reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 muses about heaven, saying, "I don't think there's anything gonna get me in heaven. Okay? I really don't. I think I think I'm not maybe heaven bound." They add, "I may be in heaven right now as we fly an Air Force One. I'm not sure I I'm gonna be able to make heaven." They claim they have "made life a lot better for a lot of people." They illustrate with: "as an example, had the had the election of twenty twenty not been rigged, you would have millions of people living just in Russia, Ukraine alone. That would have never happened, and it didn't happen for four years."

Speaker 0 notes that the last administration was not transparent on the issue, but with the task force created, they have guided members within what they're cleared for. He asserts that they have encountered alien beings and recovered vehicles, with physical proof, and that he was partially cleared into those activities, having read intelligence reports from those programs. Speaker 1 reflects that online discourse about encounters and videos is plentiful, and asks if there is belief that the US government knows about alien beings coming to Earth. Speaker 0 responds that he doesn’t like to characterize where they came from, but they are definitely some kind of nonhuman sentience. He claims to have recovered vehicles and physical proof and says he had partial access to the data and to intelligence reports. He confirms seeing with his own eyes according to his account. Speaker 2 says NASA speaks for itself and claims transparency with data, and asks whether to believe David Crush or if he is lying, and where the evidence is. Speaker 0 asserts that members of the current administration are very aware of this reality and the current president is knowledgeable on the subject. He trusts the president’s leadership and believes the president has assembled a team; he says if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader in world history, he certainly has the knowledge, capabilities, and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues. Speaker 3 says he has access and has had meetings with very smart people who believe there is something out there, and it makes sense there could be. He is not convinced himself. He asks if the person believes one, that he knows, and two, that he’s open to transparency on UAPs. Speaker 0 reiterates that the president is very well informed on the issue, and avoids revealing more than the president might want to reveal. He notes a role to cover this up through administrations. Speaker 1 asks about years of threat and testimony. Speaker 0 says he was physically threatened even before submitting his intelligence community inspector general report under the previous administration, and sought legal protection because of professional and personal fear. Speaker 1 asks about recovering pilots or remains and whether that was seen with his own eyes. Speaker 0 confirms there were pictures and says yes, there were remains. Speaker 1 questions whether the origin is from another planet or outer space, and if it is interdimensional, seeking clarification. Speaker 0 explains he has talked to many veterans of the program and keeps an open mind on origin. He acknowledges an extraterrestrial hypothesis but does not usually go there because he did not see the data, and he is not conversant in the high-confidence theories the US government has. He is not aware of any remains or signs of extraterrestrial beings or technology by his department. Speaker 3 says the US government knows, but asks whether other governments know. Speaker 0 says they know and have their own programs, and notes that two and a half years ago the US has been in an arms race with peer competitors like Russia and China, who have their own programs. He says he was able to view intelligence discussing adversarial programs and will leave it at that. Speaker 3 states that they’ve recovered things, and Speaker 0 confirms, noting there were bodies and physical remains. They discuss whether the motive or intent of the visitors was peaceful or not, acknowledging a mixed bag of activity and motive. They consider whether Earth’s genetic material could be a reason for visits, even jokingly proposing Jurassic Park as a tourist attraction for genetic material on Earth.

They're not giving us money, just acknowledgment. I don't want that. I've been banished, exiled, canceled. My kids don't even show up to Sunday service. Celebrities like Dave Chappelle, Meek Mills, Diddy are controlled by handlers. They call and put a leash on them. The agenda is to make them do what LeBron and Drake would do. My stance on this is well known.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

Hi, I'm James O'Keefe, an investigative reporter. I want to discuss your views on the deep state. Can you elaborate? I'm not interested in this conversation. But you've already spoken on it, and I have it recorded. What is your role at the White House? I advise on research and development policy. Are we done here? Have a nice night. You too. Have a good evening, Byron. There he goes, shuffling along.

Alex Jones is a classic example of someone who claims to expose a communist conspiracy, a tactic that's been used for the last 70 years. Jones got his education with the John Birch Society and claims to have intelligence connections and a Rosicrucian family that arrived in the US on the Mayflower. He says he's from the real Illuminati, not the false one. I recently had dinner with podcasters and former professors, people doing different things. There was a misunderstanding where someone thought I was back with the CIA, but that's not the case. Don't worry about it.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The speaker describes two competing, ongoing pressures around a موضوع they’re discussing. They say: “It’s been independently discovered for other times. He said, it has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time. And he said, I don’t think they’re gonna suppress it this time. He said you’re in the clear.” They claim “they obviously know about you” because they’ve had “multiple protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations.” The speaker explains that if the person hasn’t had a US government agent come to them to say, “stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then “they’re gonna let you do it.” They assert that “they’re waiting,” with “SSP motherfuckers” twiddling their thumbs, wondering, “Is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We’ve been influencing this bitch forever.” The speaker notes that “on the other side of the fence, there’s multiple parties looking at each other like, didn’t we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening?” They emphasize the persistence of warnings: “What is she doing? She’s still doing it? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” The speaker describes two persistent scenarios in their life: one where people say, “do it. Do it. You’re the one. Do it.” and another where “multiple people” tell them, “they’re gonna kill you. Don’t do it. They’re gonna kill you.”

I could be a dog catcher and was voted for president twice. But someone interrupts, asking to talk about Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express. The conversation gets interrupted again, but the speaker mentions feeling sad about Arkansas.

James O'Keefe is visiting, and I'm welcoming him into my house. It's not his first time here. I've got reporters everywhere I go. Last time one of them was wired. I was wondering if this reporter is off the record, but they are not. It's coming out later, but I was worried about saying anything that might cause issues. I mean, the New Yorker isn't exactly friendly territory. James just mentioned someone O'Keefe didn't identify as a reporter.

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

Speaker 0 cites Henry Kissinger’s book Kiss the Boys Goodbye, urging viewers to get the book. In the book, Kissinger allegedly says United States military people are “a bunch of dogs” and “dogs” because they wear dog tags, implying nobody cares if they get killed. They also reference George Bush’s mother, described as “incredibly ugly” and “scary,” who allegedly said on national television about Americans being killed in the Middle East: “why should I waste my mind, my beautiful mind on people dying? Hell, I like what the hell do I care? Man, I’m dying.” This quote is presented as the president’s mother stating that America doesn’t care about its soldiers, reinforcing the claim that soldiers are expendable. The speaker explains the term GI as “government issue,” noting that the government issues pants, shoes, car, underwear, food, and everything else. Therefore, soldiers are “government issue,” like an oil can, a tire, or any other item the government issues. The point is made that after a war ends, the United States Corporation does not go back to Vietnam (or other theaters) to collect trash—oil cans, tires, jeeps, tanks—because the trash and junk are blown up; the war is over, so it’s all “government issue.” Consequently, soldiers are left behind, in what the speaker describes as a concentration camp in Cambodia, and the refrain repeats: “leave him, he’s just a GI, a government issue.” The speaker then shifts to a personal confession: at seventy-one years old, he has spent fifty-three years in the world of the occult. The word occult is defined as Latin for “hidden,” asserting that what is important has been hidden and that those at the top know things others don’t. He emphasizes that this realization has astounding him about how much people don’t know about the world they live in. He urges young people watching to wake up and “get a life” and start figuring out who owns them. He questions “all this crap about people owning your body on this New York Stock Exchange,” implying ownership or control by powerful entities. In sum, the speaker presents a sequence of provocative claims linking Kissinger’s alleged statements, the Bush family quote about indifference to soldiers’ deaths, a harsh critique of the GI concept and postwar neglect, a long personal claim about occult knowledge, and a warning to wake up to hidden powers allegedly controlling people.

After being elected governor, I was interviewed by 23 CIA members who wouldn't reveal their purpose. They refused to share their names or roles, which was unsettling. They questioned me about my election, and I was struck by the diverse group present, resembling everyday people. We need to engage with those in this field to understand their activities and who they are monitoring. It's important to uncover the extent of surveillance happening.

The discussion centers on the idea that his shtick hinges on the perception that he is the character he plays—“every man” who isn’t right wing but a populist fighting for the people against the powers that be. This is illustrated with a personal anecdote: “This is the truck that I drove this morning. This is the truck I drive. It's a 1987 Chevrolet Silverado. There are no electronics in this. There's no air conditioning. There's no radio, and there's no way for the government to turn off my engine if I'm disobedient.” The speaker cautions that “the moment that it's revealed not to be true, it's over. It's like you're worth 50,000,000 not worth $50,000,000. 30 to 50. Get off the fucking Internet, son. Don't stop believing that stuff.” Speaker 1 pushes back, claiming, “No. No. I'm a but see, I'm not out of the closet to leave this. I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people. I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all.” The conversation touches on money and upbringing: “I had the privilege of not being interested in money because I and I grew up in a family where we're worried about money, so I just never really thought about money.” Speaker 2 contributes background on Tucker’s lineage, noting, “Tucker's great, great… great grandfather was known as the cattle king of California, the largest, landowner in The United States in the nineteenth century. Just to give you an idea of the enormous wealth.” The discussion continues with Tucker’s financial succession, “Tucker and his brother did end up with a part of the oil and gas, minerals that she owned in her estate. So even that went well for Tucker.” There is a mention of apparent wealth and inheritance: “Well, I'm, like, extraordinarily loaded just from, like, money I, you know, inherited from my number of trust funds. From a Swanson deal.” The dialogue clarifies family ties: “She wasn't your mother. How I felt. That's I had a mother. I mean That's right. My dad got remarried to someone I think of as my mother.” There is a note on the father’s marriage to Patricia Caroline Swanson in 1979, described as “the heir to the Swanson billion dollar fortune. They're frozen food family. Serve Swanson dinner soon.” The exchange reiterates inherited wealth and the question of authenticity: “You're a trust fund baby, are you not? No. Completely. I've never needed to work.” The closing reflection suggests a critique of the shtick: “I think there's kind of a deep phoniness at the center of his shtick.” The final line cites a concrete memory: “I worked in a kitchen in 1985. Everybody in the kitchen had a criminal record. Every single one. But, of course, every dishwasher has been to prison for something. Right?”

I'm passing on what I've learned to you, things I've learned from my life experience, waking up the American people, and all the letters and people I've talked to. What do you believe about America? Are you helping to divide us or bring us together? Do you really understand what this country is all about? I saw a massive disc-shaped craft emerge from the ocean, defying our known physics. After reporting it, we were debriefed and warned to remain silent. This event started me on a lifelong quest into extraterrestrial life, government cover-ups, and secret societies. I released "The Secret Government" to protect myself. I also saw top-secret documents about alien agreements and a secret space program. Later, I realized that what I was witnessing might be our own government's creations, tested at Area 51. I shifted my focus towards government studies. I synthesized my research into "Behold a Pale Horse," explaining how ancient mystery schools secretly control the world, across different nationalities and religions.

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.

I spoke about the true reasons, and yes, I did talk about them. I’ve been close with Captain Jin Sainan of Apollo 17. We’ve eaten at home together and even ate outside, and I asked him questions. I wanted to know why Apollo 17 ended there, when by then Apollo 18 and 19 had already been made. Why did they quit with 17? I asked for the real reason. His answer was “Don’t come again.” Really? It wasn’t a matter of headphones—he said he spoke directly to my brain, asking me not to interfere with humanity on Earth, not to obstruct our work. To illustrate, he said, imagine if we’re conducting experiments in a lab and a bunch of apes suddenly enters the experiment room; we’d tell them to go away. The same kind of thing, he implied. We’ve been observing from the Moon, about 38,000 kilometers away, and I think what we’re seeing is artificial. Whether we’ve been watching ever since the Moon itself was created unnaturally, or if they’ve taken something they needed, I think it’s a very important place. He told me that after he died, it would be okay to talk about this, and in fact I received images from him. When I asked what he saw when the captain passed the far side of the Moon, he said he saw structures. I received photos of those structures. If there’s interest, we have them here at our temple, and I will show them later.

Discussion centers on why Epstein files aren’t public and reluctance; Tucker Carlson is mentioned. Speaker 1 says the president views it as "this is all a trap" and that it "reminds him of Russiagate"; "He had nothing to do with Epstein," and transparency "would have helped the country" and "the administration a lot." The other host wonders why fear of exposure matters. Speaker 1 testifies, "I knew Epstein. He did creepy stuff at my club. I kicked him out." Epstein was "always around" with figures like "Ahud Barak is living there. He's got Stephen Hawking and he's got members of the British So Royal on that level," and "half the people on television hung out with Epstein." He notes Epstein had contact with Israeli, US, and "most critically British intelligence" and ends, "There's nothing bad that happens that doesn't have British intelligence involved in it, I have noticed a lot."

The speaker explains he is trying to navigate possible collaboration with federal authorities while maintaining personal integrity. He says he has a statement that is “completely true” that he’s “never been in contact with any federal authority,” and he’s torn about how to start working with DHS to address threats he faces as a national figure. He claims “the Yemenis, a million of them came out into the streets” and that they want to kill him, with a fatwa on his head. He asserts he would need DHS to make a statement that “the Houthis and their fatwa that they placed on my head will not be stood,” and that “American citizens exercising our rights will not be, you know, subject to to Muslim murder, rituals.” He describes hundreds of thousands of death threats in his DMs and says, to deal with them, he would need to walk into an FBI building and give them a printout, but he “don’t fucking trust the FBI.” He accuses the FBI of having “destroyed my life,” pointing to past raids on his and others’ homes and references to the Mar-a-Lago search, stating he is trying to figure out how to navigate this situation without claiming contact with Harmeet or making contacts he “don’t want to.” He notes that when he and others exercised their rights in Dearborn, he views it as a civil rights hate crime, saying “the Muslim oppression of Christians in Dearborn” was a civil rights hate violation and that “they punched me in the face because I’m white” and “they punched me in the face because I’m Christian, not for anything else.” Harmony Dillon is described as wanting to prosecute this as a hate crime, with others subjected to spit, food thrown, assaults, pepper spray, etc. He mentions the Trump administration’s purported interest in bringing these people to justice, but he expresses a wish not to feed into it, citing personal integrity and caution. He questions whether the rank-and-file FBI officer’s motives are aligned with his interests, contrasting a year ago with a “grandma that walked through the capital” to now a Muslim who punched a Christian, implying hypocrisy or moral decline. He asserts there are “deep state embedded figures in the DOJ, in the FBI, in DHS,” who were involved in actions like the raid on Mar-a-Lago and other “schemes.” He says he needs assurance that these agencies have “our best interest” and that they are not “deep state shills.” Ultimately, he states he has refused to make contact because it’s “too risky” and he cannot be associated with people he deems “un American.”

Speaker 0 describes that it has been independently discovered four other times, and that it “has been said, it has been suppressed every single fucking time.” He says he doesn’t think they’ll suppress it this time and that “I think you're in the clear.” He asserts they obviously know about you because he has had multiple both protective and threatening interactions with various agency affiliations. He states, “If you haven't had a US government agent come to you and say, stop. Shut the fuck up. Stop. Shut the fuck up,” then they’re going to let you do it. He claims there are people waiting, saying, “there are SSP motherfuckers that are fucking twiddling their thumbs. Like, is Amy not gonna publish soon? God. We've been influencing this bitch forever.” He adds that on the other side, multiple parties are looking at each other wondering, “Didn't we tell this bitch three years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? She's still doing it? What? We told her we were gonna kill her three years ago.” He describes two constant scenarios in his life: one where people are urging, “do it. Do it. You're the one. Do it.” and another where people are warning, “they're gonna kill you. Don't do it. They're gonna kill you.”

I'm a journalist investigating the administrative state. I confronted a former FBI special agent, now an advisor to the joint chiefs at the Pentagon, about his political activities and fundraising efforts with retired generals. He became angry, called me names, and accused me of fraud and being a liar. He even claimed I needed his permission to record him, despite being in a one-party consent state. He denied saying things that I have on tape, including discussing plans after Trump wins. I questioned the ethics of his political involvement as a Pentagon advisor, and I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate to share sensitive information with strangers, even joking about whether I was a Russian spy.

In Washington, there is a lot of sexual perversion among the older politicians. As a young person, I have admired many of these individuals, but I have been shocked by their behavior. I have been invited to attend sexual orgies at their homes, which is disturbing. Additionally, some of these leaders who claim to be fighting addiction have openly used cocaine in front of me. It's a crazy situation.

The speaker met a "larger than life figure" at David's house who spoke for an hour and a half and was also hilarious. The speaker realized they had gotten it totally wrong and had believed superficial mainstream media narratives. After reading the lawsuits, the speaker felt that the contortions people went through to prevent this man from getting into power made the speaker want him in power even more. The speaker believed "they" were afraid of something they wouldn't say out loud, but that "thing" needed to be exercised from the US government. The speaker believes it is a "thing" that "they" want to protect, and it involves disclosure of some kind.

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump and have a lot of influence because they give money. Do people go up to you privately and like I said, you say like, I agree with you, like in this building, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen to you? it happens every week. You have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, but they don't want to say so publicly, for example, right? Yeah, mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends. Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you. I can't die on this hill. But your friends do. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this. You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. Price is My Life. Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say. And at the press conference yesterday with the survivors, the price is their life. And here we've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.