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 claims that someone tells edgy jokes about the holocaust and cookies to appear cool. Speaker 0 says that the next step is to declare oneself the true conservative, not a "bunch of masturbating losers who live in your mother's basement." Speaker 1 states that someone was making holocaust jokes. Speaker 1 asks if Nick Fuentes, described as a "weird little gay kid in his basement in Chicago," is participating in a super PAC to bump off Joe Kent.

The speaker believes countries and movements will be destroyed by bad faith attacks over sexual impropriety, stating that flirting should not be treated as seriously as rape or murder. The speaker then discusses Ben Geller, a "New York Jew," who allegedly flirted with 15-year-olds. The speaker claims Geller is involved in "pretty sick shit" and is in the DMs of teenage boys in the conservative movement on Instagram.

Mark Levin and others are using a "Trump skin suit" despite disliking him personally and disagreeing with his agenda, economic views, and foreign policy. Some at Fox News harbor contempt for Trump. It's frustrating to see figures like Levin and Laura Loomer, described as bizarre, championing Trump and claiming to define American interests, despite their lack of interest in the United States. Allowing such individuals to control a movement focused on serving America is an offense against reality and dangerous for the country. These people washed out of the Democratic party and now they're trying to take over the Republican party. Figures like John Bolton and Bill Crystal shouldn't be allowed to take over the Trump White House. The speaker doesn't want to relive past mistakes like Iraq and accuses Levin, Loomer, and others of being ignorant and irresponsible in their demands for military action, lacking understanding of the consequences.

The speaker believes they are being targeted due to their increasing popularity and claims Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson are colluding in a "hit job" against them. They assert that such attacks will only make them a martyr. The speaker criticizes Tucker Carlson for being out of touch and derisive towards working-class Americans, particularly those who disagree with him. They question Carlson's authenticity as a champion of white males and accuse him of hypocrisy. The speaker contrasts their own background with Carlson's, emphasizing their "real American stock" and involvement in domestic issues. They reject inclusive populism and accuse Carlson of being a "modern Bill Buckley" but less intelligent. The speaker challenges Carlson to have them on his show instead of gossiping. They express disgust for those in politics with privileged backgrounds and accuse Carlson of being "filth." They describe a scenario where J.D. Vance corrals "loser anti-Semites and racists" into a "CIA plantation" to fight a war with China while Israel benefits.

Speaker 0 introduces the scene and prepares to expose the crowd’s current view of the person being addressed. Speaker 1 asserts that someone is being fed wrong information, likening the situation to Grima Wormtongue. He says half of the people he grew up with in this movement are not on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team, insisting they are not neocons or war hawks. He emphasizes America first over MAGA and states that America first is what MAGA was supposed to be, and that the addressed person is merely the vessel for it. Speaker 2 acknowledges serious flaws in the addressed figure, including insider trading, and expresses relief that the speaker is differentiating themselves. They say they do not want to be associated with the addressed person, describing him as a “sinking, burning ship” who was not loyal to his original mission or to America. They claim he has become a “creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” with enemies now serving as courtiers who lie and flatter him to hear what he wants. They state they are not among those people. Speaker 3 argues that the addressed person should not be in office any longer, advocating for the twenty-fifth amendment, saying he is not loyal to this country or to anybody except for “that little country in the Middle East.” They suggest the last president to tell that country no was JFK, and compare the addressed person’s actions to those of JFK’s era, asking how he can call others losers when he loses to Netanyahu “every single day” and questioning when he last told them no. Speaker 0 notes that Brigitte Macron is said to be more beautiful than Candace Owens, remarking that the claim is widely circulated online and across the political spectrum. They remark that the message was a “basket of deplorables” moment and that even on Truth Social, the addressed person’s platform, people have turned against him. They reference several responses: a call to step back and reassess who is whispering in the addressed person’s ear and to return to America first; a claim that MAGA left them; accusations that the person is insane and should resign or face the twenty-fifth; charges of mental and emotional unfitness for POTUS; descriptions of the person as childish; and a suggestion that truth has triggered him among his strongest supporters. The aggregate social-media reactions cited include: someone criticizing him for siding with Iran and Israel, claims of “you are going against everyone that fought for him to win,” and statements that “Take a look at this tweet about Charlie,” where people suggested Charlie would be on a harmful list if he hadn’t been killed. The underlying implication is that there is no truth or loyalty within the addressed person. Overall, the dialogue frames a divide between factions who believe in core America-first principles, criticisms of loyalty and allegiance, concerns about influence and corruption, and a climate of hostile public reaction and rumor.

Speaker 0 states that individuals can choose to act independently and reject assistance. However, this independence purportedly lasts only about six hours. The speaker claims "they" want not only defense but also offense. The speaker references a tweet by Tucker Carlson that names names, which the speaker has not verified but acknowledges Carlson is "on fire." The speaker indicates that names are now being called out.

One speaker believes people should be allowed to have differing views on immigration and debate the merits of the Israeli lobby's power. However, Pat Buchanan discredits this conversation because he gives the sense that he has another agenda related to personal dislike, conspiracies, and the belief that Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics. Another speaker questions if a certain individual exclusively targets people in the same group and makes Holocaust jokes. This speaker suggests this individual is like David Duke, who would endorse their shows. They believe David Duke is part of a campaign to discredit people on the right, and that Nick Fuentes is doing the same. They clarify that this doesn't mean everything he says is false, that he isn't talented, or that he's a bad person, but that he is clearly part of a campaign to discredit non-crazy right voices.

Tucker Carlson and the host discuss the evolving casualty figures and the media’s handling of them. The conversation begins with the host recalling that on March 9 they reported, citing a military source, that 147 Americans were wounded, and that Reuters later published an exclusive stating 140 soldiers were wounded; the Pentagon confirmed that figure, and they note that many of the wounded have serious injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, not minor injuries. The host asks Carlson if his sources, close to the White House, confirm those numbers and why the media might be hiding them. Carlson offers two reasons. First, he suggests the media hesitates to push on the matter because they “support the war reflexively” and because of institutional loyalty and fear of criticizing the war. He adds a provocative comparison, saying some in the media “support big organizations” and implying that certain prominent figures have incentives to align with defense contractors. Second, he says there is a legitimate moral concern about reporting numbers when families are involved, describing a “moral blackmail” that discourages reporting about deaths and injuries. He acknowledges that, in his experience, families deserve consideration, which can complicate reporting, but asserts that there is also a pattern of lying and censorship surrounding casualty figures. He notes that ground troops, while the U.S. military presence may be limited, certainly includes special operations and Tier One units, and expresses concern about overuse of those forces. He emphasizes that there is a broader issue of deception and AI-generated misinformation making it hard to know what is true. The discussion then shifts to Israel. The host asks for Carlson’s sense of daily life in Israel and what is happening on the ground, noting a “total blackout” on Israeli attacks. Carlson replies that he is not as well sourced in Israel as before but has connections in the Gulf, where sharing social media video of destruction is illegal in six monarchies. He mentions a single clip that has stood out in his thinking for years: a video showing a missile segment near the Dome of the Rock in the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex, and references Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre. He warns that the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex and the Dome of the Rock could trigger a global war and possibly a nuclear exchange, suggesting that some prominent Israelis would want such an escalation; therefore, he argues the U.S. government should make protecting the Dome of the Rock a priority, not because of sectarian reasons but to prevent a world-ending conflict. A separate segment (omitted as promotional) includes Carlson’s remark that denial of censorship and government blocks complicates reporting and that he values the ability to access diverse sources. The hosts then pivot to audience dynamics, with Carlson noting that some audiences who were skeptical of him have become supporters, and reflecting on the cultural shift in political loyalties. Toward the end, the host asks Carlson for his take on last night’s events involving Thomas Massey and Donald Trump in Kentucky; Carlson describes it as a reflection of a broader battle in American politics. He recalls his experience with Trump’s 2020 coalition and laments that neoconservatives allegedly destroyed the coalition, elevating figures like MTG and Massey as enemies. He expresses a desire for a new political coalition of “normal” people who want a government that does not hate them and seeks to improve their lives, acknowledging differences in approach but emphasizing good-faith effort over insults or aggressive foreign policy. The program closes with mutual thanks and well-wishes.

The speakers discuss a controversial figure, possibly Nick Fuentes, noting his talent and articulation while also acknowledging problematic aspects of his views. It's claimed he appeals to young white men who feel economically disenfranchised and unrepresented. One speaker suggests this figure is part of a campaign to discredit legitimate right-wing voices. Concerns are raised about his alleged belief in conspiracies and the idea that Jewish people are a sinister force manipulating American politics. The figure is described as portraying himself as a victim persecuted by a powerful cabal for speaking truth to power, similar to Karen Silkwood. He is accused of making Holocaust jokes and targeting individuals within a specific group. Pat Buchanan's presence is said to discredit certain conversations.

The speaker questions why Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Ian Carroll are being targeted, suggesting a common thread: their lack of unwavering support for Israel. Olivia Nuzzi, who allegedly orchestrated attacks against these figures, previously faced scrutiny for an affair with RFK Jr. The speaker highlights the coincidence of Nuzzi's car having license plates referencing RFK Jr. and questions RFK Jr.'s silence on Israel, noting Dave Smith's criticism of his "blind spot" and support for Israel "whatever it takes" despite the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. RFK Jr.'s association with Rabbi Shmuley, who has been accused of extortion, is also criticized. The speaker questions RFK Jr.'s focus on antisemitism as a health crisis, arguing it deviates from his intended platform of addressing vaccines and the CDC. The speaker speculates about potential blackmail involving RFK Jr., suggesting Olivia Nuzzi is aware of it and is working to protect him.

Speaker 0 (John) explains that the other side “got tired of me winning, so he joined our side,” and asserts he has no animosity toward him, only regret that it became personal for some people, not for him, because it’s always about the survivors. He describes a reversal: after months of fighting, the speaker, the attorney general, the FBI director, the president, and the vice president could save everyone if they’d done the right thing four months ago. He questions whether Congressman Greene truly supports the release now, suggesting he’s only backing it because the president told him to support it, and attributes this to Mike Johnson. Speaker 1 asks if John believes the president’s current stance, given weeks of opposition and now support. John says he is concerned the president is opening a flurry of investigations and fears they may use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files. He believes they will try to use a legal provision allowing withholding materials if they are the subject of an ongoing investigation and would harm that investigation. Speaker 2 notes that the focus is on President Trump: he initially blocked the release and now has the power to release the full files anyway. Speaker 0 summarizes that for four months the president thought secrecy was best, but someone convinced him the releases are better; if serious, they should release them now. Speaker 1 asks why John thinks the president has resisted for so long. John contends the files implicate billionaires and friends of Trump and his donors, plus Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies, which is why there’s effort to stop the release. He predicts attempts to stop it will occur elsewhere and that this will backfire. Speaker 1 asks if the president will sign the bill; John says he thinks he will sign and would like to be at the signing party, joking about being invited to sign his own bill. John addresses personal attacks: the president attacked his wife, calling Margie Taylor Greene a traitor. John says the attack was a new low for him, but he laughs it off; his wife joked about inviting Trump to their wedding, and she blames him for not inviting him, which she says led to the anger. John remains optimistic the bill will pass tomorrow, with a veto-proof majority, and thinks the speaker will begrudgingly support it. Speaker 1 asks about the public breakup with Marjorie Taylor Greene over the Epstein files. John says Greene represents the base—the populist movement that brought Trump to the White House—and when Trump told supporters they are no longer his supporters if they want the Epstein files released, Trump lost many supporters, but Greene did not, and she remains in favor of seeking justice for the survivors. Speaker 1 asks if Trump has lost touch with the MAGA base. John believes Trump has strayed on fiscal responsibility, starting wars overseas and regime change, and on releasing the death steam files, away from the campaign promises that defined the MAGA base.

In an interview, Pat Buchanan explains his comment about Congress being "Israeli occupied territory." He clarifies that he meant the pro-Israel lobby is very influential in Washington and Congress often supports policies that may not be in the best interest of the United States. Buchanan believes that criticizing any political lobby should be allowed without being attacked. He shares that after making his comment, there were efforts to silence him, including calls to drop his column and remove him from the air. Buchanan finds these tactics un-American and believes they violate the spirit of the First Amendment. He acknowledges his controversial nature but considers such actions unacceptable.

"I'm surprised by the amount of women, you know, who continue to support him. You know, let's be clear. Women can be misogynists too. We internalize a lot of those values especially if we feel that's what we need to do to stay safe and protected and, you know, have our wealth secured." "And if you're, you know, if you're a right wing woman, you're gonna go along with what your husband says is like, you know, you're the lowly woman." "Yeah. And I and I'm not a person of color, so I don't wanna speak to this from a black, let Latinx, Latina perspective on this. But Tanya and I, as you can tell, you know, both have white skin. And, you know, we'll talk about our own peoples. How, you know, we look very similar, but there can be a lot of hatred of each other along tribal lines." "I mean, I can give an example of that."

After over a dozen years at Fox News, I've decided to pursue a new challenge, which was a tough decision because I value this show, our staff, and our audience. I'll be leaving Fox News at the end of the week. In a discussion about Donald Trump, the conversation turned heated. One person labeled Trump a sexual predator, while another defended him, criticizing the inflammatory language used. Disrespect towards a journalist was expressed, with claims that her questions were ridiculous and off-base. The dialogue highlighted a divide in perspectives, with accusations of focusing more on sensationalism than on public policy.

The transcript centers on a heated, interconnected discussion about Tucker Carlson, U.S. politics, and the perceived influence of Israel, the Israel lobby, and foreign interests on American public discourse. The participants volley accusations, defenses, and conspiracy theories, with several notable claims and counterclaims. - The opening segment portrays Tucker Carlson as a target of powerful actors. Speaker 0 argues that Netanyahu and others have labeled Carlson a problem, suggesting that calling him a “fox in a henhouse” is a veiled call for violence and censorship. They warn that such rhetoric could provoke political suppression or harm toward Carlson, and they reference debates over whether Carlson’s anti-war stance and Iran policy have drawn attacks from prominent Israel-first voices. - The conversation shifts to alleged political interference and investigations. Speaker 0 references Kash Patel and a mid-September claim that Patel confronted J. D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and others about an investigation, asserting Patel was told not to involve certain intelligence matters or foreign involvement in domestic issues. They describe “the Israel lobby literally run by Netanyahu” as attacking Carlson and pressing to “neutralize” him. There is also a claim that Democrats celebrated or advocated harm against Charlie Kirk and that “six trainees” in a town suggested Kirk would be dead the next day, though no evidence is presented for these claims. - Speaker 1 introduces a harsh critique of Carlson, saying he is “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America,” accusing him of aligning with those who celebrate Nazis, defend Hamas, and criticize Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The comment emphasizes that Carlson is not MAGA, and asserts a leadership role for Carlson in a modern-day Hitler youth narrative. - The dialogue between Speakers 0 and 2 (Adam King) delves into broader political positioning. Adam King says Carlson “left MAGA,” that MAGA is a big tent whereas Carlson seeks a smaller, more controlled sphere, and that Carlson is working against the Trump agenda by attempting to influence 2028 considerations. Speaker 0 counters, arguing Tucker covers a wide range of topics and remains central to the movement, not simply fixated on Israel. - There is debate about the influence of Jewish voters and donors on the 2024 campaign, with back-and-forth estimates of Jewish contributions and skepticism about the degree to which Jews will back Vance or other candidates. The participants discuss antisemitism accusations, censorship, and the difficulty of debating these topics. They criticize the idea of labeling people antisemitic as a manipulation tactic and urge more open dialogue. - The dialogue touches on the media landscape and the limits of speaking on both sides. Adam King argues for more balanced dialogue and warns that the current rhetoric—terms like “neutralize”—fuels violence. He expresses concern about online harassment of Jews and the normalization of violent language in political discourse. - There are tangential conversations about foreign influence in U.S. affairs. Adam King mentions Qatar, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and other foreign money; he cites a Newsmax report about Mamdani’s foreign funding and discusses debates over whether Qatar has a U.S. airbase or is primarily involved in training programs. The participants debate where influence truly lies, whether with Soros, the left, or other actors. - The segment ends with a mix of promotional content and entertainment, including a satirical insert about Ultra Methylene Red, a product advertised with claims about cognitive and physiological benefits, followed by fictional, humor-laden banter about “Batman” and “the Riddler” reacting to the product. In sum, the transcript captures a multi-faceted, contentious exchange over Carlson’s position in the MAGA movement, accusations of antisemitism and censorship, perceived foreign influence in U.S. politics, and the tensions within the right-wing ecosystem, all interwoven with promotional and humorous interludes.

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.

Pat Buchanan raises important issues, such as American military sovereignty, but does so in a way that discredits them. When attacked, Buchanan claims a cabal controls American politics and dislikes him for speaking truth to power, casting himself as a victim. While questioning America's relationship with Israel and criticizing its lobby are valid, Buchanan is labeled antisemitic due to his relentless focus on topics related to Judaism. He attacks Goldman Sachs but not Morgan Stanley, and while he hasn't explicitly stated dislike for Jews, he has defended accused Nazi war criminals, attacked Israel, criticized American Jews for supporting Israel, and implied they push America into wars. There is a pattern of Buchanan needling the Jews, which suggests thematic antisemitism. Buchanan discredits conversations about immigration and the Israeli lobby by giving the sense that he has another agenda, believes in conspiracies, and thinks Jews are a sinister force trying to affect American politics.