reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker recalls that Charlie once said, "guns save lives after school shooting" and was willing to debate and downplay the death of George Floyd in the hands of Minneapolis police, "you called him a scumbag." They note that Charlie also "downplay slavery and what black people have gone through in this country, by saying Juneteenth should never exist." The speaker counters that many claim he only wanted a civil debate, a complete rewriting of history. "Yeah, there is nothing more effed up than to completely pretend that, you know, his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so."

Steven A. Smith is described as playing the "angry black man" stereotype on TV, characterized by loudness and talking over people. He appears on Fox News, discussing topics like Gaza despite perceived lack of knowledge. Smith had been talking about LeBron James' son, which led to LeBron confronting him at a game. Afterward, Steven A. discussed the confrontation on podcasts, considering LeBron's actions a "weak move." The speaker believes Smith's role is to create chaos and controversy, and he is paid well for it. He is described as someone who will sell his "bull" to whoever is buying, including Fox News.

The speaker tweeted "free Palestine" while playing for the Houston Rockets and claims they were kicked out of the NBA as a result. They received a call from the NBA commissioner less than ten minutes after the tweet, and people working with their foundation urged them to erase it. The speaker questioned what they did that was so bad, but felt it was because they went against the grain. They decided to stand on what they believe, despite the risk of not getting another job. The speaker reached a point where they couldn't trust anyone, leading to a period of silence. However, they realized that either they speak their mind, or others will speak for them, and they chose to speak.

Steven A. Smith is described as playing the "angry black man" stereotype on TV, characterized by loudness and talking over people. He appears on Fox News, discussing topics like Gaza despite perceived lack of knowledge. Smith had been talking about LeBron James' son, which led to LeBron confronting him at a game. Afterward, Smith discussed the confrontation on podcasts, considering LeBron's actions a "weak move." Smith's role is seen as creating chaos and controversy, and he is paid well for it. He is compared to someone who will sell their bull to whoever is buying, including Fox News.

In this video, Speaker 1 aggressively confronts Speaker 0, accusing him of being anti-American and anti-free speech. Speaker 1 criticizes Speaker 0 for working at CNN and accuses him of trying to censor conservative and libertarian voices. Speaker 1 repeatedly insults Speaker 0's appearance and character, calling him a liar and a fraud. Speaker 0 denies the accusations and tries to end the conversation. Speaker 1 continues to berate Speaker 0, claiming that CNN is fake news and engages in racketeering. The video ends with Speaker 1 asserting that he will continue to expose the supposed corruption within the media.

The transcript documents an undercover interaction in which participants discuss race, journalism ethics, and the figure James O’Keefe. The scene centers on a group including Speaker 1, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, Speaker 6, and others, with repeated mentions of real or claimed identities and affiliations. Key points: - Jonathan Franklin is introduced as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University, a former NPR correspondent who “wrote about issues concerning race, culture, identity, and justice.” In the meeting, Franklin claimed to be a national CBS News correspondent, a detail the participants initially believed but later learned was false. - The group repeatedly uses racially charged terms, including “coon” and “selling out,” to describe public figures such as Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, Herschel Walker, and Lawrence, with remarks about black public figures and alignment with white audiences. - A notable moment involves Franklin’s reluctance to speak openly. He is encouraged to say what he really thinks publicly, suggesting a conflict between journalistic restraint and personal candor. He muses that to reveal his true thoughts would require him to “stop being a journalist” and “exit news.” - The conversation reveals ongoing undercover journalism objectives. The participants discuss “watchdog gotcha” methods and the ethics of using hidden cameras, contrasting traditional journalism models (e.g., 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace) with contemporary practices. They debate how to expose individuals without compromising their own integrity. - The group discovers that Franklin does teach a Georgetown course on “sourcing and interviews technology” in the spring, with a scheduled class in January 2026, taught alongside others (Parker Lenay, John Fisk, etc.). Despite earlier claims, they confirm the teaching role and course details through Georgetown’s scheduling. - The dialogue includes a shift from discussing race and media ethics to identity deception. At one point, Franklin (or the person playing him) denies being James O’Keeffe, while another participant asserts, “I am James O’Keefe,” prompting confusion about identity. This culminates in an admission that Franklin’s identity was misrepresented by the others during the encounter. - The narrative frames the episode as a critique of bias in journalism. The speakers argue that objectivity is contested and that a journalist’s hidden biases can color reporting, especially when slurs or harmful stereotypes are used publicly by someone who holds a professorial or media position. - The segment concludes with a self-referential note on exposing truth and holding powerful figures accountable. The discussion emphasizes the public’s right to know the truth, including information about Georgetown’s faculty and the behavior observed during the encounter. - The document includes references to ongoing investigative activity, including future steps at Georgetown’s Dean’s Office and President’s Office. It also references the broader mission of O’Keefe Media Group and Citizen Journalism Foundation. Note: The transcript contains promotional material for a gold investment partnership, which has been omitted from this summary per the request to exclude promotional content.

The speaker is Alex Jones, who is being interviewed by Elon Musk. Alex addresses the controversy surrounding his comments about the Sandy Hook school shooting. He explains that he covered the opinions of others who believed it was a drill, but he himself believes the shooting happened. He mentions a PR firm that brought up the issue again, resulting in negative media coverage. Alex clarifies that he never made money from the controversy and apologizes for any confusion caused. He criticizes how his words were twisted and misrepresented by the media.

A former Houston Rockets player recalls a pivotal moment from a couple of years ago when he tweeted “free Palestine.” He says that as a result, he damn near got kicked out of the league. Immediately after posting the tweet, he received a call from the commissioner of the NBA, and people working with his foundation in Texas urged him to erase the tweet, insisting he would get in trouble. He wondered what he had done that was so bad. The other speaker asks for an explanation, prompting the first speaker to reflect on why he faced such a response. He explains that he went against the grain by saying something people didn’t like, and that led to repercussions. He emphasizes that it wasn’t just that “people didn’t like” it, but that the reaction was strong enough to force him to consider backing down. He describes a period when he was in a leadership position and felt that if he said too much, he might lose his job. This created a climate where he stopped trusting anyone, leading him to decide not to say anything or do anything. He notes that this silence became a problem because others began speaking for him. Over the years, he says, it felt like he had to choose between staying silent or letting others voice opinions about him. He concludes that he eventually chose to speak for himself, deciding, “I’m a speak and that’s the end of it.” The dialogue underscores a tension between personal beliefs, public expectations, and professional risk, highlighting the pressure he felt to conform versus his determination to stand by what he believed.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

The speaker states that they tweeted "free Palestine" while playing for the Houston Rockets and were subsequently kicked out of the league. They received a call from the NBA commissioner less than ten minutes after the tweet, urging them to take it down. The speaker questions what they did that was so bad, suggesting the issue was going against the grain. They decided to stand on their beliefs, despite the risk of losing their job. This led to a period where they felt they couldn't trust anyone, choosing to say and do nothing. However, this created a new problem, as others began speaking for them. The speaker resolved to speak their mind, regardless of the consequences.

The speaker claims to be the reason college and high school athletes are getting paid. He calls himself "Mister influencer to influencers." He states he fights to eradicate childhood malnutrition. He accuses the mainstream media and Hollywood of being pedophiles until flight logs are released. He asks if he is canceled yet.

What what I do know for sure is that, you know, Charlie was someone who once said, you know, guns save lives after school shooting. He was willing to debate and downplay the death of George Floyd in the hands of Minneapolis police. 'you called him a scumbag. Right.' There are a lot of people out there talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate, a complete rewriting of history. There is nothing more effed up than to completely pretend that, you know, his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so. And there are people downplaying slavery and what black people have gone through in this country, by saying Juneteenth should never exist.

I'm here to expose Jack Smith as a sellout and a punk. He, along with Biden, Obama, and others, are going against Trump for no reason. Look at Hunter Biden, he gets away with breaking rules, doing drugs, and not paying taxes. But if I did the same, I'd be in jail for thousands of years. It's unfair. We're not playing around. We are real black media.