reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.”

Speaker 0: I'm a never Trump guy. I never liked him. Just kidding. do you believe Donald Trump who always tells the truth? Speaker 1: I cannot stand Trump because I think he's a fraud. Well, think he's a total fraud that is exploiting these people who is a total fraud. Speaker 2: Like you said, I I agree with you on Trump because I don't think that he's the person I I I don't think he actually cares about folks. Speaker 0: Definitely there is definitely an element of Donald Trump support that has its basis in racism or xenophobia. I think there's a chance if Trump has a really good chance of winning that I might have to hold my nose and and vote for Hillary Clinton. I’m gonna vote third party because I can't stomach Trump. I think that he's noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

The speaker argues that “there is no way we are going to allow a con artist to take over the conservative movement,” claiming Donald Trump is a con artist and “all bluster, very little substance.” They say Trump is disgraceful for allegedly “pimp[ing] out our proud servicemen and women” to the Prince of Saudi Arabia, and therefore “unfit to serve as our commander in chief.” The speaker addresses Trump supporters directly, saying they do not know who they are or why they support him. They call Trump a “bully” and criticize him for feeding a narrative of anger, bitterness, and frustration. The speaker references Trump saying John McCain “isn’t a war hero,” and says McCain sought “his own five military deferments.” They claim the Constitution requires Congress’s express consent for going to war and frames Trump as unfit on that basis. The speaker asserts Trump has “no ideas of any substance” on important issues, including “the nuclear codes of the United States,” calling Trump “erratic.” They describe him as “race baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.” They also claim “The military isn’t even gonna follow his orders,” noting that the Trump campaign “was forced to change their position” to try to change the law so “the military can operate within the law.” They further describe Trump as a “kook” and “crazy” and say that even if there are not many “outright Nazis,” there are “plenty of cowards and bootlickers.” They warn about the consequences of Trump encouraging wrongdoing, saying Trump says things like “Go ahead and kill the families… torture… go further than waterboarding,” and that it is “not clear” Trump will have anyone’s back if people follow or do not follow those orders. The speaker argues Trump is “oftentimes about Donald Trump,” contrasts competing claims using “Today, do you believe Donald Trump… Or do you believe that woman on that tape?” They say Trump “doesn’t represent my party” or “the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for.” They also allege Trump supporters were told “to basically beat up the people who are in the crowd and he’ll pay their legal fees.” The speaker claims there is “definitely” an element of Trump support based on “racism or xenophobia,” and says service members should not be treated as “prostitutes” or “pimp[ed].” They conclude by saying they “can’t stomach Trump,” calling him “noxious,” claiming he is leading the “white working class to a very dark place,” and stating that regardless of the election outcome, many on the right, in the media, and voters will have to explain and justify how they “fell into this trap” of supporting Trump.

The speaker discusses the Trump party controversy that emerged recently, asserting several personal perspectives and recollections. He states that he did not see anybody taking drugs at the event. He clarifies his political stance and past associations: he says he voted for Kamala Harris and is a Democrat. He explains that when Donald Trump invited him, along with Mike Tyson and Eddie Murphy, they attended a gathering at Mar-a-Lago in West Palm Beach, describing it as a cool experience to be invited to a billionaire’s home. He recalls that Trump was a Democrat at the time and implies he did not know Trump’s party affiliation precisely, only that Trump had hosted a party with “beautiful people” and was connected to influential circles, including owning a USFL football team. The speaker notes that Trump had given money to Democratic candidates, including Clintons, Hillary, Bill, and even Kamala Harris’s Senate campaign in California. He mentions that Trump had been mentioned in roughly 1,500 rap records, with many rappers from New York praising him, suggesting Trump moved in a shared social space with entertainers and executives. He acknowledges a shift in his view of Trump’s current version, saying he does not like this version of Donald Trump, though he would not lie about an event he attended or about Trump inviting him to Mar-a-Lago. He emphasizes his honesty about the experience, insisting that he did not witness underage girls at the event. He closes by rejecting the idea of trying to connect Trump to underage allegations, stating that such links would be false and unacceptable to him, and asserts that trying to tie Trump to those accusations would not be allowed on his watch.

The speaker stated that they think it's ridiculous to suggest President Trump is acting for his own benefit. They claim he left a life of luxury and a successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice, and the American public reelected him because they trust he acts in the country's best interest. The speaker asserted that Trump has lost money being president. They don't recall similar questions being asked of the previous president, a career politician who was allegedly profiting off the office. The speaker maintains that President Trump does not do this, and the White House holds itself to the highest ethical standards.

I would tell those voters that they were hoodwinked, and that's okay. Everyone's been hoodwinked before. I know this from my dating life. You think someone's going to be great because they sell you on all the right things. Then you realize they aren't who you thought they were. That's where we are now, and it's alright. What matters is waking up and realizing this isn't the right choice. So, even if you voted for him, you should now be saying, he is not the one for me.

In response to questions about how the White House can reach frustrated voters and improve their sense of the situation, Speaker 0 opens by noting that lower inflation and gas prices are key, and asks what the White House can do to make those voters feel better or convince them the situation is improving, also pointing out that they are being told lies by the media, a problem he says Republicans have long faced. Speaker 1 replies by emphasizing a central point derived from polling: there is overwhelming support for President Trump across every issue and dimension. He asserts that the most important point to hammer is that under Trump there was no inflation, whereas Biden’s presidency devastated the economy. He states that there was double-digit inflation overall from when Biden entered to when Biden left, and that prices “went up 30% in four years.” He then claims that when Donald Trump “comes back in,” inflation is “down to near benchmark rates of 2% within months,” describing this as astonishing and asking rhetorically, “How’s that even possible? I mean, we we knew the man was an economic wizard.” He reiterates the question, asking how inflation could move from 30% to nearly 2% in a few months, suggesting that Trump “defied what everybody said was possible.” The exchange centers on contrasting perceptions of economic performance under the two administrations, with Speaker 1 arguing that Trump achieved a rapid and substantial reduction in inflation after a period of high inflation under Biden, and framing this as evidence of Trump’s economic prowess. The dialogue also frames political popularity and media messaging as factors in the public’s views, positioning Trump’s economic record as a core issue for persuading voters who feel left behind.

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: "Someone's saying, I was surprised that so many black and Hispanic people, mainly men, voted in 2024 for Trump. It made no sense in a white racist culture politically. How do you account for this?" Speaker 1: "Well, I think... people believe that it wasn't gonna happen to them, that yeah, he was gonna clean things up, but that didn't apply to them or their family." "part of it is sort of jumping on that bandwagon, doing what your church is doing, doing what your friends and family are doing, like not wanting to be the one who says, no, wait a minute, I believe in vaccines." "Saw that with the anti vaxx movement, right, and QAnon." "As much as some of us may dislike him, he is a very powerful personality." "twenty one percent of Americans are illiterate, fifty four percent have a literacy level below sixth grade, that means what? That means not a lot of critical thinking." "Now that doesn't account for the really smart people who also follow Trump, whether black or white." "those people, in my opinion, are doing it because they're gaining financially, and they don't really care about anything else except becoming a bigger billionaire or a bigger millionaire." "Trump gave people a blank check to be awful." "the most powerful man in the country is saying it's okay."

Speaker 0 describes that on 07/18/2023 special counsel Jack Smith has decided to pursue another arrest and more indictments of President Trump, alleging it is a result of the Fed storming the Capitol on 01/06/2021 and targeting Trump for his role in the effort to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on that date. He asserts that all President Trump did was give a speech and that he incited nothing. He claims the people disrupting the peaceful transfer of power were “our government.” He argues that when videos from the Capitol appeared, Tucker Carlson, while still on Fox News, claimed the videos were manipulated, asserting they were added to with people, sound, fire, and smoke, probably mirrors, to make it look horrific. He says footage has been removed from the Internet, making reflection on 01/06 difficult, and that all remaining footage is manipulated, stating there was not all the fire and smoke and that the famous picture is a manipulated image. He asserts the rioters didn’t bring guns and that there was no fire or smoke, but instead “where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” and that history has been changed and references are no longer available. He claims that during the Fed’s direction, Trump did say on video what he should have said, including “I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election stolen from us, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to respect our great people in law and order. There’s nothing more he could have said.” He notes the video is difficult to find but exonerates Trump, maintaining he incited nothing, especially since the feds were doing most of it. He says this video will be important in the coming weeks and months as Smith continues to go after Trump, predicting suppression of the video by social media platforms, as in the immediate aftermath of the Fed’s direction. He says he captured the video and urges sharing. Speaker 1 quotes Trump: “I know you’re pained. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home at peace.” Speaker 0 adds that Tucker Carlson claimed Democrat party and those involved in planning and organizing the insurrection hired a Good Morning America producer to dramatize the footage and even dubbed in sound, to make it more sensational, implying the footage was staged. He questions why it would be necessary to add sound and create more people and fire or smoke to redefine the events, suggesting the feds planted and altered footage to present an insurrection. Speaker 2 reinforces the claim with a direct statement: “How staged and fraudulent was the work of the January 6 committee? Democrats hired a Good Morning America producer called James Goldston to dramatize the footage they released. They even dubbed in audio to make the pictures more sensational as in a docudrama. The networks carried it all live as if it were real.”

Speaker 0: Expresses being a “never Trump” person and not liking him. Frames the discussion as a “he said, she said” dispute about who is telling the truth, jokingly questioning whether to believe Donald Trump who “always tells the truth? Just kidding,” or the woman on the tape. Speaker 1: States they cannot stand Trump, calling him a “fraud” and saying he is “exploiting these people,” describing him as a total fraud. Speaker 2: Agrees with Speaker 1, saying they don’t think Trump is the person and that he “doesn’t actually care about folks.” Speaker 0: Acknowledges an element of Trump support that has “its basis in racism or xenophobia.” Indicates a possible scenario where, if Trump has a strong chance of winning, they might have to “hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton,” adding they’re considering voting third party because they “can’t stomach Trump,” and describing him as “noxious” and leading “the white working class to a very dark place.”

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

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

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

Speaker says, "Trump listen, man. I I supported him this last year. I apologize for doing so. It was a bad calculation. At the time, it seemed like the right one." He adds, "But he should be impeached and removed for this one." He continues, "And not not on some, like, not not on some ridiculous Nancy Pelosi. Of course, the congress will never do it because they're all a bunch of, you know, corrupt hacks. This is the one thing they support. This is, like, the yeah." He reiterates, "Donald Trump should be impeached and removed for this." "All of his supporters should turn on him." "It's the absolute betrayal of every"

Speaker 1 initially said "no more Trump" due to his January 6th conduct, but now says "yes" to Trump. Speaker 1 states that Biden-Harris policies are an existential threat to the country and its allies. Speaker 1 believes there are now many attacks on democracy that eclipse January 6th.

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

The speaker asserts that people will suffer due to an unspecified action. They state that fraud is a crime and claim there have been no referrals to the Justice Department in any instance. When questioned on this, the speaker initially denies being asked a question, then confirms that there have been referrals for fraud. The speaker then claims that billions of dollars were given to people for no reason and pivots to what they consider one of the biggest achievements of the first term.

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.

Speaker 0 challenges others to prove their claims are false, promising to apologize if proven wrong. Speaker 1 accuses the other side of hypocrisy, citing President Biden's alleged "blanket pardon" for his son and questioning their sudden concern for corruption. They criticize the Democratic Party's ties to figures like George Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates, and "every woke, weird pervert in Hollywood." The speaker asserts that the Republican Party, under President Trump, has a clear mandate from voters who rejected the policies of the other side, including "open borders," a "failing economy," "raging inflation," and "woke stuff." They yield their time, expressing disbelief at the conversation initiated by the other side.

Speaker 1: I believe that together we can make America great again. To secure a better future for your children and your grandchildren and to make America great again. I want to attack these problems and make America great again. It's time for another comeback. Time to make America great again. Speaker 0: Monica puffed on your cigar so hard the hypocrisy smoke is still lingering, decades later. Straight up called her the dog whistle. Speaker 1: That message where yeah. I'll give you America great again is if you're a white southerner, you know exactly what it means, don't you? What it means is I give you economy you had fifty years ago, and I'll move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down. Speaker 0: Either it was racist when he said it or it's not racist when Trump said it. Pick a lane. You can't make this shit up.

Speaker 0 claims most people in the country voted for Trump and that he won the popular vote. Speaker 1 disputes this, stating it was a slim majority of voters and that too few people voted. Speaker 0 says those who cared about issues voted for Trump to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 counters that lots of voters were purged from voter rolls before the election. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of election denial. Speaker 1 accuses the "narcissist in that building" of gaslighting.

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.