reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Adam Gillette from Accuracy Media confronts Tamara Nowitzky about DEI work at the university, alleging that the department was still engaging in DEI in defiance of state law and that only wording had been changed. Gillette asks if this is true. Nowitzky repeatedly responds, I can't comment, to questions about compliance with the law and whether the department has subverted it by altering language. Gillette presses further, presenting a video in which Nowitzky allegedly said she had to change the words because people are dumb. He asks if she said that, and whether the department is complying with the law or subverting it by changing words. Nowitzky again declines to comment, saying, I can't comment, and does not provide direct answers to whether there were thoughts or criticisms about taxpayers who oppose funding DEI, potential loss of state or federal funds, or a message to legislators who passed a law banning DEI at universities. Gillette notes that Nowitzky had commented extensively in the video, and asks for clarification about whether she misspoke or if the statements are accurate. Nowitzky responds with fragmented phrases: “I can't come,” followed by partial words from Gillette’s prompt, and then, “Most of your progressive. Of your faculty faculty,” seemingly offering insufficient, disconnected remarks. Gillette continues to seek any thoughts on whether a predominantly progressive faculty fosters a welcoming environment for students who don’t share those values, but Nowitzky again says, I can't comment. Gillette indicates that investigators spoke with several staffers and found that the psychology department and other departments had changed wording but were continuing the same DEI work. He asks Nowitzky for comments on these findings. Nowitzky states that the university is “fully compliant with House Bill four and all federal laws and policies and procedures with respect to that issue.” He acknowledges this while also noting concerns raised by Tamara Nowitzky in the psychology department about the claim that they “just changed the words because people are dumb.” In closing, Gillette mentions the recorded comments and complaints alleging that the university continued DEI work in defiance of state law, despite the purported word changes. The exchange ends with Nowitzky reiterating the university’s position of compliance and presenting the conflicting claim from a department member about altering wording, rather than altering the underlying DEI work.

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.

Questioning whether the speaker was kicked out of CPAC, the exchange goes: "And you were kicked out of CPAC. Right?" The reply: "I wasn't kicked out. Or you were disinvited? What what let's there was some kind of drama on Twitter." The other party says: "Don't think so. Tell me everything. There's no drama." The speaker then clarifies: "I, you know, like I said, I came out here I came out here to CPAC last year, had a great time. You know, met my hero, Ben Shapiro. I met my mentor and friend, Casa Dillon. And and so I just came out again this year."

The speaker introduces Emmanuel Bearer as someone they consider extremely shady and outlines a request to obtain explicit footage of him, specifically who he was with in the crowd, and to identify every person in attendance. The speaker claims Bearer is a former Oracle engineer, likely from Germany, and notes that Bearer attended the event. They question how Bearer, a relatively obscure figure, became an eyewitness who appeared in Salt Lake City in coverage by the mainstream media, specifically mentioning PBS. The speaker asks how PBS or other media outlets knew to reach out to Bearer and whether Bearer tweeted or otherwise indicated he was there. The speaker describes a desire to understand the process by which Bearer was selected for media interviews and to replicate a method of on-the-ground reporting at the UVU campus rather than relying on Bearer’s account. They reference a prior incident involving Tiffany Barker to illustrate concerns about how media connections are made and how certain individuals gain attention. The speaker asks for clarification on how Emmanuel Bearer was chosen as an eyewitness and why mainstream media pursued him. The speaker then presents a clip of Bearer testifying on PBS, quoting Bearer: “I hear this loud sound, and I'm like, that wasn't what I thought it was, is it? I was like, no. This can't be happening right now. And we all ducked.” They note that Bearer appeared on nearly every news channel and mention that there may be a longer clip they could locate. Finally, the speaker appeals to anyone who attended the UVU event with Bearer to come forward to clarify who Bearer was with, to send photos, and to explain how Bearer became an eyewitness that the mainstream media wanted to speak to, expressing strong suspicion about the unattended appearance and coverage of Bearer.

Trans students on this campus feel victimized by your presence. You mentioned this man's transition, but earlier you dismissed their concerns. Life's tough, get a helmet. I can't handle this, next question.

The speaker briefly mentions Ukraine and Russia, suggesting that a nuclear war would be worth it to support democracy and get vaccinated. They then mention shopping at Target in the pride section, looking for a shirt for their openly gay 6-year-old. The speaker abruptly ends their statement, expressing self-hatred and mentioning something about a vaccine for white supremacy. The moderator interrupts and thanks the speaker, asking them to move aside for the next person. The video ends with the moderator announcing a 5-minute break.

Speaker 0 describes Skyler as having given about four different interviews online right after the Charlie Kirk assassination. She notes he is seen with glasses on top of his head, front row at the scene, and somehow sits on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial during the memorial service. She asks, “Who is this guy? How is this possible? And why are his interviews so odd?” She points out that on the day of the shooting Skyler was in the front row and near a bodyguard. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 recount Skyler’s position: “Maybe 10 or 15 feet away when it happened. Close as he could.” They describe Skyler with sunglasses on his head, and a Charlie Kirk bodyguard in front of him, with Skyler off to the side in the corner when Charlie began taking questions. They note the bodyguard is directly in front of Charlie, Skyler to the side, matching Skyler’s own account of being “front row, Noel in front of him,” with a bodyguard to his left and one in front of him. They say Skyler was “front row and center.” Speaker 0 then says Skyler later appeared sitting on the Main Floor at the Charlie Kirk Memorial, with a floor pass for a press conference, literally “maybe 10 or so rows from the front of the stage.” They claim this is documented on Skyler’s Facebook page. They mention Skyler’s Facebook shows two, perhaps “two point, I think, k” followings, with from 2018 to 02/2025 only about seven posts and about 10 pictures, implying a sparse content profile for a “digital creator.” Speaker 3 describes Skyler’s earlier claim about getting into the stadium: “Just made it to the stadium. There is an unlimited amount of security, Secret service, military, police, empty. Steel barricades all around. … There’s been people waiting in line since 05:30 in the morning.” He says Skyler went past multiple security layers to obtain a media badge and a floor pass, and then ended up on the Main Floor “a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial.” The speakers question how he could gain access and yet appear to be late, then have a media pass and seating positions. Speaker 4 adds, “So, again, why go into detail acting as if you were late, you didn’t even know you were gonna get in, yet somehow you end up with a passing all these checkpoints to get a media pass around your deck, end up on the First, you know, Main Floor just a few rows back to the Charlie Kirk Memorial that day. It’s just like it’s a big act, a big show that this guy's putting on. It’s like he was handpicked to do all these interviews. He was handpicked to have front row that day because he was up, you know, farther up in the crowd before Charlie got there.” Speaker 4 closes with a segment featuring a clip of another person describing a mythic, imagery-laden interpretation: “An indecision night. I photoshopped in my mind. I photoshopped the blood away. I photoshopped Charlie, sat him back up, put his smile back on, and rewound the tape… I rewound the bullet going back up into the rifle. I stuck a flower inside the rifle.”

Speaker 0 discusses an incident involving TPUSA and UVU. They say TPUSA told UVU that TPUSA would provide its own roof coverage and that TPUSA was requesting permission to fly a drone during the event. UVU denied both requests, stating that university campus police would cover the roof and that they would not allow the drone to be flown. The speaker expresses strong reactions to the situation with repeated exclamations. Speaker 1 adds that they drove in and, about an hour before the event was scheduled to start, Charlie obtained drone footage from above. The footage showed thousands of people already assembled on the premises. Looking at the footage, Speaker 1 felt uneasy about the location, remarking that there were too many buildings. Despite this concern, Charlie, who wanted to facilitate interaction with the attendees, remained brave and shrugged off the misgiving, continuing to pursue engagement with the crowd.

Byron Thedford? That's me. Oh, we received a report that you were pushing DEI in defiance of the state law and seeking loopholes to get around the law. Is that true? It's not. No, sir. You've never talked about pushing loopholes to get around the law? I haven't. No. What about this video?

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.

The speaker attended a Kamala Harris rally after recently attending a Trump rally. The speaker showed ID to attend the Harris rally. The speaker was recording a video about the cheering for abortion when someone shouted, "Jesus is Lord." Kamala Harris responded by saying, "I think you're at the wrong rally. Try the smaller one down the street." The speaker claims the Trump rally had almost 7,000 people, while the Harris rally had 2,500 and open spaces. Speaker 1 states that Trump hand-selected three Supreme Court members to undo Roe v. Wade, and they did as he intended.

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.

Hello. What's the educational benefit of talking about things that won't help someone on the SAT? She clearly doesn't care. She needs to put down her sign. I'm being a gentleman here. You're putting me out for asking you to abide by the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't hold up signs. This is tyranny, and we're dealing with a corrupt government system.

Speaker 0: If it's unfair and costly, why not give him the mic? I've answered the question. Sit down, I didn't call you. Look at the inaccurate CNN polls, that's voter suppression. Georgia? I'm not responding to you, I'm talking to this gentleman. Please sit down. The House of Representatives is hostile, such a sad media. You rudely interrupted him.

Speaker 0: Audience, someone from the left comes up to the mic, let's treat them with respect. Let's not interrupt or scowl or boo them. Show the left the respect that we don't get on these college campuses. With that, let's do some

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 confronts the interviewer about their bias towards Donald Trump and attacks on colleagues. They express a desire to discuss Joe Biden and Trump impartially. The interviewer is asked to stop the interview if the attacks continue. The speaker is then cut off and the interview ends abruptly.

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Yeah, why? We're just asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

Turning Point tried to silence me and its opposition, and here is the full story. Yesterday, Turning Point held an event at my school, George Washington University, featuring Erica Kurt and Caroline Levitt. GW students were promised a Q&A at the end of the event. When people started lining up for the Q&A, I got in line and soon learned that at least three out of four of the people in front of me were part of the event themselves. These people were planted there by Turning Point and designated the first few spots in the Q&A. Soon after the Q&A started, a Turning Point worker came up to me and told me that the Q&A would end after the person in front of me in line. Essentially, Turning Point was going to end their Q&A before any actual students could ask questions. Keep in mind that this event up to this point was two hours of nonstop conservative rhetoric despite half of the audience being GW students that didn't agree with the administration. So an organization that claims to believe in freedom of speech and healthy disagreement was going to refuse to let half of their audience have their voices heard. But the crowd did not let that happen. After they ended the Q&A, the crowd erupted to let my question be heard, to at least have one student's opinion heard. And they didn't even give me a mic for half of my question. I had to shout at the top of my lungs for the only two minutes of the two hour show where someone could voice the concerns of millions of American people. And while, yes, I understand that they are running out of time for the event, my question is why in an event that was supposed to uplift GW students' voices did we designate the first three spots of the Q&A to people planted there by Turning Point themselves?

The speaker was asked if they believed students protesting were motivated by anti-Semitism or horror at the Gaza slaughter. The speaker dismissed the idea of students being driven by horror and refused to continue the conversation if it was being recorded.

I will not call on you if you yell, and you're wasting time because Dr. Fauci has to leave soon. I'm not engaging in a back-and-forth. It's not your turn. Don't look at me; it's your first question. You should call on people across the room. She has a valid question about the origin of COVID. I hear the question, but we're not proceeding as you wish. This is disrespectful. I'm done with this. Simon, I'm finished with you right now. Go ahead.

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Uh-huh. Why? We're asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

We were kicked out for wearing Trump gear—hats and shirts—before we could vote. We were told to remove them first. It seems unfair since there were others wearing Harris shirts without any issues. Why is Trump gear such a problem?

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.

We just got kicked out of a Kamala rally in Tampa. We’re both local voters and had invites, but as soon as we entered, staffers swarmed us and called the cops. We weren’t causing any trouble. This is supposed to be a party that values free speech and diversity, yet they couldn’t tolerate our presence. The event was barely half full, and they clearly needed more attendees. It’s ironic that they claim to support openness while acting like this. The staffers seemed nervous and took photos of us instead of engaging. That was our brief experience at the Kamala event today.