reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 says someone used to "mess around" with her daddy and brags on Facebook about having money. Speaker 0 finds this sad and says the person has been doing this for a long time. Speaker 1 questions why someone is following her, calling them "pitiful." She says "that food" is no good. She repeats her question about why people are following her and tells them to "get a."

The speaker states they were able to open an account and get a blue check mark after having to rebuild from losing an account with over 95,000 followers. The speaker believes "they" enjoy letting people build themselves up only to tear them down and make them rebuild. The speaker's account is "doctor Suzanne h seven" (drsuzanneh7). The speaker posts about vaccines and tries to stay in that lane, rather than posting opinions or pictures of pets.

Speaker 0 delivers a rapid-fire set of bragging lines about wealth, fashion, and success: “Go see my eyes red on my demons,” “My postie racks up just to motivate my niggas,” “Rappers need a stylist bad, but I ain't use a stylist yet,” “I signed a million dollar contracts in my box to steal a text,” “Wake up, check my bank account, phone numbers in there, bitch. I'm blessed,” and references to private jets, being fresh off the press, sipping drinks with lines, a tinted eye, a moving piece, and owning a new bulletproof Cadillac. He notes money, private flights, and the ability to charge for Instagram content, while cutting off a girl who didn’t pick up. The tone centers on opulent lifestyle, independence, and status. Speaker 1 shifts to a hostile, accusatory monologue: “All over the place, guys. Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, Laura Loomer.” He claims Gabe Hoffman “is running humps on people” and calls him a “bad guy.” He says he looks like he’s seen a ghost and that someone close to him was there to infiltrate him, describing these people as “really fucking bad” and stating they are “evil,” including claims of them being “unregistered foreign agents.” He asserts he will be watching everything they do and declares ongoing surveillance and vigilance: “I will be watching. Everything you do, I’m gonna be watching.” Speaker 2 notes a logistical detail: “Hell yeah. On my way back to the site to get my burner phone so I can use my ghost accounts…” indicating plans to obtain a burner phone for anonymous or modified online activity. Speaker 3 adds a blunt, explicit line about using “ghost accounts” for actions, saying, “can use my ghost accounts to fuck,” reinforcing the theme of covert or deceptive online activity. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes an ostentatious wealth/aspirational rap persona (Speaker 0) with a conspiratorial, accusatory stance toward specific public figures (Speaker 1), and mentions of circumventing scrutiny or anonymity online (Speaker 2 and Speaker 3). The named individuals identified by Speaker 1 are Jack Kosoviak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer.

The speaker denies "tweaking" and accuses the listener of doing so. She states she intends to get her account back because her husband asked her to do so, and requests cooperation to get it done calmly and in a timely manner. The speaker emphasizes that it is her account, that she grew it, and that it has been stagnant. She says they need it for future businesses. She asks the listener to consider if someone was being difficult towards Shay about something Shay wanted to do. She insists the listener is not being reasonable and that she is not "tweaking out."

The speaker addresses people sharing a video of a crying girl supposedly being deported with her mother. The speaker claims the video is fake and from a movie. The speaker mocks those sharing the video, calling them "dumb" and "stupid." The speaker encourages them to continue posting about it and tagging them in videos, stating they do not care. The speaker ends the message with "Love y'all. God bless."

A creator states they went to the police station because a prominent creator incited mob violence against them, their property, and family due to differing views on pesticide use. The speaker claims their phone and social media accounts were flooded, and they received death threats, which have been reported to the police. The speaker alleges the other creator is targeting them for posting about not using pesticides like glyphosate on their Facebook page. They claim the creator wants the posts removed and has threatened to continue doxxing them and ruining their life and business if they don't comply. The speaker says the creator commented on their appearance in a video. They state they are now working with the police and attorneys and that people are sending them screenshots and emails expressing fear for their safety due to the mob violence allegedly encouraged in the creator's Facebook group.

Speaker 0 describes an encounter where a person tells her, “good luck to your husband dealing with you,” and she responds, “my husband loves me.” The other person replies that “that’s why we’re trying to get him fired,” indicating to Speaker 0 that this is not an isolated incident but part of an organized group aiming to destroy both her and her husband’s livelihoods because of her political criticisms of a foreign government. Speaker 0 emphasizes her husband has nothing to do with her career, works in athletics at a school, loves his students, and is not going to issue a statement condemning his wife. Speaker 0 explains that the group’s goal is to destroy her husband’s livelihood for failing to condemn her publicly. She notes that the husband wants no part in politics and is not responsible for her career. She decides to file a police report and asks for identifying information about a woman she encountered, including video of the woman and her dog, to corroborate the incident. Speaker 0 highlights the woman’s alleged attempt to sic her dog on Speaker 0 and her dog, pointing to the dog’s behavior as evidence. She asks the woman if it was appropriate to use her dog in that way, and the woman denies it, insisting she did not sick the dog on them. The conversation shifts as Speaker 0 presents a separate video that she claims proves her account. The other person attempts to interrupt, insisting, “You’re trying to get me fired,” and Speaker 0 counters that everyone is trying to get her fired and that the other person is part of that group. Speaker 1 admits that others are trying to get Speaker 0 fired and acknowledges that the other person is “part of that everybody.” Speaker 0 reiterates that the woman tried to sic her dog on them and threatens her husband’s livelihood, asserting she will not be intimidated. Speaker 0 emphasizes she will continue her commentary and will not apologize for her actions or stance, even if the confrontation involves threats or stalking behavior online. Throughout, Speaker 0 frames the situation as an organized effort to silence and ruin both her and her husband over her political critique of a foreign government, while defending her husband’s innocence and his separation from her professional life. She asserts resolve to document the incident and press charges, and to persist with her public commentary despite the confrontation.

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.

The speaker asserts that Erica Kirk is not a grieving widow but a psychopath, contending there was a plan to hijack Charlie Kirk’s organization and that Erica was part of it. They claim Erica’s actions are highly suspicious: she delivers multiple speeches and participates in hours-long interviews while on a book tour, all while supposedly grieving, and they question where Charlie and Erica’s children are given she appears to be living it up on stage with fireworks. They allege she and Charlie did multiple interviews together discussing family roles and that the mother’s role in the home was vital, yet she suddenly becomes a CEO and nonstop public figure “overnight,” contradicting prior statements about Erica’s primary role at home. The speaker calls this a test of intelligence and dismisses the possibility of genuine intent. A central sign cited is Ben Shapiro’s appearance as the opening speaker at Amfest, despite not being on Charlie’s published list of Amfest speakers. The speaker notes that Shapiro speaks after Erica and uses the platform to bash Charlie’s close friends, including Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, accusing Shapiro of hostility and implying ulterior motives. They mention Shapiro’s last podcast with Carlson involved controversial questions about a country, and they reference Fox News and other media figures as complicit, alleging they’re paid off by that country and are “singing along.” The speaker highlights that Turning Point USA raised $100,000,000 and frames the organization as deceptive, arguing that people are being fooled and should wake up. They urge warning peers—siblings, cousins, friends—about Turning Point at colleges and high schools, suggesting people should withdraw support and avoid recruitment. The claim is made that Erica Kirk’s ex-boyfriend, Cabot Phillips, now speaks on college visits on behalf of Charlie, despite Erica claiming she had dated nobody for five years before Charlie. Photos allegedly show Erica with Cabot on dates, and Cabot is described as suddenly joining Turning Point USA’s “debate me” movement. Overall, the speaker contends that Turning Point USA has been hijacked, that Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk are involved in a calculated scheme, and that the leadership has been replaced or compromised, including the “killing” of their CEO. They urge people to stop supporting the organization and to inform others who might be recruited by it, insisting that common sense should prevail.

The speaker confronts someone named Jessica, claiming that the person they are talking to does not look like Jessica at all. The person denies using a face swap and accuses the speaker of catfishing. The speaker becomes angry and threatens to report the person's account. They express embarrassment and frustration, stating that the person should take a serious look at their life. The speaker mentions that they had been cuddling and kissing for three days, but the person they met does not resemble the person in the picture.

The speaker believes a woman is hiding him from her husband. He says this is the only reason women hide someone. He believes the husband doesn't know about him at all. He says she leaves the house and changes his name to conceal him. He also believes the delay when she answers calls, followed by her calling back quickly and repeatedly, indicates something is going on. He mentions that in part two, her excuse for having the account was to give it to her husband.

The speaker discusses a past casual relationship with a TikToker that spanned two years, ending around the time of a potential TikTok ban. The main issue arose when the speaker's friendship with Reese was jeopardized because Reese was also talking to the same man. The speaker initially distanced herself, refusing to compete for attention. Later, the TikToker asked the speaker to block Reese, claiming Reese was lying and unstable. The speaker, trusting him due to their history, initially believed him, a decision she now regrets. She acknowledges enabling the ostracization of Reese. The speaker then sought a serious relationship with the TikToker, giving him an opportunity to meet in DC. When he initially declined, she took it as a sign to end things, though he later appeared in DC, and she avoided him. She confirms he still has saved content from their chats, which she intends to address. The speaker is sharing her side to hold him accountable for inconsistent behavior, warning young women about his actions, and directs viewers to hear more serious accounts from other women involved.

In this video, the speaker begins by promoting a clothing brand and encouraging viewers to join their online community. The conversation then shifts to two individuals discussing an Instagram account and messages exchanged on it. They try to determine who reactivated the account and consider the possibility of someone holding a grudge against one of them. The conversation also touches on family issues and the person's job in construction. The speaker asks about the person's hobbies and evaluates their performance as a father. Later in the video, Speaker 1 is confronted by Speaker 3 about inappropriate messages sent to an 11-year-old girl named Emma. Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing and claims it was just a joke, but Speaker 3 expresses concern for the safety of Speaker 1's daughter and plans to involve law enforcement. Speaker 4, Speaker 1's stepdaughter, gets involved, and the video ends with Speaker 3 deciding to report the situation to the police. Additionally, the video features a group posing as minors online to catch predators. They confront a man who messaged someone he believed was a father about his own child. Initially denying the accusations, the man later admits to sending the messages. The group contacts the authorities and discusses the situation, mentioning the man's history with DHR and the concerning nature of the messages. The video concludes with a promotion to join their locals for early content and a sponsorship shoutout to Red Pill Threads for unique shirts.

The speaker criticizes Democrats for using voting machines in the 2020 election and accuses Big Tech of censoring Americans. They express satisfaction at the loss of jobs due to censorship and praise Elon Musk for buying Twitter. The speaker then accuses the Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter of failing to remove child pornography and mentions their doctoral dissertation on minors accessing a gay hookup app. They claim that Elon Musk banned accounts promoting child porn but Twitter allowed it. The speaker also mentions a lawsuit against Twitter for refusing to remove a lewd video featuring minors. They conclude by stating that they were violated.

Speaker 0 presents a Nehemiah analogy: he builds a wall while the townspeople shout at him to come down, and he repeated, “I cannot come down. I am busy building.” She says she feels the same: no time to address the noise, and their silence does not mean complacency. She asserts that Turning Point USA and the handpicked staff loved by her husband are not involved in the alleged conspiracy, and they are busy building. She emphasizes that grieving in their own way, they are trying hard to find answers after something evil happened. Any lead is sent to authorities, with calls to dig into it and not leave any rock unturned, aiming for justice for her husband, herself, and her family more than anyone else. Her breaking point comes when others come after them: “Come after me. Call me names. I don’t care. Call me what you want.” She will not tolerate targeting of her family, Turning Point USA family, or the Charlie Kirk show family, especially when people profit from attacking those she loves. She declares righteous anger, saying this is not okay, a mind virus, and that she believes in the judicial system. She notes their team is working hard, and she apologizes for any language, insisting it’s not okay. Speaker 1 remarks that they have never seen her like this, to which Speaker 0 responds that her reaction is righteous anger. She stresses that their team is human, not machines, and has faced more death threats and kidnapping threats than ever before. The team is exhausted; every time the threats are brought up, they must relive trauma from the day her husband was murdered. She acknowledges that her team is rocked to the core and must endure ongoing public scrutiny and conspiracies. She questions whether the online hostility has intensified because she shines a light on issues, asking what people expected from her. They note that some target her accessories, normalizing an atmosphere of personal attacks. She quips about a “conspiracy collection,” suggesting that those who want to pick her apart can do so—this had been happening even before her husband’s murder. Speaker 0 concludes that the abuse was occurring prior to Charlie’s murder, and both she and her partner have endured persistent, harrowing criticism and threats for years.

The speaker reviewed server logs and identified "Brian." The speaker found forensics in a database. The speaker shows access and a deletion on the log from the database. The speaker claims Christy previously tweeted about letting Brian into the server. The speaker repeats "Here he is" multiple times. The speaker mentions a law proposal.

The speaker identifies as a "real man" and accuses someone of not being a "real man" or even smart. The speaker claims to be involved with the person's wife. The speaker accuses someone of "bombing children" and says they won't get away with it. The speaker confronts someone, telling them to get away. The speaker says "all of you watch this," and accuses people of antisemitism and racism, while calling others innocent bystanders and "the winner." The speaker blames someone for allowing something to happen in America. The speaker accuses someone of killing children.

The speaker expresses support for victims of a "political TikToker" she has criticized for over a year. She claims nobody initially believed her about his "disgusting behavior," and she fears he will ascend into the political hierarchy despite allegations against him. Having known him since she was 18, she asserts any apology from him would be insincere and gaslighting. She describes him as "sick," "perverted," and someone who has evaded consequences for too long. She is glad the issue is gaining traction, agreeing with another woman's assessment that his advocacy for women is a ploy. She states she could write a "novel" about his actions, but some incidents she cannot discuss due to legal reasons. She thanks the woman who came forward, stating it renewed her strength to speak out. She reiterates her support for other victims.

Speaker 0 outlines a strongly negative portrayal of Mitch Snow, claiming “maybe one of the most horrific, appalling human beings” the speaker has encountered. The speaker asserts a record of “violence against women in his record, kidnapping, abuse, fraud,” and states, “Oh, I have the proof. I have it all. I have all the documents.” The speaker emphasizes a hardline stance on abuse, noting that “we’re fans of Candace,” and that both they and JD have “very staunch anti abuse against women and children stances.” The speaker declares, “I don’t care who you are. If you platform and raise a $130,000 for someone who has a visceral history of abuse against women that’s gonna blow your guys’ mind, I’m not gonna allow that to happen.” The speaker continues that the claims about Snow are “a thousand times worse than any of you guys could have ever imagined” and states that the “stolen dollar, the Fort Huachaca” story will be debunked, though adds that this particular matter “is nothing to this story.” The speaker reports having talked to all of the victims, to Snow’s entire family, and to Snow’s children, emphasizing that Snow’s own son—described as an army veteran—“will be coming out and speaking publicly with us to explain to you how his father what a con artist his father is.” There is a commitment to a forthcoming exposure, with the speaker saying, “It is insane who this man really is. That is coming Friday.” The speaker expresses emotional fatigue from listening to victims and conducting investigations, stating they will bring “every document, all the domestic filing files, all the court all the court documents, all the military documents.” The speaker says, “We’ve got it all.” The speaker then questions whether Candace knows about Snow, saying, “If Candace knew this about this guy and decided to still platform him, I’m gonna be horrified. I’m gonna be absolutely horrified if she did this knowingly.” The claim is reiterated that Snow is “a con artist.” The speaker notes that they have not yet addressed “the debunking the four Huachaka story,” but promises to do so “very easily, by the way.” The segment ends with the speaker reiterating the emotional impact of conversations with Snow’s family and the testimony about a “litany of women that have been abused,” emphasizing that the numbers are more than a few—“Not one, not two, not three, not four.”

The speaker names Jack Pisobiak, Gabe Hoffman, Mike Cernovich, and Laura Loomer, accusing Gabe Hoffman of “running ops on people” and calling him “a bad guy.” The speaker says they “look like I’ve seen a ghost” and describes someone very close to them as having likely been there to infiltrate them. They warn that “these are really fucking bad people,” expressing that they are “beyond pissed” and unable to fully describe the internal feeling. The speaker repeats that “these people are bad” and asserts that they “tried to set someone up that you know and love.” The individuals are labeled as “evil,” and the speaker concludes by claiming they are “unregistered foreign agents.”

The speaker considered deleting their account due to a barrage of transphobic messages, which they were unprepared for, especially given their initial expectation of low viewership. Ultimately, they decided against it. They stated they will not allow negativity to undermine their accomplishments and years of hard work, nor let others control their life. They believe they are superior to those sending hateful messages.

The speaker repeatedly claims that AfroMan/Aphroman will reveal proof online and asserts a series of accusations about named individuals. Key points include: - Aphroman/AfroMan promises to deliver “proof” and says “My proof's on the Internet.” - Brian Newland is described as “a flag.” - William is accused of being a pedophile, with the claim “If I'm telling folks the truth, how come I have to go to trial?” - Newland is alleged to have sexted kids and to be stealing the speaker’s money. - Tasha Chamberlain is named as a confidential informant. - Roy Gabbard is claimed to be “the judge that signs fictitious warrant.” - The speaker asserts that “This whole situation is totally their fault” and includes the line “Don’t rape me. Don't get videoed and caught.” - Prosecutor David Kelly is claimed to have “turned the jelly when they fell.” - A person described as “Coward” allegedly ran to Arizona to avoid consequences; Kimmy supposedly tried to dodge the speaker; Rogers allegedly retired and “dipped like a rat leaving a sinking ship.” - The refrain “Afro man will bring it to you. Afro man is gonna do you. Afro man is gonna screw you. My proof's on the internet.” recurs multiple times. - The speaker addresses “All you crooked cops in the world,” urging them to stop before they are put in a song, and reiterates that “my proof's on the Internet.” - The closing line questions whether people will believe the claims: “You think they're gonna buy this shit, man?”

The speaker discusses interactions with a political TikToker, beginning around November when she DM'd him for debate tactics. Their conversations became flirtatious, initiated by her, and quickly turned explicit on Snapchat. She later helped him join a Discord server, after which a photo she took of their messages without his consent circulated, causing conflict. He allegedly told her he would only resolve the issue if she sent him a video, which she refused. She also discovered he had been communicating with Diana, another TikToker, despite telling her he wasn't talking to anyone else. He allegedly told Diana that the speaker fabricated photos of him. Recently, Diana apologized, revealing a group chat with over 10 women sharing similar experiences with the same TikToker. The speaker confronted him, but he dismissed the other women as "crazy." She accuses him of manipulation and lying to multiple women, referencing another woman's experience where he allegedly lied about talking to other people to receive explicit photos. She wants him to apologize and take accountability.

The speaker is sharing screenshots in response to Heidi, who shared screenshots against what the speaker is doing. The speaker is trying to find someone they can trust who is standing with them, identifying Soap and RJ as trustworthy. The speaker asks if they have ever betrayed Soap and RJ, asserting they would never throw them under the bus for anything.

Speaker 0 expresses intense anger toward the Trump administration, saying: "I give a fuck about any fucking person in the Trump administration being upset with giving them oh, how dare you?" They claim others have "no fucking idea to list the bodies that we have" and suggest that if they were serial killers, it would be like "Mal or something." They urge everyone to become emotionally detached from their online personas and to create burner accounts to "unmask all of these traders" and to impose the "threat of IRL consequences" because people use anonymity to act behind privilege. They state that Twitter should no longer be a safe place for these individuals and propose that someone should interrupt leadership by saying, "yeah, boss. I I can't do this anymore." They argue the government should consider the impact on families: "My kids and my address just fucking wound up on this platform. How the fuck did they find out who I am?" They insist that every time those people log in, they need to have "second fucking thoughts" and be terrified. They assert that "Security clearances don't mean a goddamn thing to me" and declare, "I guarantee you I'm 10 times smarter than you and your fucking best bet." Speaker 1 interjects: "Back the up, juicy." Speaker 2 responds with distress: "I'm not a Spit on me again." They request to be kept away from the person and say, "This guy's intimidating me. He's pushing me." They ask, "Where's your vehicle?" and answer, "It's in the garage." They further ask, "Hey. What is your name? Are you working for the hotel?" and Speaker 0 says, "I'm working. Tell me. Are" before the scene cuts off. Overall, the excerpt presents a heated monologue urging aggressive online accountability and real-world consequences for certain individuals operating under anonymity, followed by interruptions that reveal a tense confrontation involving intimidation, personal threat concerns, and questions about a vehicle and employment.