reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 introduces a moment to hear what the crowd thinks, noting skepticism about whether there will be opportunity to see it. Speaker 1 says they don’t know who’s whispering to the speaker, likening it to Grima Wormtongue, and asserts that half the people from their movement aren’t on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team. They say: “We aren’t neocons. We aren’t war hawks. We want America first. And if you make me choose between America first and MAGA, it’s America first all day. That’s what MAGA was supposed to be. You were just the best vessel for it, bro. Don’t get it twisted.” Speaker 2 contends that despite Trump’s flaws, including insider trading, they’re glad he’s differentiating and saying “you’re not with me because I’m not with you.” They reject being associated with someone they describe as a “cool corrupt kid” and a “Jeffrey Epstein class table.” They claim Trump “wasn’t loyal to his original mission. He wasn’t loyal to America. He became a creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” and that all “his never troubled enemies are now the courtiers with the madness of King Lear” telling him the lies they want to hear, and declare they are not one of those people. Speaker 3 argues that this proves multiple things, including that “the first thing, he shouldn’t be in office anymore. Implement the twenty fifth.” They say Trump isn’t loyal to this country or to anybody except “that little country in the Middle East.” They note it’s as if he does what he’s told, and compare him unfavorably to JFK for telling that country no. They ask, “How can you call them losers when you lose to Bibi Netanyahu in Israel every single day? When’s the last time you told them no to anything?” Speaker 0 shifts to a personal jab, saying Brigitte Macron is far more beautiful than Candace Owens, and asserts he’s been blind across the Internet. They reference reactions on Truth Social, noting “they’ve turned on you.” They catalog some responses: “You are way out of line.” They remind that many were once day ones, including Alex Jones, who had Trump on his show when “no media company would have you on.” They summarize: people are telling Trump to take a step back and “get back to America first.” Others say, “You are just going against everyone that fought for him to win just because of the Epstein files and being at war with Iran for Israel.” They quote: “We didn’t leave MAGA. MAGA left them. Clearly, you are insane. Time to resign, Donald or face the twenty fifth. You are mentally and emotionally unfit to be POTUS.” Additional insults follow: “You are so childish. Clearly, the truth has triggered you being one of your biggest supporters. I am done with you and your lies.” They claim Trump bent the knee to a monster, leaving a mess in the country, and, finally, describe a recurring social media pattern: “this was the most brutal and sadly a recurring response all across social media.” Speaker 0 adds that a tweet about Charlie suggested he would be on a list if they hadn’t killed him, asserting that “there is no truth and there is no loyalty within you.”

Speaker 0 suggests Speaker 1 is aligned with President Trump and has identified over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 responds that people whose fraudulent money is taken away get upset and want to harm him and Tesla because he is stopping government corruption. He attributes this to "bad people" doing "bad things." Speaker 0 expresses concern that those hurt by these actions will be dealership employees and Tesla factory workers, which he finds despicable due to perceived political differences.

Speaker 0 asks Elon Musk why he shares controversial tweets, like the one about George Soros. Musk defends his freedom of speech but acknowledges that it puts him in the middle of the partisan divide and makes him a target for criticism. Speaker 0 wonders if Musk's tweets hurt Tesla's reputation or alienate customers and advertisers. Musk responds by saying he doesn't care about the consequences and will continue to speak his mind, even if it means losing money. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 saying "Stein."

It's concerning that he's appealing to blue-collar workers, trying to connect with them in casual settings. While he projects this image, his actions have harmed these workers, cutting a million from those eligible for overtime pay. In 2025, this will worsen, as he aims to eliminate overtime pay after 40 hours of work. His alliance with figures like Elon Musk highlights how such policies benefit the wealthy. Unfortunately, many blue-collar workers, particularly white men, are being misled by this narrative.

During a press conference with Donald Trump, Elon Musk's presence and focus raised concerns. It appeared to be a PR move to counter Musk's declining popularity, while also serving Trump's image. Transparency is the key issue. Musk claims full transparency, but his actions don't align. I don't believe Musk is being transparent, especially considering his companies' contracts with government agencies. He has access to a lot of data and information, and controls contracts for Tesla, SpaceX, and others. It's about more than just contracts and money, it's about control. By controlling information, he controls the lifeblood of his companies. This information could be shared with other tech billionaires, enriching them all.

Elon Musk is heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly through Tesla's Shanghai joint venture, which is fully controlled by the CCP. This connection explains why he avoids criticizing the CCP, even during significant events like the COVID lockdown protests. While he has made some positive contributions, his business ties suggest he is compromised and unable to take a strong stance against the CCP. Overall, he is viewed as insincere and beholden to the interests of the Chinese government.

I want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People like President Musk and Trump are using their public offices to enrich themselves by billions of dollars. Why is there silence about looking into the actions of the president and the richest man on Earth? I will say President Musk and Trump often use their public offices to enrich themselves. I will withdraw calling Trump "grifter-in-chief." It's despicable that this committee is silencing me for bringing up that Trump is making millions of dollars.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

SpaceX is owned by the world's richest person, who has direct control over a global communication system. This person spoke about political retribution and stood next to a candidate who normalizes that language. Elon Musk is allegedly spreading political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming to help hurricane victims. Last year, the owner of Starlink shut down Starlink when a U.S. ally was going to attack an adversary. The head of SpaceX has aggressively injected himself into the presidential race and made his viewpoint clear. SpaceX participated via Zoom. The discussion is about SpaceX increasing launches, not other companies.

Speaker 0 argues that there is insider information at play, noting that people inside the administration are making huge stock bets ahead of President Trump’s announcements on oil, with tens of millions of dollars in Brent crude futures short bets placed twenty minutes before the news breaks, and questions why there is no investigation. They assert that somebody has insider information and imply it should be illegal. Speaker 1 discusses potential legal and regulatory issues surrounding prediction markets, distinguishing them from traditional gambling. They explain that in Texas they cannot gamble on sports via apps, but in Missouri those apps work, and prediction markets are not considered gambling. They reference a Trump administration stance that effectively signaled insiders within the administration should stop gambling in prediction markets, suggesting awareness that people inside the administration were making plays on these markets. Speaker 1 notes uncertainty about whether the big players are inside or outside the administration, but emphasizes that the insider trading angle during the administration hasn’t received much attention. They recount following the topic sinceTrump’s election, noting early claims that Trump would crash the stock market, which Speaker 1 says did not happen and, in fact, the market rose for those who invested then. They describe the market as fluctuating with corrections, and remark that Pam Bondi stated the market was hovering around 49,000–50,000, implying continued manipulation. Speaker 1 asserts that Trump often makes declarations on Fridays right before the stock market closes, attributing this pattern to market manipulation. They claim to have bet against the narrative that the stock market would collapse under Trump, and that those bets performed well. The speaker says they feel a bit guilty about profiting, noting that friends who run stock brokerages look at them as if from the future, and claims that the White House is effectively running an insider trading operation. They state that knowing someone is coming to the White House or that a person from a big tech company is arriving allows one to get ahead of the news and secure about a 5% stock bump, or a 5% gain by investing before the news becomes public. Speaker 0 adds that with a Trump tweet, markets swing drastically—either ending civilization or extending a ceasefire—implying that market movement is driven by Trump’s statements.

There are questions about whether Donald Trump's relationship with Elon Musk will fade, but it seems strong. Musk played a key role in Trump's success. Critics, particularly from the left, often complain about the influence of unelected individuals in government, yet they overlook that this has been happening for years. They also criticize billionaire influence in politics while ignoring figures like George Soros, who actively supports Democratic politicians. The left's criticism of Musk appears hypocritical and excessive. Musk is contributing to transparency in the federal government, which is a positive development.

Elon Musk, once a Democrat supporter, has become critical of the Biden administration and exposed their censorship regime. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has initiated two investigations into Musk, while Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million secretly supporting Democrats during the 2020 elections without facing any investigations. These actions are perceived by the American public as mafia-like tactics, where those who pay are ignored, and those who obstruct are punished. The public is aware of these tactics and their implications.

Speaker 0 criticizes Elon Musk, calling him a damaged individual and the dumbest smart person in the world. Speaker 1 agrees, mentioning other dumb smart people like Rupert Murdoch. Speaker 0 accuses Musk of not caring about the First Amendment, democracy, or the freedom to vote. They question if Musk has ever shown support for American values.

In discussing the targeting of businesses during his first term, it's noted that the approach of punishing specific companies and leaders, like Amazon and Facebook, could alienate him from the business community. Despite this, few CEOs, aside from Elon Musk, openly support him, likely due to fears of retribution. Some business leaders back Trump with the belief they can influence his policies for their benefit, particularly in areas like cryptocurrency. This relationship appears to be transactional, where financial incentives might sway policy decisions.

Speaker 1 explains that they were not fired by Mark Zuckerberg, but faced continuous attacks from the media and tech industry. They were put on leave for six months after making a $9,000 political donation supporting Trump. The speaker believes that if Trump had lost, the attacks would have been dismissed, but his victory made it unbearable. They acknowledge a direct connection between the donation and being pushed out of the company. Other Facebook employees fear speaking out or supporting any politician due to what happened to the speaker. The speaker advises right-leaning founders to keep their political leanings private to avoid being terminated by the mob, focusing instead on building and creating value.

An individual states that someone is working to help the blind see and asks if the work comes down to aligning with President Donald Trump to identify over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. The speaker responds that people get upset when fraudulently obtained money is taken away, and that they want to harm him for stopping their fraud and want to hurt Tesla for stopping government waste and corruption. The speaker concludes that bad people will do bad things. The first individual states that those who will end up hurt are the people who work in dealerships and those who build Teslas, which is despicable on the part of those who may have a political difference.

All the other side wants to talk about is Elon Musk, but where were they when Fauci was forcing vaccine and mask mandates? Or when Mayorkas was letting illegal aliens invade our country? Or when Cardona was targeting those who disagreed with his transgender ideology? Or when Gensler was blocking financial market growth? They didn't care because it benefited them. Musk is an employee of the President, and we have a mandate to do what he's doing. His job is to carry out the will of the people. The Democrats have grown and weaponized the administrative state, and people are fed up. We're talking about $2.7 trillion in improper payments since 2003, possibly the biggest money laundering scandal ever, and the other side doesn't care. Is it because this money funds their side? It funds media outlets that cover for them, left-wing NGOs, and transgender activism. This money, taken from Americans, is being used against them.

The speaker asks if Elon Musk starting a new political party worries the Trump administration. The secretary responds that the principles of Doge were very popular, but Elon Musk was not, according to polling. He believes the boards of directors at Musk's companies want him to run those companies, as he is better at that than anything else. The secretary imagines the boards of directors did not like the announcement and will encourage Musk to focus on business activities, not political activities.

"Talk about, you know, I think we've talked about it, but just to emphasize it fully because around, you know, Trumpism, we discussed the role of racism, misogyny. You know, what role is toxic capitalism playing here now too with so many of these cults being about buy our courses, our products, buy our snake venom that will carry whatever whatever it" "the folks who are benefiting by aligning themselves with him is enormous." "And and I think when I said before about JD Vance that in my opinion, was an opportunist." "I think for a lot of other people, it's it's financial opportunism." "they see you know, they may think he's completely cuckoo, but they see their bank bank balances growing." "They've made so much money since they've been in congress because of the hints about how to invest, where to invest, etcetera, etcetera."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the motivations behind expanding digital surveillance, warning that concerns go beyond merely watching current behavior. Speaker 1 argues that many surveillance actors are interested in predictive analytics and predictive policing, not just monitoring present actions. Based on current and past behavior, these systems aim to determine future actions, and in predictive policing could lead to court-ordered treatment or house arrest to prevent crimes before they occur. They reference PredPol (later rebranded) as a notable example, describing it as less accurate than a coin toss and noting that people were deprived of liberty due to an dangerously flawed algorithm. They also point to facial recognition algorithms in the UK, which have been shown to be hugely inaccurate, yet vendors remain unchanged despite demonstrated inaccuracies. The underlying concern is that constant surveillance could induce obedience, since any potential future action could be used against a person, even if they are not currently doing anything wrong. The speakers quote Larry Ellison of Oracle at an Oracle shareholder meeting, who allegedly said that surveillance will record everything and citizens will be on their best behavior because they “have to,” effectively linking surveillance to governance over behavior. Speaker 0 adds that Donald Trump’s circle includes tech figures who are not friends of freedom and liberty, naming Larry Ellison as leading that faction, which amplifies the concern about the direction of policy and governance under such influence. Speaker 1 broadens the critique to globalist networks, noting that many players in surveillance and tech also appear on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, a closed-door forum often associated with global policy coordination. They argue that some individuals in this network have attempted to frame libertarian rhetoric while pursuing oligarchic aims, including the idea that “the free market is for losers” and that monopolies are the path to wealth. The discussion emphasizes that the same actors may push policies under the banner of efficiency or libertarian appeal, especially as AI advances, and that vigilance is necessary to prevent a slide toward pervasive, technocratic governance. Speaker 1 concludes that, with AI and related technologies, the risk is that these strategies could be packaged and sold in a way that appeals to factions who opposed such policies in the past, making public vigilance crucial to prevent a repeat of dystopian outcomes.

Elon Musk recently discussed government attacks on his companies since he embraced free speech and supported Donald Trump. These attacks include absurd regulations and fines, reflecting authoritarian tactics that suppress dissent. Historically, CEOs could voice concerns, but the climate has changed, especially during the COVID era and the BLM riots. Despite many Fortune 500 CEOs likely opposing the violence, none spoke out due to fear of repercussions for their employees and shareholders. Some companies even supported the riots financially. The solution lies in dismantling the administrative state, cutting bureaucratic agencies, and defunding them to restore individual rights and freedoms. We'll continue to monitor this situation.