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.”

Donald Trump, lacking credibility, is solely focused on his own interests. He is currently facing legal actions. The question is, when will his followers distance themselves from him? Perhaps there should be a formal deprogramming of the cult members, but action needs to be taken.

The speaker discusses the Epstein saga, emphasizing its importance and the reasons it remains relevant. They highlight the Trump administration's past interest in the Epstein files, contrasting it with Trump's recent call to stop discussing it. The speaker details Epstein's background, questioning his rapid rise in finance despite a lack of formal training, and his close ties to Les Wexner. They point out the suspicious nature of Epstein's lenient plea deal in Florida, suggesting it implies involvement with intelligence agencies or powerful figures. The speaker argues that Epstein's connections to intelligence agencies, foreign governments, and wealthy individuals are evident, possibly involving money laundering and sexual exploitation of minors. They suggest the "Epstein list" represents deep state corruption and the exposure of illicit activities by the elite. The speaker questions Trump's shift in stance and the media's conflicting narratives, speculating about potential deals or pressure to suppress the story. They conclude that the Epstein saga is crucial and will significantly impact Trump's legacy.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss whether arrests will occur under Trump and how they might be framed. - Speaker 0 asks if arrests will happen under Trump and if figures like Bill Clinton or Obama will be arrested, suggesting that any arrests might be part of “dark handing the keys off to the light” and that the deep state would sacrifice some players. - Speaker 1 responds by outlining alleged close connections: Trump was one of Epstein’s closest friends; Howard Letnick was Epstein’s neighbor; the first lady was Epstein’s girlfriend. He argues that Epstein’s relationship to Israel and the Mossad, and the president’s loyalty to Israel, are significant, and contends that many would say this loyalty goes beyond the United States. He adds a dismissive remark that the other speaker is “smoking dope.” - Speaker 0 contends there will be arrests but believes they will be for optics to bolster support for Trump, implying the releases would be to energize followers and that “deep state players” will be sacrificed. - Speaker 1 refers to certain individuals as “chew toys,” naming Fauci and Gates, suggesting they are used as targets or distractions. He reiterates skepticism that any arrests have occurred so far, noting that Trump has been in power for a year and there hasn’t been an arrest. - The conversation touches on the speed of data-center-related actions and mentions “Stargate” as part of what Trump did, implying rapid actions or moves on day one.

The speaker states he doesn't understand why his supporters are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein story, as Epstein has been dead for a long time and was never a big factor in his life. He claims he doesn't understand the interest or fascination, especially since credible information has been given. He compares the situation to the "Mueller witch hunt" and the "steel dossier," which he claims was all fake. He finds the Epstein case boring and doesn't understand why it continues to be discussed. He suggests that only "pretty bad people, including fake news" want to keep the story alive, but says that if there is credible information, "let them have it."

People often say they didn't vote for Elon Musk, but they did, as Trump made it clear that Musk, Bobby, and Tulsi are part of the team. Once they're on the team, they can't be removed. We've taken your advice and consent, and now it's time to move forward with making America great again. The recent actions with USAID are just the beginning. Expect significant changes ahead, particularly within the US Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts. What lies beneath these organizations is alarming, especially concerning the intelligence community. Stay tuned for more updates.

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.

The FBI and the Department of Justice released a two-page memo stating there is no evidence of a client list associated with Jeffrey Epstein, no evidence that anyone was blackmailed on account of such a list, and no evidence that Epstein was murdered in his Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial. The memo supports the medical examiner’s judgment that Epstein committed suicide by hanging himself “effectively while sitting down on the floor of his cell with something tied around his neck,” a feat described as a one-of-a-kind phenomenon in suicide-watch prisoners. The FBI and DOJ also released eleven hours of videotape they say proves no one entered the cell or the area around it overnight before Epstein was found dead. The term “unresponsive” is referenced prior to a medical examiner declaring them dead. The speaker recalls that, earlier this year, when Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked about releasing the Epstein client list promised by the incoming Trump administration, she replied, “it's sitting on my desk right now for review.” The memo’s contents are portrayed as a gauntlet from those who wield power, insisting there is no list, no evidence of blackmail, and no evidence of murder, presented as conclusions rather than outcomes of evidence review. The speaker argues the point is less about truth and more about opposing disbelief of the powerful, framing it as demonstrations of naked power. The discussion references a post by Cash Patel and Dan Bongino about the Epstein client list and blackmail, noting their transition to high-profile roles and subsequent stance: no list, no blackmail, no murder. There is also mention of a public exchange between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, wherein Musk suggested real Epstein files were the reason they had not been made public; Musk later deleted the tweet, and Trump said he had cut ties with Epstein two decades ago and that Epstein’s lawyer cleared him of wrongdoing. The speaker invokes George Orwell, noting the party’s command to reject the evidence of eyes and ears, and suggests we are moving toward a post-truth world where truth is whatever the self-declared powerful say it is. The text emphasizes that, despite Epstein’s trafficking convictions and Maxwell’s conviction for trafficking underage girls, the memo asserts no guilty party existed among those connected. The speaker questions the consistency of Maxwell’s charge given the claimed absence of victims and participants. Toward the end, the speaker laments a hoped-for White House regime crumbling and questions whether recent developments are a deliberate test of loyalty to authority, implying a broader move toward a new regime’s post-truth reality, where memory and inconvenient knowledge are manipulated and “double speak” reframes war as peace and freedom as slavery. The overall arc suggests a dispiriting trend of sameness amid signals of change.

Trump is not loyal to the United States and does not like the country, its laws, constitution, or people, calling them names. He has affection for dictators and authoritarianism. According to the speaker, the U.S. is in the midst of a collapse, politically and in the markets. The speaker believes Trump sees himself going down and will try to take the whole country with him. The speaker believes Trump wants to hurt the country and will try anything he can to help himself.

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.

Scott Ritter discusses the Iran talks, U.S. and Iranian positions, and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy. - He states the talks aren’t over, describing them as a process. The United States came in crudely and with a stunt, while the Iranians were well prepared with technical papers and talking points. The talks remain ongoing, with both sides leaving technical teams behind after high-level visits; the ceasefire is two weeks and has not been terminated, so the process continues. - Ritter characterizes the situation as “the theater of the absurd” and warns it’s dangerous and could spin out of control. He criticizes Donald Trump’s approach as bluster and high-stakes posturing, saying the Iranians haven’t budged and that the U.S. has no clear objectives in the negotiations. He notes the president allegedly has “hard commitment” to Iran not producing a nuclear bomb, but asserts the fatwa against nuclear weapons remains in place and U.S. actions have undercut that position by killing the official who put the fatwa on the table. - He argues the easiest deal would be to sit down with the Iranians and “shut the door on any potential of Iran ever producing a nuclear weapon,” provided genuine experts were involved, but claims the U.S. isn’t there to make that deal. The aim, he says, is to project U.S. control and to frame Trump as the winner, irrespective of the actual outcomes. - Ritter contends Trump’s inner circle includes JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and others; he asserts Trump is using public appearances (e.g., an MMA event) to signal who is in charge and to replace others who opposed the war. He claims JD Vance did not support the war and is being sidelined or publicly discredited. He also criticizes Rubio as nominally in charge of foreign affairs but notes the State Department has been gutted, lacking a full team and interagency process. - He predicts the next two weeks will yield a deal that makes Trump the winner and Vance the loser, suggesting Rubio isn’t being promoted much and that Trump will throw everyone under the bus. He asserts there is no real change in U.S. capabilities, noting the stockpiles of missiles have not been rebuilt. - On NATO and the Ukraine war, Ritter argues drones are redefining warfare: the Ukrainian and Russian use of drones is changing battlefield dynamics, with drone operators becoming central to military effectiveness. He asserts NATO and the U.S. do not fully understand how to fight this war, and claims the conflict demonstrates the end of NATO and a broader “empire terminating event” linked to America’s failure in Iran. He stresses that drone dominance could break the battlefield’s traditional dynamics, leaving tanks and infantry less decisive. - He claims the Ukraine war’s drone innovation is the most significant development in warfare since dynamite, saying without drones you cannot prevail on the battlefield. - On Melania Trump and Epstein, Ritter declines to engage with the specifics of Melania’s personal involvement, but discusses Epstein as emblematic of America’s elite rot. He argues that Melania normalized relationships with Epstein and Maxine and that she will be seen as an enabler, whether or not criminal liability is established. He contends this politics of normalization reflects deeper decay in American power elites.

The president questions why his supporters are so interested in the Epstein story and says he doesn’t understand the interest or fascination. Epstein is dead a long time and was never a big factor in life, and he doesn’t understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. He states that credible information has been given, and mentions the Mueller witch hunt and the Steele dossier as fake, asserting that all that information was fake. He describes the Epstein case as pretty boring stuff, sorted but boring, and doesn’t understand why it keeps going. He adds that only pretty bad people, including fake news, want to keep something like that going, and that credible information should be let them have it.

In 2016, it was stated that only the best and most serious people would be hired, which led to the best economy ever. However, multiple former high-ranking officials are now not supporting a potential presidential run. These include former Vice President Mike Pence, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton and former Attorney General Bill Barr, who called the person a "consummate narcissist," also do not offer support. The person in question has used disparaging terms to describe many of these former staff members, including calling Barr a "gutless pig," former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly "weak and ineffective," and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "dumb as a rock." Others were labeled "born loser," "milquetoast," and "China-loving." The question is posed: why were these people hired in the first place?