reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Walking away from fact-checking and ignoring discrimination related to TPS contradicts American values. Telling the truth is essential, especially for those in media. It’s concerning that false information can be widely disseminated without accountability. The idea that a billionaire can influence media to avoid fact-checking is troubling, especially when millions consume this content. It undermines the integrity of our discourse. Mister President, do you regret your decision to run for reelection?

Tonight, I want to address the ongoing situation with Ukraine. I called Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, a dictator, which is a term Putin would love to hear. I said Zelensky should move fast or he won't have a country left, noting his poor job and the shattered state of Ukraine. Some say I echoed Putin's talking points by questioning Zelensky's legitimacy due to the cancellation of elections. I mentioned that Zelensky admitted half the money we sent is missing, which he didn't say, and that his poll numbers are very low, but that's not true either.

We can't air unverified information. You mentioned before that discrediting me helps when I say negative things about you. But you’ve discredited yourself by focusing on trivial matters instead of serious questions about Hunter Biden's financial dealings. The story about Hunter's laptop, linked to Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, is being treated as a major issue. It's crucial to investigate whether a presidential candidate is corrupt, especially regarding money from foreign entities. You dismiss this as unverified, but the laptop exists. Why not discuss the significant allegations instead of insignificant topics?

I have never received any money from any foreign source in my entire life. It has come to our attention that the current president has paid significantly more taxes in China, possesses a hidden bank account in China, conducts business in China, and has made claims about me accepting money. However, I want to clarify that I have never accepted any money from any country at any time.

A speaker points out that poll data adds up to 110%. They ask if this is intentional or an error and yield for clarification. Another speaker responds that the data is from a Quinnipiac poll held two weeks prior, noting it contains information about Donald Trump's falling poll numbers. The first speaker reiterates that the data adds up to 110% and calls the poll "fake."

The New York Times, CNN, and other news outlets have shared false or misleading stories about President Trump, including photos of immigrant children in cages from 2014, misrepresenting Trump's actions in Japan, falsely reporting his whereabouts during holidays, and spreading misinformation about his policies and interactions with foreign leaders. These inaccuracies range from misinterpreted videos to fabricated quotes and events, ultimately leading to retractions and corrections by the media.

Many voters believe that the president was involved in his son's business dealings and that he lied about it. Over half of the voters surveyed by CNN expressed this belief.

The media has made numerous false reports about Trump, including inaccuracies about his visits to troops, his interactions with foreign leaders, and his statements on various issues. These errors range from misreporting his actions to misinterpreting his words, leading to misinformation being spread.

The media and punditry threw everything they had at me, but they didn't win. Now they want to drive a wedge between Elon and me, even suggesting I've ceded control of the presidency to him. But it's so obvious what they're doing. They're not even good at it. If they were, I never would have become president. I get 98% bad publicity, but the people are smart. They see what's happening.

The media has made multiple false reports about Trump, including misrepresenting his actions, statements, and interactions. These inaccuracies range from claiming he didn't visit troops to fabricating stories about his speeches and actions. The media has also falsely reported on his family, policies, and even personal beliefs. These errors have led to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Trump's presidency.

The president has a history of inventing or exaggerating stories about his past. He has falsely claimed to have witnessed a bridge collapse in Pittsburgh and that his grandfather died just before he was born at the same hospital. He also repeated a debunked story about a conversation with an Amtrak conductor. In more serious instances, he falsely claimed to have been arrested during a civil rights protest and to have visited the Pittsburgh synagogue where a shooting occurred. He has also made false claims about driving a tractor-trailer when he actually drove a school bus. Whether it's a result of a faulty memory or intentional embellishment, this pattern of misinformation is concerning.

The New York Times published a false claim about me having an alcohol problem, which is completely untrue. I have never had any issues with alcohol. I shared my achievements to highlight that it would have been impossible to accomplish them if I had such a problem. The newspaper's report is a disgrace, especially coming from a reporter who used to cover me positively. It's disappointing to see her now being vicious and mean. If it weren't for press protections, she should be sued for libel and removed from the profession for being a liar. But that's okay.

The speaker was asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including some Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker refused to comment and denied any interaction with their son and brother's foreign business associates, calling it a bunch of lies.

The speaker asserts that the Washington Post is almost extinct and that the papers are dishonest, claiming that generally people do not believe the media. He emphasizes his perception of widespread negative coverage by stating that he receives a high percentage of bad publicity—specifically describing it as 93% bad press, with some figures he mentions reaching 97%. He characterizes this reporting as fake press and insists that all of it is fake. In discussing a political or administrative matter, the speaker mentions someone named Caroline, stating that she is doing a poor job. He poses a question about whether they should keep her, saying, “should keep we her? I think we’ll keep her,” which indicates a decision to retain Caroline despite his critique of her performance. He reiterates his big influx of negative press and ties it to a broader assertion about the media landscape. The speaker then connects these media criticisms to a broader electoral outcome: he claims to have won “in a landslide” despite the high proportion of bad stories about him. He frames the situation as evidence that “people don’t believe the press.” He expands on the significance of that belief by stating that when people do not believe the press, it is “a very bad thing for our country,” linking public trust in the media to national consequences. Throughout, the core claims revolve around three interrelated points: the media’s dishonesty and unreliability, the overwhelming proportion of negative reporting about the speaker, and the implication that voters’ distrust of the press coexists with a decisive electoral victory. The speaker explicitly labels the press as fake and maintains that the perceived credibility gap—where people do not believe the media—constitutes a detrimental condition for the country. He also presents a practical staffing judgment regarding Caroline, indicating a preferred, despite expressed concern about her performance, and asserts a priority on maintaining current personnel.

The media has made numerous false reports about Trump, including misrepresenting his actions, statements, and interactions. Examples include falsely claiming he skipped visiting troops, misrepresented his comments on immigrants, and inaccurately reporting on various events. These errors range from misidentifying individuals in photos to fabricating stories about his financial dealings and health statements. The media has also been criticized for inaccurately reporting on his policies, actions, and personal life. Overall, the media's credibility has been called into question due to these repeated inaccuracies.

I am running a successful campaign for president and leading in every poll against a corrupt president. However, I am facing numerous non-meritorious lawsuits from my political opponents, which is unfair. Joe Biden and his supporters are interfering in the election, despite his inability to campaign effectively. The Wall Street Journal even warned that indicting me, along with these lawsuits, could have unintended consequences and should have been left for the voters to decide. This is another example of a potentially rigged election, which we must prevent.

In October before the 2020 election, I signed an open letter saying emails about Hunter Biden had Russian info operation signs. We didn't confirm it was Russian. Media amplified it. Biden used it in the debate. I don't regret the letter. Nuance was lost, affecting the dynamic. Media should show nuance instead of sound bites. We wanted to point out Russian info campaign signs, not confirm it was Russian disinformation. It's not my fault if people don't look up definitions.

We covered the Russia hoax constantly because the FBI was actively investigating it. We reported what unnamed FBI agents were saying. Any viewer would have believed that Trump and Putin conspired in 2016, but that was completely false. Trump went to extraordinary lengths to keep his meetings with Putin secret, even from his own administration. When asked if he ever worked for Russia, Trump responded that it was the most insulting question he’d ever been asked and the most insulting article ever written about him. He did not directly answer the question, which is a stunning turn of events. Did the President of the United States ever work on behalf of the Russians against American interests?

You continuously discussed the Russia investigation as if it were undeniable truth, leading viewers to believe in a conspiracy between Trump and Putin in 2016, which was completely false. President Trump has taken significant steps to keep his meetings with Putin secret, even from his own administration. When asked if he ever worked for Russia, he found the question insulting and did not provide a direct answer. This situation raises concerns about whether the President has acted against American interests.

I called Zelenskyy a welfare queen because he's constantly asking for money with arrogance, despite billions already unaccounted for. We're working to protect his borders while ours are ignored. His wife shops in Paris, and Ukrainian oligarchs buy yachts. I've had no respect for him since day one. Trump's approach was refreshing, considering how much Zelenskyy has taken from America without respect. He wears military fatigues, acting downtrodden, but he's been on magazine covers and wanted to attend the Oscars. I believe all politicians lie, so I analyzed speeches and transcripts. Putin stated NATO's eastward expansion violated prior assurances when the Berlin Wall fell. We're the aggressors, not him, pushing NATO expansion. Zelenskyy has suspended elections, locked down churches and nuns. I don't like him at all.

Since my arrest in 2019, I've tried to share the truth that Trump, Giuliani, and others lied about the Bidens to help Trump win in 2020. Despite a year of searching, I found no evidence of Biden corruption in Ukraine. Even Ukrainian officials deny wrongdoing. The only false info came from Russia. The impeachment is based on lies spread by Trump and his allies.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

Speaker 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 why they are behind Trump in swing state polls. Speaker 1 responds by saying that the polls are not accurate because there are 10 polls in total, and in 8 of them, they are actually ahead of Trump in those states. Speaker 1 suggests checking all the polls instead of just relying on CNN and New York Times. They emphasize not to believe the negative portrayal and encourage reviewing the actual poll data.

If you believe what the media says, you've gained a valuable ally who essentially works for you without charge. I want to be clear, I admire President Trump. I genuinely believe he's a good person. There's something admirable about him. The president has faced relentless and unfair attacks in the media, which is truly outrageous. In my experience, having spent considerable time with him, I have never once witnessed him acting in a mean, cruel, or unethical manner.