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.

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 conversation begins with a claim about Lyme disease being “a highly likely militarily engineered bioweapon.” The speaker then says they “probably didn't say that,” and asks whether someone else “said that.” The next assertion is that “that's what the developer of Lyme disease said.” After stating this, the speaker emphasizes that they want “all of our colleagues” to hear it, addressing “Mr. Kennedy” directly and repeating the request that “they” hear it. The speaker continues to press on what was said and questioned earlier, maintaining focus on the idea that Lyme disease could be linked to military engineering. The exchange suggests uncertainty about whether the statement was actually made by the speaker or by the other person being addressed, but it repeatedly returns to the reference to what “the developer of Lyme disease” said as the basis for the statement being attributed. The speaker’s instructions to “Mr. Kennedy” are explicit: they want colleagues to hear the content that has been discussed, and the speaker underscores the importance of ensuring others receive the message. The conversation then transitions to a new question framed around exposure to pesticides, with the speaker beginning the question “Did you say that exposure to pesticides?” The line cuts off before any further detail is provided, leaving the question as an open inquiry about whether the other person had said something specifically about pesticide exposure.

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.

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 transcript describes a complex web of legal and professional connections surrounding Candace Owens and Brian Harpole. It starts by noting that Harpol, the security firm Harpole uses against Candace, employs Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law. It claims this is part of a broader mix of interests involving the Department of Justice (DOJ) and prominent conservative figures, creating a “rabbit hole” of ties. The argument presented is that Brian Harpole’s lawsuit against Candace appears to be a coordinated strike. Key connections highlighted include: - The lead attorney for Brian Harpole, Zachary Stoner, works for the De Leon Law Group. The firm’s leader is Harmeet Dhillon, who is currently serving as Trump’s assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ. Although Dhillon is on leave from the firm, her influence is described as pervasive, especially in advocating stricter anti-Philadelphia speech laws that are alleged to threaten journalists like Candace. - A Daily Wire connection is noted: Candace had previously been represented by the same law firm (De Leon Law Group) during a lengthy arbitration battle against her. The narrative suggests these lawyers know Candace and are returning for more. - The De Leon Law Group also hired Jacob Roth, an orthodox Philadelphia attorney specializing in civil rights. The “Shapiro tie” is that Roth is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law, married to Ben’s sister Abby Shapiro. This is framed as an “attack by proxy,” with Ben Shapiro portrayed as a former employer who has allegedly harassed and stalked Candace for years. - There is an appearance by Jacob Roth himself, introducing a personal testimony about troubling issues, reinforcing the network of connections. The speaker suggests deeper connections beyond the law firm, implying a broader pattern of influence and collaboration. A comparison is drawn to “lawfare” cases against a president, with a DOJ member stepping down to work in the same space, which the speaker finds suspect. Overall, the transcript posits that Candace’s adversaries are intertwined through a network of a security firm, a law group, family ties (notably Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law), and DOJ-aligned figures, creating a coordinated dynamic against Candace.

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.

A discussion introduces the National Design Studio (NDS) as an office described as “one of the most dangerous offices in the White House,” characterized as building “a parallel federal government inside the executive branch on private infrastructure,” and staffed by people previously linked to legal action involving federal data. The speaker notes that the TrumpRx federal prescription drug pricing website contains a footer line stating “designed and engineered in DC by National Design Studio” above the privacy policy. The speaker contrasts this with other federal websites, claiming they do not credit external design studios, and adds that the NDS name is hyperlinked to NDS’s website. The speaker says the TrumpRx site appears to have been created with Wix and widgets, and that the byline is “pretty weird because federal websites don’t have design bylines.” The speaker describes the NDS website as startup-like, with mainly mission-statement language and recruiting copy, and no page listing team members or leadership. During “digging,” the speaker says they found Joe Gebbia as the key name associated with NDS and identifies him as the chief design officer of the United States working with NDS. The speaker states that Joe Gebbia is the co-founder of Airbnb, stepped back from Airbnb in 2022, and that in September 2022 Tesla appointed him to its board of directors to fill a seat vacated by Larry Ellison, founder and chairman of Oracle. The speaker then ties Gebbia to a federal role: the speaker says that in August 2025 Donald Trump signed an executive order creating the National Design Studio and created the federal title “Chief Design Officer of the United States.” According to the speaker, Gebbia was named to that title on day one, and he reports directly to the White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. The speaker says this reporting structure is unusual. The speaker claims NDS is staffed under a federal hiring authority called Section 3161, originally written for temporary advising bodies. The speaker asserts this means many people at NDS are “part-time advisor[s] or … volunteer[s],” which would result in them not appearing on the White House salary report and not filing financial disclosures. The speaker further claims NDS staff were not confirmed by the Senate and that they answer to no Inspector General because the Executive Office of the President does not have one. The speaker compares this setup to “DOGE,” stating DOGE gutted federal agencies, fired tens of thousands of career civil servants, and is currently a defendant in multiple federal lawsuits. The speaker specifically mentions lawsuits alleging engineers gained access to Social Security data and Department of Homeland Security data and shared sensitive federal data with outside parties attempting to overturn elections. The speaker then claims personal connection: the speaker says they found Joe Gebbia was a member of DOGE, that he spent six months there before his current position, and that one of the initiatives he personally led at DOGE was digitizing federal retirement paperwork. The speaker indicates this connects to “East Wing ballroom underground bunker stuff.”