reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- "Texas wants to gerrymander their maps again, do a mid decade reapportionment." - "Donald Trump is terrified he's gonna lose the majority in the House of Representatives." - "all of that is so deeply unpopular." - "They're convinced they can't hold the house unless they redo the lines in Texas and try to grab more Republican seats even though the lines in Texas are already gerrymandered to elect Republicans." - "Now if they go forward with this, as it looks like they will, California needs to respond." - "I hope at the end of this that we have a national redistricting reform that ends the gerrymander all across the country that would simply require an act of congress." - "But if Texas goes down that terrible road, California will have to respond because we have to look out for our interests and can't let them rig the game."

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 disputes James Carville's claim that the Democratic party was responsible for civil rights legislation. The speaker asserts that Democrats had nothing to do with the passage of civil rights laws and that Lyndon Baines Johnson was a racist who, if he had his way, would have kept black people at the back of the bus. According to the speaker, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 would not have passed without a Republican-controlled Congress, because the Democratic party filibustered to prevent the legislation from reaching Johnson's desk. The speaker claims that LBJ signed the bill into law only to prevent race riots. The speaker also claims that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.

The speaker discusses redistricting and gerrymandering in Texas and California, noting the left's advantage in drawing 'jigsaw puzzle like districts.' Studies indicate Republicans are short about six to ten seats in the House relative to their share of the national vote. Democrats know this but are angry about Texas reapportionment and gerrymandering, and their attitude is, 'we've already gerrymandered our states to the maximum. Don't dare try to emulate us.' James Carville said that they have to get tougher. 'That's the new mantra.' Cory Booker screams and yells in the Senate, Hakim Jeffries picks up his baseball bat. There's usually a video with the squad or representatives using the word SHIT or the F word, kind of pornographic. Jasmine Crockett periodically calls Donald Trump names that are can't be repeated on air. The anger persists, and the new idea is that they haven't been tough enough. They have been too tough.

The speaker states the president stands by his comments, as does the entire administration. They claim a democracy cannot exist if a single district court judge can assume the powers of the commander in chief. They contrast this with the Supreme Court, where it takes five justices to change federal policy. The speaker asserts that a single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, especially on national security and public safety issues. The president has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes the Supreme Court should crack down and stop the assault on democracy from radical rogue judges. These judges are allegedly usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to the constitutional system.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

Speaker 0 believes a blue tsunami will force Congress to haul Elon Musk and others in front of lawmakers to ask, “what crimes did you commit?” It will get really serious. The same with Trump, because Speaker 0 thinks they commit crimes every day. To reconcile all of this, they argue for hardcore, not integrity Democrats, delivering: “Fuck you, Democrats. Fuck you for fucking over our country. We are serious about this. We are prosecuting. We're gonna uncover every document, every phone call, everything you did. We will be relentless about it.” The mindset they urge Democrats to adopt is driven by the electorate seeking both removal of figures like Trump and accountability. Speaker 1 concurs on accountability, stating there must be a scenario where there is accountability. They reference Fanon, a former MPD police officer who nearly died on January 6, to support the view that it’s about more than Democrats winning back Congress and the White House. Speaker 1 argues for changing the John Roberts Supreme Court decision that gave the president of the United States a blank check, insisting that no man or woman should be above the law, and that Donald Trump should not be above the law. The Democrats should communicate that, if back in power, clinging to the idea that Donald Trump is unaccountable “it's just not gonna work.” This, Speaker 1 says, includes adding seats to the Supreme Court so that immunity’s decision can be overturned and so Donald Trump can be held accountable for his crime.

You're not being honest this morning, and it feels disrespectful to the American people. If congressional seats are based on the census, with about 750,000 people per seat, would that affect how seats are drawn? Yes or no? I'm sorry, could you slow down? No, I can't. The answer is yes.

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: Listen to this clip, Hannah, of what I said that was so dangerous and controversial. K. Keen Jeffries, a progressive congressman, literally tweeted, while the trial was going on, lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key. And he's the same guy that rails against mass incarceration, and I agree with him on some of it. But now, before the trial's even over, they're calling for this guy to be locked up and throw away the key. Like, they've already reached their conclusion. Speaker 1: No. Didn't give him a fair shake. Speaker 0: It's a very ... And they lied about it being a white supremacy thing when it's a white dude that shot three other white people. It's the entire thing is bizarre and it's Out of self defense. Speaker 1: Right. Yes. Speaker 0: In my opinion. Speaker 1: That's most important. Speaker 0: The truth is he defended himself; he wasn't some mass shooter white supremacist, and he should be acquitted. Do you feel bullied? Speaker 1: I I don't. And honestly, I think that was the most milquetoast explanation of everything that went down.

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.

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

Speaker 0: Oppose white supremacists. Don't single out the press. Speaker 1: We already have a black mayor. No need for more black big shots. Speaker 0: Determine if you support Trump, you're not black. Can't go to a 711 without an Indian accent. Speaker 2: We used to joke about that, but he was a friend, mentor, and a great guy.

The transcript shows a volatile exchange centered on immigration and constitutional rights. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks how many constitutional rights the other participants are willing to give up to “get these people out,” framing the issue as a test of loyalty to the country. He emphasizes a confrontational stance against immigrants and their supporters, pressing for an explicit, finite number of rights to sacrifice. Speaker 1 responds with extreme, inflammatory rhetoric. He declares, “As many constitutional rights as it takes to keep the race in the country alive is how many I’m willing to walk on,” and identifies as a “national socialist authoritarian,” asserting a willingness to sacrifice rights to preserve a “race in the country.” He attacks the idea of protecting the Constitution, stating, “my constitution, my democracy, my fucking… inalienable fucking constitutional car driven rights,” and contrasts that with what he sees as the real priority of protecting the country and race. He references “the force doctrine” and asserts that “your rights are whatever the fucking force doctrine says you’re allowed to do.” He also claims that the United States acts as “the force doctrine of the entire world.” During the exchange, Speaker 0 derides Speaker 1 as “white racist fuck” and “unamerican,” while Speaker 1 escalates, declaring that he does not care about the constitution if it endangers the country or race. He asserts, “What I care about is our country,” and later says, “Willing to let this country burn and your entire race burn if it meant that you didn’t violate the constitution? I don’t give a fuck about that.” He proclaims, “If I need to throw away the first amendment, the second amendment, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth, and all of them in order to make sure that The US and its people stays alive,” questioning how that could be acceptable. The dialogue includes explicit harassment and slurs, including “chill faggot,” and culminates in a moment where Speaker 0 calls for clipping the exchange, expressing it as “fucking gold.” The participants debate whether constitutional protections should yield to perceived national or racial imperatives, with both sides railing against the other’s stance and repeatedly foregrounding the primacy of protecting the country over preserving constitutional rights, according to their respective positions.

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.

Speaker 0: This all started because of redistricting in Texas, and this was Trump pushing Republican controlled states to throw out their current congressional maps so as to cook the books so that there is less likely for Democrats to retake control of the house during the next year midterms. Is it fair to argue that Republican Party is starting this? Speaker 1: No, Jake. There has been gerrymandering going on for two hundred years. There is such extreme gerrymandering going on that in a state like Massachusetts, it has 40% of the people voting for Trump. They only had they have zero representatives. The Republican party has zero representatives sent to the house. Think about that. In New Mexico, if 45% of people voted for Trump and vote Republican and zero is sent to the house, zero representative from the Republican party. So there's gerrymandering, crazy gerrymandering going on all over the country and we wanted to try to stop it in California and we did stop it in California and we went around the country. So I think this whole thing about finger pointing and said they did it, so therefore we should doing it. That's not really the way to go. The one party should outperform the other party. It should be performance. And when it comes to midterm elections as you know, always the party that is not in the White House usually wins by twenty, twenty five, 30 seats. So what does five seats matter in the first place in Texas? It is crazy. We should outperform them. That is where the action is.

Speaker 0 believes Democrats are cynically toying with the anti-racist movement, which will cause whites to see things racially, leading to a conflict with no clear solution, unlike the first civil war. Speaker 0 claims a well-armed rural white population is now correctly understanding that it is being targeted by a mob that claims it's guilty of things it isn't guilty of yet. Speaker 1 suggests many whites are no longer interested in their own identity and won't take up that war, complicating the situation. Speaker 0 agrees it's complicated and asks if there's an acceptable way it ends.

The speaker mentioned the goal of getting Republicans elected. However, the gentleman was not recognized and members were reminded not to engage in personal attacks against each other.

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."

Speaker 0: Hi, Michiganders, specifically Detroiters. Do you guys care that Charlie Kirk has passed away? Yeah. I didn't think so because my district is primarily black people, and Charlie Kirk said awful things about black people. So, no, I think my district will like me because I advocate for them as a white person. So

Speaker 0: 11, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic party's platform. Let's That the twenty twenty election was

Speaker 0 claimed that white people make up 10% of the world's population, and that in California, the white population decreased by 71% in 73 years, which "kinda sounds like genocide." He questioned why violent crime and murder rates by race are not available from Sacramento. Speaker 1 interrupted, calling the statements racist and inappropriate for public discourse, and ended the call. Speaker 1 stated that racist tropes and stereotypes have no place in civic discourse.

Speaker 0 claims most people in the country voted for Trump and that he won the popular vote. Speaker 1 disputes this, stating it was a slim majority of voters and that too few people voted. Speaker 0 says those who cared about issues voted for Trump to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 counters that lots of voters were purged from voter rolls before the election. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of election denial. Speaker 1 accuses the "narcissist in that building" of gaslighting.

Speaker 1: "The narrative that they have pushed forward in the last ten years is that there is a relentless assault on against black people be on behalf of white people, and the data does not show that." Speaker 1: "White individuals are actually more likely to be attacked, especially even per capita, by black individuals in this country." Speaker 3: "it's just pure race race mongering, hate mongering. It's wrong." Speaker 3: "Where is the George Floyd policing act? It didn't pass." Speaker 0: "The media doesn't care about this, and we should start asking why." Speaker 1: "All of a sudden, when we make the left live up to their own standard of rules, there is complete silence by the entire American media."