reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Congress members have "APAC people," essentially APAC babysitters, who are deeply embedded in APAC and have direct contact with the members. Some congressmen admit they will consult their "APAC guy" to influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this relationship is not public knowledge, suggesting it's not beneficial for congressmen to be seen as having a buddy system with a foreign country representative. The speaker also shares Thomas Massey's anti-war stance, highlighting his concerns about escalating tensions with Iran and the influence of the military-industrial complex. Massey points out that as soon as the US stopped spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan, they started spending $50 billion in Ukraine. He suggests that Massey's anti-war position transcends specific conflicts or groups, aligning with a desire to stop people from dying, a sentiment the speaker associates with Donald Trump's campaign promises.

According to Speaker 1, the intelligence agencies hid the fact that Bin Laden was in Iran, not Afghanistan or Pakistan, to justify military action in the Middle East. This manipulation started under Clinton and continued under Bush Jr. Speaker 1 claims that intelligence agencies have tentacles around the world and don't answer to anyone, which is a problem for Trump. Speaker 1 alleges that they were targeted after questioning 9/11, resulting in an FBI raid on their daughter's house weeks before an election, which they believe was politically motivated to remove them from office. No charges were ever filed against the daughter, and boxes taken were returned unopened months later. Speaker 1 claims that the person who ran the campaign against them was managed by the staff director of Sandy Berger's company. Speaker 1 asserts that some individuals within intelligence agencies are making money from conflicts and vows to expose them.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

Thomas Massie is described as a “terrible congressman.” The speaker claims Massie voted against men playing in women’s sports, voted against transgender “for everybody,” and characterized this as “the mutilation of your children.” The speaker also claims Massie voted against “open borders.” The speaker then asserts that “we have the best border we’ve ever had right now,” adding that a report “just came out” stating that in the last eleven months “literally nobody has been allowed into our country illegally.”

Speaker 0: The RJC, APAC, and Miriam Adelson and Paul Singer are described as part of “the Israeli lobby,” and Speaker 0 says this is where “all the money comes from.” Speaker 0 characterizes the situation as a referendum on foreign policy, saying Israel would be able to dictate foreign policy through “bullying members of congress.” Speaker 0 says they have been the one they “haven’t been able to bully,” so “they’re putting all the brunt and the force on me.” Speaker 0 claims they are ahead in the polls and that opponents are “desperate,” adding that “they’re sending the secretary of war to my district tomorrow,” the president is “losing sleep and tweeting,” and APAC “dumped another $3,000,000 into my race this weekend” because they are “panicked” and have “really haven’t been able to gain a lead” in the race. Speaker 1: Speaker 1 says the president is not necessarily desperate, pointing to a “pretty good record of defeating people he wants to target in Republican primaries,” citing Bill Cassidy and what happened in Indiana. Speaker 1 asks how Speaker 0 will overcome the president’s opposition. Speaker 0: Speaker 0 says their situation is different because they have endorsements from “the right to life organizations” and “the gun organizations.” Speaker 0 also says four members of congress came to “this” yesterday and campaigned with them. Speaker 0 adds that they have received millions of dollars from the grassroots, with “tens of thousands of donors to my website, thomasmassey.com,” and says funding is still coming in. Speaker 0 concludes that this is how they will beat opponents.

My issue with my colleagues is that they have all supported Donald Trump for personal gain. They begged for his endorsement and attacked him in the past. However, the real enemy is not Trump or Biden, but the deep state. I am the only one on this stage who can speak the truth about January 6th being an inside job, the government lying about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the Democratic Party's support for the great replacement theory, Big Tech stealing the 2020 election, and the National Security Establishment fabricating the Trump Russia collusion hoax. We need someone who will speak truth to power, not someone who criticizes when it's convenient.

The transcript argues that Thomas Massey’s campaign is in “trouble” because it violated a “golden rule” of campaigning: never allow the public perception you sold to be dismantled, especially in the last few days. It claims Massey spent the last year creating a perception that he is a champion for transparency, and that once this narrative is dismantled, it “is gone forever” and cannot be restored. It says the campaign’s need to revert to that narrative is what they “wanted to happen last” in the final days. It also claims the “Gray Ops campaign” is trying to convince viewers that Thomas Massie did more to take down “p three DOs” than the entire Republican Party, calling it “the biggest lie they’ve ever told.” Donald Trump and his administration are said to have released 4,000,000 documents related to the Epstein files, described as 4,000,000 more documents than any other president before him. The transcript asserts that none of those documents contained incriminating information, and it gives two reasons. First, it claims that people close personal friends and political allies of those likely to be incriminated had controlled the files for two decades, implying they would not leave real incriminating information by the time the Trump administration picked them up. Second, it claims the Trump administration was forced by a law written and pushed and passed directly by Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna. It says Massie wrote the bill that created a legal umbrella requiring the Department of Justice to redact many names. It further states the bill required redacting names authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and foreign policy and properly classified under that executive order, and that disclosure would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution. The transcript concludes by reiterating that Massie wrote the bill that required redacting the names that it says he spent a year trying to convince the public he was demanding transparency over.

Speaker 0 asks if Democrats risk playing into the president's hands by focusing on the Kilmaro Burgo Garcia case. Speaker 1 responds that they don't know of any Democrat who defended Garcia. They claim Garcia was falsely arrested and removed from the country. They allege "they" are making up things about Garcia, such as associating him with MS 13 or claiming he coordinated the January 6 attack, even though he has never been prosecuted or convicted of any crime.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

An individual believes Caldwell is a person of integrity and intelligence who is committed to the country, but is being attacked by people who have a track record of "destroying America." The tactic is to get a headline out there, call someone a "naughty word," or say they are "anti-country" or "radical." The hope is that someone will hand this to Trump and try to trick him into thinking he's stupid. The speaker says this is actual disinformation and asks what publications and people are involved in this campaign of lies. The "big story" going around on both individuals is from Jewish Insider, which is running headlines against people and attacking them by stripping the context.

Speaker 0 asks if Ron DeSantis has ever denounced them, to which Speaker 1 replies that he hasn't. They claim to be his biggest supporters and if he were to denounce them, they would say he's lying because he's trying to secure the presidency. Speaker 1 mentions that politicians in the US have to support Israel and that DeSantis is just pretending to be a friend of the Jewish people while actually being a friend of white America. They bring up HB 269, a bill DeSantis signed in Israel, and criticize it for not achieving its intended goals. They conclude that DeSantis is focused on the best interests of white America.

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

The speaker describes a coordinated smear campaign against him, asserting that after he announced he would challenge Trump, a lineup of public figures began attacking him or being described as “feds.” He cites Ian Myles Chong, Tucker Carlson, and Milo as examples, saying the criticism revolves around insinuations that he is connected to or controlled by federal agents. He argues that these accusations are part of a broader effort to silence the American people and dismiss his voice. He contrasts the public’s reaction to his campaign with what he regards as a coordinated “fed” narrative, claiming that Tucker Carlson has insinuated he is a fed, and noting that Carlson’s father was a CIA agent who ran Voice of America for forty years, along with Carlson’s collaborations with people he labels as CIA assets. The speaker provides a cascade of biographical and investigative claims about people connected to Carlson and others: - Eric Prince, described as a CIA asset, appeared in a group chat with Tucker Carlson; Carlson had on Joe Kent, a green beret, who is described as intelligence. - Curtis Yarvin is described as the son of an American diplomat who works with Peter Thiel, who is described as a federal informant. - Peter Thiel is claimed to be an FBI informant; Thiel’s Palantir is said to have contracted with the CIA for almost ten years (2001–2008) and now contracts with the NSA and FBI. - Thiel funded JD Vance’s Senate campaign, giving $15,000,000 to help him secure the Trump endorsement; Carlson allegedly helped persuade Trump to make Vance the vice president. - Carlson is said to have invited Kevin Spacey, described as a close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, on a Christmas interview. - The speaker contends that a social media ecosystem includes many who see nothing suspicious about these connections, including CIA involvement, green berets, and intelligence ties that push certain candidates on Trump. He asserts he's been demonized for years: banned from social media, banks, airlines, and credit card processors; subpoenaed; and money frozen. He claims this is because he has grown a substantial, loyal following and uses it to organize and mobilize swing-state voters rather than taking advertising or sponsorships. He says his followers are genuine and committed, which frightens those who want influencers who can be paid to push narratives. The speaker reflects on Charlottesville and white anxiety, suggesting others only recently acknowledge these issues. He asserts he would appear civil in an interview with Tucker Carlson and asks for a platform to “clear the record.” He contends he is being targeted for standing up to the GOP establishment and for criticizing both the right-wing establishment and the left. He predicts he will be “patsied” and that those opposing him will try to take him down, leaving him to be the “dark MAGA” guardian, not the hero, who nonetheless confronts the country’s problems and fights for real change. He closes by declaring he will be the villain if necessary, stating that the country will never give him the credit he deserves, but that he performs this role out of duty, not glory.

My issue with my colleagues is that they have all supported Donald Trump for personal gain. Ron DeSantis begged for Trump's endorsement and attacked him in his book. Chris Christie lobbied for COVID money and prepared Trump for debates. The real enemy is the deep state that Trump tried to challenge. I'm the only one on this stage who can speak the truth. January 6th looks like an inside job, the government lied about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the great replacement theory is part of the Democratic Party's platform, Big Tech stole the 2020 election, and the National Security Establishment stole the 2016 election from Trump with the false Trump Russia collusion hoax. We need someone who won't flip-flop and criticize Trump when it's convenient.

My issue with my colleagues is that they have all supported Donald Trump for personal gain. Ron DeSantis begged for Trump's endorsement and attacked him in his book. Chris Christie lobbied for COVID money and prepared Trump for debates. The real enemy is the deep state that Trump tried to challenge. I'm the only one who can speak the truth: January 6th was an inside job, the government lied about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the great replacement theory is part of the Democratic Party's platform, Big Tech stole the 2020 election, and the National Security Establishment falsely claimed Trump colluded with Russia in 2016. We need someone who won't flip-flop and criticize Trump when it's convenient.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

The speaker claims ADL, APAC, and UJA Federation are "arms of Mossad." APAC allegedly buys Congress, ADL erodes civil liberties to legislate protections for Jews, and UJA Federation funds operations, including 9/11. The speaker connects Trump's endorsements of Lee Zeldin, Elise Stefanik, and Kristi Noem to these groups. Zeldin is allegedly funded by AIG, Seth Clarman, Daniel Loeb, and UJA Federation. Stefanik is allegedly funded by the same people and involved with the National Endowment for Democracy, which the speaker connects to fires in West Hollywood with Karen Bass and Kenneth Wallach, a former legislative director of APAC. Noem passed antisemitism laws in South Dakota. The speaker expresses concern about these endorsements and Trump's nomination of Kash Patel for FBI director, who the speaker says called for prioritizing truth.

Speaker 0 notes that many top Republican political consultants spend a lot of effort trying to primary Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and asks what that signals, suggesting it feels like subversion. Speaker 1 argues they are tied to Israel-first money and are trying to crush Massey, though Massey isn’t perfect. MTG is described as a firebrand and fighter who will be with you when a fight counts. Both are sincere, and Speaker 1 emphasizes that Massey isn’t paid to say things and “means it,” which is presented as a virtue for political allies. Speaker 0 adds that MTG and Massey are sincere, even if not agreeing with all of MTG’s positions or Massey’s. The discussion shifts to the political math on Capitol Hill: a small number of MAGA-aligned figures in the Senate (Eric Schmidt, Josh Hawley from Missouri) and in the House. They argue Trump is seen as a passing storm by some, who hope to pivot back to other agendas by the 2028 cycle, mentioning Ted Cruz’s article and a sense of urgency. There’s a claim that certain vested interests want people to toe a line, and those who deviate are targeted. The remark notes Fox’s interview with someone referred to as mom Dominic, which focused heavily on Gaza and Israel in a six-minute segment, signaling how media frames issues around Israel. Speaker 1 laments the disproportionate focus on Israel in political discourse, arguing it distracts from broader aims. They recount a keynote at the National Conservatism Conference where T. E. Lawrence’s line is invoked: the Middle East is a sideshow to the Western Front, and the Arab revolt is a sideshow to a sideshow. The speaker asserts that the Middle East, given current geopolitics, economic war with China, and potential domestic unrest, is not the central issue MAGA should revolve around; the Israel issue is a sideshow to a sideshow. The central thesis offered is that while the speaker supports Israel and the Jewish people, the Israel-first focus has diverted attention from the core goals for President Trump. The main objective emphasized is the deconstruction of the administrative state and the destruction of the deep state as the central mission of Trump’s tour of duty, with the deconstruction of the administrative state identified as a primary aim to be accomplished. The discussion frames ensuring urgency to consolidate MAGA’s coalition and prioritize overarching constitutional and administrative reforms over narrower geopolitics.

My colleagues on this debate stage have all been loyal to Donald Trump for personal gain. They begged for his endorsement and attacked him in the past. But the real enemy is the deep state, which Trump tried to challenge. I'm the only one here who can speak the truth. January 6th looks like an inside job, the government lied about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the great replacement theory is part of the Democratic Party's platform, Big Tech stole the 2020 election, and the National Security Establishment stole the 2016 election from Trump with the false Trump-Russia collusion hoax. We need someone who won't flip-flop and criticize Trump when it's convenient.

Speaker 0 attacks Dinesh D'Souza and an unknown figure, calling them 'elite ivory towers' and noting D'Souza 'made six documentaries' and has a 'membership at Mar a Lago' costing '$250,000.' They deride 'low peasant trailer park trash' and say '53% of my paycheck' goes to a government 'inject my children with deadly bio fucking weapons,' adding that 'The only one who's actually seems like they're holding their own... is Bobby Kennedy.' Speaker 1 warns that 'those guys are trying to take MAGA out' the MAGA coalition that included 'Elon Musk and Joe Rogan and Tulsi and Bobby and me.' Speaker 2 argues 'this is a gift to radical Islam because Israel is fighting radical Islam' and cautions against breaking 'our alliance with Israel,' noting 'I'm Christian, I'm not Jewish' and 'Our family has been giving a $100 a year to Jerusalem for biblical archaeology.' Speaker 0 blasts 'Israel is a terrorist state' and condemns the administration for 'selling us out to Israel' and criticizes the films as ineffective, ending with 'Pipe down.'

My issue with my colleagues on this debate stage is that they have all supported Donald Trump for personal gain. Ron DeSantis, Nicky, and Chris Christie have all sought his endorsement or money. However, I believe the real enemy is the deep state, which Donald Trump tried to challenge. I am the only one on this stage who can speak the truth about January 6th being an inside job, the government lying about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, the Democratic party's support for the great replacement theory, Big Tech stealing the 2020 election, and the national security establishment stealing the 2016 election from Trump. We need someone who will speak truth to power, not those who only criticize when it's convenient.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

The transcript presents a fringe, highly charged discussion about perceived Israeli influence in the United States, Trump’s shift from “America first” to “Israel first,” and related political dynamics. The speakers repeatedly claim that Israel controls the U.S. government and American foreign policy, with several variations such as “Israel's controlling our government,” “Israel controls us,” and “The government of Israel controls The United States.” They assert that Israel has run American foreign policy for thirty years and that the United States government is taking edicts from Israel, describing it as an “Israel first administration.” As the discussion progresses, the speakers describe discomfort with America’s relationship with Israeli leaders, calling the Israeli government a “satanic regime” and suggesting it seeks to cause pain. They contrast Trump’s campaign promises of “America first” with his alleged current actions, arguing that he has escalated a war on behalf of Israel and turned on earlier allies who did not toe the Israel-first line. They claim Trump has allied with politicians and influencers who are unpopular with his former base, and that he endorses a “massive war on behalf of Israel that he promised he would never start.” They point to specific figures affected by these changes, including those who supported or criticized Trump and Israel. The discussion names individuals and entities linked to the shift, including Charlie Kirk. They claim Kirk was influential against the Iran war and withdrew support for Israel prior to his death; Erica Kirk allegedly took over TPUSA to continue Charlie Kirk’s legacy but allegedly did so in a way that opposes Kirk’s earlier stance, endorsing Massey’s Israel-funded opponent and labeling Massey a “rhino.” They argue donors pressured Kirk to change his stance, leading TPUSA to distance itself from Kirk’s legacy and to align with an Israel-funding candidate backed by Trump. The speakers claim broad consequences for Trump’s base: those who call for justice with the Epstein files, those suspicious of Israel, and those who question Erica Kirk are said to have been blackballed or marginalized. Conversely, supporters of the new Trump are described as urging to move on from Epstein, unconditionally supporting Israel, and reacting strongly to any critique of Erica Kirk. A recurring theme is a critique of Zionism as a political ideology; the speakers distinguish between “Israel” and “Zionism” and argue Zionism controls both the U.S. and Israel. They challenge religious claims that Israel is “God’s chosen people,” offering a Christian critique of that idea and asserting separations of church and state in the U.S. The discussion includes references to alleged silencing mechanisms, narrative control, and tribalism as a “SIOP” framework, describing three characteristics: silencing opposing ideas, a strong narrative, and tribalism. They illustrate these with examples such as censorship of anti-Israel sentiment or questions about Israel, accusations about a fixed narrative like “Israel is our greatest ally,” and the exclusion of dissenting voices. The speakers conclude by asserting that while Israel does not control the U.S., Zionism appears to influence both countries, and that the root issue is the influence of Zionism rather than a single country’s leadership. They urge viewers to speak up while suggesting the changes reflect a broader, troubling shift in political power, ending with a night-time sign-off and personal recovery product plugs being referenced but later deemphasized.

The conversation centers on whether political opponents or powerful interests would buy off or influence a candidate, and what that would mean for a political race and the country. Speaker 0 questions if a price exists to “be bought,” and both eventually reject money as the primary issue, insisting the matter is about the country itself. They discuss the idea that fresh faces are needed because no one in a federal race has ever lost and then won, though Speaker 0 contests that notion as a possibility. They reference powerful people in the East who want to keep the candidate out and are willing to spend heavily, making the conversation forbidden and not to be repeated. A fear is expressed that someone might be offered financial incentives, such as being placed on a payroll to be kept out of the race. They acknowledge the presence of entities willing to “put their money where their mouth is” and the risk that they would “murder” or eliminate opponents to stop certain candidates, describing a dangerous political landscape. The dialogue shifts to the cartel and corruption, with mentions that “the cartel is operating in 50 states,” though details about who knows what are avoided. They discuss the strategy of staying on “the team” of those who want to influence the race, suggesting creditors or backers aim to control the candidate’s actions and align them with a globalist agenda. There is insistence that the person should not “scratch their back” for others in Washington, viewing DC as a “back scratching club.” Speaker 1 argues that defeating Trump is a central aim, claiming that DeSantis is not America first and that removing Trump would be a dangerous outcome for the country. Speaker 0 expresses support for Trump but questions whether he can win again, suggesting the real issue is money and the ability to raise funds to win. They note that consultants benefit from a continuing cycle of money and that those consultants do not want their payday to end. A key sentiment is resistance to being controlled or owned, with Speaker 1 declaring he will not accept backroom deals and will be “the biggest pain” to those trying to control him. They discuss public support and the importance of defending their movement and the people of Arizona, stressing a commitment to carry their torch and voice. The dialogue ends with a defiant vow to continue, even if it risks dangerous retaliation, and a readiness to persevere rather than pause on the battlefield.

The speaker watched a debate with Biden and thought he did not do well, claiming most of the world would agree. The speaker believes Biden was forced out in a coup and replaced with someone who was ranked number 13 online after failing to get the nomination. The speaker spent $150,000,000 to beat Biden and was leading when Biden was replaced. The speaker believes this has never happened before. The speaker thinks Biden hates the new person as much or more than he hates the speaker, which is hard to believe.