reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker introduces a comparison of ICE to the Ku Klux Klan. One speaker defines the KKK as a domestic terrorist group that used fear and force to change the political environment based on race and ethnicity. Another speaker asks if they are aware of the perception of how ICE's power and discretion are being used to enforce laws and if they see any parallels to the KKK. The speaker responds that they see no parallel between what is constitutionally mandated in enforcing the law and the KKK. They deny seeing ICE in the same category as the KKK. The first speaker urges listeners to vote and bring 10 people with them, suggesting the other speaker could be the next president.

The administration is taking threats against President Trump seriously, with the Secret Service director leading the investigation. A recent Rutgers study found that over 55% of respondents felt that murdering President Trump would be "somewhat justified." The study also indicated an "assassination culture" is emerging on the extreme left. The speaker asserts that people must be held accountable for publicly calling to assassinate the President of the United States, regardless of political affiliation.

Speaker 0 argues that the country is headed toward a civil war, citing unbridgeable divides that are deepening. They claim the Democratic Party is becoming more radical and assert that all current political battles center on illegal aliens, including calls to spend a trillion dollars on health care, demands to census-cancel for congressional races or the electoral college, and mass deportations in cities like Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles. According to them, without immigration and foreign presence, the Democrats cannot assemble votes, even as they claim Democrats “love democracy” but the math doesn’t work for them. They reference the Supreme Court and redistricting battles, suggesting these fights illustrate a broader struggle. The speaker contends that if they had enough resolve and urgency to implement a maximalist strategy, the 21 would already be on the table and active. They describe the political establishment as controlling the system and wanting to remain part of it, portraying a long-term dynamic spanning forty to fifty years in which Republicans have held offices but are now facing an existential crisis. The speaker predicts the left will escalate further, using graphic language to describe leftist figures and movements as radical and dangerous. They mention a shift toward an escalatory ladder and present a controversial comparison involving figures like Describing Mondami as a Marxist jihadist who they claim will win by a large margin in New York City, and Sadiq Khan as another example of rising radicalism. They assert that “everything they have is even more radical than you can anticipate,” and state there is no meaningful debate about the widening chasm. On strategy, the speaker criticizes the Trump administration and Pam Bondi for not moving quickly enough, acknowledging a recent Oval Office effort against street violence as positive but insufficient. The central strategic focus is on confronting the “deep state” and taking control of the apparatus. They warn there is a short window to act, arguing that without increasing hiring of US attorneys and concentrating on the deep state, arrest statistics and law-and-order efforts will be undermined by future offenders being invited back in by the opposition. The speaker emphasizes the need to maximize their own strategy, seize institutions, and move with a sense of urgency, insisting that the current approach is insufficient and that a more aggressive, institution-facing strategy is required to counter the perceived leftward drift.

Donald Trump could weaponize the Department of Justice against political opponents and turn the FBI into his personal police force. This is characterized as how dictatorships, not America, operate.

My colleagues are trying to undermine and defund the FBI because they are investigating Donald Trump. Attacking the FBI and independent journalists undermines our democracy. By attacking these institutions, they can violate the law without consequences. The credibility of the FBI is being eroded by those on the other side of the aisle, and this needs to stop.

There is concern about the rise of authoritarianism and potential fascism in the US. While the leader plays a role, it is the people who desire this that are a bigger part of the problem. One of the major political parties has been embracing extremism on the ultra right, which has become central to Republican politics. This movement is not solely influenced by Trump, but rather pushes him to be more extreme. It is a problem within the Republican Party, not just one man.

Speaker 0 describes ongoing activity in Minneapolis involving collecting information on ICE whereabouts and telegraphing it to protesters, urging people to come and back them up, including outside a donut shop. The second screen is shown with details: an incident outside Glam Doll Donuts at the Black Forest Inn parking lot on Nicolette Avenue where Alex Preti attempted to film the Border Patrol arrest that was taking place and ended up dead. He notes a call for black backup at the Black Forest Inn parking lot. Observers urgently requested a Glam Doll Donuts, the location where the “Pretty incident” occurred. An observer had been shot by ICE, with unknown condition, and EMTs were present. The speaker emphasizes that people are being urged to actively get out there, and warns that if someone protests or interferes with an ongoing law enforcement operation, there can be horrible consequences. Speaker 1 responds by saying that there should always be decrying of the loss of human life and that they do not want situations like the ones seen in Minneapolis. He asserts that all the blame is being directed at federal law enforcement officers carrying out their legal duties, while part of the responsibility lies with groups that are conspiring to obstruct federal law enforcement, which he characterizes as a crime. He contends they are contributing to the rise in violence in Minneapolis, and asserts that the obstruction of federal law enforcement is illegal. He argues that the Trump administration should not pull back and should not allow a message to be sent that such conspiring, use of funds, and obstruction of federal law enforcement can succeed, because that would undermine federal law enforcement throughout the country.

The subcommittee exists to desensitize the public to the idea of eliminating the Department of Justice and the FBI. The aim is to normalize the removal of these agencies, which are seen as checks against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and Donald Trump. The hearings are intended to make the public immune to the idea of the FBI and DOJ being dismantled.

Speaker 1 asserts that there is a two-tier justice system weaponized to persecute people based on political beliefs, and that Director Wray has personally helped weaponize the FBI against conservatives. He references the Twitter files, Missouri v. Biden disclosures, the Durham investigation and report, and the exposure and collapse of the Russian collusion hoax. He asks Director Wray what he is prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement to earn back the trust of the American people, noting that he asked Mister Durham about this, and Durham said he did not think things can go too much further given that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. Speaker 0 responds by disagreeing with the other speaker’s characterization, saying the description of his bias against conservatives seems insane given his personal background. He explains that the approach to protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution starts with emphasizing to his staff to do the right thing in the right way, which means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. He outlines several actions: enhanced procedures, safeguards, approvals, double checks and triple checks, record-keeping requirements, accountability policies, and funding for new functions like an Office of Internal Audit that didn’t exist before. He notes the installation of an entirely new leadership team from his predecessor and asserts that where he can take action, he will to hold people accountable by removing them from the chain of command. The exchange ends with an invitation to speak further, though the remark is truncated: “Gentlemen, ladies, time to speak to the….”

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.

The speaker warns that Trump is focused on revenge, which could harm the Department of Justice and FBI. People in law enforcement fear being targeted if Trump wins a second term. There are concerns about being unlawfully detained or jailed. The speaker urges Americans to take Trump's threats seriously, as he often follows through on his promises.

In a potential second Trump presidency, there are concerns about the misuse of power within the Justice Department. The speaker believes Trump could target his enemies, such as Andrew McCabe, by ordering criminal investigations. This could lead to a significant threat to the rule of law in America.

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: 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.

This country is suffering under a government that is influenced by an anti-American faction, including universities, news media, corporate CEOs, and the bureaucracy. However, we have the ability to fight back. The truth is starting to emerge, especially with the FBI. The Durham report and the inspector general's report have exposed the corruption and politicization within the FBI. We need to break up the FBI and replace it with a more reasonable law enforcement system, removing the entire senior leadership. The investigations and actions taken by House Republicans are part of a counter offensive against the left. President Trump's non-establishment status is why they despise and fear him.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Speaker 0: Question about the danger of a Trump presidency if reelected. Speaker 1: I think he poses a a near existential threat to the rule of law. He will do everything he can in a new term to try to tear down the institutions that he sees as threats and dismantle them and the people who occupy them, the apolitical people who occupy them. So there is a lot on the ballot in 2024 if he's a candidate, but the rule of law, in my view, is at the very top of the list. I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fucking diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical.

The speaker discusses being targeted for their knowledge and potential role in a second Trump administration. They suggest shutting down the Department of Education and reforming intelligence agencies like the FBI and CIA. They highlight the need to address deep state elements within the government. The speaker emphasizes the need for significant government reform to combat embedded bureaucratic influences.

Speaker 0 argues that the individual is late, then urges going into the capital, which is described as incitement and premeditated. The speaker asserts the person is on video stating, “we need to breach the capital” and says this is very relevant because people ended up doing it. The claim is that the individual is instigating violence, trying to provoke or catalyze illegal acts so that the government can arrest those involved, describing undercover federal assets as honeypots that goad people into committing crimes to enable arrests of people law enforcement wanted to arrest anyway. The speaker then questions if the DOJ or federal law enforcement is seeking an insurrection, conspiracy, or acts of violence aimed at undermining an act of Congress, and asks why they aren’t looking into this person, suggesting that a lack of interest implies he may be part of the government or federal law enforcement. The implication is that there could be a reason for not pursuing him other than him being unaffiliated, namely that he is working with law enforcement. Ted Cruz is described as addressing this in a Senate hearing, with the speaker plan to read a report from the New York Post. The report is quoted: “magically, mister Epps disappeared from the public posting. According to public records, mister Epps has not been charged with anything. No one has explained why a person videoed, urging people to go to the capital, a person whose conduct was so suspect, the crowd thought he was a fed, would magically disappear from the list of people the FBI was looking at.” The overall claim is that Mister Epps, who encouraged people to go to the capital, vanished from FBI attention without explanation, despite being photographed urging action and being suspected by the crowd of being a federal agent.

We currently have a white supremacist in the White House, supported by others with the same ideology. The majority of violent crimes in the country are committed by white supremacists, yet they continue to hold positions of power. These individuals were involved in the January 6th attack on our democracy and are now undermining it from within.

President Trump was almost jailed by his own Justice Department in his first term, due to figures like Jack Smith and Lisa Monaco. There should be a grand jury investigating the entire apparatus, as the problem is systemic, not just personnel-related. The FBI should be taken apart brick by brick, and its headquarters should be up for sale. The FBI's culture rewards corruption and cowardice in ethics and morality. The FBI has the best PR operation in Washington, D.C., making them untouchable, with no one in Congress willing to defang or cut their funding. Members of Congress are intimidated.