reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 recounts being told at synagogue while offline that Candice is really going after him, and that heads-up sealed him a little. When he finally turned the phone on, he truly saw all the notifications. He was up until 3AM local time that night dealing with all the messages and emails. It’s not fun. He says, to an extent, it’s part of the nature of the business—when you put yourself out there, you’re going to get pushback. But this is not pushback. This is not someone responding to a legal theory of mine or making an intelligent point about the two-state solution or not two-state solution. No. This is literally just picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions and millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a husband and father to a young child. So, he says, it’s just awful, awful stuff. And he adds that he’s talking to lawyers. “Aaron, I think I’ve said this publicly already.” He’s a lawyer with his background, he clerked for a federal appeals judge, and he knows a thing or two about United States constitutional law. He thinks that there is a potentially serious case here for defamation, and he is very much speaking with lawyers, and we’ll see what happens.

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.

The speaker targets Netanyahu with vehement accusations and vows defiance. 'There you are, mister Netanyahu. Just who do you think you are? Killing thousands and flattening neighborhoods, then wrapping yourself in Judaism like it's some shield from criticism. You're making life for Jews miserable and life for American Jews impossible. Oh, don't you roll your eyes at me, mister.' 'You know what you're doing, and you're doing it on purpose.' 'Well, now you can just sit in that chair because I'm not going anywhere, I've been to every BPA meeting, every school board meeting, and I can go all day.'

Speaker 0 outlines concerns about governance and patient safety, stating that “the governor” is ultimately over the issues, with nurses and the medical board implicated. He recalls that the medical board “came in and Please please do from letting insurance are being abused,” noting that complaints would take up to eight months to be contacted back or would “vanish into a black hole.” He emphasizes that staffing was blamed despite unspent staffing funds and asserts the governor is ultimately responsible. He mentions that his staff queried the possibility of being an Israeli spy and calls for immediate hearings, adding that discussions have been ongoing and something will be done. He references news that Josh Shapiro, a Kamala Harris vice-presidential contender, was queried by her staff about being an Israeli spy, and contrasts this with the lack of questioning about Walsh being a Chinese spy or having a predilection to fraud. He references antisemitic lines of credit and notes receiving massive inquiries, saying they will host a seminar on how to fight back, including defamation lawsuits as a recourse for public figures, though acknowledging the difficulty of such actions. Speaker 2 states she does not know the person but notes a predilection for people close to the others, insisting the person is “not part of the club.” Speaker 0 recalls a podcast with a Christian podcaster and expresses that to do this line of work, one must believe God drives it because they do not make money. He remarks on being disliked for not chasing popularity and invites others to examine their Twitter feeds. He describes the harassment they face, including lawfare, stalking, threats, and the desire to “kill me,” recounting examples like Carrie Donovan. Speaker 2 agrees on the intensity of threats and emphasizes the importance of truth and accountability in their reporting, not wanting to be deterred by intimidation. Speaker 0 adds that belief in a higher purpose is necessary to endure the profession, noting that after October 7 his faith was shaken but returning to the idea that God orders their steps. Speaker 2 adds that the local community deserves to know when someone is not who they claim to be or has a criminal record, and that elected officials deserve scrutiny. Speaker 1 introduces Adam with Accuracy in Media, saying he is dealing with three defamation suits from wealthy individuals’ families and has faced 13 swatts and daily death threats, sometimes requiring off-duty police at college campuses. He highlights the value of anti-SLAPP laws and tort reform, noting North Carolina lacks an anti-SLAPP law, which would help dismiss frivolous defamation suits protecting free speech, and criticizes legislators for lobbying for lawyers. Speaker 0 announces a good development: a story they broke on Thursday prompted Brendan Jones, head of the real bulldog in North Carolina’s oversight committee, to request appearances before his committee in Winston-Salem. They plan to discuss the Winston-Salem event, North Carolina A&T, and the Western North Carolina story, which Margo finds triggering. Speaker 3 from the city notes DEI support and discusses terminology changes since the FBI’s ban, and Speaker 1 comments on leadership differences between states, suggesting better governance in other legislatures and hoping for improved leadership locally. The exchange ends with remarks about leadership and governance comparisons.

"BB's holding it up like Charlie just in May said, hey, you know what? I just want to write a love letter to Israel." "I'm an American citizen. Yes. I want Israel to win. Yes. I'm a Christian." "But my moral character is now being put into question, Megan." "But no. I am a bad person if I do this." "Thousands of tweets and text messages." "the people that are attacking me are in a hyperparanoid state because they're at war, and war tends to make things black and white, and you're a hammer looking for a nail." "What would it be like if all of a sudden I'm starting to see a pattern of behavior similar to what my grandparents saw in nineteen thirties Germany online? How would I behave?" "Tucker Carlson was really the focus when it came to America Fest."

Speaker defends American Jews against campus antisemitism, calling the “ripping down of the hostage posters” “absolutely disgusting” and saying, “I don't have to defend Israel, and I don't defend Israel. I generally am on Israel's side.” He is “certainly not on the side of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization” and “cried on the air after it happened” following the “ten seven attack.” He says Hamas propaganda “the Gaza Ministry of Peace” and “those numbers are all lies,” but devastation cannot continue; Israel has “taken out Hezbollah” and Hamas has been “decimated.” He asserts, “it's time to wrap it up” and “I will not be shamed out of it by being called an anti Semite.” On Tucker, “Too fucking bad”—“I love him.” He praises Candace as “a young mom of, like, three young kids” under pressure and refuses to attack her, calling pushback “the same thing as the BLM folks.”

Speaker 0, a lawyer who clerked for a federal appeals judge, says, "we have a a potentially serious case here for defamation," and that he is "speaking with lawyers, and we'll see what happens." He states, "She is lying in a way that is resonating with people in a way that damages you significantly" and adds, "It's just so evil." He describes Charlie as "a good friend of mine" he had known for "five, six years," noting they were "really close over the final year, year and a half" and "in daily communication." He says he doesn't know precisely how much Candice communicated with Charlie, but "she very much was on the outs of Turning Point USA" and they were "not in touch at all" aside from "a happy birthday" moments. He ends with, "Aaron, when I first found out that Charlie had been shot."

Speaker 0 delivers a public apology for criticisms of Israel, stating he is deeply sorry and that it is a learning moment with six lessons from his grave mistakes. He admits making videos that heavily criticized the Israeli government while attempting to distinguish that he was not criticizing Jewish people or Israeli citizens, but he says hostile comments convinced him that he was talking about Jews, not the government. He notes that comments calling him a Jew hater and anti-Semite changed his mind, and he acknowledges feeling intimidated by such remarks. He describes how some viewers, including one commenter who said, “you moron,” helped him realize he was engaging in Jew hate. He says that the hostility, insults, and character smearing from haters were effective in shaping his views, and asks what those people believe, intending to emulate them. He mentions the existence of a poll showing that those using hostility are in the 5.5% minority, while 94.5% do not want hostility to be used to persuade them. He also notes that many haters have Israel flags in their bios and contrasts this with perceptions about Ukraine, asserting that Israel is our greatest ally and that he stands with Israel—now more strongly. He then recounts a conversation with two Jewish friends, where he apologized for hating them. He says they rejected his framing, explaining that criticizing Netanyahu does not equate with hating Jews. They mention that only 40% of Israelis trust Netanyahu, that many Israelis have concerns about him, and that citizens in Israel are God’s chosen people while Netanyahu is their leader. They challenge his views on dispensationalism and Zionism, arguing for different biblical interpretations of Israel and God’s chosen people, and suggest many Israelis do not have DNA from the Middle East, referencing DNA testing bans in Israel. He responds with hostility, saying, “God, I hate you people,” and notes that the friends did not accept his apology because they weren’t convinced he genuinely hated them. He also mentions JP Sears and accusations of Jew-hating for profit, and alleges financial success from such views. The six lessons from his mistakes are: 1) Align with the side censoring you, since censorship is “on the right side of history,” encouraging support for politicians trying to criminalize criticizing or boycotting Israel. 2) Distrusting any government makes you a stupid sack of shit, and thinking otherwise marks you as hating Jews. 3) When faced with tribalism and intimidation, you should comply to align with truth and gain freedom as an individual. 4) Israel has no influence over the US government or its politicians, and lobbying connections are not indications of influence; claiming otherwise is antisemitic. 5) Thinking it’s a crime or evil to commit genocide, prisoner rape, or killing children is not true; such beliefs are antisemitic. 6) Do whatever it takes to fight an ongoing war with Iran, unrelated to Israel, trusting the government on this, and hoping for actions to uncover supposed WMDs in Iraq. Speaker 0 closes with an apology and a final appeal to learn from these mistakes.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

Speaker 0: "We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" Speaker 1: "That's not right. Wrong headed." He says he faced blowback after saying, "Mossad, possibilities with Epstein," a comment he stands by, and that he "reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." He writes, "He says, I think he would have told me. He didn't say he had any of those connections. I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "I think all these things should be explored." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." He finishes, "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

"Speaker asserts, 'And Jewish donors, they have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal quasi Marxist policies, cultural institutions, and nonprofits.' They state, 'This is a beast created by secular Jews. And now it's coming for Jews and they're like, what on earth happened?' The rant adds, 'And it's not just the colleges. It's the nonprofits. It's the movies. It's Hollywood. It's all of it.' The message: 'It's like time for you guys to wake up and say no more. Draw a line in the sand.' It ends: 'I don't care if you hate me.'"

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

- The speaker describes receiving an email in Charlotte about a retraction demand that turned out to be a notice of an impending lawsuit by Brian Harpole. Harpole’s lawyer stated they would file the suit in four days, making the email feel unusual because there was no prior communication or retraction request. - The speaker notes that Harpole’s demand appears poorly organized and argues that Harpole had already prepared the lawsuit before sending the notification. The speaker also points out a coincidence: Harpole is using the same lawyer who previously represented The Daily Wire in arbitration against the speaker. - Harpole’s grievances in the lawsuit, according to the speaker, include: maligning him by stating that not having an ambulance on standby at an event is inappropriate and demonstrates professional incompetence; alleging that the speaker implied Harpole and his team had insider knowledge of Charlie Kirk’s assassination; and accusing the speaker of defaming Harpole by suggesting he failed to render effective aid with a medical bag and by accusing him of lying about drone availability. - The speaker argues that “competence” is a matter of opinion and contends that a security team paid millions should have had an ambulance on standby, especially when Charlie Kirk texted the team the night before that he thought he could be killed. The speaker defines criminal negligence and distinguishes it from civil negligence, insisting that Harpole’s claims about criminal negligence are unfounded in this context. - Harpole also claims the speaker implied he had insider knowledge of Kirk’s assassination, though the speaker contends the relevant episode referenced Terrell Farnsworth and Mikey McCoy, not Harpole, and clarifies what was actually stated in the episode. - The speaker addresses another claim about Harpole’s medical bag and drone usage. He asserts that Harpole’s statements about the medical bag and drones conflict with other testimony (including Frank Turic’s drone footage) and notes a discrepancy: Harpole said he could not fly drones in Provo airspace, while a pilot friend indicates that drones could be flown there with proper clearance. - The speaker highlights that the 69-page lawsuit begins with strong pro-Israel content and later argues that Harpole is a private citizen rather than a public figure, a claim the speaker finds strategic because private citizens must meet a lower standard (not the actual malice standard). The speaker contends Harpole publicly appeared on the Sean Ryan Show, which can be viewed as thrusting himself into a public controversy, making him a limited-purpose public figure for the specific issue. - The speaker notes that Harpole’s appearance on Sean Ryan was said to be a response to defamatory statements, and the speaker asserts that he did not mention Harpole on his own podcast before Harpole’s appearance. He claims Harpole’s lawsuit is an attempt to control narrative and obtain exclusive content, implying a PR motive rather than a pure defamation action. - The speaker extracts a pattern: Harpole’s lawsuit includes several disputed or misrepresented text messages and documents (e.g., misattributed messages about securing rooftops) and alleges that Harpole’s lawyer lied in filing by asserting statements about Mitch Snow’s truthfulness when the speaker believes Mitch’s account is unconfirmed. - The speaker questions the lawsuit’s purpose and timing, suggesting it may be a strategic PR move rather than a straightforward defamation action. He expresses a desire to obtain depositions and subpoenas to uncover the truth about Fort Huachuca and Charlie Kirk’s September 10 events, emphasizing that this may be the only route to access key evidence and testimonies.

Speaker 0 expresses that "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away" and that he is accused of being an anti-Semite despite "I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath." He notes online backlash, "thousands of tweets and text messages," and that his "moral character is now being put into question" for supporting Israel. Speaker 1 agrees the treatment is unfair, saying "Dave Smith isn't allowed to criticize Israel" and that "the Israeli side was overrepresented." They discuss Americans first, resisting accusations, and the difficulty of criticizing the Israeli government online. They reference Epstein's controversial topic and say they hosted a debate giving "equal time to Josh Hammer, equal time to a pro Israel advocate." They observe a "hyperparanoid state" online and wonder if patterns resemble "nineteen thirties Germany."

"We're just gonna try to we're we're gonna just stamp out everything type type of practice, but it goes to the point where if, for example, if I I have less ability sometimes online to criticize the Israeli government about backlash than actual Israelis do. And that's really, really weird, isn't it, Megan?" "That's not right. Wrong headed." "I So got some blowback after saying Mossad possibilities with Epstein, a comment behind which I stand." "I've, of course, reported what Alan Dershowitz has said as his lawyer." "He says, I think he would have told me." "He didn't say he had any of those connections." "I hear all that. That doesn't mean it's not true." "It's one of the many things that should be explored around Epstein." "But saying that and also saying he might be a US asset, etcetera, doesn't make you antisemitic."

I am alarmed, harassed, and distressed because of your presence, but I'm afraid to confront you. It is not pleasant being investigated. You should investigate the individual responsible for the communication, specifically point one two seven. This addresses instances where posts cause significant distress or are of a menacing nature, resulting in anxiety for the recipient. You're going to be wearing a mask next. Do not call us a Jewish president. He's dominant to the right, do not call the right. Don't do that.

They're trying to genocide the white race when talking about immigrants. He also said government officials need to be, quote, terrified to come into the office. He then accused Dylan of working for the Israeli government and posted this to act. Let's stop by. He then posted Dylan's address to discuss your work at. He then used an acronym for a federal public policy group and then makes an anti Semitic derogatory comment and blame the group for the murder of Charlie Kirk. Another post said if Harmit posts another knitting photo without arresting any bad guys, we'll dox her, her whole family. It would go on to say we're done with her kosher theater. Prosecutors say Kegel's account was blocked by Dylan. Also, when speaking about FEMA during hurricane Helene, he said, quote, FEMA get out of North Carolina, Georgia. If you refuse to leave and continue blocking seizing aid for American citizens, we will shoot you. Kegel's only charged with cyberstalking.

- Now some someone did tell me at synagogue while I was offline, you know, just a heads up. - Candice is really going after you. - I was up till 3AM local time that night just dealing with all the messages and emails and whatnot there. - It's not fun. - This is not pushback. Right? - This is literally just picking a Jewish person and calling him subhuman filth and sinking your band of millions of neo Nazi zealots on a Jewish person who happens to be a husband and father to a to a to a young child. - It's awful, awful stuff. - Aaron, I think I I'm pretty sure I've said this publicly already. - I'm talking to lawyers. - I think that we have a a potentially serious case here for defamation, and I'm very much speaking with lawyers, and we'll see what happens. - I clerk for a federal appeals judge. - I know I know a thing or two about United States constitutional law.

The transcript describes a complex web of legal and professional connections surrounding Candace Owens and Brian Harpole. It starts by noting that Harpol, the security firm Harpole uses against Candace, employs Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law. It claims this is part of a broader mix of interests involving the Department of Justice (DOJ) and prominent conservative figures, creating a “rabbit hole” of ties. The argument presented is that Brian Harpole’s lawsuit against Candace appears to be a coordinated strike. Key connections highlighted include: - The lead attorney for Brian Harpole, Zachary Stoner, works for the De Leon Law Group. The firm’s leader is Harmeet Dhillon, who is currently serving as Trump’s assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ. Although Dhillon is on leave from the firm, her influence is described as pervasive, especially in advocating stricter anti-Philadelphia speech laws that are alleged to threaten journalists like Candace. - A Daily Wire connection is noted: Candace had previously been represented by the same law firm (De Leon Law Group) during a lengthy arbitration battle against her. The narrative suggests these lawyers know Candace and are returning for more. - The De Leon Law Group also hired Jacob Roth, an orthodox Philadelphia attorney specializing in civil rights. The “Shapiro tie” is that Roth is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law, married to Ben’s sister Abby Shapiro. This is framed as an “attack by proxy,” with Ben Shapiro portrayed as a former employer who has allegedly harassed and stalked Candace for years. - There is an appearance by Jacob Roth himself, introducing a personal testimony about troubling issues, reinforcing the network of connections. The speaker suggests deeper connections beyond the law firm, implying a broader pattern of influence and collaboration. A comparison is drawn to “lawfare” cases against a president, with a DOJ member stepping down to work in the same space, which the speaker finds suspect. Overall, the transcript posits that Candace’s adversaries are intertwined through a network of a security firm, a law group, family ties (notably Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law), and DOJ-aligned figures, creating a coordinated dynamic against Candace.

"The American Jewish Committee called in a statement Charlie Kirk an anti Semite and quote dangerous. 'Charlie Kirk, an anti Semite.' 'Yeah. He was not an anti Semite. He was the opposite, and he was not dangerous.' He was 'a great lover of people and a purveyor of peace,' 'the opposite,' and he was 'very stung by that.' 'Charlie was deeply offended by that' and expressed some of those feelings on Megyn Kelly show and in other places, but that did not let up. The story is told because he called me and then came to see me at my house about this topic. And I said to him every single time, 'look, I've got my own way to communicate my views.' This is actually not the most important issue to me. There are lots of things I can talk about. I don't need to come to Turning Point. I can take a year off no problem. I hated seeing how much he was suffering, the hassle he was getting from people, and I was attacked too. By the way, it was a huge effort. I wasn't fully aware of it actually because I don't go online."

Jacob Roth, an attorney with Dillon Law Group, addresses a troubling issue: YouTube blocked ads behind his recent episode of Anatomy of a Lawsuit, titled NYC's antisemitism emergency. He states the episode discussed a rising tide of antisemitism leading to assaults, harassment, and discrimination against Jews, Israelis, and people perceived as Jews and Israelis across New York City, in schools, on the subway, and in institutions. He asserts that YouTube is preventing people from hearing about it and claims the platform labeled the video as containing derogatory harassing content, which he says it did not contain. Roth explains that the episode was about how antisemitism on the streets and in schools imperils people and about legal options for addressing it that Dillon Law Group can help with. He argues that platform censoring speech about harassment does not make anyone safer. He calls it either a serious mistake or, if not a mistake, “really quite malicious.” He emphasizes that Dillon Law Group stands ready to help Jews, Israelis, and everyone else who’s attacked because they’re seen as Jewish or Israeli with any legal challenges they face. He reiterates that people have legal rights under federal, state, and local law, and that they can fight back. The only way this kind of situation stops, he says, is if people fight back. Roth urges anyone who has suffered antisemitic or anti-Israeli harassment at the hands of mobs rising across New York City to contact Illinois Group to see if they can be helped. He closes with a unifying message: they’re all stronger together and you don’t have to suffer alone.

Why is it that Jewish people in this country get blamed for what a nation on the other side of the world is doing constantly? He cites incidents: 'a couple weeks ago, we had, an individual show up at a synagogue in San Antonio with a knife, yelling at the people who came out of services, f all you Jews, go back to your country.' We had a Jewish man assaulted in broad daylight in San Francisco. He continues, 'Anti Zionism, I've long said is anti Semitism. I was wrong. Anti Zionism is genocide.' 'And what I mean is if you so dehumanize Zionists, by the way, every Jewish person is a Zionist.' 'So the idea that our national anthem would be the Hatikva, would be the hope. I should say our. It's the Israel's national anthem.'

Speaker 0 describes the backlash: "The behavior by a lot, both privately and publicly, are pushing people like you and me away." He adds: "I am learning biblical Hebrew and writing a book on the Shabbat. I honor the Shabbat, literally the Jewish Sabbath. I visit Israel and fight for it." He asserts identity and support: "Yes. I'm an American citizen." "Yes. I want Israel to win." "But my moral character is now being put into question." He emphasizes the impact of online discourse: "Well, you and I believe that we're Americans and Americans first, period. End of story. We are citizens of this nation." He cites: "And the thing about Epstein is just so bizarre. I don't know who he was an agent for. It might have been Israel or an asset, or it might have been nobody, but we're allowed to speculate about that. It's like just some rule. You can't go there when it comes to Israel." He concludes with: "I love Israel."

In this video, the speaker, Luke, is questioned by officers about his online posts. They discuss freedom of speech and the need to avoid crossing any lines. Luke mentions receiving death threats and harassment from the Jewish community, believing they are trying to silence him. The officers express concern about the conflict and aim to deescalate the situation. Luke talks about his views on Israel and the influence of Jewish organizations in politics. The officers try to understand his perspective and express concern about potential violence. They agree to have a conversation to address the issues. Luke also discusses his experiences with online harassment, being banned from social media platforms, and losing monetization opportunities. He highlights the manipulation and editing of his content by others to create false narratives. Luke expresses a desire for open dialogue and acknowledges the potential for misinterpretation of his rhetoric, emphasizing his commitment to non-violence. The speaker, a cop, shares their experiences with alleged death threats and the criteria for determining a terroristic threat. They mention receiving threats from bot farms and foreign sources, advocating for not letting accusations control lives. The impact of defamation without proof of damages is highlighted, and the speaker emphasizes the need to not let accusations ruin lives. They share a day in the life of Lucas Gage, where honesty has consequences, and welcome viewers to America.

In early 2022, the speaker shares a story about putting an antisemite in prison after receiving anonymous harassment and death threats. They explain how they discovered the person's identity and had them arrested. The speaker then mentions that some pro-Hamas fanatics are spreading a fake tweet attributed to them and announces their intention to take legal action against those sharing it. They provide reasons why the tweet is fake and emphasize their determination to pursue justice. The speaker warns that they will aggressively come after those spreading the forged tweet and defends their advocacy for the Jewish people. They conclude by expressing their confidence and determination to fight against any attempts to discredit them.