reSee.it - Related Video Feed

He claims that someone has repeatedly requested they appear on his show, but declined a moderated debate. He believes this person is not serious anymore, though he used to be. He states that his occasional Twitter responses are due to lies being told about him. He says he doesn't take it lying down and will not apologize for it.

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.

Fox News allegedly ran a false piece attributing a quote to the speaker that they claim they did not say. The speaker asserts they stand by the New York Times and denies saying the bandage was a proper spectacle from a candidate not obsessed with spectacles. The speaker puts Corey Lewandowski on notice, stating that repeating the false quote could lead to a defamation situation. The speaker acknowledges that Lewandowski may be working off the internet where there is a lot of false information. The speaker then suggests Lewandowski should be sent to prison for the alleged defamation.

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.

The speaker claims to have won the 2020 election "by a lot." They suggest reviewing tapes and "truth to vote" which allegedly shows ballot box stuffing. They also mention "51 agents" and "FBI Twitter." The speaker alleges cheating in the election, citing "all of the stuff ballots" and the "51 intelligence agents." They claim recounts were not "real recounts." They state Wisconsin "practically admitted it was rigged" and that other states are doing the same. When told a case review found fewer than 475 cases of voter fraud in six battleground states, the speaker claims "they didn't look at the right things," alleging fake ballots. They maintain the election was "very rigged." The speaker believes they are "winning very well" in the upcoming election, citing a recent poll.

The speaker says the subject of the interview is not a Democrat and would be offended to be called one. The speaker doesn't believe a political issue would cause the subject to do such a thing. The subject never mentioned the senator or representative who were targeted. He didn't like Tim Walz and would say things like, "I don't like that Tim Walz did this." The subject mentioned a protest, but the speaker doesn't think he said anything about it. The speaker would tell him to surrender himself so he could be taken alive. The subject listened to Infowars, and the speaker told him not to take everything they say for granted. The subject was a Trump supporter, voted for Trump, and liked Trump.

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.

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.

The speaker discusses a passage from a book that was taken out of context on Twitter. They clarify that the passage was a satirical reference to Stacey Abrams, not Donald Trump. They emphasize that their books are not candidate books but rather introspective works. They believe that the 2020 election was rigged by Big Tech and that censorship played a role in the events of January 6th. They express a desire for real disagreements based on the full context of their statements rather than circulating out-of-context passages. The other speaker admits to not reading the full chapter and acknowledges the importance of a documentary on election fraud.

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 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 discussion centers on the 2020 election, which Speaker 1 claims was rigged due to fake ballots and other factors, including the influence of 51 intelligence agents. Speaker 0 counters that recounts in swing states and over 50 lawsuits found no widespread corruption or voter fraud, citing a potential case of voter fraud in six battleground states that uncovered fewer than 475 cases. Speaker 1 asserts Wisconsin has practically admitted the election was rigged and other states are doing the same. Speaker 0 questions how Speaker 1 will appeal to independent suburban women voters. Speaker 1 references polls showing him leading, including with women. Speaker 0 notes polls can change. Speaker 1 states he would like to be less combative but feels the press's dishonesty necessitates it to get his message across and win.

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 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.

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.

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.

The speaker claims the biggest scandal was spying on their campaign, insisting it's verified despite lack of evidence. They urge to air it for Biden's detriment. The interviewer refuses, citing the need for verification. The speaker insists they were spied on and caught, challenging the interviewer to check the papers. The interviewer remains skeptical.