reSee.it - Related Video Feed

One speaker recounts that he did not like Bibi Netanyahu, describing Netanyahu as a destructive force and saying he was appalled by what was happening in Gaza, and that Netanyahu was using the United States to prosecute wars for the benefit of his country, which he called shameful and embarrassing and bad for the United States, a view he resented. He also notes that he didn’t hate Netanyahu. After that speech, there was a sharp backlash against Charlie Kirk and, to a lesser extent, the speaker, with Kirk having about $100 million in donors and being heavily dependent on them because his project was nonprofit. They went after him and tormented him, while a small, very intense group offended by the speech tormented Charlie Kirk until the day he died.

Speaker 0 says Charlie bridged foreign policy gaps due to "genuine affection for Israel," and he privately expressed that he "love Israel." He argued, "we should not have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," and that view made him approachable because "this person doesn't hate me. It doesn't need to get existential. It's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." He urged continuing in "the spirit that he operated in, which is one of love for other people, including people we disagree with." Speaker 1 notes Charlie was "a hardliner on immigration" who "wanted us to control our borders as much as possible" and who "wanted us to ramp up the deportations." He recalls Charlie asking, "why aren't the deportations higher? Why aren't you doing more?" He adds, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys. I supported you guys, and I'm going to use my platform to try to accomplish as much good as I possibly can." He concludes, "I think that made him such an effective operator."

I'm trying to end the destruction of your country, but it’s disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and attack the administration that's trying to help. You're enforcing conscription because of manpower problems; you should be thanking the president for trying to bring this conflict to an end. I've seen the propaganda tours you put on. Is it disrespectful to try to prevent the destruction of your country? During war, everyone has problems, even us. But you're in a bad position. You don't have the cards right now, but with us, you start having cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. You are gambling with World War Three. Have you even said thank you? You campaigned against us in Pennsylvania. Offer some appreciation for the U.S. and the president trying to save your country.

With respect, I think it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and attack the administration that's trying to prevent the destruction of your country. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the President for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. But don't tell us what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You will feel our influence. You're gambling with the lives of millions and with World War III. What you're doing is very disrespectful to this country. Have you said thank you even once? You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

In the discussion, Speaker 1 argues that Iran’s objective is simply to survive; their strategy is to continue lobbing missiles, launching drones, and striking back as the U.S. approaches within Iran’s vicinity. He contends Iran has maintained command and control, dispersed forces, and possesses a large and enduring supply of missiles and drones, so the minimal victory for Iran is to endure the conflict. When asked what the U.S. should do to win, Speaker 1 criticizes bombastic rhetoric about U.S. superiority and questions the efficacy of regime change through bombing. He suggests that killing the supreme leader backfires by galvanizing the population and Shiites worldwide, noting Iran’s developed succession mechanisms that compensate for leadership losses. He argues that attempts to destroy Iran or disintegrate its society are misguided and that, if the U.S. pushes toward such aims, it may trigger greater confrontation with China and Russia. He also implies mixed signals from U.S. leadership, contrasting expectations under Biden with actual actions, and contemplates a similar pattern under Trump. Speaker 2 adds that President Trump could claim success by neutralizing key figures like the Ayatollah, but suggests that Israel’s preferences are driving U.S. policy, implying limited autonomy for America. He notes the risk of being drawn back into conflict and emphasizes uncertainty about public perception as the war continues. He remarks on the presence of pro-war voices and social media pushback, interpreting it as a sign that the audience may be “over the target.” Speaker 0 seeks a military assessment of the current state: the Iranian capacity, the Israeli position, and American casualty figures. Speaker 1 assesses Israel as internally distressed: internal unrest, exhausted armed forces, and a large exodus of citizens; he predicts Israel faces an ominous future and foresees Israel possibly deteriorating before Iran. He describes Israel’s use of mercenaries and acknowledges substantial damage on both sides, with Netanyahu’s visibility limited. In the broader Persian Gulf, Speaker 1 states that deterrence has failed among regional powers such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The United States is perceived as hampered by a long logistical footprint; uncertainty about missile stocks and intercepts persists, but Speaker 1 asserts that Iran can sustain war for a long time and that bombing alone will not compel Iranian capitulation. He foresees intensified U.S. troop and firepower deployment, including three carrier battle groups over the next two weeks, to replace the current forces. Overall, the conversation centers on Iran’s resilience, the limited likelihood that bombing will force regime change, the risk of broader great-power involvement, and growing weariness and strategic complications for all sides, with Iran poised to endure and possibly prevail in the long term.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

Charlie Kirk is described as one of President Trump’s closest advisers who actively advocated against a war with Iran. He was in the Oval Office in the lead-up to the twelve-day war. The speaker notes they weren’t particularly close, but Charlie was very gracious when the speaker was running for Congress and was supportive. The last time the speaker saw Charlie Kirk on Earth was in June in the West Wing, in the stairwell, where Charlie, upon greeting, looked the speaker in the eye and, very loudly in a small, tight space, said, “Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” Charlie then walked off and is believed to have entered the Oval Office. The speaker emphasizes that Charlie Kirk, a close adviser who vocally urged rethinking relations with Israel and opposing war with Iran, was suddenly publicly assassinated, and there are questions about the lack of ability to investigate further. The speaker says it’s a data point that needs examination and questions what it means to say that people are not allowed to ask questions about the incident. The speaker mentions that they were part of an investigation involving the National Counterterrorism Center, but they were stopped from continuing to investigate. The FBI stated they stopped and turned everything over to Utah State Authorities because the matter would go to trial and was very sensitive, but the speaker asserts there was still information to look into and linkage for further investigation that could not be pursued. The speaker clarifies they are not drawing conclusions about who was responsible or the exact circumstances, but asserts there were unanswered questions. There is reference to “text messages that have been made public” showing that Charlie was under a lot of pressure from pro-Israel donors. It is reiterated that Charlie was advocating to President Trump against the war with Iran. In summary, the speaker presents Charlie Kirk as a former close adviser who urged restraint on a potential Iran war and a reevaluation of relationships with Israel, describes a sudden assassination with restricted inquiry, and cites a halted investigation by national security entities, noting publicized pressure from pro-Israel donors as part of the context.

With all due respect, I find it disrespectful that you come to the Oval Office and try to argue in front of the American media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. You might not feel it now, but you will in the future. Don't tell us what we're going to feel. You're in no position to dictate that. You're in a bad position and don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions and risking World War Three. What you're doing is very disrespectful. Have you said thank you? You campaigned for the opposition. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who's trying to save your country.

Speaker 0 argues that the American government is trapped by the Israelis, using Jeffrey Epstein as a tool to constrain and manipulate U.S. leaders. He claims Epstein was used to trap multiple presidents and influence policy, stating, “Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak met Arafat in the nineties, and there was no deal. The reason was Epstein. They were being blackmailed by Epstein.” He adds that Ehud Barak, then Israeli prime minister, was also “a friend of Epstein” but was blackmailed by the Israeli right wing, and that this pressure stopped a potential two-state solution with Arafat. He asserts Epstein’s leverage extended beyond sex to financial concerns, questioning, “Where was the money coming from?” and contends that the Gaza issue is the focal point of much of the obstruction. He cites Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal reporting a birthday card Trump sent to Epstein as evidence of ties, and claims that Israelis have compromised the American government through Epstein and related past events. He also states that “I don’t think Trump wants to continue this war or the genocide” and that Israelis are inhibiting him. Speaker 1 asks what Dershowitz’s denial suggests, prompting Speaker 0 to elaborate with broader conspiracy implications, suggesting that Israeli influence has shaped U.S. policy and history, including why peace deals or normalization efforts may have stalled. Speaker 1 questions why those in power would use Epstein instead of other drastic measures like assassination, referencing theories about John F. Kennedy’s assassination and noting the possibility of broader intelligence involvement. He proposes that the GCC countries could leverage financial power to supplant traditional APAC lobbying in influencing U.S. policy and asks whether Trump could mobilize Arab world and BRICS power to end what is described as genocide. Speaker 0 answers that Trump could end the genocide “right now” if he stops fearing the Israelis, urging him to disregard accusations about his ethics, “Let them say whatever they say. He should stop the genocide. Let them do whatever they wanna do. Morality should take over.” He compares the Israeli pressure to historical leverage, asking Trump to act in the interest of the United States and the Middle East. Speaker 1 references Robert Maxwell as an example of Israeli intimidation, noting the dangers of challenging them. Speaker 0 closes by reiterating hope that Trump will prioritize U.S. and Middle East interests and “do the right thing.”

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons, something they tried to do with some success. However, the speaker is against the constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and "just want a chance to live."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Charlie's approach. They note his genuine affection for Israel, and his private belief: "I love I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran," which helped him bridge foreign-policy gaps because "this person doesn't hate me" and "it's not about disliking me or some weird bigotry." They caution against outsiders claiming to represent his cause. Charlie is described as a hardliner on immigration—"why aren't the deportations higher?"—yet he remained a constructive voice, saying, "I'm a free citizen. I love you guys," and using pressure to push for good outcomes rather than divisiveness. He worried about turning Iran strikes into a "regime change war," supported Israel, and, while backing strikes on a nuclear facility, insisted "no more" and "this can't become a bigger thing." He "never bent. He never became better" and kept integrity to the very end.

Speaker 0: You said no to war, and I heard you. I thought, what a blessing you are. May your heart stay pure and always protected. May your actions and morals stay connected, because our hearts have been tainted like black tea spilled on a Persian rug leaving a stain. We used to think the same. We wanted to play a good hand at this game, but the moment we heard our mothers wailing, we folded. There's no justice in this life. Our faith has eroded. They keep killing our children in the name of God. We watch Seppar's father searching for his son amongst countless body bags filled with women and children and innocent men. We also never considered war an option before then, before we witnessed our mothers burn in grieving flames. It wasn't required to jump over fire when New Year's came. Every stride they took, they were burning like a furnace. Every step turned to ash where their hearts used to beat. Their pain turned soft souls into something concrete. May you never know the pain of a whole entire nation begging to be saved by foreign invasion. They say, I don't understand. Why would you agree to war? What a blessing it is that you don't understand my love. I hope you never know the pain of people begging to be bombed where your death is so close, but it feels like hope. Maybe in another life, every country will rush to save us instead of fighting over whether Trump has the right to invade us. They'll fight over who gets the honor of being our savior. They'll argue over credit for our liberation and for once we'll have a choice and who our leader gets to be, not imposed but chosen will finally be free. It's good you don't believe in more. What beautiful way of thinking. What a blessing it is to not know the feeling of clinging to the first life raft that comes in your direction, not caring for a second about their intention, not pausing for reflection, just to fight against death. My love, I'm glad you still believe there's a wrong and a right, but I've seen a place where that line disappears, where survival speaks louder than morals and fears, what a blessing to breathe and still have a voice, to question the hand and still have a choice. But when your lungs start to fail and you're drowning with no air, you don't care who it is, you just hope that they're there. You clutch at the life raft, no time left away, whose hands pulling you up or what price you will pay, head barely above water, grief flooding your sight. You don't choose your savior. You choose to survive.

Speaker 0 expresses utmost respect for the president, noting he has given many people hope to beat the bad guys and to do it with head held high and integrity intact. He shares that the president is from Queens, New York, like him, and that the president has shown that even in the worst times you can come back from it. The speaker says the president has been through publicly having to constantly be lied on, and that it’s not funny. He emphasizes that unless you are in that person’s shoes you’ll never understand what it feels like, as the person is a human being with a family who has to read those lies. He states that this administration is full of people with heart and soul, and they make him proud. The vice president is praised as well; the speaker loves both of them. They are described as powerful, smart, and strong, with an uncanny ability to relate to people. They haven’t lost touch with the world and remain connected to what’s happening with younger and older people, with the richer and the not-so-rich. They have the ability to stay real and make us feel proud to be American.

Speaker 0 argues that most Americans oppose the war, citing polling and the president’s failure to make a case for it. The speaker asserts that people don’t feel threatened by Iran and don’t fear an Iranian ballistic missile landing in the United States. The speaker lists a set of American concerns: 72% can’t afford health insurance, 58% can’t afford car insurance, 67% live paycheck to paycheck, 31% can’t afford back taxes, and 50% carry massive credit card debt. They state they campaigned with the president and were among the few Republicans supporting Donald Trump when others opposed him in a primary, emphasizing a “America first” stance focused on American problems rather than foreign countries or foreign peoples. The speaker expresses concern for the Iranian people and hopes for a government that treats women fairly, but asserts that “we have seen over 100 little girls killed at a school from a bomb,” and claims that “America and Israel attacked Iran,” implying this is not good for Iranian women. They criticize the president’s claim that the Iranian people will topple their regime, saying the Iranian people won’t topple their regime while being bombed by the United States and Israel in an unprovoked attack, which the speaker claims is true. They reference Pete Hegseth’s comment that the U.S. did not start the war, but the speaker counters that America and Israel definitely started it and states, “you can’t lie that away to the American people.” The speaker declares being irate and furious about the situation, noting the national debt approaching $40 trillion and questioning the war’s cost. They argue that American troops have been killed and murdered for foreign countries, and that four Americans have died for Israel and the Iranian people, not for Americans. The speaker laments the loss of American military members and acknowledges the families who may be grieving. They mention Trump’s past statements that he doesn’t think he will go to heaven, and question what that implies about his decision-making, given that the president has said he may place troops on the ground and that what began as “a few day war” could extend to four weeks or more. The speaker recalls prior commitments by JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard to end foreign wars and regime change, but notes that “we’re a year in” and yet “we’re in another fucking war” with Americans killed. The speech ends with a call for America to “rip the Band Aid off” and to have a serious conversation about who is making these decisions and for whom.

With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come to the Oval Office and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of my country. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict. During war, everyone has problems. Even you, but you have a nice ocean. You're in a bad position now and you don't have the cards. With us, you start having cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people and with World War Three. What you're doing is disrespectful to this country. I've said thank you many times, even today. I ask that you offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

Netanyahu wants to fight Iran to remain in office indefinitely. The speaker hopes Trump, or anyone, will defuse the situation. The U.S. needs to convince Middle Eastern allies of its support, but undeclared wars victimizing civilians are not a good solution. The speaker believes Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons, something they previously attempted to do successfully. However, this does not require constant killing of civilians who cannot defend themselves and simply want to live.

Speaker recounts meeting with Charlie: it wasn’t about 'this is what you should say,' but 'talking through the issues' as Charlie asked questions and began forming positions. He would 'approach this issue this way' and decide his stance on topics like 'USA to Israel,' which speaker opposed, wanting it drawn down; Netanyahu has said he wants it drawn down. Charlie would articulate his position more quickly than the speaker. They discussed why is Israel actually an American America's interest to support Israel and explored approaches to justify it, not just those favored by Israelis or the Israeli government, but ways to help Charlie feel comfortable with a position. Charlie is a 'listener' who believes in the 'open marketplace of ideas'—his existential core—and he platformed Tucker Carlson; silencing any opinion was 'anathema' to him because of truth seeking. 'For all of us, our best traits we often have to a fault.'

I want to remind you, especially younger writers, that you don't have to conform or be afraid to criticize your government and society. It's popular to criticize Republicans and Trump, but we should also remember that both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the 13 wars we've started in the past 30 years, costing trillions of dollars and countless lives. This system, which some call the military-industrial complex, perpetuates war and chaos in the world. We've intervened in over 100 countries, causing regime changes and economic turmoil. This system is leading to the destruction of our planet and our own extinction. Despite the challenges, if you believe in what you're saying and stay true to your values, you can make a difference. Stay true to yourself, listen to your inner voice, and never give up on peace, decency, and the truth.

Speaker 1 describes a decision to follow conscience after twenty years in the military, mostly deployed to the Middle East. He explains that after multiple deployments he realized “we weren't there for the reasons that our government told us” and that there was no vital national interest in the current fight. He made a promise to himself about twenty years ago not to send young Americans off to die on foreign battlefields if he ever had a position of responsibility. When given that opportunity, he decided to resign, stating he did not want to send others to die in wars he believed were not in the nation’s interest. Speaker 0 notes their Catholic faith and mentions recent comments by the Holy Father highlighting concerns for innocent civilians harmed by conflict, including the killing of Father Pierre in Lebanon. The question is asked whether faith community or religious leaders’ support has helped. Speaker 1 responds that the support has been huge and that the resignation gained more traction than he expected. He emphasizes that although the decision was not made lightly, faith helped him hear “God's voice” and guided him to take action, which made the act feel easy and liberating. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has hope for America. Speaker 1 affirms having a great deal of hope, calling this an exciting moment. He highlights the power of technology to connect like‑minded people and give them a voice, despite potential downsides. He notes the significant presence and enthusiasm of young people in the room, expressing optimism about the next generation. Speaker 1 outlines what he believes must happen moving forward: during the midterm season and as the war progresses, people should be on their knees in prayer, then take action once upright. He argues that leaders must hear the public’s stance against this war and the lack of a vital national security interest, calling for the troops to come home and for efforts toward peace in the region. He asserts a desire to avoid “twenty plus more years of bloodletting” and urges people from all political parties to pressure representatives to oppose continued overseas wars. Speaker 1 clarifies that he is not advocating pacifism; if the country is attacked or there is an imminent threat, actions will be taken. The core message is that the nation must not continue down the current path, and making this stance clear to leaders is essential to preserving hope.

The speaker discusses the complexity of changing people's opinions, using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an example. Despite presenting evidence and investigations, individuals remain steadfast in their beliefs. The speaker mentions the events at Alali hospital, where evidence is emerging to determine responsibility, but it fails to sway people's opinions. The speaker, who works as a journalist and fact-checker, finds it challenging to make an impact through their work. Speaker 1 adds that it is too late for the truth to matter, as people have already chosen their side and the truth that aligns with their beliefs.

With all due respect, I find it disrespectful for you to come here and litigate this in front of the American media. You're forcing conscripts to the front lines because of manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to de-escalate this conflict. During war, everyone faces issues, even you, though you may not feel it now, you will in the future. Don't tell us what we're going to feel, you're in no position to dictate that. We're going to feel very good and very strong. From the beginning of the war, you have not been in a good position. You don't have the cards right now. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people, with World War Three, and it is very disrespectful. Have you said thank you even once? You campaigned for the opposition. Offer some appreciation for the United States and the president who is trying to save your country.

Good faith is the measure: 'If you were good faith, you're on his team.' They warn against appropriating his memory for parochial ends. He bridged foreign policy gaps with genuine affection for Israel: 'I love Israel. I don't think we should have another forever war, regime change war against Iran.' Charlie was a hardliner on immigration, wanting to 'control our borders' and asking, 'why aren't the deportations higher?' He believed 'Pressure is a friend. Pressure is somebody who cares deeply about the issue.' He warned that Iran strikes could become a regime change war: 'This can't become a bigger thing. This can't become a broader thing.' He could support Israel and 'did eventually support the strikes on the nuclear facility while simultaneously saying no more.' Donors to Turning Point were 'very tough on him... under enormous pressure.' 'He never bent. He never became better.' His integrity 'to the very end.'

Charlie Kirk's perspective on Israel was not starting to shift. It had shifted entirely. Israel knew that. Turning Point USA knew that because Charlie was explicit. He wrote of his deep love for Israel. About forty eight hours before Charlie Kirk died, Charlie informed people at Turning Point, as well as Jewish donors and a rabbi that he had no choice but to abandon the pro Israel cause outright. Charlie was done. He said it explicitly that he refused to be bullied anymore by the Jewish donors. Did he express that? Did he also express that he wanted to bring me, Candace Owens, back because he was standing up for himself? And then did he, just forty eight hours later, conveniently catch a bullet to the throat before our on stage reunion could happen?

- The public blames Netanyahu for October 7 as the one who fed the beast. He did not create Hamas, but he fed it. - Netanyahu, who is against peace and against having a Palestinian state, dealt with Hamas for a long time as a strategic friend. It was important for him to keep Gaza under the control of Hamas and keeping the West Bank under Fateh and preventing them from being united in any way. In order to do so, Netanyahu was all the time helping Hamas to survive. - At the same time that he was under investigation, he arranged for Hamas to receive $35,000,000 every month from Qatar. - Netanyahu can't give the money by himself. Israel will not give money to the Hamas. You cannot even transfer this money through banks because even the banks don't want to cooperate. So you, the Israeli prime minister, needs to beg this small and very rich country, Qatar, to give money to our enemy. - This suitcases of money was given to Hamas under the request of Benjamin Netanyahu personally. And because the Qatarians knew him from the beginning, they were asking him to send them his requests in writing because they knew that he's going to lie in the future. - He allowed more than 1,000,000,000 to be transferred to the hands of the Hamas because he believed that he can control the level of hatred. It's nonsense. He cannot control the flames. - Your strategy was keep Hamas there, weaken the Palestinian authority on the West Bank, sustain the extremists, weaken the moderate. This exploded in our faces in the most brutal way on October 7. - Bibi tells the world again and again and again, I'm the expert on terrorism. I know how to fight terrorism. I'm the protector of Israel. And under his regime, we get into this incredible, unbelievable war. - I think we have to finish the job. We can finish the job. Victory is within reach, and that's our goal, total victory. Our fight is your fight, and our victory is your victory. Tonight, I wanna speak to you about total victory. Total victory over Hamas. Unless we have total victory, we can't have peace. - Total victory doesn't actually mean anything here in actuality. You know all of the casualties and death and suffering, and that's what it looks like in reality. That's what those words actually mean. - My dear friends, the word Gaza could end tomorrow if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and returns all the hospital. That's what total victory means, and we will settle for nothing less. - Netanyahu comes to the congress because he needs Americans desperately. - My friends, I came to assure you today of one thing. We will win. - He wants the Israeli public to be proud to have their leader speaking in front of this very prestigious group and getting applauded so many times. He's speaking to the American Congress, but he's really speaking to the Israeli public. - I would say that, tragically, the Americans don't know how to call him out. There was no plan for ending the war of Gaza, bringing the hostages home, and changing dynamics in the region. And things only got worse. Netanyahu is the architect of chaos. He may create a situation where it's irreversible. - He is the great example of a leader that lead his people to the wrong place. But this is the reality in which he will preserve his political power. And he know how to manipulate. Manipulate. He needs it in a way.