reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

A person in the audience accused Professor Weissman of lying about not knowing Felix Sater, claiming Weissman signed agreements with Sater in 1998 and 2017. The speaker stated that Sater, the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow, was recommended to Robert Mueller by Weissman. The speaker accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against President Trump and called Weissman a fraud who should be in jail. The moderator defended the person's right to speak freely, characterizing it as a good example of free speech. Another panelist clarified that while they wouldn't stop someone from asking a question, they would draw the line if it disrupted the gathering or repeated questions already answered.

The speaker discusses holding people accountable and the negative responses they receive. They mention an individual named Lorna who frequently uses the word "private" when it comes to public safety. The speaker also mentions a person named Sherry who questioned their request for a statement regarding a burglary. They express concern over Mary Faye dropping the ball and promise to help with an incident. The speaker shares a text message from Mary Faye, which includes offensive language. They mention filing a complaint with the ethics board, where Mary Faye is a member. The speaker expresses frustration that their concerns are being ignored. The transcript ends with a mention of a town council member with mental health issues.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

Speaker 0 asks if calling for the genocide of Jews violates the code of conduct at MIT, Penn, and Harvard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 state that if the speech becomes conduct and is severe or pervasive, it can be considered harassment. Speaker 3 mentions that it depends on the context and if it crosses into conduct, it becomes actionable. Speaker 0 insists that the answer should be a clear yes, but Speaker 3 maintains that it depends on the context. Speaker 0 concludes that these answers are unacceptable and calls for resignations.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

The speaker questions the witness about mixing personal and professional emails, expressing confusion and concern. The witness explains his actions were to protect a friend under threat. The speaker challenges the witness on ethics and reporting to the ethics office. The witness struggles to provide clear answers, leading to frustration from the speaker. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt and yielding back their time.

The speaker accuses the attorney general of committing fraud and calls the entire case a fraud. They believe it is election interference and is preventing them from being in Iowa and New Hampshire. The speaker strongly asserts that the attorney general is a fraud who has committed fraud.

Jake Lang, associated with the group 1776, has been in the news for doing a lot of things. The transcript alleges that yesterday he was driving around the speaker’s city “for some reason humping a goat in the back of a van,” but it clarifies that “Jake's not interested in goats.” The report then claims that Lang is interested in young underage women. It mentions a friend of the speaker, Arlen, also known as the Zurg, who allegedly “does underage things.” The account alleges that Lang was foolish enough to give Arlen his number and was creepy enough to interact with him thinking he was a 15-year-old girl. According to the narrative, Lang and Arlen began working on this back in November by following Lang’s account. Lang purportedly reached out and asked, “you coming to my next protest in Texas?” Lang immediately goes for the phone number. The presenter emphasizes that the profiles involved are clearly high school-related, noting that they “always have some sort of high school and some throwback to being in high school.” The speaker also states that they cannot show the profiles publicly because that would reveal the operation, but reiterates the claim that the profiles are clearly linked to high school imagery. The situation allegedly worsens when Lang insisted on moving the interaction to a text message conversation, saying, “I have too many DMs. Text only, sweetie.” A decoy provides a phone number. Lang becomes chatty and asks, “How old are you, by the way?” The decoy responds that she is 30, and Lang asks questions like, “Why are you up so late, young lady? How old are you, baby? Unless you are under 18.” The decoy then claims, “I’m 15 and sends a selfie.” The speaker states that Lang sends “possibly the creepiest message a 30 year old grown fucking man could send to a 15 year old,” asking, “When do you turn 16?” The decoy replies that she will turn 16 in six months and adds, “I won’t get you in trouble. If that's what you're worried about, I can keep a secret.” Lang reacts by liking the message and pressing further, asking, “What state do you live in? I can’t see you till you’re 16.” The closing remark questions Lang directly: “Jake, you’re 30. Is this crazy right-wing influencer thing going so poorly for you that you have to try fucking children, or are you just a pedophile, bro?”

A person in the audience accused Professor Weissman of lying about not knowing Felix Sater, claiming Weissman signed agreements with Sater in 1998 and 2017. The speaker stated this information was released by The Intercept in 2019. The speaker further alleged that Sater, described as the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow, was recommended to Robert Mueller by Weissman. The speaker accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against the "rightly elected forty fifth president of The United States" and called Weissman a fraud who should be in jail. In response, a panelist stated that this was a good example of free speech and that people should be able to say what they want. Another panelist clarified that while they wouldn't stop someone from asking a question, they would draw the line when it starts to disrupt the overall gathering.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

A person in the audience accused Professor Weissman of lying to NYU students. They claimed Weissman had a 25-year secret relationship with intelligence asset Felix Sater, beginning with an agreement in 1998. The speaker referenced a 2019 report by The Intercept and alleged Weissman recommended Sater to Robert Mueller. They stated Sater was the Russian developer of Trump Tower Moscow. The speaker accused Weissman of planting an intelligence asset to testify against President Trump and called him a fraud who should be in jail. They referenced Weissman's book, claiming he stated that Mueller lied about knowing Sater. The speaker expressed satisfaction at embarrassing Weissman.

Speaker 0 states that Speaker 2 has a reputation for texting underage girls. Speaker 0 claims Bill Clinton officiated Speaker 2's wedding with someone who was a right-hand person to Hillary Clinton in 2016. Speaker 0 mentions 650,000 emails and a folder with the words "life insurance," claiming that nine out of twelve NYPD cops who saw the email committed suicide. Speaker 0 then reads a list of 46 names of people close to the Clintons who have died, including James McDougal and Mary Mahoney. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 0 of being a bully for reading the list and says Hillary Clinton is the problem. Speaker 0 asks how people close to the Clintons keep dying. Speaker 1 suggests cutting the list out, but Speaker 0 refuses.

The speaker questions whether certain actions are consistent with a commitment to free expression. They mention instances where Senator Schumer discouraged playing video footage from January 6th and when the Federal Trade Commission asked Twitter to disclose journalists they were in contact with. The speaker also brings up an email from the White House requesting the removal of a tweet by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding vaccines. They express concern that these actions may contradict the principles of free expression. The speaker then discusses a letter from the National School Boards Association, which was later rescinded, and criticizes the attorney general for defending his memorandum based on it. They conclude by mentioning ongoing investigations into the origins of the controversy.

Judge Angouoron is criticized for allowing a supposedly biased Trump hater to be involved in a case that should have been dismissed. The speaker claims that the judge's values are fraudulent and that he is influenced by the corrupt attorney general of New York. They also accuse the judge's law clerk, Alison Greenfield, of actively campaigning against Trump and influencing the trial's outcome. The speaker believes that this case is causing problems for New York and calls for its immediate dismissal. They express support for Trump and criticize Greenfield's actions. The transcript ends abruptly.

The speaker claims to be the reason college and high school athletes are getting paid. He calls himself "Mister influencer to influencers." He states he fights to eradicate childhood malnutrition. He accuses the mainstream media and Hollywood of being pedophiles until flight logs are released. He asks if he is canceled yet.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

The speakers question whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates the code of conduct at MIT, Penn, and Harvard. The responses vary, with some saying it depends on the context and others stating that it can be considered harassment. The speakers argue that calling for genocide is unacceptable and dehumanizing, and they believe it should be a clear violation of the code of conduct. They express their disappointment with the answers given and call for resignations.

The speaker discusses a situation involving Professor Dershowitz and Dean Kagan at Harvard Law School. The speaker questions whether Professor Dershowitz should be allowed to keep a claim on the website, while expressing frustration with the lack of response from Dean Kagan. The speaker highlights the issue of limits on the website and gives an example of a derogatory post about Dean Kagan's mother. The speaker argues that the institutions protecting Professor Dershowitz are the problem, not him personally.

A speaker questioned why a congressperson believes President Trump is above the law and why they haven't spoken out against the dismantling of the federal government by President Trump and Elon Musk. The speaker urged the congressperson to stand up for what's right and do their job. The congressperson responded that journalists constantly ask questions, but their answers are not published. To address this, the congressperson publishes statements and speeches on their website, "the scoop," because they cannot rely on news outlets to report what they say.

Weed through a complete searchable database of 26,000 files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker has spent hours and hours examining these files and will spend the coming days giving an inside look at them. A taste of the range of materials includes bizarre emails where Epstein is suspiciously dumping lists of names, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, and Woody Allen. There are emails over the years in which Epstein works with outside consultants to scrub Google search results and essentially bleach the Internet of bad press, claiming they can provide reinforcement from sites like Harvard and other publications they influence to meet Epstein’s needs. In another email, Epstein and Larry Summers, the former Harvard president and board member for OpenAI, are emailing about an article involving Donald Trump and Bill Clinton. Epstein mysteriously says he has some great stories after just coming back from a week of “Jeffrey style” meetings. There are also many emails related to Trump. Despite Trump’s public claim that the whole affair is a scam—with arrows pointing to the Democrats—the files show that he is mentioned in these emails more than anyone else. The speaker invites audiences to follow along as these files are examined and to work to hold everyone involved accountable.

Jordan Conradson from the Gateway Pundit asks why the ethics committee didn't vote in secret to release the Matt Gaetz report. The speaker states they are bound by confidentiality and can't discuss anything that happened within the confines of ethics, neither confirming nor denying anything. Conradson asks about Susan Wilde leaking details and whether that is acceptable. The speaker reiterates they can't talk about anything. Conradson then asks for the speaker's opinion on the meaning of ethics and whether it is ethical to target political opponents.

The speaker discusses protests in New York City where participants chanted: “Christy Noem will hang.” The speaker notes Christy Noem is the secretary for homeland security and says Democrats are “out en masse” saying she will hang. They also chant “save a life, kill an ICE,” and the speaker states this amounts to talking about killing ICE agents. The speaker argues that this demonstrates a permission structure for violence and that the left is openly encouraging violence against ICE agents and cabinet members of the president. The speaker says it will be interesting to see how many Democrats condemn these actions. The speaker asserts that the left has a problem with political violence and that it is visible “more and more.” They claim this is unacceptable and criticize the left for portraying themselves as more virtuous and morally superior, describing this behavior as inconsistent with that portrayal. The speaker emphasizes the need to call this out and to raise awareness about what they view as the violence being promoted by the left. Additionally, the speaker promotes a free email newsletter, stating that it is sent every morning around 7 AM Central. They mention that the link to subscribe is in their profile and urge viewers to drop their email and subscribe. The segment ends with the speaker noting they will see the audience in the next update.