reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 discusses Christopher Krebs, former head of CISA, claiming: Krebs weaponized his position against free speech in the election context and in the context of the COVID-19 presidential memorandum, and that he might have instructed the Department of Justice and other parts of government to investigate what Krebs participated in while head of CISA. Speaker 1 asserts they did not know Krebs personally, but that he came out right after the election, which was a “rigged election, badly rigged election.” He claims the country’s outcomes included open borders and millions entering the country, and asserts that “Russia and Ukraine, that would have never happened,” and that “October 7 would have never happened,” followed by the Afghanistan withdrawal with “13 dead, but so many killed, actually. I mean, so many so many killed outside of the 13 soldiers, hundreds of people killed.” He says, “and maybe, I don’t know, never,” but mentions it, that Krebs was saying the election was great, adding that “it’s been proven that it was not only not great.” He cites lawyers and law firms signing on, “giving us hundreds of millions of dollars,” and claims the election was proven by legislatures not approving, and other forms from “the all of the different, scamming operations,” describing it as a very corrupt election in which COVID was used to cheat. Speaker 1 contends Krebs claimed, “we’ve proved this is the most secure election in the history of our country,” describing the result as a disaster. He insists they should adopt “paper ballots, same day voting, voter ID,” and proposes adding a certificate showing citizenship before voting—“a citizen piece of paper that says you’re a citizen before you can vote.” He reiterates support for voter ID, paper ballots, and same-day voting. He describes events: if you don’t have same-day voting, they change the air, move boxes, and then don’t bring the boxes back, implying a lack of safety in elections. He asserts that elections must have borders and, ideally, a free press, which he claims we do not have, calling the press dishonest. Speaker 1 concludes that Krebs is a “fraud” and a “disgrace,” and says, “We’ll find out whether or not he was right,” promising that Krebs “has a big price to pay” if the election wasn’t safe, labeling Krebs as “a bad guy.” He also states he has no idea who Krebs is, though acknowledges Krebs “was in the room at some point,” and ends by noting that the last two points are important for the country.

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.

The speaker was asked what office they were elected to and if they needed support. The speaker responded that they are not the one to ask and that the person should speak with a man. The speaker then stated that they speak to over a million people.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of weakness and creating more "Austin Metcalfs." Speaker 0 demands Speaker 1 condemn his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 2 tells Speaker 1 he has been "submitted" and criticizes him for talking about Trump, stating, "When you do that, my name is Griswold." Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of supporting degenerates who are murdering white people and claims Speaker 1 is no more of a patriarch than he is. Speaker 2 asks where Speaker 1 was on January 6th. Speaker 2 states the solution is to help people where they are weak, particularly young black males. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1's response to a grieving father is that he's weak. Speaker 2 threatens to run against Speaker 1 for Senate in Florida as a Republican. Speaker 2 claims Speaker 1's behavior is why "we're in the situation where we are." Speaker 2 says he came to give Speaker 1 a message from a father. Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of being a black man trying to shut him down.

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."

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.

Speaker 0 says they are thankful for Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s staff for calling to ban them, claiming it exposed what “was going on.” They argue that South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho are often viewed as “bastions of conservatism,” but they claim there are “rhino establishment authoritarians” in charge. Speaker 0 tells Thune they should have allowed them to attend the event, saying they “would have been a me quite observer” that it “wouldn’t be a nationwide story right now.” They claim that because Thune’s staff “moved to Bandy” and to “shut me up and shut me out,” their movement “trended on social media for nearly 24 consecutive hours as one of the top trends in America.” Speaker 0 further claims that the day after the event, even going to Wal-Mart, they had “no fewer than 10 people” approach them saying they “saw what happened to you and it was wrong and shameful.” Speaker 0 concludes that in “24 hours” Thune’s actions helped them reach “more voters than I could have personally knocked in 24 months,” and thanks Thune. Speaker 1 reacts by calling the people involved “dumb,” saying that if Thune had been staffed correctly and if they were working for Thune, they would have tried to make the situation “go away.” Speaker 1 describes a scenario in which Thune would sit down with Speaker 0, take a photo without recording, and have phones turned off so a staffer could snap a picture of John Thune and Scott Pressler “talking politely together.” They say Thune would sit next to Speaker 0, they would chat about the “Save America Act,” and each party would explain their positions, claiming this would do more for Thune’s image than “any press release” or “a hundred million dollar ad buy.” Speaker 1 claims this would “immediately fixes and builds a bridge” and addresses an “open wound” for “the base.” Speaker 1 says instead they saw Thune “palling around,” referencing “UFC 250” and “partying at the White House,” and says that a meeting with Scott Pressler was “an insult” to the base. They also say that people “went on social media and lie[d]” about Speaker 0 and attacked the base. Speaker 1 adds that John Cornyn “did this to us” a few years earlier, saying Cornyn “savagely attacked,” without further detail.

The speaker says the subject of the interview is not a Democrat and would be offended to be called one. The speaker doesn't believe a political issue would cause the subject to do such a thing. The subject never mentioned the senator or representative who were targeted. He didn't like Tim Walz and would say things like, "I don't like that Tim Walz did this." The subject mentioned a protest, but the speaker doesn't think he said anything about it. The speaker would tell him to surrender himself so he could be taken alive. The subject listened to Infowars, and the speaker told him not to take everything they say for granted. The subject was a Trump supporter, voted for Trump, and liked Trump.

Speaker 0 opens by saying they take umbrage and will speak on behalf of their colleagues. They state they are "willing to work with anyone who's serious about doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress." They add, "That's right. But they are not serious."

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and think it is a terrible job. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

Speaker 1 is asked about their previous tweets regarding Trump and Brian Kemp stealing elections. Speaker 1 dismisses the comparison as ridiculous and clarifies that they were referring to the threat to voting rights at that time.

After a guest called someone a demagogue and dangerous, the speaker's family received death threats. One threat involved someone wanting to show up in New Hampshire, which the police intervened in. The next day, the speaker's security guard called at 3 AM, reporting someone was at their house threatening 4 dead bodies. The speaker doesn't attribute the threats directly to the guest's comments. The speaker doesn't want to engage in rhetoric that endangers others. They also believe the guest was wrongfully pushed out of the White House for comments around 9/11. The speaker wants to set a good example for discourse in the country, acknowledging their competitive nature in the presidential campaign sometimes hinders this. They hope to build a friendship.

Remember, I am summarizing the video as if I were the original speakers. Speaker 0: Democrats all voted against tax cuts on tips, overtime, and Social Security. Keep that in mind next time they act like they care about you. Speaker 1: You need to fact check information online before spreading lies with your MAGA hat on. The claim that Democrats voted against tax cuts on tips and overtime has already been debunked, even on Elon Musk's platform. The original poster even deleted it after being fact checked. Those tax cuts weren't in the bill anyway, but cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were. Take off the hat, put down the phone, and think about what kind of country you want your kids to grow up in, one that rewards billionaires at the expense of the middle class?

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.

Speaker 0 is asked if they wish they had a third term. They respond by saying they would be fine with having a stand-in who would wear an earpiece and deliver their lines while they stay in their basement. Speaker 2 interrupts and tells everyone to ignore the person in the earpiece. Speaker 3 mentions something about getting Republicans elected. Speaker 4 says the person speaking is not recognized. Speaker 5 reminds everyone not to engage in personal attacks. Speaker 1 repeats their earlier statement about having a stand-in and being fine with it.

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 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.

What bothers me even more than that guy are the Republican senators and congressmen who blindly follow along. They don't believe in any of it. They're just scared he'll trash them on Truth Social and they'll lose their jobs. They're doing whatever he says, which is a dictatorship. After everything I've done for you over the last two years, standing up for you, you're going to treat me with disrespect? If I could take back your letter of recommendation, I would. Don't ever talk to me like that again, personally. You disrespect me like that after I stood up for you? You got your letter, your grade, so now you can treat me like that?

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of "white guilt" and weakness, claiming he is creating more "Austin Metcalfs" by not condemning his son's killer and the culture that caused it. Speaker 1 counters that Speaker 0 has been "submitted" and is weak. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's patriotism, asking where he was on January 6th. He accuses Speaker 0 of "murdering white people" and being a degenerate. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 is using Austin Metcalf's name for t-shirts and propaganda. Speaker 1 states he will run for Senate in Florida as a Republican and defeat Speaker 0. He accuses Speaker 0 of trying to shut down a white man and trying to raise money. Speaker 1 says he came to give Speaker 0 a message from a father.

Speaker 0 asks if the person really wants Tom Emmer to be speaker, as they did not vote for congressman Jim Jordan. Speaker 1 responds that they do not like Tom Emmer and believes it is the worst job in America. Speaker 0 clarifies that they voted for someone they don't like because they didn't want to vote for Jim.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

I just spoke with Alex Stone who overheard Matt Schlapp admitting it was bad optics to exclude J6ers from CPAC. The podcaster interviewing Schlapp agreed it was a bad decision. This looks terrible, like a bunch of establishment Republicans deciding who belongs here. President Trump pardoned these people! It's an insult to him, especially since he's speaking at CPAC. Let's make sure President Trump knows Matt and Mercedes Schlapp banned the J6 community. Jake Lange spent thousands on a booth, housing, and flights for 22 J6ers, trying to thank the President and stand up for fair trials and the right to protest without being attacked by the government. Matt Schlapp, you represent everything wrong with the Republican party right now; the worst of the establishment.

Scott Pressler says he is at the South Dakota State Convention and has a ticket, but officials are saying he cannot come in. He states he is one of President Donald J. Trump’s biggest supporters and says he will find out why he is not being allowed. Another person responds, saying the reason is that Pressler is posting a “piss and moan session” on Facebook. The person tells Pressler to “get the hell out of here” and thanks him. Scott Pressler then comments that the “grassroots” are not welcomed in Senate Majority Leader Thune’s territory. He says this is interesting and says he does not think it reflects the South Dakota GOP well, while thanking Thune for his honesty. He also credits “Matthew Bruner, Sergeant at Arms.”

Speaker 0 expresses a desire for a third term and suggests the idea of having a stand-in who would wear an earpiece and deliver speeches while they remain in their basement. Speaker 1 dismisses this idea, while Speaker 2 mentions the goal of getting Republicans elected. Speaker 3 reminds members not to engage in personal attacks. The conversation repeats, with Speaker 0 reiterating their willingness to have someone else do the talking and Speaker 1 dismissing the idea again. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 expressing their acceptance of this arrangement.