reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.”

He owns it. Stop trying to portray him as the victim; it's extreme gaslighting. I hope Americans see what's really happening.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

This situation is absurd. Why has it come to this? I shared something that he posted, yet I'm the one being arrested. It doesn't make sense that I'm in cuffs while he isn't. There seems to be anxiety caused by social media posts, but I don’t understand why I'm being targeted.

"No. She's an Assad toady." "What does that mean?" "She is a toady? I think that I used that word correctly." "A sycophant." "So she's an Assad sycophant. Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah. That's prove that's known about her." "What did she say that qualifies for? I don't I don't remember the details. I've read it." "I've had her on before. Look up I really enjoyed talking to her." "I like talking to her." "I like talking to her. I don't know about think she's like the mother load of bad ideas." "I didn't know about this." "But doesn't she also did she ever apologize for believing in conversion therapy? For" "I didn't even know she believed in conversion therapy." "Am I crazy?"

They said they're attacking you psychologically. They told you they're attacking you psychologically. They even told you, but it's me.

Hello, is this 2 tier kir? I hear you're locking people up for memes. What's going on? Yes, but it's because far-right individuals are saying hurtful things. I'll deal with you for that. You can't threaten me; my dad was a tool maker. Well, he made a tool for the World Economic Forum. Don't bring Davos into this; I'll tell my mom. Listen, I’ll own everything and love it. My mom worked in the NHS. My mom, the greatest, always warned me about letting commies take over. When I get reelected, I'm going to invade your country and make Britain great again.

I am getting deprogrammed from the mega calls. CNN profits from war and Project Mockingbird continues. You never discuss Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton. I'm not suicidal. What I said to Mrs. Clinton was wrong. Your hair color is called aposomatism. Democrats only care about votes, not people of color. Joyce, coloring your hair blonde is cultural appropriation. BlackRock doesn't control presidents. Stop trying to blackmail Elon Musk.

They even told you that they're attacking you psychologically. They even told you they're attacking you psychologically. They fucking even told you, but it's me.

That's unbelievable! You actually locked her up? That's just insane. People can really be influenced in strange ways. But honestly, she's not influencing anyone at all.

It has nothing to do with reality. Just shut up! You're insane. Get away from here. We're trying to wake people up because you've been manipulated. We care about you, but you need to see the truth. The same number of people died this year as last year; you've been psychologically influenced. We still love you, but it's time to wake up. This has all been recorded, and you realize you've committed a crime, right? Come on, I’m going to take a photo of this situation.

What bothers me even more than that guy are the Republican senators and congressmen who blindly follow along. They don't believe in any of it. They're just scared he'll trash them on Truth Social and they'll lose their jobs. They're doing whatever he says, which is a dictatorship. After everything I've done for you over the last two years, standing up for you, you're going to treat me with disrespect? If I could take back your letter of recommendation, I would. Don't ever talk to me like that again, personally. You disrespect me like that after I stood up for you? You got your letter, your grade, so now you can treat me like that?

I'm being called a fascist for wanting to stop the war in Ukraine today. I'm against the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and I'm looking for peace, not war. I didn't come here to be aggressive, but a member of parliament started screaming at me for asking a question, which is all on video. I'm just showing what's happening and exposing Charlie Angus for who he is: a member of parliament who screams and swears at Canadian citizens. He slanders people and wants to revoke citizenship of those he disagrees with, yet he calls me a fascist. This group surrounded and shouted me down for simply asking a question. Who are the real fascists here? I have it all on video.

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

Did you leak a letter to the Washington Post about me? You're the chief of staff to the person who wrote it, right? I don't know how they got it before you. You should ask Yvonne. But you're part of the government working with the media to target journalists. I haven’t received the letter yet. Can you send it to me? It’s on its way, but you’re hard to find. How did the Washington Post know to request it? I have no idea how they became aware. I think you're lying. Someone from your office must have leaked it. There are other ways they could have known. Like who? Many people in government could have been aware. So someone in your office knew about the letter? Sure. Then how did the Washington Post find out? That’s faulty logic. You've been busy writing letters threatening journalists. I’m not the author. It’s a fight of good versus evil in this country.

"You gotta just give up. It's it's gonna come out. Whatever it is, it's gonna come out. There you would have to and I wouldn't put it past you. You'd have to get rid of all of us." "You got, like, 7,000,000,000 people you've got to ethnically cleanse right now if you wanted to just forget about the Charlie Kirk story." "In 1963, when JFK was shot, people didn't watch it on TikTok." "You traumatized all of us." "We're grieving because you assassinated Charlie Kirk in front of the entire world." "If you had pretended he slipped and fell on some ice in the winter, maybe you wouldn't have this response."

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about the current policies that are damaging our way of life and questions why such drastic measures are being taken. They mention influential globalists, like Claus Schwab, who see the pandemic as an opportunity to reset the world. Speaker 1, the Prime Minister, claims to be unaware of Schwab's book but advises against conspiracy theories. Speaker 0 presents evidence of a letter from the Prime Minister to Schwab, thanking him for his book and calling it a hopeful analysis. Speaker 1 dismisses it as a polite gesture and implies that they cannot read every book they receive. Speaker 0 points out the contradiction, and Speaker 1 deflects the accusation.

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to talk. What do you want to know? So go. What are you doing here then? It's a white country. Well, you hate white people. He makes you...He hates white people, everybody. This man here, he hates white people. That's what you just said. You say you hate white people. This man just said to me that he hates white people. This man, he says he won't talk to me because I'm white. He hates white people. Just go. No. You go away.

Smith onto the space. Harrison, thanks for joining. We’ve got questions about your tweet. How are you? Harrison: I’m pretty good. I just got home, trying to do Advent with my kids, so I have about ten minutes. I heard Matt Baker defending me, so I came to settle objections. What’s up? Smith: First of all, I appreciate you coming on. We’ve had disagreements on X. The first question is about your original tweet about someone telling you Charlie Kirk was going to be assassinated. Explain that, because I’ve got a question about your second tweet. Harrison: That’s it. There’s no further explanation. Somebody with knowledge of the situation told me that, and I tweeted it in response to something Ian Carroll had said, a month before. I told the story again on Moonbase Live when I talked to Jake Shields, a week before the shooting. I won’t tell you who told me because they asked me not to, but it’s basically corroborated. The person I talked to was not the same as those who talked to people like Max Blumenthal. So apparently, multiple people are telling the same story. Only I published it before the event. Did the FBI or TC or something ask you any questions about it? Smith: Nope. Harrison: And that’s the problem, Soleiman. That’s the problem right there. Smith: We’ll move on. He’s got ten minutes. The tweet today said: “the assassination of Charlie Kirk has been a resounding success for the left, they got to kill one of our shining lights, divide the right and normalise political violence and the only backlash they received was Jimmy Kimmel show got suspended for two days.” That seems to contradict your first statement, since the first tweet was before the assassination. How does that message come across? Harrison: The first tweet was before the assassination, so it couldn’t have anything to do with who I thought did it. It was before the assassination, a month earlier, and I had heard the rumor that Charlie Kirk feared for his life. The second tweet reflects the world view that most left people have: “we killed Charlie Kirk. We got away with.” It’s about the left believing they did it and got away with it, and it’s about the weakness of the right to treat threats against us with seriousness. Whether or not it was a leftist is still up in the air; I have unanswered questions about the patsy they have now. Still, the left has benefited. The left acts like they did it. The official story is the left did it, personally. I have questions about that story, but what matters is the widespread perception that the left did it and got away with it, and that informs their behavior. Smith: Do you think the widespread opinion matters? Harrison: I can’t hear you both at once. Matt? Smith: How do you feel about the genocide in Gaza? Harrison: I’m strongly against the genocide in Gaza. Vocally. Since before October 7. I’m against it as an Israeli shill? Smith: No one said that. The argument was that you’ve spoken out against genocide in Gaza before October 7, but Infowars promotes Zionist agendas and Zionist talking points, attacking Muslims in the United States and the UK. Zionist billionaires like Robert Shillman, etc. Harrison: I get it. Zionist interests overlap with mine, but it has nothing to do with Zionism in our calculus. I am for Western culture, America, heritage Americans of all backgrounds, and I’m fighting for Christianity. I’m against Muslims infiltrating Western countries, and I’m against Zionists controlling Western countries. These are not contradictory. There’s nothing Zionist about not wanting Muslims to take over your country, just like there’s nothing Muslim about not wanting Zionists to control your country. Infowars is anti-Zionist recently, and Alex condemns what Israel and Netanyahu are doing. But there’s a deliberate message of unity of all Americans who aren’t trying to dominate or subvert others. Unless they’re Christians, of course. Smith: So you’re saying you’re not arguing for a single team; it’s two enemies, rock, paper, scissors? Harrison: It’s two enemies, not one. I’m against both. I’m against Muslims taking over and against Zionists dominating. It’s not contradictory. It’s not about a single team. Smith: The point isn’t that you must pick sides; the issue is you’ve pushed claims that there is a Muslim takeover, which isn’t supported by numbers or power. People argue this is propaganda. Harrison: Okay. I don’t care whether the takeover has progressed. If I said it’s fake, I’d say that. I’ve got to go, but I appreciate the clarification. Smith: Posted on the day Jake Lang went; you were clearly talking about him. Harrison: I was talking about why Dearborn was the location of the march and why it was appropriate. Jake Lang is Jewish and Zionist; he’s not a Christian. He’s ethnically Jewish. He says he’s Christian, and in Christianity you can convert. I’ll call him a Christian man if that’s how he defines himself. Thanks.

My best friend was Jeffrey Epstein's personal chef and went on many trips to the island. If your best friend was named on the Epstein flight logs and was his personal chef, wouldn't you know? It's hard to believe they had no clue. You can tell when something is off just by looking at people's photos on Instagram. It's not difficult. They expect us to believe they had no idea, but that's a lie.

Speaker 0 rails against dissent: “Like, if you disagree with me, fine. If you think Israel killed Charlie Kirk and then vanished beneath the trap door and flew to Tuba City on a private jet, fine.” He adds, “But then people start to say, you disagree with me? You're you got the memo.” He asserts, “every event that happens in America or the world is the doing of Israel,” and says if you disagree, “you got the call[.]” He notes, “you’re out,” and, “They will. And they will.” He proclaims, “I can’t wait for the apology forms” and, “cannot wait to humiliate you more, because more than anything, what I love is humiliate people who are wrong. I live for it actually.” He concludes, “So please, please, I can’t wait to never speak to those people again.”

I used to be adored by the left, but not so much these days. It's like this "Trump derangement syndrome" is real. You can't even reason with people. I was at a friend's birthday dinner once, a nice, quiet gathering. I happened to mention the president's name, and it was like everyone got shot with a dart filled with meth and rabies. I mean, what's wrong with you guys? You can't even have a normal conversation. It's like they become completely irrational.