reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Last week was my final show on Fox News. It’s difficult to share this news, but I wanted to inform my team first.

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.”

The speaker states that MAGA supporters are angered by their video and are trying to "hunt" them down. They say that MAGA supporters are commenting the location of their job on all of their videos, but the speaker no longer works there. The speaker says they were let go from their restaurant job because of the video. The speaker says they didn't even serve the MAGA table at the restaurant and didn't speak to them. The speaker asks why MAGA supporters are so angry that someone told them a certain cuisine isn't for them, that they would try to "dock" someone and make them and their coworkers feel unsafe because the speaker said that since they vote against Latinos, they shouldn't be able to enjoy Mexican food. The speaker asks MAGA supporters to leave their former job alone and to leave their coworkers and managers alone.

Fox needs to acknowledge and potentially face consequences for spreading lies. While it's not uncommon for people to demand media organizations to take responsibility, this situation is different. It's not just about telling them what to do, but showing them how their actions have harmed our democracy. We have a right and an obligation to tell Rupert Murdoch and Fox to stop the lies, admit they were wrong, and report the news. They can have their own way of reporting, but lying should never be a part of it.

The speaker announces their departure from "the party of paid protests for hair and pronouns" and their decision to join "the party of faith, family, and freedom." They encourage those with Canvas to "get them rolling" and to share this announcement on social media.

The speaker expresses frustration about being banned from discussing politics and not being allowed into the spin room. They believe that the media is biased against their father and that this is a setup. They criticize mainstream media and compare it to the actions of Democrats and county DA. The speaker questions the fairness of the situation and suggests that freedom has decreased under the current administration.

The speaker states that MAGA supporters are angered by their video and are trying to "hunt" them down. They claim MAGA supporters are commenting the location of their job on all of their videos, but the speaker no longer works there. According to the speaker, they were let go from their restaurant job because of the video. The speaker says they didn't even serve the MAGA table at the restaurant and didn't speak to them. They are asking MAGA supporters to leave their former job, coworkers, and managers alone. The speaker is upset that MAGA supporters are allegedly trying to target them at their job because they said that since they vote against Latinos, they shouldn't be able to enjoy Mexican food.

Tucker Carlson is no longer with Fox News, which is a positive outcome for many. While I'm relieved that someone who has been responsible for death threats and violence towards me and others is gone, I can't help but feel like this is just a temporary victory. It's like the scene after the credits in a Marvel movie, where the villain's hand emerges to continue their evil plans. Deplatforming is effective and necessary.

The speaker criticizes the mainstream media for their biased reporting and accuses them of playing games. They mention that the media has failed journalistic standards and blames them for the broken political media. The speaker also mentions helping their brother and asserts that they will continue to do so.

MSDNC and Fox are both declining in popularity, which surprises me because I thought MSDNC would endorse me before the election. I was wrong about that. Fox is good, but they're not on our side. Just like in 2016, Fox was against me, but that's how we prefer it, right? We're fine with everyone being against us.

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 after yesterday's episode in which they went “kind of for the jugular” with Turning Point USA, they believe everybody in the entire world has had enough.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

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.

A white liberal told the speaker that they don't have a clear understanding of their political beliefs and that the MAGA crowd will never accept them. The speaker believes the MAGA crowd already accepts them based on likes and comments. The speaker states they have "left the plantation" and no longer subscribes to liberal views. The speaker will be voting for Donald Trump and is clear on that choice.

The speaker is asked about a previous statement regarding having a gay son. The speaker deflects the question and insults the interviewer. The interviewer then brings up the speaker's comments about the trans community and asks if they will continue to address it. The speaker goes on a rant, calling the trans community an infection and expressing opposition to teaching about gender diversity. The speaker concludes by labeling the interviewer as the enemy.

A white liberal told the speaker that they don't have a clear understanding of their political beliefs and that the MAGA crowd will never accept them. The speaker believes the MAGA crowd already accepts them based on their likes and comments. The speaker states they have "left the plantation" and no longer subscribes to liberal views. They will be voting for Donald Trump and are clear on that choice. They tell those who disagree to "kick rocks." The speaker concludes with "Trump 2024."

A man states he was fired for being a Trump supporter. He says his boss, Bob, terminated him because of his political beliefs. He believes it is disgraceful and violates his freedom of speech to be fired for his personal political views, as long as he doesn't express them at work or endanger anyone. He asks for help and says this should not affect his job. He says he'll find another job and says, "Fuck these people."

The speaker argues that the Obama and Biden administrations created and extended health-insurance subsidies, not to help individuals, but to fuel a cash pipeline to insurance companies. They claim that the policy began as a temporary expansion of subsidies in 2021, intended to help voters in 2022 and 2024, but now that the election is over, the subsidies will expire in 2025 and premiums will surge. Key points emphasized: - Premiums are currently subsidized: if a typical premium is $600 a month, the speaker says people pay $400 and the government sends $200 to insurance companies, effectively providing $24 billion a year in free money to big insurers. - In 2025, the discounts are said to disappear, causing the bill to revert to $600 or higher. The claim is that Democrats allowed this to happen and knowingly prepared for the premium spike. - The subsidies were expanded temporarily in 2021, but the speaker asserts they were not meant to help voters indefinitely; after the election, the impact is that premiums will rise. - The core assertion is that this is not primarily about health care, but about a cash flow to insurance companies. The speaker contends insurers lobby for subsidies and donate to keep them coming, and when subsidies expire, blame shifts to the other side while insurers profit. - The speaker claims Trump did not create this; Obama did, and Biden extended it only until after the election. The current gridlock is described as political theater because the real election has ended and the dispute is between insurance companies and the general public. - Democrats are portrayed as fighting for their next campaign donation checks from major insurers (UnitedHealthcare, Pfizer, Blue Cross) and for donor interests rather than for individuals. - The speaker asserts that people will experience rising premiums in 2025 and will beg for relief, while they blame the opposing party. A contrast is drawn between government spending that is criticized (e.g., $6 billion for Ukraine) and the claim of $24 billion per year for insurance companies. - The concluding message is that the money is not for you; you are the hostage and the insurers are the kidnappers. The claim remains that each party will let this happen again, and thus, neither Democrats nor Republicans work for the people. - The speaker urges viewers to stop voting for either side and to share the message if they are sick of it.

After over a dozen years at Fox News, I've decided to pursue a new challenge, which was a tough decision because I value this show, our staff, and our audience. I'll be leaving Fox News at the end of the week. In a discussion about Donald Trump, the conversation turned heated. One person labeled Trump a sexual predator, while another defended him, criticizing the inflammatory language used. Disrespect towards a journalist was expressed, with claims that her questions were ridiculous and off-base. The dialogue highlighted a divide in perspectives, with accusations of focusing more on sensationalism than on public policy.

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 Murdochs hate Trump and that they asked him to run for president against Trump in May 2023, after he was fired in April 2023. He states that Lachlan Murdoch told him to run and that they would back him. He says this backing would include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and all of their papers. The speaker says the Murdochs wanted him to run to stop Trump, but he would never get elected and he likes Trump.

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.

People are brainwashed by Democratic propaganda media. The speaker used to vote Democrat but now sees through the lies. They criticize the media for downplaying threats to Trump and blame Democratic leadership for community issues like crime. The speaker urges people to wake up and stop being blind to the agenda.