reSee.it - Related Video Feed

First speaker asks if the other person will sit down with Hakim Jeffries after the trip. Second speaker responds: I would. I'd be willing to. I would've now too. You know, I left. I said, come on over. Just put the government back. All they have to do is say yes and then it's over. Start. And then we go into a negotiation. Look, Obamacare has been terrible. We can make it better. I'm all for that. But they're not. And they they want to allow many, many illegal people that came into our country illegally from prisons, from mental institutions, from all over the world. They want them to get paid, and that's gonna hurt the citizens of our country, and I just can't do it.

The conversation centers on a reported peace framework and the idea that Iran is “giving up all of their chips” and cards. The speaker says many people seem to believe the rumor that a peace deal is in play, and reacts by calling themselves an optimist while insisting the approach must be “realistic.” The speaker argues that any peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and that the key requirement is taking steps to restrain Israel. They say that, if the U.S. looks at the Israelis “with clear eyes,” it could achieve a deal with Iran that does not include everything the U.S. wants—for example, the speaker says Iran will not “hill(s) in the deal about zero enrichment” and will not “hand us over all your enrichment.” The speaker’s main goal is ending the fighting, which they say is “definitely possible.” However, the speaker expresses skepticism that the U.S. has taken the first “hard step” of telling Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” They describe the war as “existential for the Israelis,” and argue the situation cannot assume Israel will not face conditions that could lead to continued attacks or another “terrorist attack.” The speaker says the U.S. cannot “take that off the table” or “rule it out,” and cannot allow others to dismiss considerations as “a conspiracy theory.” The speaker further claims the U.S. has had institutional difficulty being skeptical and “not trusting” regarding Israel, saying Israel “lied us, lied to us to get us into this war.” They argue the U.S. needs to “turn Matter” (stating “as a matter of fact”) and apply more verification, especially because Israel is described as an ally that has misled the U.S. Finally, the speaker says if Israelis believed the U.S. would extricate itself from the conflict, “there would be an element within Israel” seeking actions to prompt Americans to recommit to the conflict, reinforcing the need for not taking anything off the table and emphasizing verification.

It's difficult to get a ceasefire. The White House lawn belongs to everybody. They own the White House. We have a Zionist in the White House. Gravi wins. We're going to be killing a lot more terrorists. Gravi always wins.

It's going to be hard to do business like this. Say thank you to the American people. Accept that there are disagreements, and let's litigate those disagreements rather than fighting it out in the American media when you're wrong. We know you're wrong. I think it's good for the American people to see what's going on here. That's why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful. You don't have the cards. You're buried there. Your people are dying. You're running low on soldiers. Don't play games. It would be a damn good thing to get a ceasefire right now. I'd tell you to take it so the bullets stop flying and people stop dying. Of course, we want to stop the war. You're saying you don't want a ceasefire? I want a ceasefire with guarantees because you'll get a ceasefire faster than anything else.

Iran reportedly wants to talk, but according to Speaker 1, they should have done so sooner, during the allotted 60-day period. Speaker 1 stated that on the 61st day, they declared that there was no deal to be made. Speaker 1 believes Iran is not winning and should talk immediately before it is too late.

The speaker is asked if their organization will engage in peace talks with the Israelis. They respond by saying that they don't view it as peace talks, but rather as capitulation or surrender. They question who they would even talk to, suggesting that it would be a conversation between the oppressor and the oppressed. They argue that talking without the presence of weapons is still not enough because they have never seen a successful conversation between a colonizer and a national liberation movement. They emphasize the importance of their struggle for dignity, respect, and human rights.

What if Russia breaks the ceasefire or peace talks? What do we do then? Okay, what if they broke it? I don't know. They broke it with Biden because they didn't respect him, or Obama. They respect me.

"He wants to make a deal. I don't know if you can make a deal." The problem is I've empowered you to be a tough guy, and I don't think you'd be a tough guy without The United States. "And your people are very brave, But you're either gonna make a deal or we're out." "And if we're out, you'll fight it out." "I don't think it's gonna be pretty, but you'll fight it out." "But you don't have the cards." "But once we sign that deal, you're in a much better position." "But you're not acting at all thankful, and that's not a nice thing. I'll be honest." "That's not a nice thing." "Alright. I think we've seen enough." "This is great This is this is gonna be great television. I will say that." "Alright, boss. Alright."

We're not fighting or protesting. It takes time, not a miracle. Murder? Just kidding. They'll understand. That's the worst. Let me explain.

I see the hatred for Putin, and it's tough to make a deal with that. I want to get this thing settled. I could be tougher than anyone, but you won't get a deal that way. We had a president who talked tough about Putin, but Putin still invaded. Diplomacy is the path to peace. Russia occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, and nobody stopped him. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts, but he broke the ceasefire and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy are we talking about? I'm talking about ending the destruction of your country. It's disrespectful to litigate this here. You should be thanking us for trying to bring this to a conference.

The discussion centers on Venezuela and whether to engage with Nicolás Maduro. The dialogue notes that there has been consideration of talking to him, with uncertainty about the approach: “What Venezuela, sir? Are you planning to talk to Nicolas Maturo? I might talk to him. We'll see. But we're discussing that with their with the different steps.” The speakers acknowledge that Venezuela may be a topic of discussion and mention that “We might talk about Venezuela.” A key point raised is the United States’ designation of Maduro as the leader of a foreign terrorist organization. The exact assertion stated is: “The US this week did, of course, name him the leader of a foreign terrorist organization.” This designation is presented as a context for questioning the desirability of talking to him. In response to whether diplomacy with Maduro is prudent, there is a conditional stance expressed: “Why do you wanna talk to him if he's the leader? If we can save lives, if we can do things the easy way, that's fine.” This line frames the decision to engage in talks as potentially justified if it can save lives and if it can be accomplished through an easier route. The speakers also acknowledge flexibility in method: “And if we have to do it the hard way, that's fine too.” This phrase indicates willingness to pursue stronger or more challenging measures if necessary, depending on the outcomes or constraints involved in engaging with Maduro. Overall, the exchange highlights a tension between pursuing dialogue with Maduro and the U.S. designation of him as a leader of a foreign terrorist organization, balanced against the potential to save lives and the spectrum of possible approaches, from easy to hard. The conversation suggests that the decision to engage or not would be influenced by the prospect of saving lives and the practicality of the approach, given the current designation by the United States.

The speaker states they never want to see a diplomatic resolution with Hamas. They say they wanted a ceasefire, but have always been committed to the destruction of Hamas. They add that they wanted a ceasefire, but have always made clear that they wanted to see a different authority moving forward in governance of Gaza.

We've been meeting for a while and we're gonna discuss some of the issues. And I don't think there's any issue that's overly complex. It's at a point now where people wanna do things. I I do I really do believe. I've known him for a long time. I've always had a great relationship with him. I think that president Putin wants to find an answer to, and we'll see. In a period not very far from now, a week or two weeks, we're gonna know whether or not we're gonna solve this, or is this horrible fighting gonna continue? We'll do the best to get it ended. And, I believe you have two willing parties, and usually that's good news, but two willing parties that wanna make a deal. We'll journey together, and we'll go over, and we'll, see if it could be done. And it might it's possible it might not be able to be done. On the other hand, it's possible it will. It will save thousands and thousands of lives a week.

Washington, DC saw two major Iran-related developments: a New York Times report alleging that Israel and the United States planned to install Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran’s leader, and a tense phone call in which President Trump, pressured by Middle East partners, spoke with Benjamin Netanyahu for about an hour. The readout, echoed by three individuals in the room, said Netanyahu’s “hair was on fire” and that Netanyahu urged immediate action—“bomb them right now” and keep bombing Iran—while Trump said he would not resume military operations and wanted a peace agreement. Discussion turned to the claimed peace framework, with Joe Kent saying he was an optimist so long as realism is maintained: a peace deal “won’t be acceptable to Israel,” and Israel must be restrained for negotiations to move forward. Kent said the deal would not be everything either side wants, and he opposed “poison pills” about “zero enrichment” and “hand us over all your enrichment,” while emphasizing the need for “an end to the fighting.” He added skepticism that the first hard step has been taken to tell Israel it is “done taking offensive action without our permission.” Asked about the phone call details and Trump’s claim that Netanyahu would do whatever Trump wants, Kent said he had difficulty believing it, but could see how Netanyahu’s public posture would reflect pressure and public sentiment. Kent also said Israel’s early war actions were “very, very clever,” getting the U.S. committed to an initial strike against Iran’s supreme leader and killing off moderating forces, which he said makes the current negotiation harder. He described a likely “full court press” by pro-Israel lobbying and media to influence Trump, while suggesting time would tell whether Trump would dictate terms. The conversation then shifted to Ahmadinejad. Kent said the report shows Israel’s “main goal” before the war was to get the U.S. committed to conflict, using a “throw everything at the wall model” of far-fetched ideas to see what “resonated.” Kent said the proposed Ahmadinejad plan resembled a Venezuela model: decapitate the leadership and install someone who would stabilize and align with Israel’s interests, presenting it as a sales pitch rather than a detailed operational plan. He said the effect of the approach, in some version, was to push the U.S. into war and to take the strike that removed moderates, making Trump’s desired deal “more challenging.” Kent also addressed the idea that Israel could use chaos to prolong conflict, emphasizing Israel’s ability to tolerate chaos and describing internal pressures within Israel as the war continues. He said the Israelis’ longer-term incentives could align with preventing war conclusions, particularly from the perspective of internal political dynamics. A separate segment included a clip from Nick Fuentes on Alex Jones’ show, asserting that Israel might carry out a false flag on the United States (or Europe) to restart momentum and provide a new pretext. Kent responded that the war is “existential for the Israelis,” and said major concerns cannot be ruled out. He argued the U.S. has an unrealistic relationship with Israel, tends to accept Israeli intelligence “almost, like, verbatim,” and fails to discuss uncomfortable possibilities—such as whether Israeli intelligence is meant to influence the U.S. or whether Israeli operations involve spying. Turning to U.S. domestic politics, the discussion referenced the Thomas Massie election, claims about pro-Israel influence, and a Justice Department advisory committee on antisemitism. Kent criticized what he described as pro-Israel lobbying tactics and said campaign money and exposure may force changes in strategy. On election systems, Kent said election integrity issues remain, arguing that mail ballots and machine tabulation are difficult to verify and that Americans should demand scrutiny of verification and counting mechanisms. When asked about foreign interference, Kent said intelligence would track foreign interference if it existed, but described the difficulty of tracking money from super PACs under the current system. He also cited dual citizens and the ability to donate large sums as complicating oversight. Finally, Kent responded to claims that American journalists are on Israeli intelligence targeting lists, including a clip naming Tucker Carlson as “enemy number one,” and said U.S. intelligence discussions about Israeli agendas and operations are culturally constrained. He concluded by expressing optimism about midterms and future elections, arguing the younger generation will be more engaged and that increasing turnout and education on primaries can improve outcomes.

I see the hatred for Putin, which makes a deal tough. I want to get this settled and align with Europe. I could be tougher, but that won't get a deal done. We had a president who talked tough, but Putin still invaded. Diplomacy is the path to peace. Putin occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, and nobody stopped him. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts, but he broke them, killing our people and not exchanging prisoners. What kind of diplomacy are we talking about? It's disrespectful to litigate this here. You should be thanking me for trying to bring this to a conference.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

If one of the two parties makes it very difficult, they will be called foolish and horrible, and the speaker will take a pass. However, the speaker hopes this won't be necessary, because they want to see it end. A lot of people are being killed every day as they play games. The speaker says they are not going to take that. The speaker thinks there is a good chance of solving the problem. When asked if they are prepared to walk away completely from these efforts and talks, the speaker says they don't want to say that, but they want to see.

You wanted it to end immediately, and I wanted a ceasefire now, but he doesn't want a ceasefire. Now, he's a big shot because he has the US to decide. Either we end it, or we let him fight it out. Without us, he doesn't win. I'm not saying what I'm considering; I'm just telling you what I saw today. That wasn't a man who wanted to make peace, and I'm only interested if he wants to end the bloodshed.

I'm not sure about numerous calls, but there was at least one request to come back and continue the conversation. I felt that they were disrespectful and unwilling to discuss a peaceful settlement. You can't fund the war forever; the American people won't stand for it, and neither will the Europeans. We need to bring this to a peaceful settlement. I was trying to do that, and I'll continue to try, but it takes two to tango. The Ukrainians need to participate in the conversation, but they weren't willing to do that on Friday, so I sent them home. I expect the war will go on a very long time. I don't know where they're going to get the money to fund it.

And one of the things at the table was one of the gentlemen who's a great guy, but he said, I said I I hope I didn't insult him. 'let's meet in another month or two, and let's see if we can start, you know, making some what.' 'He that a month or two? You're gonna have another 40,000 people dead in a month or two. You have to do it tonight.' 'And I did, actually. I called, president Putin, and we're trying to work out a meeting with president Zelensky. We'll see what happens there.' 'And then if that works out if it works out, then I'll go to the trilap and close it up.'

We will work towards a safer, more peaceful future through direct diplomacy until we find a final solution.

It's tough to make a deal with the hatred some people have for Putin, but the other side isn't exactly in love with him either. I want to see this situation resolved and am aligned with Europe on this. I could be tougher than anyone, but that won't get us a deal. We had a president who talked tough about Putin, but then Putin invaded Ukraine. Diplomacy is the path to peace, not chest-thumping. Putin occupied parts of Ukraine back in 2014, and nobody stopped him. We signed ceasefire and gas contracts with him, but he broke the ceasefire and didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy is that? I'm talking about diplomacy that ends the destruction. It's disrespectful to come here and attack the administration trying to prevent the destruction of your country.

I need to align myself with everyone to get a deal done. I'm aligned with the United States and the world, and I want to end this. Others have tremendous hatred, which makes it tough to make a deal. I could be tougher than anyone, but that won't get us a deal. We need diplomacy to end the destruction. Some people stood up and talked tough, but Putin still invaded. I'm trying to bring an end to this conflict. You should be thankful for what we are trying to do. You are gambling with World War Three and you are disrespectful to this country. We've given you so much money and equipment. I empowered you to be tough, but you're not acting thankful. If we're out, you'll fight it out, but it won't be pretty.

Speaker 0: This thing over with. You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough for me to make a deal with that kind of hate. I'm aligned with the world. I wanna get the things set. If you want me to be tough? I could be tougher than any human being you've ever seen, but you're never gonna get a deal that way. Speaker 1: For four years in The United States Of America... we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine. The path to peace... is engaging in diplomacy. Speaker 2: He occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of East and Crimea. So 2014. We signed ceasefire, gas contract, but after that, he broken the ceasefire, he killed our people, and he didn't exchange prisoners. What kind of diplomacy? Speaker 0: You should be thanking the president for trying to bring it into this conference. Speaker 2: We have problems. Speaker 0: You're gambling with World War three. You have the cards. With us, you have the cards. Without us you don't have any cards. I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. What if Russia breaks his fire?

The speaker states that the situation was rapidly approaching the point of no return and that the United States found it intolerable, based on what Steve, Jared, Pete, and others told him, with Marco being so involved that he thought they were going to attack us if action wasn’t taken at the time we did it, and that they had in mind to attack us.