape of deceit and self-interest.

The speaker discusses the alleged connections between George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and their families. They claim that Bush and Obama had a relationship due to business ties between their families. They also mention the involvement of Lolo Soetoro, Obama's stepfather, in the oil business and as an alleged CIA operative. The speaker suggests that Obama's grandmother facilitated CIA money transfers and introduced her daughter to Soetoro, who then adopted Obama. They mention Obama's high school tuition and his reported income, implying that he has access to a significant trust fund. The speaker concludes by stating that there is a secretive elite group to which Bush, Obama, and others belong, while the general public is excluded.

The speaker states they are being asked to justify targeting people they don't like, but clarifies it's about people they believe are dishonest, not people they dislike personally. The speaker doesn't know most of them. It's not about anger, but a belief that these individuals are not worthy of access to top secret information. The speaker believes this is acceptable, noting Biden did the same with their people. The speaker reiterates the decision is based on their assessment of worthiness, not anger.

During the interview, they discussed an email mentioning "10 held by H for the big guy." They inferred that the "big guy" referred to President Biden. The AUSA interjected and said she didn't want to ask about the "big guy" or dad, implying that Joe Biden may be involved in Hunter Biden's transactions.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about AB 26-24, asserting it is a direct violation of the First Amendment and would hinder exposing fraud, including cases involving immigrants. They claim the bill would hinder investigations and public-interest reporting. Speaker 1 responds that legislative counsel checks the constitutionality of all bills and notes the speaker works on fraud issues, citing prior work on the budget subcommittee. They say Mia Bonta is involved through her role in pushing the bill, and remind that investigations into fraud are long-standing and handled by the attorney general. Speaker 0 alleges that Mia Bonta, who is described as the wife of the California attorney general, pushed the bill that would impede exposing fraud, and notes the bill would make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, particularly referencing immigrants and Armenians in California. They contend the bill is an assault on First Amendment rights. Speaker 1 counters that the claim is a misinterpretation of the bill and reiterates that constitutionality is reviewed with counsel. They maintain that the attorney general handles fraud investigations, framing the issue as ongoing and within established procedures. Speaker 0 asserts that the bill’s effect would be to criminalize publication of images recorded in public, and asks whether the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space. Speaker 1 again says this interpretation is incorrect, labeling it a misinterpretation of the legislation. They emphasize that the bill’s purpose is examined by ledge counsel and lawyers, and maintain that the First Amendment is a central consideration in their work. Speaker Rivas interjects and asks for their position on the Stop Nick Shirley Act AB 26-24, but Speaker 1 says they do not know anything about it. Speaker 0 reiterates concerns about potential conflicts of interest, suggesting there is clear evidence of a relationship between Mia Bonta and her husband, the attorney general, and states that these people won’t answer questions.

Speaker 0 asks for clarification on what Murat means by “sharp companies” and which specific companies he’s referring to. Speaker 1, who identifies himself as Lajos Horvath, replies that he recalls a chain: Flatiron Holdings behind a Shell Company, and that this Shell Company was behind another Shell Company. Speaker 0 presses for more specifics about which Shell Company is being discussed. Speaker 1 explains that he doesn’t have the papers in front of him but remembers that there are “good people looking into” the matter and that this has been ongoing for a while.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

The speaker questions the DNC's corruption level, suggesting it functions as a campaign arm for the president. The bigger issue, however, was Joe Biden's chief of staff, who wielded enormous power. The speaker stresses the chief of staff's influence, describing him as a "shadowy, blister to ball type figure." While not publicly recognizable, this individual held significant power within the White House. The speaker emphasizes avoiding him, describing him as "scary."

Speaker 0 stated that someone "trained me to have to be perfect." Speaker 1 then mentioned "working for Diddy," to which Speaker 0 responded, "Absolutely." Speaker 1 expressed affection for Diddy, calling him a "good friend" and "good guy." Speaker 0 stated that "he expects—" before Speaker 1 interjected, asking, "Is he a good guy?" Speaker 0 responded, "I don't wanna answer that question." Speaker 1 concluded by saying, "I think he's a good guy. I'm a stick up for—"

The speaker describes a multi-layered hierarchy within the FBI involved in every investigative decision. Above the speaker are assistant directors, executive assistant directors, deputy directors, and the director of the FBI. Below the speaker are section chiefs, supervisors, unit chiefs, case agents, and analysts. The speaker asserts that all of these individuals were involved in all decisions.

The speaker mentions having spoken with whistleblowers and an informant who provided valuable information. However, they express difficulty in locating the informant and hope that they are still available. The whistleblower is described as credible. When questioned about the informant's whereabouts, the speaker clarifies that they are hopeful of finding them. They explain that informants in the spy business tend to avoid being seen frequently or being in the public eye.

The president relies on smart advisors, just like my dad did. It's great to have their advice, and it was awesome to have my dad around. My mother was also supportive.

The speaker states they applied to the CIA and have received criticism, including from Putin, for being from a "CIA family." The speaker acknowledges their father worked in conjunction with the CIA and that they attempted to join the agency. The speaker says Putin is attacking their father as being connected to the CIA, which the speaker says is not untrue. After their father's death, the speaker learned their father was involved in that world, which they say shocked them. The speaker concludes by saying that this is a fact, whether or not people believe it.

The speaker criticized someone for making inappropriate and false personal comments. They mentioned that meeting with President Biden is challenging because he is intelligent, curious, and pays attention to details.

After decades in law enforcement, the speaker emphasizes the importance of safety and security, especially at the border.

The speaker claims to have done absolutely categorically nothing wrong, stating that's what lawyers and people do. They were introduced to someone by a lady in law, Rothschild. The speaker indicates that this person knew all the most prominent people.

President Biden wanted the speaker to be the last person in the room for big decisions, as he was for President Obama. The speaker confirmed they were the last person in the room for the Afghanistan decision. They also stated they feel comfortable with that.

The speaker questions the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, describing him as mysterious and noting that he apparently died, but no one knows who he was. The speaker adds that they grew up in Washington, DC, primarily in a government family, guessing CIA involvement but acknowledging they cannot prove it. They express concern about investing in something whose founder is so enigmatic and who allegedly holds billions of dollars of unused Bitcoin, asking, “what is that?” The speaker emphasizes that no one can answer this question, even among some of the biggest holders of Bitcoin in the world, whom the speaker knows personally. Those holders say, “it doesn’t matter,” but for the speaker, it matters.

The speaker states that if the FBI had been asking questions about human trafficking, they would have known. The speaker raised their son as a Christian. The speaker believes their son may do things people don't like, but he would never be involved in human trafficking.

There were multiple layers of people above me at every investigative decision, including the assistant director, executive assistant director, deputy director, and director of the FBI. There were also multiple layers of people below me, such as section chiefs, supervisors, unit chiefs, case agents, and analysts. All of these individuals were involved in all of these decisions.

The speaker connects Jeffrey Epstein to a broad web of influence and alleged illicit activity across several decades. Key points presented: - Epstein’s involvement is linked to the BCCI network, and to foreign policy activities in the Middle East during the 1990s, plus his alleged ties to high-level officials across Israeli, Saudi, British, and French governments, spanning the Clinton era into the early 2000s. - Epstein was investigated by the SEC in the 1980s and was one of the two people who ran the largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history at that time, tied to the Towers Financial collapse. Epstein’s business partner went to jail for twenty-something years, while Epstein allegedly “skates completely free.” - He is said to have been involved in a billion-dollar fraud case in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with allegations that his campaigns funded local politicians there and that prosecutors answered to those politicians. - The speaker suggests Epstein’s pervasive presence—“always in the room” in four decades of American foreign policy and intelligence activity—implies a systemic concern about money sourcing for that activity. - Regarding Epstein’s crimes, the concern cited is the same one discussed with Orlando Massfer: don’t bring the case, and if you do, bring it in a highly limited way. - This culminated in the 2006 indictment, which was described as a “sweetheart plea deal” that limited prosecutions, protected coconspirators known and unknown, and allowed the case to proceed quickly before a full trial could uncover broader lines of evidence about Epstein’s network.