reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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 claims their show is more popular because they are better than Speaker 1. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to stop lecturing about how good they are as a journalist or broadcaster because if they were so good, more people would follow and watch them. Speaker 0 states that most people think Speaker 1 has become a delusional loon. Speaker 1 responds by saying Speaker 0's ego is the number of people that watch their show. Speaker 1 is astounded at the ignorance and could easily call it lying or willful ignorance. Speaker 1 claims Speaker 0 interviewed Bennett and didn't mention the tea ladies lying dead in the Iranian TV station.

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.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 1 questions why radical transparency in elections wasn't proposed four years ago and accuses the former president of trashing the system for four years, stating there were dangerous consequences to the president's lies and that people died on January 6th. Speaker 0 claims the only person who died on January 6th was Ashley Babbitt, who was murdered. Speaker 1 acknowledges there were injuries. Speaker 0 asserts people who broke into the Capitol are responsible for their actions, not Donald Trump. Speaker 1 says they don't have to yell.

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.

The speaker details their past support for Scott Pressler, including inviting him to WalkAway events, promoting him on news outlets like Fox News, and featuring him in a video series. They offered him a job and legal assistance, and facilitated a connection with Lara Trump. After the 2020 election, the speaker noticed a change in Pressler. He allegedly didn't reciprocate support within a group of activists organizing rallies and changed plans to coordinate efforts in Georgia. On January 6th, Pressler sat next to the speaker at Trump's speech but didn't acknowledge how he got the seat. After the speaker's arrest related to January 6th, Pressler offered support but didn't publicly defend them. He later posted support for Steve Bannon. The speaker also notes Pressler began using a different accent in public. When the speaker's documents were leaked to the media, Pressler remained silent. The speaker won their case and Pressler acknowledged it by using the trending phrase. The speaker concludes Pressler is self-serving, not brave, kind, grateful, or honest, and that his public persona is false. A second video will address Pressler's claims about his work in Pennsylvania.

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

Speaker 0 describes that on 07/18/2023 special counsel Jack Smith has decided to pursue another arrest and more indictments of President Trump, alleging it is a result of the Fed storming the Capitol on 01/06/2021 and targeting Trump for his role in the effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on that date. He asserts that all President Trump did was give a speech and that he incited nothing. He claims the people disrupting the peaceful transfer of power were “our government.” He argues that when videos from the Capitol appeared, Tucker Carlson, while still on Fox News, claimed the videos were manipulated, asserting they were added to with people, sound, fire, and smoke, probably mirrors, to make it look horrific. He says footage has been removed from the Internet, making reflection on 01/06 difficult, and that all remaining footage is manipulated, stating there was not all the fire and smoke and that the famous picture is a manipulated image. He asserts the rioters didn’t bring guns and that there was no fire or smoke, but instead “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and that history has been changed and references are no longer available. He claims that during the Fed’s direction, Trump did say on video what he should have said, including “I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election stolen from us, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to respect our great people in law and order. There’s nothing more he could have said.” He notes the video is difficult to find but exonerates Trump, maintaining he incited nothing, especially since the feds were doing most of it. He says this video will be important in the coming weeks and months as Smith continues to go after Trump, predicting suppression of the video by social media platforms, as in the immediate aftermath of the Fed’s direction. He says he captured the video and urges sharing. Speaker 1 quotes Trump: “I know you’re pained. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.” Speaker 0 adds that Tucker Carlson claimed Democrat party and those involved in planning and organizing the insurrection hired a Good Morning America producer to dramatize the footage and even dubbed in sound, to make it more sensational, implying the footage was staged. He questions why it would be necessary to add sound and create more people and fire or smoke to redefine the events, suggesting the feds planted and altered footage to present an insurrection. Speaker 2 reinforces the claim with a direct statement: “How staged and fraudulent was the work of the January 6 committee? Democrats hired a Good Morning America producer called James Goldston to dramatize the footage they released. They even dubbed in audio to make the pictures more sensational as in a docudrama. The networks carried it all live as if it were real.”

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 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

Speaker 1 discusses their involvement in the post-election efforts and their relationship with President Trump. They express concern about the election and claim that voting machines were tampered with. When asked about Smartmatic's involvement, Speaker 1 is unsure of the exact numbers but believes it was more significant than reported. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's allegations and points out that Smartmatic only operated in one county in California. Speaker 1 refuses to accept this fact and ends the interview. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's credibility and mentions Rudy Giuliani's misrepresentation of facts. Speaker 1 disagrees and claims that voter rolls were cleaned after the election. They assert that there is evidence to support their case.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

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.

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.

A person walked out of a store with ice cream, and the media asked what flavor it was, despite him being in the midst of a scandal. According to Speaker 0, the biggest scandal was when they spied on his campaign. Speaker 1 stated there's no real evidence of that and that "sixty minutes" can't put on things they can't verify. Speaker 0 insisted they spied on his campaign and got caught, but Speaker 1 said they can't verify it. Speaker 0 claimed the evidence is available and Speaker 1 doesn't want to put it on the air. Speaker 1 denied knowing about it.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

Speaker 1 questions the legitimacy of the 2020 election and refuses to concede in 2022. They accuse an Arizona official of election fraud and defamation. When confronted, Speaker 1 deflects, claiming they are in the middle of a lawsuit. They deny responsibility for inciting violence and criticize the interviewer for lack of understanding. Speaker 1 refuses to commit to conceding if they lose in November. The interview ends with Speaker 1 dismissing the interviewer.

Speaker 0 states that Trump has accused people who didn't break the law of breaking the law regarding the election and that Trump said Liz Cheney should be put before a war tribunal. Speaker 1 rejects the premise, claiming Speaker 0 is imputing things, taking words out of context, and combining separate conversations. Speaker 1 believes Trump is more reasonable than people like Liz Cheney. Speaker 1 accuses the network of pushing the "Russia hoax" by taking the words of unnamed FBI agents as truth, leading viewers to believe Trump and Putin conspired in 2016. Speaker 0 counters that they covered an FBI investigation. Speaker 1 says the network gave credence to anonymous sources' accusations. Speaker 0 wants to discuss things Trump has said this week, but Speaker 1 wants to discuss the economy.

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.

The speaker describes a shift in perspective about January 6, recounting that he did not initially suspect U.S. law enforcement or military involvement or a false flag. He notes an interview with Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund, who he says stated that “that guy was filled with federal agents,” a claim Sund would know from being in charge of security. He observes that, two and a half years later, core claims about January 6 appear to be lies, arguing that when someone is caught lying about one thing, it prompts questions about what else they are lying about. The speaker emphasizes he is not a conspiracist and grew up in a country with low belief in obvious conspiracies, but he asserts that “the amount of lying around January 6” is distressing and that anyone covering for those lies should be ashamed, including portions of the American media and Fox News. He acknowledges Fox News allowed him to air material, for which he expresses gratitude, but notes that some people there were angry at him for doing so and challenges critics to point out cherry-picking or miscontextualization. He clarifies that he did not claim the events were entirely peaceful; police officers were injured, recognizing that injuries occurred in other protests as well. He emphasizes that his point is to ask obvious questions and scrutinize the narrative. He discusses Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, noting that surveillance footage had been hidden until he aired it, showing Capitol Police attempting doors and escorting Chansley into the Senate chamber, where he wandered and offered a prayer thanking the Capitol Police, before leaving. He argues there are many conclusions one could draw from this footage, but asserts that Chansley cannot be called an insurrectionist, labeling that designation a lie. He defines insurrection as a very specific meaning and remains pedantic about words, insisting the incident was not an insurrection, not armed, and not intended to overthrow the government but a “spasm of rage” that Trump helped inspire. Regarding the election, he states he does not support leaders inciting anger, but asserts the event was not an insurrection. He condemns the prosecution of Chansley, a Navy veteran and American citizen, who was imprisoned for years after being let into the Senate chamber by uniformed Capitol Police, and he rejects the portrayal of Chansley as an insurrectionist. He condemns the lack of remorse in those who cover up or excuse what he views as lies, and quotes anger at the idea of imprisoning someone for something he believes was misrepresented.

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 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.