reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims the media covers up violence by Antifa and ignores violence against Trump supporters. The speaker says that after a White House press briefing, they asked assembled journalists why they wouldn't cover violence against Trump supporters or demand that Democratic leaders disavow violence from Antifa, as they demanded of Trump regarding his supporters. The speaker states the journalists laughed at them, which the speaker took as proof that the media laughs at violence against people they don't like.

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.

A speaker was asked to apologize to Trump or Republicans for sharing a picture of a sign put up in Tucson. The speaker said they would acknowledge wrongdoing when Trump apologizes for racist, misogynistic, sexist, and inflammatory comments about women, people of color, LGBTQ, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with him. The speaker committed to pausing before sharing posts that might incite harassment. Another speaker, a legal immigrant from Cuba, stated that what the first speaker said constitutes fighting words and hate speech. They claimed the speaker is protected by corporate media and that former President Trump has been attempted suicide twice because the corporate media promotes it.

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.

The speaker points out that when the governor of Florida made similar comments about children and inappropriate behavior at Disney, liberals dismissed it. The speaker criticizes the left for being tribal and willing to ignore serious issues if brought up by someone from a different political party.

The Democratic Party is repeatedly pushing debunked hoaxes while claiming to be the good guys. Politicians often exaggerate, but the deliberate spread of falsehoods crosses a line. For example, they misinterpret Trump's comments about protecting women from illegal immigrants, twisting his words to suggest he was infringing on women's rights. Similarly, claims that Trump wanted to execute Liz Cheney are false; he merely suggested that if she faced the realities of war, she might reconsider her stance. Legacy media amplifies these lies, and without platforms like Twitter, many of these issues would remain hidden. There's frustration over the lack of visibility for significant interviews, as they seem to be suppressed on platforms like YouTube.

Speaker 1 clarifies that he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, reading: "I refer to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage, which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable." "That's all I meant to say." "The comments the comments at the rally don't reflect who we are as a nation." "No." "He does not view Trump supporters or anybody who who supports Trump as garbage." He adds: "If the president has said this for more than three years now, he has said multiple times that he is a president for all. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state. It doesn't matter if you live in a blue state." "He believes that he's a president for all."

The speaker discusses a major media story asserting that Donald Trump spent hours at his house with one of Epstein’s underage victims. They claim the coverage is ubiquitous across the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and cable news, portraying the incident as a damning revelation. They argue the story’s impact is amplified by redacting the victim’s name, which they say would undermine the narrative, and claim Republicans quickly exposed the redaction. The name given is Virginia Dufry, and the speaker asserts that in depositions and in her own memoir she stated that Donald Trump never did anything wrong and was a perfect gentleman the entire time. They claim the media concealed this information and are now portraying the situation as a smoking gun that proves Trump is a pedophile, calling the media and those involved “vile” and “disgusting” for their actions.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that the BBC should not offer more than the apology already indicated by Samir Shah, who apologized for the error of joining two separate parts of an interview to look like one. He notes Donald Trump called the BBC corrupt and dishonest, which he finds outrageous. He believes Trump has a weak case and that the BBC’s error was editorial, similar to how written journalism uses ellipses; the program balance was not complained about at the time. He says the BBC should have corrected and apologized earlier, and that the BBC’s thoroughness can slow public relations. Speaker 1 asks whether Trump has a strong case. Speaker 0 responds that Trump does not; it was an editorial error, and the BBC should have used a visual cue to indicate the quote’s continuation. He suggests the error was serious and should have been corrected earlier, though he acknowledges the BBC makes errors as do all broadcasters. Speaker 1 asks if the two high-profile resignations were due to pressure from the American administration. Speaker 0 says no, expressing shock at Tim Davie’s resignation, praising Davie as the best person to navigate the BBC through charter renewal and public broadcasting challenges, and emphasizing the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. He contrasts this with populist right voices that interpret impartiality as broadcasting their views, noting the BBC makes errors but remains committed to impartiality. He maintains that the BBC is not institutionally biased and disputes the idea that the BBC is metropolitan, citing its Salford base and national reach. Speaker 1 asks if there is a BBC board coup or significant political interference. Speaker 0 is cautious about calling it a coup, citing examples of powerful figures like Robbie Gibb but avoiding naming individuals. He notes that non-executive directors were appointed under previous administrations and mentions involvement by a former Conservative Party leader who denounced the BBC and supported Robbie Gibb. He doubts that the intent is to destroy the BBC, but suspects some people want the BBC weakened and may hold strong views on license fees and the charter. He does not label it a coup. Speaker 1 asks how the BBC should move on, aside from Trump’s potential lawsuit. Speaker 0 says the BBC must apologize more promptly and publicly when wrong, especially in a fractured society where impartiality is crucial. He suggests the BBC should be on the front foot with apologies and even-handed treatment when treated unfairly. He questions who could lead the BBC in the coming months and stresses the need for balance and restored impartiality in judgment about the BBC’s performance and future.

The speaker expresses discomfort with comments mocking President Biden's stutter, calling it a cognitive decline. Biden embraces his stutter, while Trump mocks it. The speaker questions Biden's age, mental fitness, and ability to lead, stating that those supporting Biden are leading the country into disaster. The speaker claims Biden's memory isn't great, referencing a Wall Street Journal article, noting the outrage is not understood. The Wall Street Journal article, owned by News Corp, run by the Murdochs, is based on claims from Republicans, with Kevin McCarthy the only one going on record. The speaker denies hearing concerns from anyone who has met with President Biden about him seeming slower. The speaker mentions claims that Russians are trying to make the public not trust election integrity and claims that Joe Biden has dementia.

CBS likely didn't air the full Rubio interview because of comments like the one about Liz Cheney. The media is misrepresenting what Trump meant when he said he'd give Cheney a gun. He wasn't suggesting violence. The full context reveals he meant she's eager for war while safely in Washington. He's saying, let's see how eager you are for war when you're the one in combat. It's a common point made by both parties, that it's easy to advocate for war from a safe distance. Trump's language might be unconventional, but the media's portrayal is unfair and egregious.

Speaker 0: Jim Jordan played a significant role in Trump's attempt to challenge the election results. Speaker 1: Trump requested a vote recount, which is not the same as overthrowing the government. However, some believe the media's continuous portrayal of this narrative is influenced by project Mockingbird. Regardless, everyone involved is part of it.

Donald Trump attacked the speaker's brother and mother, while he was busy creating a reality TV show. The speaker expresses their frustration and asks for a moment to finish their statement.

I'm seeing a cognitive decline in Jake, and it makes me uncomfortable. Are you suggesting I'm talking about a stutter? You were mocking his stutter. You have no standing to diagnose someone's cognitive decline. Someone in the Trump family should be more sensitive to people without medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar. People have diagnosed your father from afar, and I'm sure that offends you.

Speaker 0 states that labeling Donald Trump's plan as Project 2025 is not rhetoric, and claiming Trump started an insurrection is a fact. Speaker 1 argues that both examples are rhetoric and factually incorrect. Trump has stated he has nothing to do with Project 2025 and has never been charged with insurrection. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of spreading misinformation and expresses shame.

In 2016, the speaker voted for Hillary Clinton and was confused and outraged by Trump's victory. The speaker initially condemned Trump for mocking a reporter's disability. However, the speaker now believes the media intentionally misleads the public to control their thinking. The speaker claims the media exploits emotions, citing a Time magazine cover of a child who was never separated from her mother. They allege the media falsely reported Trump called all immigrants animals, omitting his reference to MS-13 gang members. The speaker accuses the media of lying about Brett Kavanaugh, children in cages, and the Walk Away movement. They state the media was wrong about the election outcome, the Covington kids, Jussie Smollett, and Russian collusion.

The discussion centers on the president's comments yesterday, referring to "Trump supporter as garbage." Speaker 0 asks two questions: "does he think less of Americans who support Trump than he does of those who do not?" and "why is he using that kind of rhetoric? How is that presidential?" Speaker 1 says: "So so a couple of things. Couple of things. So just to clarify, he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, which is why he put out this is why he wanted to make sure that we put out a statement that clarified what he meant and what he was trying to say."

Trump's critics are accusing him of actions they themselves are committing. The Democratic Party is repeatedly pushing debunked hoaxes while claiming to be the honest ones. For example, they misrepresent Trump's comments on protecting women from illegal immigrants, twisting his words to suggest he opposes women's rights. Another instance involves a false claim that Trump wants to execute Liz Cheney. In reality, he was criticizing her warmongering stance, suggesting that if she faced frontline combat, she'd reconsider her views on war. Despite this, the media has distorted his words, leading many to believe outrageous lies about him. The ongoing misrepresentation and manipulation of facts by the media and political opponents is concerning.

A prominent figure at a presidential rally gave two Nazi salutes. If he didn't mean it, he should apologize, as he knows the significance of those gestures. Neo-Nazis celebrated this act, highlighting its importance. Following this, he made jokes about Nazis and appeared in a video for far-right groups in Germany, which is harmful for the U.S., Jews globally, and Germany itself. President Trump should address this situation. If he disagrees with Elon Musk or the Nazi support at the rally, he needs to speak out against it. Why isn't he doing so?

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Lara Trump believes Jake Tapper owes her an apology for his on-air comments. She says Tapper not only denied Joe Biden's cognitive decline, which she believes was obvious, but also insinuated that she was mocking Biden's stutter, which she claims she didn't know he had. Trump says this led to public criticism, including an op-ed by Captain Sully. She attributes this situation to the reason why the legacy media has lost the trust of the American people. She suggests Tapper was either a poor journalist who was blind to Biden's cognitive decline or complicit in covering it up, and is now trying to profit from claiming he was duped by the White House.

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.

The speaker discusses how a story about Donald Trump grabbing a Secret Service agent's neck was fabricated. The driver and others present that day denied it happened. The committee ignored evidence contradicting the narrative they wanted to push. Destroyed material likely went against their agenda. Liz Cheney is the prominent figure in this committee. Translation: The speaker talks about a false story involving Donald Trump and a Secret Service agent. Evidence disproving the story was ignored. Destroyed material likely contradicted their agenda. Liz Cheney is a key figure in this committee.

Speaker 0 describes a video that is, in their words, “AI slop,” but explains the context that allows it to be excused. The justification hinges on two points: first, the video mirrors the kind of AI-produced content Donald Trump posts on The Daily, specifically referencing “the AI video of his presidential library,” which the speaker says they will show at the end of the segment; second, the entire piece is framed as a viral April Fools’ joke intended to draw in support for an anti-Trump nonprofit. The speaker notes that, when you actually visit the associated website, you can click and watch the video, and then scroll down to find an option to “pick your removal party to attend.” The listed events are described as: “the White House Ballroom name removal on 01/21/2029, the Kennedy Memorial, the Department of Justice.” The instruction to “reserve your spot” appears, and the user can enter information such as their name, email, and a message. The speaker highlights that this is “what you see ticking across the top when you get here,” referring to the live form or message field. As you continue to scroll, you encounter a prompt that makes the April Fools’ intent explicit: “April fools, you can't sign up to take Trump's name down yet, but you don't have to wait until 01/21/2029. The joke's on him. You can undo Trump's vandalism of our democracy today.” This prompt then directs users to defiance.org, described as “the organ” (implying the organization behind the campaign). The overall message conveyed by the speaker is that the site and its interactive elements are part of an April Fools’ joke designed to mobilize support for an anti-Trump nonprofit. The described flow—watching the AI-style video, choosing a removal party, submitting a form with name, email, and a message, then encountering the explicit April Fools’ disclosure and a link to defiance.org—serves to illustrate how the campaign engages visitors and channels them toward the stated nonprofit cause. The key takeaway is the blend of an internet prank with a call to action against Trump, routed through the defiance.org platform.