reSee.it - Related Video Feed

"I like going around on the Internet finding people making fun of Charlie Kirk to death, and I go and report them to their employers so they get fired." "we have sent out over 300 emails to employers, and we have gotten now 15 confirmed fires." "Gabrielle from Illinois, you're fired. Lincoln from Utah, you're fired. Amanda, another Amanda, from Wyoming, you've been terminated. Suck it. Shasta from Washington State, your ass is fired." "Curtis, again, from Texas. What the hell, Texans? What the fuck? Curtis from Texas, you've also been terminated." "truth being told, I've probably lost about 50,000 followers throughout all social medias while I'm doing this, but I would rather have every single one of my accounts hit zero before I give in to these people." "If you agree with what I'm doing, please hit that follow button. Counteract their mass unfollowing of me."

The speaker describes a negative experience with a woman, stemming from a recent stream and ongoing interactions. He says they are both Catholic and controversial and have both been exiled. He criticizes the stream as a "flop" and a "missed opportunity" because it didn't focus on important issues like Iran and Israel. He claims she copyright struck people who streamed their conversation and then accused him of encouraging piracy. He says she lacks humility and is unable to understand his perspective, particularly regarding valuing one's race. He contrasts her behavior with his debates with figures like Dinesh D'Souza and Alex Jones, where he maintains respect. He believes she is not a good faith or honest person, calling her a "bitch" and a "hypocrite." Despite this, he acknowledges she has "red pilled" people on Israel. He says his experience with her has been unpleasant and annoying.

I'm done with sadness; now I'm just angry. I take pride in being petty. I don't care if you're family or a lifelong friend—if you voted for Donald Trump, you can go away. If you're upset about high grocery prices, improve your situation. Get a better job, pursue education, or make changes in your life. It's frustrating to see people complain without taking action.

The American Jewish Committee called in a statement Charlie Kirk an anti Semite and 'dangerous.' 'Charlie Kirk, an anti Semite.' He was not an anti Semite; he was the opposite, and he was not dangerous. He was a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace. He was the opposite, and he was very stung by that. Charlie was deeply offended by that and expressed some feelings on Megyn Kelly show and in other places, but that did not let up. He called me and then came to see me at my house about this topic. And I said to him, every single time, 'look, I've got my own way to communicate my views. This is actually not the most important issue to me.' There are lots of things I can talk about; I don't need to come to Turning Point. I can take a year off no problem.

Mike Carlo and Carrie Smith have been accused of cozying up to white identitarians on Twitter. Carlo initially denied being called anti-Semitic but later admitted it. The accusation was based on a supposed association with a man named Don Jackson, which Carlo claims is fabricated. The speaker insists that if Carlo doesn't want to be labeled an anti-Semite, he shouldn't associate with such individuals. The conversation shifts to claims of discrimination, where the speaker argues that harassment was due to being a woman and white, not solely because of race. The speaker accuses Carlo of being a pathological liar, making bold claims and then shifting focus to avoid accountability.

Hi. I'm Rachel, and my name is currently first on a website claiming to expose Charlie Kirk's murderers. In the last two days I've been getting messages nonstop, claiming to know where I live and saying they're coming for me. I said I was terrified to think of how far right fans of Kirk aching for more violence could turn this into a radicalizing moment. That analysis came from the fact that I am an experienced journalist who has extensively covered right wing extremism. That's also why, by the way, a lot of people hate me and wanna shut me up. And suddenly, I was, like, the face of people Charlie Kirk's murder, even though that literally never happened. And for what? They're just proving me right. I just really hope no one makes good on these threats because I now have to live as if they might.

I'm a 74-year-old Trump supporter from Palo Alto. Two days ago, a woman at a Starbucks confronted me, calling me a racist and a Nazi. She took photos and posted them on Facebook, intending to shame me and get me fired. Her actions had unintended consequences; people harassed her family and her employer, Griffin Stringed Instruments, leading to her termination. The store owner cited her Facebook posts as inconsistent with their values. She refused to discuss the matter with me, preferring to focus on her accusations. I wear a yarmulke under my MAGA hat; I'm Jewish, and being called a Nazi is deeply offensive.

As a journalist for over 30 years and a person of color for over 50 years, I want to say to Megyn Kelly, go yourself. I typically avoid discussing her because she thrives on attention and has built the latter part of her career on being a troll.

As a journalist and a person of color, I'm disgusted by Megan Kelly's comments about Joy Reid. Kelly, a woman herself, attacks Reid, another woman, after Reid supposedly mocked "white women tears." Kelly calls Reid the "worst person on television" and criticizes NBC for employing her. This is rich coming from Kelly, who was fired from NBC and the Today show. She's the worst person NOT on television. My statements aren't just opinions; there's evidence to back them up, just like when I called Donald Trump racist. The proof of Kelly's behavior is in her Google search history and her constant attacks on women.

I don't want to be like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has filled her spirit with hate towards me. As a leader in my state, she should have reached out to me, even if she disagrees with what I'm doing. Threatening my life and my family is wrong and intolerable. I can't understand how she thinks it's normal to be so cruel to another woman. I wouldn't wish the threats, name-calling, and derogatory experiences I've faced on her.

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.

I'm done with this nonsense. If you voted for Trump, I think you're a loser and a moron. You’re evil and deserve to suffer. I feel so strongly that I want to harm you. You're a horrible person who doesn't deserve to live. Do the world a favor and end your life before I get to you. Show me proof if you do.

I am disappointed in how Turning Point is handling freedom of speech, especially in relation to Charlie Kirk’s approach, which I used to respect for valuing freedom of speech and engaging with people you disagree with. In this event, the people who went before me in the Q&A were part of the event themselves and were designated those spots in line for the Q&A. At least three out of four of them, and possibly the fourth, were designated spots for people who know they support the administration. They also knew the time was limited. They end the Q&A before the first person who opposes the administration, and possibly before the first person who isn’t part of the event themselves. This is in addition to the 20 other people behind me in line who also wanted to ask a question but didn’t have time. I don’t blame them for ending the Q&A because they were running out of time; Caroline Levitt is nine months pregnant now, so I understand the timing. But if you have limited time, why are you not allowing the actual students to speak first? The concern is that spots were designated to attendees who are aligned with the administration, reducing opportunities for dissenting or non-aligned voices, and that this occurred in a setting where there is limited time for questions.

I didn't realize how sick liberals were until this Charlie Kirk situation. Like, I don't wanna live on the same planet as these people. Like, I have experienced real racism in my life, actually. And I don't think those people deserve that. You guys can't even deal with an actual, like, political discourse with a sitter right political figure. It makes me sick to my stomach that I have to live amongst you. It makes me sick to my stomach that you guys exist in our society. You guys can say whatever you want. Conservatives have a heart and a soul far more than you ever will.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Speaker 0 describes Candace Owens with highly inflammatory language, calling her an evil scumbag and a degenerate cunt. He accuses her of burning everything down and gloating while she does it, and claims she has security, though not the same level as others. He asserts that she lies about security and that her actions harm others, while conservatives who criticize her lack “balls” to call her out. He acknowledges that others have begun messaging him in support of criticizing Owens, but he dismisses credit for any such actions he didn’t claim. Speaker 0 asserts that Owens is hypocritical and hypocritically claims she loves Charlie Kirk while allegedly destroying what he built. He states he has bullets fired at his property and has to live in the middle of nowhere, with strangers approaching his Maryland home and residents being beaten when attempting to live there. He contends that Owens does not live the way she portrays, and that she is “burning everything down” and is evil. He claims the conservative movement is fractured and suggests Republicans are on track to lose the midterms, asserting that they were trending in a different direction until Charlie Kirk was murdered, calling it “the most effective political assassination in history.” Speaker 0 further asserts that Owens has turned Turning Point into “the perpetrators of the crime that was against them” and says he is not paid by any of these groups, has no special ties to Turning Point USA, and was not invited to their event. He contends that he does not want to participate with them and feels that conservative media are cowardly for not standing up to Owens. He mentions Megyn Kelly, appreciating her kind words but calling the situation pathetic bullshit. He emphasizes that no one is paying him, there is no Russia or Israel involvement, and he is simply risking his life by speaking out. Speaker 0 reiterates his frustration at Owens being placed in a thumbnail on her piece and calls her a “fucking cunt.” He insists that Owens benefited from the situation, and that she “killed Charlie” with her actions, claiming, “No one benefited more than her.” The exchange includes Speaker 1 confirming disbelief that Owens included him in the thumbnail and echoing the sentiment that she didn’t fly or act consistently with her claimed security.

My coworker was all in a tizzy because she gonna tell me that Charlie Kirk got shot, and I said, good. So we get into this whole conversation about it, and she goes, well, you can't hate people for their political views. And I'm like, yes. I can. Like, that's specifically why I hate people sometimes. You can't hate me for my views because my views don't infringe upon your rights. You don't hate me for what I believe in because it doesn't interfere with your life. Some of these views are dangerous, and I'm glad he got shot. Hopefully, he dies. I don't care.

I'm not in a good mood today. If you see me, just keep walking and avoid making eye contact. I feel like I want to lash out at people, even if they support Kamala. It's a strong urge, and I can't help but feel frustrated.

"The American Jewish Committee called in a statement Charlie Kirk an anti Semite and quote dangerous. 'Charlie Kirk, an anti Semite.' 'Yeah. He was not an anti Semite. He was the opposite, and he was not dangerous.' He was 'a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace,' 'the opposite,' and he was 'very stung by that.' 'Charlie was deeply offended by that' and expressed some of those feelings on Megyn Kelly show and in other places, but that did not let up. The story is told because he called me and then came to see me at my house about this topic. And I said to him every single time, 'look, I've got my own way to communicate my views.' This is actually not the most important issue to me. There are lots of things I can talk about. I don't need to come to Turning Point. I can take a year off no problem. I hated seeing how much he was suffering, the hassle he was getting from people, and I was attacked too. By the way, it was a huge effort. I wasn't fully aware of it actually because I don't go online."

Speaker 0: Hi, Michiganders, specifically Detroiters. Do you guys care that Charlie Kirk has passed away? Yeah. I didn't think so because my district is primarily black people, and Charlie Kirk said awful things about black people. So, no, I think my district will like me because I advocate for them as a white person. So

Speaker 0 describes a situation where some individuals “gum felt empowered and emboldened enough to put this picture of me up to try to threaten and intimidate me,” adding that they didn’t succeed because “I signed up for this.” The person who posted the picture “said a bunch of terrible things, not just against me, but against a lot of groups and individuals who, by the way, was arrested today in Wisconsin.” The speaker’s point is that if this person feels empowered or safe enough to threaten them, what would they do to “a kid” or “a Jewish family walking down the street?” The speaker attributes this behavior to the “normalization of this,” describing how people watch such acts on television and feel empowered to imitate them. They argue that while the aggressor may think they can act, they cannot: “a, you can't.” They extend the concern to someone in law enforcement, asking, “if you think you can do it to somebody that's in law enforcement, again, what are you gonna do in an alley or in a street to a Jewish family or a kid walking down the street?” The message is a firm prohibition: “We say no. We're drawing the line.”

And I was being attacked too. There was a huge effort by people, some of whom I know and have helped and like Seth Dillon, the Babylon Bee, for example. Seth Dillon was out there demanding that Charlie Kirk take me off the roster, pull me off stage because I had said things that BB didn't like or that he didn't like or whatever. Shocking that someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in the idea that we all get to speak and if you don't like it, make a more compelling case. That that person and many others like him were advocating for me getting pulled off the stage because they don't like what I'm saying. This is a trend and one that we should be really concerned about.

He will create a false equivalency between Charlie Kirk and the murder of the Hortmans in Minnesota. That's provably untrue. Melissa Hortman, the Democratic state legislator in Minnesota last three months ago, gunned down by an anti abortion Trump supporter. Yes or no? Wrong. How do I know? Because Vance Bolter, the man who did it, wrote in his letter that it had nothing to do with Trump or being pro life. He blamed Tim Walls. Did you see anyone celebrating the death of them gleefully? Did you see so many professors doing so, showing children a snuff? spitting at their vigil. Joe Walsh will say that this is an overreaction. From the moment Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I said, we don't know who did it. All of this is by design so that the left and spineless right can make this conversation about conservatives responding to the cold blooded terroristic assassination... And maybe if I would have picked up the phone, maybe Charlie would have had a fighting chance.

I shit you not that I just lost a thousand followers on Instagram because I made a video on Charlie Kirk saying that if you think that this is a justified fucking death, that you should go fuck yourself. And I shit you not so many people unfollowed me. And you know what? I'm so grateful that you sick fucks are unfollowing me because holy hell. Holy hell. How many of these mind twisted people did I attract into my fucking life? And if this is your invitation, if you wanna unfollow me, if you think what happened with Charlie Kirk is okay, then fucking unfollow me. You sick bastard.

"Charlie Kirk should not have been assassinated." "That's what I said that caused tens of thousands of Democrats to come into my comments and mentions literally hurling homophobic slurs at me." "The ultimate irony is that that's the reason why you justify the assassination of Charlie Kirk was because he was such a bigot and he said all these horrible things, which aren't even real quotes, by the way." "You hate him for things he never even said." "Meanwhile, you guys are actively saying things that are infinitely worse than anything that Charlie Kirk said." "And you guys don't see it." "You don't have that ability to self reflect." "You have no ability to self reflect." "You guys you guys can literally sit there being the nastiest, meanest, most cruel hearted people ever and genuinely believe that you're the good guy because you're doing it to bad people." "Oh, yeah. What is wrong with you?"