reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Sam and Speaker 1 engage in a heated conversation. Speaker 1 insults Sam's appearance and accuses him of promoting penny stocks. Sam remains silent and Speaker 1 continues to mock him. Speaker 1 encourages others to check on Sam's activities and mocks him further. Another person joins the conversation and praises Speaker 1, triggering Sam to create a new account. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 mocking Sam again.

Speaker 0 is upset and confrontational, telling Speaker 1 not to touch them. Speaker 1 responds with insults, leading Speaker 0 to challenge them to make a move. The situation escalates as Speaker 0 dares Speaker 1 to act.

The speaker criticizes someone for pretending to be self-made and calls them a fraud. They challenge the person to meet them anytime, anywhere. The speaker and the person they are addressing exchange heated words, with the speaker telling the person to sit down multiple times. The person tries to respond but is told they can't because it is a hearing.

Speaker 0 states that after nearly a year of owning an account initially belonging to "Steve," they have gained 10,000 followers. They are upset by the suggestion that Steve wants the account back, comparing it to asking for a gift back after a long time. Speaker 0 uses analogies involving headphones and selling a house to illustrate the perceived absurdity of the request. They express strong disapproval, stating that such behavior is unacceptable. Speaker 1 responds that they don't believe they were acting inappropriately. They explain they messaged Speaker 0 to schedule a phone call, intentionally omitting the topic to avoid sounding curt, and feel they were in a no-win situation.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

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.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration and insults Speaker 1, calling them "fucking lame" and telling them to "go colonize somewhere else." Speaker 1 responds by saying, "Look what you're doing" and calling it a shame. Speaker 0 continues to insult and curse, telling Speaker 1 to go away and calling them "fucking late." The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to go away again and using more profanity.

Speaker 0 expresses disbelief that $250,000 is not enough for someone. Speaker 1 agrees and suggests that there must be something dark going on in the relationship. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the person in question quit a job that paid $250,000 every quarter, or $1 million a year. Speaker 1 shares a story about someone named Cassie who changed her appearance because her partner wanted it that way. Speaker 0 criticizes the partner, calling them a piece of shit. They both express concern for the children involved. Speaker 0 concludes by calling the partner a terrible person.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly express their anger and frustration by telling someone to go fuck themselves.

Speaker 0 expresses strong disapproval of being blackmailed with advertising or money, telling the blackmailer to go away. They emphasize their point by repeating the phrase "go fuck yourself." The speaker then addresses someone named Bob in the audience.

Speaker 0 confronts someone, accusing them of stealing and threatening to call the cops. Speaker 1 questions what Speaker 0 is going to do. Speaker 0 says that the person and their "buddies" can't steal. Both speakers state that the other can't touch them. Speaker 0 threatens to burn the other person's socks and suit. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to stop and threatens to sue, claiming Speaker 0 is putting hands on them.

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.

Speaker 0 states that the questions posed to people in his organization were inaccurate, false, and unfair. Speaker 1 argues that questions cannot be inaccurate by definition. Speaker 0 clarifies that the questions were posed in such a way that they became statements. Speaker 1 references comments from five or six people in the financial community, but Speaker 0 interrupts, asking if it was only one or two people and why they are focusing on the negative. Speaker 0 then terminates the interview, stating that Speaker 1 is a very negative guy and the reporting is unfair. Speaker 1 expresses regret that Speaker 0 feels that way.

Speaker 1 is frustrated with Speaker 0 for avoiding their question and talking about unrelated topics. Speaker 0 denies this and tries to understand what Speaker 1 is referring to. Speaker 1 insists that Speaker 0 knows exactly what they mean and questions why Speaker 0 keeps raising their eyebrows. Speaker 0 responds with "well," which Speaker 1 finds unsatisfactory and asks for clarification.

In a heated exchange, Speaker 0 confronts someone with a barrage of insults and demands. The confrontation opens with aggressive language: “What up? Hey. You’re a bitch. You look like a bitch. Back the fuck up. Back the fuck up.” The taunts continue as Speaker 0 mocks the other person’s appearance and repeats the command to back up, adding emphasis with phrases like “Nice nice pink rat tails. You’re so I could just Back the fuck up. Go, baby. Back the fuck up.” Amid this hostile exchange, Speaker 0 asserts that “No. He came up and attacked us,” positioning themselves as the victims of an unprovoked approach. The use of objective-sounding claims is reinforced by the accusation that the attack was captured on video: “It’s all on camera, you fucking idiot. He came up and attacked us.” The repetition of the allegation underscores the claim of aggression by the other party. The dialogue shifts toward documenting evidence: “It’s on Tommy’s camera.” This line functions as a reference to a recording device or footage that allegedly captures the incident, reinforcing the insistence that the events, including the attack, are verifiable through video evidence. The inclusion of a named individual, “Tommy,” suggests a second witness or participant who has a camera recording the confrontation. The interaction escalates to a direct appeal to an authority figure: “That’s his head, officer.” This line is a provocative statement directed at the officer, seemingly describing or pointing to a person involved in the incident, followed by an appeal from either party to the officer’s attention or intervention: “Yes, sir. Quit attacking us stupid.” The speaker appeals for protection or defense against the perceived aggression, using repeated imperatives and an imperative tone. Throughout the exchange, the speakers alternate between insults and defensive claims, with Speaker 0 repeatedly ordering the others to retreat and insisting that an attack occurred and was captured on camera. The overall sequence presents a chaotic confrontation characterized by verbal hostility, assertions of being attacked, claims of video evidence, and attempts to involve an officer to address the situation.

Speaker 0 jokes with Speaker 1 about their appearance and lack of help around the house. Speaker 1 claims to have won a contest and demands money, leading to more insults from Speaker 0. Speaker 0 continues to make fun of Speaker 1's looks, calling them ugly and criminal. Speaker 1 leaves, and Speaker 0 makes a final sarcastic comment before they part ways.

Speaker 0 dismisses a medical-related claim, noting they don’t change their plates every morning and that the plate will stay the same when they return for a later conversation. They taunt the other person by saying, “US citizen, former fucking country. You wanna come at us? You wanna come at us? I said go get yourself some lunch, big boy.” Speaker 1 orders, “Get out of the car. Get out of the fucking car.” Speaker 0 attempts to respond, exclaiming, “I can’t get my car. Woah.” Speaker 1 escalates, calling Speaker 0 a “fucking bitch.”

Speaker 0 expresses frustration and anger towards their friend, using strong language. They repeatedly tell their friend to leave and use explicit language to emphasize their point.

The discussion escalates as accusations fly regarding funding and motivations. One participant claims another is supported by a "Jewish gold company," while the accused demands specifics about who funds them. Tensions rise, with both sides interrupting each other and making personal attacks. They argue about their presence on social media and television, with one asserting their larger platform. The conversation becomes increasingly heated, with insults exchanged and references to emotional reactions. The dialogue reflects deep-seated frustrations and accusations of dishonesty, culminating in a chaotic exchange where both parties struggle to assert their points amidst the conflict.

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.

Speaker 0 launches a heated confrontation, telling Speaker 1 to “go suck another dirty dick” and insisting, “I’m not the one or the two.” They call Speaker 1 a “raggedy ass fucking bitch” and declare, “I’m not the one or the two.” Speaker 1 asks, “What you talking about?” and appears confused or surprised, while Speaker 0 repeats the insult, telling Speaker 1 to “Go suck a dick.” Speaker 0 asserts, “I said what I said, and I said what I said,” and adds, “Please text me like you want it.” They emphasize the challenge to Speaker 1, saying, “You tried me two times,” and conclude with, “I want you to do it a third.”

Two people are in a tense exchange dominated by a dispute over a claimed net worth. One person pushes back against what they perceive as an inflated figure, repeatedly noting disbelief at the other’s assertion of being worth 50,000,000 dollars. The conversation oscillates between confrontation and attempts to de-escalate, with the first speaker insisting the other’s claim is unrealistic and frustrating, and the other person reacting defensively when confronted with the large number. The dialogue includes interruptions and a rapid shift in tone. The person challenging the claim expresses exasperation at the insistence on such a high valuation, saying things like, “Stop believing that stuff,” and calling the claim unrealistic, emphasizing how odd it feels to hear someone assert such wealth. The other speaker responds defensively, insisting on the number and reacting strongly to the critique. There are moments where the thwarted speaker tries to steer the conversation toward a more normal exchange, referencing “the last chick who, like, disagreed with me” as a preferred pattern for a constructive discussion. Despite this bid for civility, the exchange quickly devolves again into tension, with the claimant continuing to defend the figure and the other person pushing back, urging them to stop and to cease using the phrase about the large net worth. At one point, the defender advocates ending the interaction by suggesting they are done with the discussion, saying, “We’re done. Leave.” The other person reiterates the directive to stop, and the conversation ends with a firm boundary being set, as the other speaker refuses to continue after the defended claim is repeated. The exchange centers on the disparity between perceived credibility and the asserted wealth, the difficulty of having a constructive conversation under such conditions, and the emotional intensity generated by refusing to back down on a controversial claim. The overall mood is strained, with interruptions, defensiveness, and a desire to disengage after the contentious assertion about net worth.

Two voices, Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, erupt in a heated argument filled with confrontation, insults, and conflicting accusations. Speaker 0 insists he did not assault anybody and denies any wrongdoing, repeatedly accusing others of criminal behavior and bullying. He berates the others as “piece of shit,” “fat bucks,” and “bunch of fucking pussies,” while predicting that they will die a “sad fucking lonely death.” He claims, “Arresting American citizens” and says, “You slam it on him,” denying that he slammed the door. He asserts that “you guys are abducting people off the streets” and challenges the group to meet him, asking for a street wave and directing them to a location. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0, urging him to avoid assault and to provide clarification on what just happened. He notes that they “exited here” and that they are “around you guys.” He and Speaker 0 discuss their location: “ Sheridan and Belmont. Sheridan and Belmont. We’re on the corner,” specifying the intersection to reach them. He asks for patience, saying “Hold on. Stand by.” He reports surrounding actions and voices concern about the confrontation, emphasizing they will soon be in contact with each other and that they are near the other party. The exchange grows more acrimonious as Speaker 0 continues to threaten and insult, telling the other party to tell a Facebook group where they are “Camping out like a bunch of buck bunch of fucking pussies.” He repeats the charge that others are “arresting American citizens” and asserts that the situation is not assault, while Speaker 1 maintains it could be considered assault “at the next stoplight.” The dialogue reveals a tense, personal clash, with Speaker 0 attacking the other side’s families and immigration background: “All your families came from different fucking countries.” As the tension escalates, both speakers exchange directions and indications of where they are relative to the others. Speaker 0 directs a left turn at various landmarks, asking, “Where do I turn? I turn left, turn left, right, turn left,” and acknowledges the need to communicate their location to the other group. The dialogue ends with continued dispute over the events, the concept of assault, and where each party should proceed, punctuated by raw insults and threats. The exchange centers on alleged abduction and assault, the fear of being targeted by authorities, and the urge to confront the other group at a nearby intersection near Sheridan and Belmont.

Speaker 0 confronts someone, demanding money. The other person claims to have no money and refuses to pay. Speaker 0 insists on receiving payment and threatens to shoot the other person. The conversation escalates with both parties exchanging heated words. Eventually, Speaker 0 notices that the other person is recording the interaction and sarcastically praises them. The video ends abruptly.

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.