reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker explains they paid $15,000 to go and interview Clavicular for a thirty-minute session. The purpose was to ask about Clavicular’s funding, his business, and rumors about him and Peter Thiel, because those rumors are everywhere. However, the moment the interviewer brought up Peter Thiel and Palantir, Clavicular panicked, flipped it on the interviewer, and claimed that the interviewer was the one funded by Peter Thiel. Clavicular stated that his team did research on the interviewer and that there were blockchain ties from Thiel-funded parties to the interviewer’s wallet, which, according to him, there’s zero proof of because it never happened. He claimed he literally couldn't show one single receipt that the interviewer is Peter Thiel funded or Peter Thiel backed, and he said, “I'll wait.” The interviewer asks for clarification: “So let me get this straight. You charge $15,000 for thirty minutes, and then you can't handle a single question. Like, source, I just made it up.” The interviewer adds, “And then you're calling me a scammer, but literally what you just did is scamming. Like, nobody told me to do this. I went solo. I came alone.” The interviewer explains that the only reason for asking about Thiel was because everybody was saying that Peter Thiel is the one that got clavicular released from jail and dropped all of the charges. The interviewer concludes, “So, yeah, I just got fraud maxed, but it's pretty pretty clear that clavicular is funded by Peter Thiel.”

That this is not a rug pull, that I have 100% control over this supply, that I'm not gonna lock it, that I'm not gonna stake it, that I'm gonna keep my control. And that's why here we are with people panicking, by the way, at a legitimate floor of 50 to $60,000,000 on a meme coin that was launched with a 100% fair stealth launch that nobody knew about until three days later. Do you know what kind of an achievement that is?

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker claims to have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They state these activities, along with paying influencers, have real costs.

Okay, so you're asking if I was part of the Melania launch, and if it was sniped like Trump's? Yes, I was part of it. The team wanted to snipe it because of the Trump situation, but we weren't the big snipers. We didn't make any money from it, and we didn't take any liquidity out – zero. Regarding the wallet traced to the Portnoy situation that received $1,500,000 of Melania token, and then sold, there's a distinction. We didn't swap liquidity, but we did sell liquidations. Those are two different things. So yes, we sold, but we didn't swap.

Speaker explains that a space with Stu Peters, Dan Bilzerian, Joe Os Santos, and Soliman wasn’t held correctly; he regrets not getting their teams up immediately and tried to stay neutral to let Stu have his day in court. He argues Stu’s rapid, ready answers indicate rehearsed responses, noting, "they know all these coins are Ponzi schemes." He calls the space a "kill shot" with evidence of a cash-out scheme: the wallet "8GBZB" shows three team members cashing out, draining liquidity from "J Proof." He identifies "JCJE" as the "donation wallet" and contrasts it with transfers to "AGZB"/"HGZB" that cash out to Coinbase, citing "$77,249.76 withdrawn" (page shown). He repeats, "Here's the donation wallet" and "three different team members are using that wallet and transferring out," calling it "irrefutable proof" and "This is the kill shot," labeling Stu Peters a "scammer" and urging others to "spread the word."

The speaker asks if there is a maximum limit for fundraising and if it applies to one person or the entire campaign. The response suggests that there may not be a cap per person, but it raises concerns about the fairness and transparency of the process. It is mentioned that even if there were limits, it would be difficult to determine who is contributing due to the anonymity of Bitcoin addresses. The conversation then shifts to the possibility of someone buying a large portion of the company or if Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin, would participate in the fundraising because they have a significant amount of Bitcoin.

"And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't." "There's a cost to putting a website together." "Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me." "Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000." "I did it at least a dozen times." "You know, these things have actual real cost to them." "Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have."

The speaker asked for evidence of Steve's innocence, and a call between two individuals was provided. In the call, one person thanks the other for their support and expresses excitement for the future. The second person mentions a request for tokens and ETH worth a certain amount, but offers to give even more. The first person apologizes for being on their first cup of coffee. The speaker explains that this call is the alleged extortion incident, where the government claims Steve extorted the other person despite being offered more than he asked for.

That this is not a rug pull, that I have 100% control over this supply, that I'm not gonna lock it, that I'm not gonna stake it, that I'm gonna keep my control. And that's why here we are with people panicking, by the way, at a legitimate floor of 50 to $60,000,000 on a meme coin that was launched with a 100% fair stealth launch that nobody knew about until three days later. Do you know what kind of an achievement that is?

"People and to combat the volatility, and it worked." "But also the market maker was there to implement strategies like chart support, marketing, advertising, billboards, building the new LP on pump swap." "Yeah, the market maker made some poor trades." "Lost capital." "At first, it was I was a scammer and I ran off with it until it wasn't that anymore." "And then the market maker burned the exact amount just to make up for it." "So it negated it, including an additional $30,000 buy on the chart for support after AK's original Jewish FUD attack." "To use for payments to creators for content, these videos, the music videos, the memes, really good stuff, deck screener trending 500 x boosts." "And the market maker had plans for a whole lot more." "That was a punch in the balls getting sniped by the arbitrage bot."

And from a dev who promised never to sell, which I haven't. There's a cost to putting a website together. Who do you think pays for boosts on the Dex screener? That's me. Those cost anywhere between 1,200 and $5,000. I did it at least a dozen times. You know, these things have actual real cost to them. Along with influencers and from a dev who promised never to sell, which I have.

$5,400,000 are currently in the dev wallet. The speaker will transfer $50,000, which is less than 1%, to another wallet. The speaker is forecasting this transfer in advance.

The speaker claims that the famous Dow hack was actually an inside job orchestrated by members of the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest that the Bitcoin wallet controlled during the ICO is directly involved, along with several other individuals. The speaker believes that blockchain analysis can provide evidence to support this claim. They mention one specific wallet that communicated with the hacker's wallet and an individual at the Ethereum Foundation who set up the contract for the hack. The speaker concludes that there is more evidence to support their theory.

Nobody had advanced knowledge of the launch. I mean, that's what insider trading is. Nobody, absolutely nobody besides myself and Andrew, knew that J Proof was even a thing until after the launch, thereby negating any claims of insider wallets. Anybody can buy these things immediately when they hit the blockchain.

Discussion centers on a claim that "these are the wallets that bought J Approved before Stu announced it on Telegram on April 0 04/12/2025 at 04:48 UTC." The speaker adds "Andrew buys, and the market may have maker buys twenty minutes after that." Stu says he announced after launch; others discuss timing. "Any purchases that were made on April 11 would have been people that saw this thing on the deck screener or other people that I had called and told." "I launched it and then people started buying." "No. Negative. Nope. Not at all." "They didn't buy the day before." "I launched it and then people that were I have no idea who they are. Immediately, people started buying." AK: "the wallets that we're referring to are those that interact with other wallets with the team." "If they interacted with the team wallet, not the burn, but with the team wallet, then yeah. Then that's a problem." "I don't do shitcoins."

The speaker accuses someone of making antisemitic remarks, including calling Lucas a "foreign born Italian cosplaying as white." They allege this person claims a Jewish network is out to get J Proof and that he's working with Jewish billionaires. The speaker challenges claims about $5,400,000 in a J Proof wallet, stating the actual value is closer to $115,000, and the recent transfer was only a little over a thousand dollars, not $50,000. They accuse the person of lying and initially denying insider trading, then admitting on Stu Peter's network that the market maker wallet made bad trades and gambled on shitcoins. The speaker asserts this person used their platform to promote a meme coin token, breaking promises and Minnesota state law. They claim a class action lawsuit has enough participants to move forward and that blockchain evidence supports their accusations. They also dispute claims that investing in a mystery project will increase liquidity and market cap, arguing that increasing liquidity makes it harder to increase market cap without buy pressure.

A developer states they promised never to sell and have kept that promise. They claim there are costs to running a website, and they personally pay for boosts on Dexscreener, which cost between $1,200 and $5,000. The speaker states they have paid for these boosts at least a dozen times. They also mention the real costs associated with influencers.

The speaker claims that the famous DAO hack was actually an inside job orchestrated by members of the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest that the Bitcoin wallet controlled by the ICO is directly involved, along with several other individuals. The speaker believes that the evidence can be found on the blockchain itself, such as wallet connections and communication between parties involved. They state that there is more evidence supporting their claim, but they do not provide further details.

Speaker explains that "the space ... wasn't held correctly" and admits, "I screwed up because I should have agreed to get our teams up immediately," opting to "let him have his day in court" and remain neutral. He says, "They know all these coins are Ponzi schemes" and notes that "Stu always had an answer immediately." He calls it "the kill shot" and presents a "cash out wallet, AGBZ. 8GBZB" where "three people on the team [are] cashing out to this wallet." He claims "Here's Stu Peters from the main wallet that he would never sell a penny goes to the side wallet here, AGZB," and identifies "the donation wallet" as "JCJE" while saying "donation wallet" again. He reports "$77,249.76 withdrawn" and says "drain liquidity from J Proof." He asserts "three different team members are using that wallet" and calls it "irrefutable proof" and ends with "Spread the word."

Do my family and friends know I'm in this business? Yes, they do. You think I'm stealing? How? It's not stealing, it's legal. The tokens are real, people buy them. You say the tokens are worth nothing? No, they're worth something. You can still sell. People investing don't know their money will disappear? It's a gamble and they lost. It's a legal way of making money, a legal way of stealing. We wear masks because I'm recognizable. I'm connected with celebrities. It would put a stop to my lifestyle. Do I feel bad about people losing money, like their retirement? I'm just trying to get it. So, no, I don't care.

The speaker claims that the famous Dow hack was actually an inside job orchestrated by members of the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest that the Bitcoin wallet controlled by the ICO is directly involved, with multiple people implicated. The speaker emphasizes the ability to prove this through on-chain analysis, pointing out instances where wallets connected to certain individuals communicated with the hacker's wallet and set up the hack. They state that there is more evidence supporting their claim.

The speaker claims that the famous Dow hack was actually an inside job orchestrated by members of the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest that the Bitcoin wallet controlled by the ICO is directly involved and that multiple people must have been part of it. The speaker believes that blockchain analysis can prove this, mentioning a wallet connected to an individual that communicated with the hacker's wallet and another individual setting up the hack. They state that there is more evidence to support their claim.

James O’Keefe and OMG report on FEC data indicating some senior citizens in the U.S. have donated large volumes of money, with examples of individuals attached to as much as $217,000 in contributions across 12,000 payments over three years, sometimes under variations of names and addresses. The team says the data, drawn from FEC and state records and organized by a group called election watch in Maryland, shows many contributions processed through ActBlue and groups related to political causes. In Annapolis, Maryland, O’Keefe notes the data and asks whether these donors are victims of or participants in a money-laundering scheme, or if they actually engaged in the activity—suggesting actions such as making phone calls or door-knocking to investigate. He describes the process as easy for citizen reporters: bring a microphone and camera (even an iPhone), knock on doors, and call donors to verify. He demonstrates by showing a chart of committees earmarked to receive donations via ActBlue and questions whether the donors are being duped or complicit. During on-camera interactions, he and his team cite a donor with 3,000 contributions totaling $32,000 at a given address, asking the person if she’s aware of such activity. The individual responds that they donated occasionally and not at the stated levels. They also reference the FEC record indicating donations to ActBlue and Biden for President, and question the accuracy of the donor’s claimed totals, while the donor denies making such large-scale contributions and expresses confusion over the situation. One profile highlighted is Cindy Ngo of Annapolis, Maryland, claimed to have contributed over 1,000 times in 2022 for $18,849.77 to ActBlue, which would require daily donations, a claim the interviewee disputes. The donor states they donate occasionally, around $5 at a time, and says they do not believe such frequent contributions were made from her address. The team remarks that the pattern is inconsistent with the donor’s response, noting that the frequency implied by the data does not match the donor’s account. Another profile discussed is Garland Riggs, described as an elderly donor with 31,073 individual contributions under his address, totaling about $230,000. When contacted, Riggs denies donating to ActBlue; he suggests his wife may have donated, but says the amounts are nowhere near the figures alleged. O’Keefe explains he will email the donor the information, including the FEC records, and asks whether Riggs believes someone else might be using his name. The report outlines a method for field inquiries: identify a target by name, confirm whether donations were made in their name and how many times, then ask follow-up questions such as whether they donated 3,000 times. The team emphasizes obtaining comment before publication and notes they have dozens of other homes in Maryland and hundreds nationwide matching the profile. They announce plans to continue calling and visiting more individuals. O’Keefe closes by noting the data came from election watch in Maryland, Gibson Group, and Maryland Twenty Twenty Watch, which have submitted a lawsuit to the U.S. District Court of Maryland regarding the grievance, and invites others to participate as citizen journalists. He directs viewers to okeefmediagroup.com for information on how to pursue similar stories.

"There's no Epstein list. There are no Epstein files." "All of the real story begins in 02/1967 when he's arrested in Palm Beach." "The search warrant basically protected him and it prevented the authorities from collecting meaningful information." "It was like, you're allowed to look in Drawer 3 but not Drawer 4." "So the truth is the US government doesn't have that much." "Massive transfer of money from this guy Les Wexner in Ohio to Jeffrey Epstein." "Leon Black, same thing. He says for accounting services, that's clearly not true." "That's not about Mossad or MI6 or CIA. Right." "So I think as usual, the crime is right in front of our faces."

"that's not enough supply to lock it, so I had to go back and buy more." "There should be your Coinbase going into your dev wallet." "Where's that evidence?" "I'd like to see the evidence that you're in a $150,000, my friend." "I'm into this project for a collective 100 and some odd thousand dollars." "Between buying out of my own pocket, all of the boosts, all of the Dex ads, all of the website stuff." "But I made the dev buy immediately before and after it insta bonded." "So the first buy bonded it, and the second buy was right after it bonded." "I needed another buy to get the 85% that I needed, and that we wanted for the control structure to set all of this up."