reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I remember the night I got elected and seeing people upset about Hillary not winning. I have my opinions on past presidents, like Bush senior, but the Clintons raise questions. Did they have an open marriage? Hillary seemed more upset about Bill getting caught in the Oval Office than his infidelities. The email scandal is another topic of interest. If we could see behind the scenes of politics, it would be like watching a dramatic show, and I think it would shock everyone.

Hillary Clinton was accosted and accused of being a "super predator" responsible for millions of deaths. She was called a genocide supporter and accused of facilitating the genocide of Palestinian people. The speaker demanded to know what Clinton had to say for herself.

As a former naval officer, I believe that if I had done what Hillary Clinton did, I would have faced immediate court martial. The lack of prosecutorial zeal and the delegation of the investigation to her own aides was a complete joke. This imbalance in the justice system needs to be rectified when I become President. Additionally, the Garland Justice Department turned a blind eye to the violation of federal law when crazed individuals threatened Supreme Court justices at their homes. If the protesters were in front of liberal justices' homes, action would have been taken swiftly.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. They had the opportunity to acknowledge his actions and move on, but they're still defending him. I find it hard to understand their psychology.

Hillary Clinton conceded the election to Trump on the night of the election, but later expressed that she believed he was an illegitimate president. While one side argues she is the original election denier, the other counters that she accepted the outcome but was disappointed. The discussion highlights the difference between conceding an election and questioning its legitimacy afterward. Clinton's statements about Trump being illegitimate are cited, but there’s a debate over whether her disappointment equates to denial. Ultimately, the conversation reflects on the complexities of election outcomes and perceptions of legitimacy.

Hillary Clinton addresses her silence and refusal to apologize, mentioning her fear of ending up like Martha Mitchell. She explains that she didn't want to satisfy the public's curiosity about her private life by standing by her man like Tammy Wynette. Clinton finds it ironic that Kenneth Starr's actions aimed at bringing down the president are the reason her husband is still alive. When asked if she hates Monica, Clinton clarifies that it depends on the definition of hate, mentioning her dislike for Monica's mother.

On Truth Social, there are concerns about Liz Cheney's involvement with the January 6th committee, with calls for her to face criminal investigation. If she broke the law, she should be held accountable, just like anyone else. There's skepticism about the evidence against her, as some believe the investigation is politically motivated. The discussion touches on perceived double standards in the justice system, with claims that political enemies are unfairly targeted. The January 6th committee is criticized for not including certain voices, leading to accusations of a biased investigation. Ultimately, the focus is on ensuring justice is applied equally, regardless of political affiliation. The conversation ends with a light-hearted remark about future political invitations.

The speaker stated that when Hillary Clinton was "caught," he decided not to pursue the matter extensively because she is the ex-wife of a president, and he felt it would be "terrible." He said he "let her off the hook" and is happy he did so.

Should there be a criminal investigation into Liz Cheney? If she broke the law, she shouldn't be exempt. If she manipulated evidence or coached witnesses, then accountability is necessary. The ethics committee is considering a report recommending her investigation, but some argue there's no solid evidence against her. If there are findings from the investigation, they should be revealed; if not, Cheney is in the clear. The focus should be on whether anyone, regardless of political affiliation, broke the law. There's a perception of a double standard in justice, with claims that the current administration is releasing criminals without consequence. The January 6 committee's investigation is questioned, as some feel it was politically motivated and didn't include all relevant voices. Ultimately, the call for justice should apply equally to everyone involved.

There is a discussion about a potential disconnect between the Democratic Party brand and President Biden. The term "existential threat" is used to describe Donald Trump. However, one person points out that Hillary Clinton created a fake dossier to remove a sitting president and questions the use of the term. They also bring up the connection between the Clintons and Jeffrey Epstein, suggesting that this was not considered an existential threat. The person suggests discussing this connection and why the client list was never made public.

Republican lawmakers are calling for a deeper investigation into Hillary Clinton's email controversy, citing concerns about the thoroughness of the initial FBI review. They allege the FBI failed to review key evidence, potentially covering up mishandling of the Clinton investigation. Donald Trump has stated he now believes indicting Hillary Clinton is appropriate and has posted on Truth Social that Obama should be indicted for treason. Trump also suggested Nancy Pelosi should be investigated for insider trading, claiming she made a fortune with inside information and had the highest return of anybody practically in the history of Wall Street.

The speaker believes that Hillary Clinton violated the Espionage Act and that President Obama was aware of it. They mention the Anthony Weiner laptop, which contained 675,000 Clinton emails, including those from the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin. The speaker accuses James Comey of lying when he said they had reviewed all the emails. They suggest that if they were the president, they would demand the laptop and have it thoroughly examined. They believe there is potential for prosecution based on the laptop's contents.

Donald Trump suggested that if he were in charge, Hillary Clinton would be in jail due to her temperament.

The speaker delivers a passionate tirade accusing established power structures of pervasive corruption and enacting or allowing harm without accountability. The core points are laid out as a sequence of high-profile allegations and perceived injustices, presented as ongoing and unresolved. Key claims and topics include: - Widespread frustration with exposing corruption: “I am tired of exposing corruption, doing our homework, [and] presenting the evidence. We know what's happening except then once we expose it, nothing happens. Nobody goes to jail.” - Hillary Clinton and related scandals: “Clinton got away with it. Even the left knew that the Clinton Foundation was dirty. They sold uranium to our biggest enemy, Russia.” The speaker asserts that “She can take confidential top secret emails and put them on her server at her home, something you and I would go to prison for.” - Benghazi and related actions: Benghazi referenced as gun running to a group in Syria that became ISIS, and the killing of a U.S. ambassador; a claim that troops were abandoned on Veterans Day with no consequences. - Spying on a presidential candidate: A charge that spying occurred on a presidential candidate, followed by the assertion that “they were doing it” and that “nothing happens.” - Russia collusion and its handling: The speaker claims collusion with Russia should have been the biggest scandal if true, or else that evidence and paperwork showed they knew it up to the White House; mentions lying to FISA courts, creating an enemies list, and using intelligence agencies to support an operation, claiming millions were spent on a claim they knew wasn’t true. - Ukraine and related investigations: The speaker mentions “the scandal, the loss of billions of tax dollars in Ukraine” and “the lies and the collusion with the Obama administration in Ukraine,” asserting these were downplayed or ignored. - Hunter Biden and Burisma/China: The speaker references “Hunter Biden, forget about Burisma. What was that? $7,000,000,000?” and asserts “We have all the proof anyone who cares to be honest needs… on his own freaking laptop,” with claimed verification by Democrats who had access to the same emails. - Deep state and justice system: An assertion of a “deep state” and a corrupted justice department, alongside perceived media complicity, including the claim that the media tells people to deny their own eyes. - Social and cultural protests: Claims that the country is torn apart by radicals marching with “no Trump, no Biden, no America” signs, while dismissing these protests as peaceful; and criticism of teachers’ unions and Black Lives Matter, labeling BLM as a corporation and BLM’s manifesto as advocating the destruction of the nuclear family. - Antifa and political labels: Antifa is dismissed as “not wild in the streets… that’s only an idea,” contrasting with the speaker’s view of constitutional support as radical. - Final sentiment: A declaration of having reached the limit, with a sense of fatigue and a near decision to end the show due to the perceived state of affairs, concluding with “I almost didn’t make the show last week because this is what I wanted to say to you.”

Trump's current situation is his own doing, unrelated to his supporters or American democracy. Comparisons to Bill Clinton's past actions are brought up, questioning the different treatment between the two presidents. The conversation highlights financial discrepancies and ethical judgments based on political affiliation.

There is a discussion about a potential disconnect between the Democratic Party's brand and President Biden. The term "existential threat" is used to describe Donald Trump. However, Speaker 1 brings up Hillary Clinton's involvement in a fake dossier to remove a sitting president and mentions her connection to Jeffrey Epstein. Speaker 1 questions why Epstein and his clients were not considered an existential threat, suggesting it may be due to Bill Clinton's association with Epstein. The conversation then shifts to the lack of public disclosure regarding Epstein's client list.

The conversation begins with the speaker asking if the person is still close to the Clintons and who they think is a better politician between Bill and Hillary. The person praises Hillary's political skills and intelligence but mentions the challenges she faced as the first woman candidate of a major party. The conversation then shifts to conspiracy theories surrounding Hillary and the speaker refuses to entertain them, stating that there is no credible source. The speaker then lists a number of names of people associated with the Clintons who have died, implying a connection. The person being interviewed strongly objects to this and accuses the speaker of spreading conspiracy theories and dishonoring the memory of the deceased. The conversation becomes heated and the person defends Hillary and criticizes the speaker for promoting baseless claims. The speaker tries to ask a question about why people believe these conspiracy theories, but the person continues to argue against them. The conversation ends with both parties expressing their frustration with each other.

The speaker states they would have prosecuted Hillary Clinton and even offered to do so for Trump, but Trump declined. The speaker believes prosecuting Clinton would have been the "greatest honor" of their life. They claim to believe in justice, not disliking people, and even feeling sorry for some they've jailed. The speaker asserts that the only way to end "all the garbage" is to jail the "bad guys." They believe that jailing the "bad guys" will scare them and make them stop their actions, at least temporarily.

The transcript captures a discussion about Clinton-related death conspiracy theories and how these claims circulate in political commentary. Speakers repeatedly assert that “the Clintons have killed” a large number of people—well over 100, with an figure cited of about 130—arguing that such deaths are linked to the Clintons’ power and to foreign policy actions, including a bombing campaign in Iraq and a massive blockade around Iraq that, according to UN estimates, contributed to the death of hundreds of thousands of children. One speaker emphasizes that “the body count is about 130” and notes that people know the body counts, even if some refuse to acknowledge the implication that politicians might have people murdered. A recurring theme is that there used to be a Clinton Body Count website tallying people connected to Hillary and Bill who were said to have been secretly killed; one participant says Hillary should demand its return and that the record is misrepresented. The conversation frames this as a widely held belief rather than proven fact, acknowledging skepticism about the claims while insisting there is “a lot of very suspicious deaths around the Clintons” that are fair to bring up. The discussion then shifts to particular cases and figures associated with Clinton circles. Vince Foster’s death is described as a conspiracy theory that never produced evidence, but the idea lingers. The panel also references other individuals—Mary Mahoney, John F. Kennedy Jr., James McDougal, and Mark Middleton—along with the broader pattern of deaths that are framed as connected to the Clintons, though without definitive proof being established on many of the cases. In the case of Mark Middleton, described as a longtime Clinton adviser who allegedly facilitated Epstein connections, Middleton’s death is recounted with details: found dead after driving to a Heifer Ranch, with an elaborate scenario involving hanging and a shotgun, an autopsy described as unclear, and a family that disputes the notion of suicide. The family has sought to seal photos and footage, arguing that releasing them would fuel conspiracy theories. The conversation also foregrounds Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was shot in Washington, D.C. The panel notes that Rich was connected to WikiLeaks and allegedly provided thousands of emails to WikiLeaks, with claims that Fox News reported an FBI forensic finding showing contact with WikiLeaks and the release of top DNC emails leading to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There is debate among participants about whether Rich’s death was a botched robbery, noting that his wallet and watch were left behind and his phone was not taken, and that claims of murder are contested by others on air. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are discussed as adding to the conspiracy milieu: Assange raises questions about killings, offers a reward for information, and is described as “working for Russia now.” The panel references the broader political pinboard: the Clinton/DNC nexus, the FBI/CrowdStrike narrative about the 2016 hacking, and the media environment around Russia investigations and alleged election interference. There is a sense of ongoing investigation and uncertainty, with speakers insisting that sources face danger and that certain deaths remain unresolved or contested in public discourse. Toward the end, the speakers reflect on how reputations attach to candidates; they compare Clinton-related reputations with those of other politicians, asking how, over the last fifty years, the pattern emerges that people close to Clinton figures die, while noting that public perception often constrains open discussion of these claims.

The speaker believes James Comey should be in jail because of his position of influence and the seriousness with which people regard someone of his stature and experience, especially given how the media has portrayed him. The speaker is very concerned for the president's life, citing previous assassination attempts. The speaker believes Comey should be held accountable and imprisoned.

Martha Stewart's felony conviction hasn't stopped her from socializing with Snoop Dogg at cookouts. It seems like President Trump is now considered a "brother" too, as he's associated with those who have been to jail. People who have been incarcerated are respected and trusted in certain communities. This is a belief that holds strong, regardless of what others may say. The support for those who have served time is unwavering.

I speak for the entire country when I say if you're not going to start arresting these treasonous people for their crimes, stop making it headline news. You're just angering Americans who work hard every day only to be taken advantage of by the government. I'm tired of this. Treason should not be punished lightly. But nothing's happening. Nobody's being arrested. If you or I were doing the same money laundering, screwing over the American people and the country, we'd be severely punished. We're not part of the elite, and we're held to a different standard.

I think we should get the homicide out of the White House and get a fresh start, because we don't want any more murderers. Clinton murdered a guy. That's going a little too far. This is not the place to make those accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. I thought it was a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Where did you ever hear that? Maybe George or Bill Clinton would be your hero. His career is over after this. Anyway, who cares? We're on the millionaire today. People always told me Hollywood was incredibly liberal and biased, and I thought it was untrue about it.