reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speakers discuss a line of questioning about Peter Thiel and its potential influence on others. Speaker 0 recalls asking about Peter Thiel, after which the other person responded by turning the focus back on the questioner and claimed that the questioner was funded by Peter Thiel. According to Speaker 0, this response caused the other person to “crash out,” implying a sudden interruption or withdrawal from the discussion. Speaker 1 reiterates that the person “crashed out” as a result of the inquiry into Thiel. The conversation then broadens to consider whether the broader group being discussed is funded by Peter Thiel. Speaker 1 asserts that “they a 100% are funded by Peter Thiel,” referring to a collection of individuals including Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate. The phrasing suggests a belief that these figures are financially supported by Thiel, and Speaker 0 confirms acknowledging this trend by asking for a clarification of the funding. The two speakers describe the group as being in a “little” or tightly connected circle, implying a coordinated or aligned faction. Speaker 1 strengthens the claim by labeling the group as “the Avengers, the Peter Thiel Avengers,” portraying them as a premeditated or organized cohort with a shared agenda. The use of the term “Avengers” conveys the sense of a unified front or mission among the members, and Speaker 0 repeats the idea of a shared agenda, reinforcing the perception of a concerted effort. The discussion culminates in Speaker 1’s assertion about the motivation behind their alleged funding: the claim is that the objective is to exert “mind control of young men.” This line frames Thiel’s alleged influence as intentional and targeted, casting the funding as a strategy to shape the beliefs or behavior of a specific demographic group. Overall, the exchange centers on the hypothesis that Peter Thiel funds certain controversial public figures, leading to a perception of coordination and a deliberate influence campaign aimed at young men. The dialogue emphasizes the immediacy of televised or public confrontations when questions about funding arise and portrays the involved individuals as part of a tightly connected, ideologically aligned group.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 engage in a terse exchange about past remarks by an ambassador and the possibility of an investment. Speaker 0 asserts that the ambassador said something about Speaker 1 in the past and adds that the ambassador is attempting to invest with him. Speaker 1 responds with uncertainty about who the ambassador is and what was said, saying, I don’t know anything about him. If he said bad, then maybe he’ll like to apologize. I really don’t know. Did an ambassador say something bad about him? Don’t tell me. Don’t Where is he? Is he still working for you? Speaker 0 confirms the ambassador’s presence and location by replying, Yeah. Yeah. He’s just right there. He’s right. Give up. This sequence indicates a desire to move on or to end the line of questioning, with Speaker 0 directing attention to the ambassador’s physical presence and implying there is no further discussion to be had about the matter. Speaker 1 presses for clarification about whether something bad was said, repeating the question, You said bad? The tension in the dialogue is underscored by Speaker 0’s concise confirmation that there was some prior remark attributed to the ambassador, followed by an immediate pivot to the ambassador’s proximity as a way of signaling that the issue has shifted or concluded in Speaker 0’s view. Later in the exchange, Speaker 0 adds a new point by saying, Before I took this position, mister, which introduces a reference to a time prior to Speaker 0’s current role. The phrasing suggests there is context regarding Speaker 0’s relationship with the ambassador or with the situation that existed before taking the current position, though the exact nature of that context is not elaborated in this portion of the dialogue. Speaker 1 directs the conversation toward President Biden, saying, president Biden. I don’t like you either. I don’t. And I probably never will. Go ahead. This line conveys a personal sentiment toward President Biden, indicating disapproval or hostility, and ends with Speaker 1’s instruction to proceed, implying that Speaker 0 should continue whatever line of dialogue or argument was being pursued prior to this comment. Overall, the dialogue centers on alleged past statements by an ambassador about Speaker 1, a potential investment connection with that ambassador, and a tense personal stance from Speaker 1 toward President Biden, all within a brief, confrontational exchange.

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.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe in a free press and if they think the public service is full of racists. Speaker 1 responds with "no" to both questions. Speaker 0 then questions why there is a demand for anti-racism training and asks if Speaker 1 has experienced racism. Speaker 1 refuses to comment. Speaker 0 expresses confusion about why Speaker 1 is on a picket line if they don't want to convey their message to the public. Speaker 1 continues to refuse to comment. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 has ever been victimized by a racist in the public service.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

A speaker points out that poll data adds up to 110%. They ask if this is intentional or an error and yield for clarification. Another speaker responds that the data is from a Quinnipiac poll held two weeks prior, noting it contains information about Donald Trump's falling poll numbers. The first speaker reiterates that the data adds up to 110% and calls the poll "fake."

The speakers engage in a heated discussion about the accuracy of information shared by one of them. Speaker 1 questions the percentage of hyperbolic statements made by Speaker 0 and challenges the reliability of Google as a source. Speaker 0 dismisses Speaker 1's arguments, claiming they are misinterpreting information and emphasizes the importance of personal experience. The conversation becomes increasingly confrontational, with Speaker 1 making personal remarks and Speaker 0 expressing pride in being canceled from certain countries. The discussion ends with Speaker 1 acknowledging Speaker 0's ability to handle criticism but questioning their motives for getting involved in politics.

Speaker 1 argues that a scandal exists that is bad for Biden, but it can't be verified, while insignificant things are discussed. Speaker 1 claims the laptop was found, but the family is in hiding. Speaker 1 believes the media is fake and social media is the only way to get their voice out. Speaker 0 recalls Speaker 1 saying the media is discredited to ensure negative reports are not believed. Speaker 1 denies having to discredit Speaker 0, saying they discredited themself. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of inappropriately bringing up tough questions from the beginning, questions Speaker 1 claims Joe Biden is never asked. Speaker 1 states that Speaker 0's first statement was about asking tough questions, which Speaker 1 deems inappropriate. Speaker 1 ends the interview early.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 a question, but Speaker 1 avoids answering and finds the conversation pointless. Speaker 0 insists on getting an answer, but Speaker 1 dismisses them and claims not to care about their opinion. Speaker 0 tries to discuss the book's claims about society, but Speaker 1 interrupts and accuses Speaker 0 of being biased. Speaker 0 asks about the values the book mentions, but Speaker 1 refuses to continue the interview, ending the conversation. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their time and comments on the lack of anger in American political discourse.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1 expresses their refusal to advertise and their disdain for being blackmailed with money. Speaker 0 asks about the economic impact and Speaker 1 dismisses it, stating that the advertising boycott will kill the company and they will document it. Speaker 0 mentions that advertisers may argue that Speaker 1's inappropriate comments led to the company's demise, but Speaker 1 challenges them to see how the world responds.

Speaker 1 questions the trustworthiness of Pfizer due to their history of criminal fines and unethical practices. They ask how it is considered anti-science to question a company that has been caught bribing physicians and manipulating test results, resulting in a $2.3 billion fine. Speaker 0 acknowledges the comment but asks to continue the presentation before addressing the questions. Speaker 1 insists that their questions won't be answered and mentions having four questions. Speaker 0 tries to locate a lost ring. The transcript ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

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: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

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 1 accuses the media of bias for not covering a supposed scandal involving Biden. Speaker 0 defends the need for verification. Speaker 1 claims the scandal can be verified due to a laptop. The conversation escalates with accusations of media bias and unfair questioning. The interview is abruptly ended.

The speakers engage in a tense phone conversation. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0, a journalist from The Washington Post, of minimizing atrocities and attacking independent journalists. Speaker 0 requests to schedule a time to discuss the issue further, but Speaker 1 insists on immediate answers. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's support for Israel and accuses them of bias. Speaker 0 avoids direct answers and eventually ends the call, leaving Speaker 1 frustrated. Speaker 2 comments on the typical response they receive when challenging hit pieces.

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

Speaker 1 insisted that a story should be aired because it is "bad for Biden," while Speaker 0 refused because it "can't be verified," specifically referencing a laptop. Speaker 1 claimed the laptop story is "one of the biggest scandals" and that the family is in hiding. Speaker 1 accused the media of being "fake" and said social media is the only way to get his voice out. Speaker 0 claimed Speaker 1 once said the media was discredited to ensure negative stories would not be believed. Speaker 1 denied this. Speaker 1 contrasted the interview with what he characterized as "softball" interviews given to Joe Biden. Speaker 1 took issue with the interview beginning with the interviewer stating there would be "tough questions." Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of working for a Russian oligarch and misusing money. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and criticizes Speaker 0's integrity. The conversation becomes heated as they argue about truth and lies. Speaker 1 questions the DOJ's treatment of him compared to Speaker 0. Speaker 0 mentions Speaker 1's conviction and reduced sentence. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0's credibility. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 accusing Speaker 0 of not being able to handle the truth.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.

Speaker 0 states that whatever a machine tabulates is what it tabulates, and their hand-marked ballot remains the same. Speaker 1 claims ballot images were changed, and that's reflected in the totals, referencing report number 3. Speaker 0 says they've read the reports. Speaker 1 asserts that Speaker 0 knows what they're saying is true. Speaker 1 says their life is on the line. Speaker 0 denies believing Speaker 1 and finds it insulting to have that put on the record. Speaker 1 apologizes, stating that wasn't their intent.

In this video, Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1, accusing him of being anti-American and anti-free speech. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for working at CNN and trying to censor conservative voices. Speaker 1 denies the accusations and refuses to engage in an interview with Speaker 0. The conversation becomes heated, with Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 a liar and a fraud. Speaker 0 also accuses CNN of being fake news and engaging in racketeering. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing his belief that the truth about Speaker 1 and CNN will eventually come out.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of spreading propaganda and not providing education. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 will target the transgender community next. Speaker 0 interrupts Speaker 2, apologizes, and insults Speaker 1's understanding of the topic. Speaker 1 points out Speaker 0's lack of knowledge.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.