reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks when Congress might vote on having the whistleblower appear, claiming Speaker 1 is the only member who knows the whistleblower's identity and whose staff has spoken with them, requesting the same opportunity. Speaker 1 denies knowing the whistleblower's identity and affirms their determination to protect it. Speaker 1 states that after the witnesses testify, there will be an opportunity to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote.

The speaker raises concerns about US funding for coronavirus research in China, highlighting potential risks of lab leaks and lack of transparency. They question the safety and oversight of such research, citing instances of Chinese researchers requesting funds to create a virus similar to COVID-19. The speaker urges for bipartisan support in obtaining information from the State Department and NIH. They emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in investigating the origins of the pandemic.

The speaker states the hearing is titled "What Are They Hiding?" and cites over 60 oversight letters to federal health agencies as evidence. These letters cover issues like hot lots and VAERS analysis procedures. The speaker says their oversight letters were prompted by Anthony Fauci's emails released under FOIA in February, requiring someone to go to court to obtain them. After requesting unredacted versions of the initial 4,000 pages in June 2021, they received the same redacted pages by July. In September 2021, a request was narrowed to 400 pages. From October 2021 to January 2022, they were allowed to review 50 pages at a time in a reading room, without the ability to make copies. The last 50 pages have not been released after nearly two years. The speaker suggests the unreleased documents may contain incriminating information and should be accessible to Congress and the public.

The speaker mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

The speaker expresses frustration over the leaking of a classified document to The New York Times while a nonclassified document cannot be made public. They argue that the document should be released without unnecessary redactions for transparency. The speaker mentions that a foreign national allegedly has audio recordings of conversations with Joe and Hunter Biden, which were kept as an insurance policy. They criticize the Justice Department and FBI for not focusing on the Biden family and call for the release of the full document to hold them accountable. The speaker emphasizes the importance of congressional oversight and transparency, stating that they have read the unredacted version of the document.

Congressman Thomas Massie discusses the Epstein Files Transparency Act and what to expect from the December 19, public release of materials. Key framework and deadlines - The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed on November 19. Materials are due in a publicly searchable format by December 19. - The act is a law, not a subpoena, and has no expiration date. It directs the attorney general to produce three sets of files from three locations: the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and US Attorneys, including grand jury material from investigations and trials. How to know if all materials have been released - Longtime case reporters and victim’s attorneys indicate there are at least 20 names of men accused of sex crimes in FBI files, specifically in the FD-302 forms that memorialize witness testimony. - If the December 19 production contains no names of any male accused of sex crimes or sex trafficking, that would indicate documents have not been fully released. Legal novelty and enforcement - Unlike prior Congress subpoenas that can be delayed or run out the clock, the act imposes a binding legal obligation with no congressional expiration. - If the attorney general is noncompliant, the next attorney general could be obligated to release the files the moment they hold the seat, and there are penalties described in the act (not detailed here). - The act ensures that even if a new administration changes hands (e.g., post-Trump), compliance is enforceable. Impact on grand jury material and redactions - The act prompted movement in grand jury material rulings: after passage, three federal judges (SD Florida, SDNY) ordered that grand jury material be produced to the DOJ, with redactions to protect victims’ identities as required by the act. - Judges indicated they would redact identifying information of victims, aligning with the act’s protections. Contemporary statements and implications - Pam Bondi had claimed substantial material on her desk and later said there was no material besides child sexual abuse material; Massie notes that other material exists and Bondi will need to produce it, potentially requiring her to address prior statements. - Cash Patel testified before the Senate that there is no evidence implicating anyone other than Epstein; Massie questions him in a House Judiciary hearing about three-zero-two forms, suggesting they may contain corroborating evidence implicating others. - If other men are implicated, the evidence would come from victim statements and corroborating witnesses in FBI files, including 302 forms. Upcoming and media appearances - Congress adjourns a day early, so the document release may be observed on Saturday. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna plan to discuss findings on Face the Nation on Sunday. Ongoing investigations - Bondi announced new federal investigations near the time the bill passed. A bicameral, bipartisan letter seeks a sit-down to discuss what new material justified these investigations. - The act requires that any claims of ongoing investigations affecting release be limited to material that would impact that specific investigation, with temporary redactions as allowed by the law. Massie concludes by promising updates on Friday’s release and compliance with the act, and thanks the audience.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

The congressman from Kentucky accuses the CDC of withholding documents related to inaccurate vaccine efficacy claims. Despite promises to fix errors, the CDC failed to do so. Redacted emails were produced in response to a FOIA request, but crucial ones were omitted. The congressman demands the missing emails be provided, calling out the CDC for incompetence and insolence.

Speaker 0 asks if USAID funded coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Speaker 1 denies funding gain of function research but acknowledges the PREDICT program, which ended in China in 2019. Speaker 0 mentions that the GAO found that some grants from the $200 million program went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the lab leak suspicion originated. Speaker 1 is unsure about funding the Academy of Military Medical Sciences but acknowledges the lack of records. Speaker 0 states that they have been requesting records for months but received no documents from USAID. Speaker 1 reiterates that the PREDICT program ended in 2019. Speaker 0 asks who ran the PREDICT program, and Speaker 1 responds with UC Davis.

Speaker 0 denies funding gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 reveals that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded research on a bat coronavirus at the Wuhan lab, making it more contagious. Speaker 2 questions Dr. Fauci about his previous statement, but he stands by it. Speaker 3 mentions a letter raising concerns about experiments in the Wuhan lab. Speaker 0 interrupts and accuses Senator Paul of lying. Speaker 2 argues that if the virus originated from the lab, those who funded it should be held responsible. Speaker 4 states that the NIH admitted funding gain of function research at the Wuhan lab, contradicting Dr. Fauci's claims. Speaker 0 maintains that he has never lied before Congress.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

Speaker 1 questions the FBI's role, asking if their job is to defend Joe Biden or protect the country and uphold the constitution. Speaker 0 clarifies that the FBI's job is to protect the country, keep people safe, and uphold the constitution objectively. Speaker 1 accuses the FBI of being politicized and weaponizing the agency against the American people. Speaker 0 disagrees, stating that there are good people in the FBI and defends their actions. Speaker 1 questions why certain information was redacted, but Speaker 0 explains that redactions are made to protect sources. Speaker 1 expresses the need for transparency to address the perception of politicization.

Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research. The PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did have grants that may have gone to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I have requested records from the PREDICT program to understand the funding and research conducted, but USAID has not provided these documents. Despite multiple requests and a letter from 25 senators, we have received no information. We want to know about any grants related to coronaviruses, especially those that could have led to COVID-19. The lack of transparency raises suspicions about what information is being withheld. We seek clarity on all research proposals related to coronaviruses funded by the U.S. government.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

The speaker asks about a House Oversight Committee subpoena regarding an FBI document from 2020. The document allegedly describes a criminal scheme involving then Vice President Biden and a foreign national exchanging money for policy decisions. The speaker asks for the White House's response, but they refer to the Justice Department and have no information. The speaker also asks about the country and policy decision, but the response remains the same.

Last week, I spoke about the FBI hiding an unclassified document, known as the 10/23, from Congress and the American people. The FBI eventually agreed to show the document to Congress, but it was heavily redacted. The 10/23 allegedly involves a bribery scheme between Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and a foreign national. The Justice Department then announced charges against former President Trump for mishandling classified records. This senator is committed to fighting political corruption in the Department of Justice and the FBI by promoting transparency. The 10/23 contains references to audio recordings of conversations between the foreign national and the Bidens. It is crucial for the American people to have access to the unredacted document to understand the truth and hold the FBI and Justice Department accountable. Congress must continue to fight for transparency and release the document without unnecessary redactions.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

Speaker 0: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

Bezos owning the Washington Post is described as an arm of the CIA, a claim raised by Speaker 0. He suggests that the newspaper is part of a broader pattern where media power is consolidated in the hands of a few billionaires, accusing the outlet of being used to push a particular agenda. Speaker 1 responds dismissively to that assertion and mentions Ellison taking over of [text incomplete in the transcript], signaling ongoing concerns about who controls major media and institutions. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 asserting that Barry Weiss is trying to squash real news and hide it, and that reporters who are doing real journalism are being targeted, framed as investigations or actions run by a few billionaires who control much of the media landscape. A related critique follows, declaring Bill Clinton a “slimeball” for deregulating the Federal Communications Act of 1996. The speakers reference the consequence that there were thousands of independent radio stations, television stations, and newspapers before deregulation, and now six companies control 92% of the media as a result of that action, calling Clinton a “lousy little slime ball.” The discussion moves into personal remarks about Monica Lewinsky, with a claim that “I didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” followed by derisive language directed at Bill Clinton, describing him as “that little clown.” The conversation then shifts to the Epstein files, with frustration expressed about why those files are not being released. The speakers criticize the redaction of the Epstein files and question, “Where the hell are these Epstein files?” They argue that the redactions are to protect individuals, using charged language to describe the situation as disgusting, and they call for the files to be made public. The topic then turns to the DOJ’s handling of redactions related to Congressman Thomas Massey. The DOJ reportedly missed deadlines to provide reasons for the redactions to Massey and “walked right past his deadline.” The speakers say they interviewed Massey on the show, reiterating that the DOJ violated the deadline and ignored the will of the people, with the DOJ referred to as the “DOJ, Department of Jerkoffs.” Finally, Massey is praised as one of the top lawmakers, described as one of the few in Congress who is truly respected, and “one of a kind,” with Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 expressing strong admiration for his work and integrity.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.

John and Mario discuss the EpsteinFiles with a focus on who is behind the cover-up, the involvement of intelligence services, and the implications for justice and power. - Epstein as Mossad asset and broader intelligence links: - John reiterates his original conclusion that Epstein was a Mossad access agent and adds that he was actively seeking contact with the CIA, the FBI, the NSC, MI5/MI6, Germany, and even Vladimir Putin, aiming to burnish his credentials with intelligence communities. Epstein allegedly requested private meetings with Putin, which were arranged with others present, and there were FOIA requests by Epstein’s attorneys to confirm associations with the CIA and NSC, which reportedly went unanswered. - Mario notes Epstein’s access to the Skiff (a highly restricted, sealed room for classified discussions) and argues Epstein’s entry suggests closer ties to American intelligence, since only Five Eyes would have access to such a space. He contrasts this with a broader view that the “movers and shakers” in American culture and the billionaire/political classes drive the cover-up, as evidenced by congressional mandates to release documents and the DOJ’s involvement. - The discussion flags that the released files show Epstein’s attempts to connect with major intelligence actors, and hints at a possible broader Israeli involvement (Mossad) and questions about whether Israelis were spying on the CIA/NSC. - The scope of the release and accountability: - John emphasizes that Congress passed a law mandating release of these documents; the executive branch has not released all materials, with millions unreleased and only a fraction of available data being disclosed (debate around 2% of data released in some outlets). He criticizes the DOJ for surveillance-like behavior of congressional briefings (e.g., a DOJ official observing members while they review materials). He also notes the CIA/FBI/FIVE EYES redactions that obscure sources and methods, and argues that there should be little redaction since Epstein is deceased. - Mario adds that the files reveal extensive redactions and questions about what remains unreleased, comparing it to the torture report’s redactions, and suggests the redactions may be politically or strategically motivated. - Notable file threads and alleged illicit activities: - A Libyan assets subplot: An associate, Greg Brown, discusses identifying and recovering frozen Libyan assets (potentially 80+ billion dollars). The plan purportedly offered Epstein a percentage (10-25%) for recovery, with Libya’s reconstruction as a potential cost. Brown claimed connections with MI6 and Mossad to identify stolen assets, illustrating a pattern of opportunities for private actors to profit from geopolitical upheavals. - Ukraine 2014 dispatches: A tweet claimed that Epstein, in 2014, discussed opportunities arising from Ukraine upheaval, with the Rothschilds emailing Epstein to discuss asset management and Ukraine, implying Epstein represented the Rothschilds in exploring opportunities amid regime changes. - The role of wealth and elite involvement: Mario and John describe how Epstein’s financial power enabled him to operate at the intersection of intelligence and global finance; the “go-to” for large asset claims is a reality that would require serious governmental or intelligence ties. - Death of Epstein and questions surrounding it: - The panel discusses the widely accepted view that Epstein did not kill himself, citing multiple irregularities: the July 23 attempt, the deletion of relevant footage, Epstein’s removal from suicide watch against protocol, a mass-murderer cellmate, unmonitored calls, camera malfunctions, and a decoy body claim. They discuss the autopsy differences (ear shape, penis description) and an DOJ note dated a day earlier than the death as a potential anomaly. - John explains that in the federal system prison guards’ qualifications and camera reliability are problematic, and argues that the death raises serious questions about the suicide narrative, while acknowledging a lack of inside information to confirm any particular theory. They discuss a decoy body and the possibility that Epstein was secretly killed, with ongoing debates about whether he’s alive or dead. - They reference a note about an escape plan and a will being signed days before death, suggesting Epstein anticipated danger and attempted to plan escape, though this is balanced against the argument that prisoners often contemplate escape. - Victims, threats, and blackmail: - They recount death threats to Epstein’s victims, including threats in Hebrew and references to Mossad-like intimidation. John explains that Western intelligence rarely issues direct threats to civilians, whereas Mossad has historically used such tactics; Epstein’s circle included individuals who reportedly faced threats and harassment. - They discuss Epstein’s private security cameras and alleged blackmail operations, citing emails in which victims describe transactional sexual experiences and Epstein’s networks. They consider whether intelligence agencies exploited Epstein’s perversion to further strategic aims and whether those networks used blackmail to recruit or control powerful individuals (e.g., Prince Andrew, Les Wexner, etc.). - High-profile associations and potential redactions: - Fergie (Sarah Ferguson) is mentioned as having close ties with Epstein, including emails after his conviction and marriage-like language; Prince Andrew is highlighted as heavily implicated. They discuss whether these relationships were used for blackmail or influence, and whether such information remains usable as leverage. - The breadth of individuals implicated ranges from Trump to Clinton to business titans; John notes there is no direct evidence of crimes by Trump or Clinton in released materials, but the extent of connections complicates public perception. - Conclusion and ongoing questions: - The conversation closes with an agreement that Epstein’s death and the surrounding files reveal a web of intelligence connections, high-level influence, and potential blackmail, with substantial redactions and a continuing need for full disclosure to understand the full extent of involvement, high-level figures, and the truth behind Epstein’s death. They anticipate further file releases and ongoing analysis.