reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

The transcript follows a chaotic, multi-voiced discussion centered on political information networks, election integrity, and coordinated activism around protests and media narratives. - Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly question the sources of information: “Who the fuck is Jeremy? Where do I get my information? Why did I delete karaoke?” and the same for Jonathan, signaling concern about where information originates and how it is disseminated. - Speaker 2 describes a sense of purpose from sharing information and notes that Wisconsin was the first state where “the evidence that I and my one of my associates, Chris, had put together for Peter, Wisconsin was the first state where it was actually presented, under oath in, you know, a senate… the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Election Integrity.” - Speaker 3 references multiple online presences, including YouTube and Facebook (Jeremy Oliver, Onslaught Media Group), and mentions protesting activities as part of the narrative. - Speaker 4 mentions “Using other state capitals for practice dry runs,” implying rehearsal for protests or political actions. - Speaker 1 indicates a readiness to “storm the capital” and notes that participants are “all actors,” signaling a performative or coordinated element to actions. - Speaker 3, as a journalist or news producer, plans to stream live from protests to show “the real story” and “support the people that are out there fighting for our First Amendment rights.” - A dialogue involving Speaker 1 and Patrick discusses Mary Fanning and Mary Fenix, with questions about speaking to Patrick and perceived fairness in conversations, leading to a strained exchange. - Speaker 5 asserts that “Donald Trump has no business being president,” and introduces a coalition or think tank that includes Biden, Harris, Mike Flynn, and Simon Johnson (an IMF chief economist by birth in England), framing a network with both Democrats and Republicans. - Speaker 3 introduces Brian Gamble as CIO of the America Project, founded by Patrick Byrne, who sits on the Council on Foreign Relations with Stanley McChrystal. The claim is made that Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from McChrystal’s home; McChrystal is described as an advisor for the Defeat Disinfo Pack, an AI system that detects Trump-trending content and promotes opposing viewpoints. The system is said to share opposing viewpoints, connecting to efforts involving the Flynn network to target the Patriot movement. - Speaker 6 expresses disbelief at the unfolding information, while Speaker 1 dismisses an interruption during a conversation, showing friction in interviews and onlookers. - Speaker 8 details that “the entire Flynn network was there,” naming Ali Alexander (a former CMP member) as a lead organizer, and Michael Flynn’s appearance on the CMP staff roster. The aim is stated as “creating instability as they’re trying to carry out a color revolution.” The speaker lists a list of Flynn network traits: a united and organized opposition, the ability to drive home the claim that voting results are falsified, compliant independent media to inform citizens about the falsified vote, and the mobilization of tens of thousands of demonstrators. - Speakers 9 and 10 discuss 2020 in Maricopa County, noting 395,000 in-person voters on election day (a figure they describe as low due to COVID) and debating how many Republicans intended but did not vote in Maricopa in the midterms. Projections estimate large missed numbers (700,000 or around 150,000 in later drafts), with debate on whether turnout would favor one party given demographics and turnout expectations. - Speaker 8 critiques associated figures: Patrick Byrne, Roger Richards (tattoo of Lucifer, propaganda space films with Jordan Sather), Emily Newman (ties to US Agency for Global Media, linked to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry), and Brian Gamble’s background in information warfare. - There are digressions about fundraising sources, rockefeller connections, and a tension between reform goals and control, with Speaker 12 suggesting figures like Charlie Kirk publicly advocate doing “the same things that got us into this place” to “beat the system,” implying a critique of reform vs. control within the movement. - The dialogue closes with personal anecdotes about Wisconsin politics, a case discussed with a Supreme Court justice race, and a strained, emotional confrontation that underscores distrust and the perception of manipulated information flows.

There are various speakers expressing their frustrations and anger towards Donald Trump. They mention the need for uprisings and unrest in the country. Some speakers even talk about physically confronting Trump, with one suggesting punching him in the face. Another speaker mentions taking Trump behind the gym to beat him up. There are also references to assassinating the president and blowing up the White House. Some speakers call for protests to be impolite and non-peaceful, while others warn Trump supporters to be careful. The transcript ends with a question about who the speakers would choose to be stuck in an elevator with, with a dark joke about only one person coming out alive.

Speaker 0 expresses dislike for President Trump, claiming he didn't fulfill his promises and married his children off to Jews for power. They criticize Trump as just another politician who deceives voters. Another person defends Trump, stating he has done things for the country. Speaker 0 reiterates their stance, mentioning shutting down Disney World for being run by "kikes" and pedophiles. They suggest building a fire tornado generator to eliminate communists.

Speaker 0 and Donald Trump discuss the CPAC speech. Speaker 0 watched it and thought it was pretty good, while Donald Trump teases Speaker 0 for secretly loving it. They joke about paying each other more and Donald Trump admits to watching the show because of Speaker 0.

The speaker asserts a series of conspiratorial claims about Donald Trump, Israel, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Key points include: - A claim that g p one five p p one four (interpreted as a gene) was developed by Israelis at MIT with HIV in it, and that this is a genetic modification “by the Israelis.” The speaker denies involvement with such a creation. - A assertion that Israelis are “getting rid of all you Americans” and that “you’re all part of the line of Adam.” The speaker claims Israelis consider Donald Trump their Mashiach (Messiah). - The speaker states that 163 Orthodox rabbis came together at Trump’s golf course and gave him the silver crown of the Torah, saying he is the Messiah. They claim Trump was given a menorah with an inscription calling him “the prince of peace,” an utterance from the prophet Isaiah. - It is claimed that the Knesset and the Sanhedrin in Israel have proclaimed Donald Trump the Messiah, and that the silver crown of the Torah is to be given to the Messiah. The speaker asserts these rabbis “run your country.” - The speaker says they worked four years on Trump’s campaign team and characterizes the rabbis as part of a larger Zionist influence. - A broad accusation that the entire COVID agenda was orchestrated by Zionist Jews, with the claim that they want “all you people dead” in the land of Edom, and that Trump is the head of Edom. The speaker contends that people are being killed off with injections and that “Amalek” wants all non-Jews dead. - The speaker describes the claim that Trump authorized a military operation (Operation Warp Speed) on 03/27/2020, approved by the DOD, and that the whole COVID agenda is tied to Zionist Jews with dual citizenship. - Personal accusation: the speaker’s son is dying from the vaccine Trump brought out, and they urge warning to fellow Americans. - The speaker references their own social media handle (trump_played_you) and repeatedly urges the idea that Trump is their Messiah and will return, concluding with the statement that “Trump’s gonna kill all you people.” - The dialogue closes with a crowd interaction about the back of a shirt and a chant of “Go, Trump. Go, Trump.”

Speaker 0: Michael and I are not easily scared, except when Michelle is angry. Speaker 1: They fooled the country and the world. Speaker 0: They had us all fooled. Speaker 1: Will we see the first gay or woman president? Let's not jump to conclusions. Speaker 0: Michelle is a transgender. We all know.

Speaker 0 believes that with Trump's victory, corruption will be exposed and eliminated in Washington, causing anxiety for individuals like Eric Swalwell. Speaker 1 adds that people have long sensed something was wrong, and under Trump, the truth has been revealed. They feel satisfied knowing that those involved are panicking. Speaker 1 also mentions CNN's extreme reaction, including comparing Trump to Osama Bin Laden. This demonstrates their panic. Speaker 1 concludes that Trump needs to return to the White House.

Speaker 0 expresses anger and threatens those who support Trump. Speaker 1 apologizes, and Speaker 2 also apologizes. Speaker 0 continues to express anger and clarifies that they only want to fight those who are causing problems.

Michelle: “We love you. I will see you tomorrow. Until then, have a great rest of your evening.” Speaker 1: “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. It’s going to be only America first. America first. The American people will come first once again.”

Speaker 0 states that someone likes them and put them in the movies a long time ago. They claim to have not judged anything, and that "they hate the dog." Speaker 1 warns not to be fooled by attempts to humanize someone and change perceptions of who they are. Speaker 0 confirms the discussion is about Trump.

Speaker 0: Oppose white supremacists. Don't single out the press. Speaker 1: We already have a black mayor. No need for more black big shots. Speaker 0: Determine if you support Trump, you're not black. Can't go to a 711 without an Indian accent. Speaker 2: We used to joke about that, but he was a friend, mentor, and a great guy.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, a mother of two daughters, about Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment. Speaker 0 asks if that language makes Speaker 1 feel that Trump is not her guy. Speaker 1 responds that she would "rather be grabbed by the pussy than have a pussy for president" and that she is happy with that language, claiming everyone uses rude language behind closed doors. She then brings up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Speaker 0 reiterates she is talking about the current president-elect, not the past. Speaker 1 says she is not offended by Trump's comments from 8 years ago and tells Speaker 0 to deal with her own issues. Speaker 0 asks if anyone is remotely concerned about the nature of Trump. Speaker 1 responds that America needed someone with a strong lead who would stand up for white and black people, bring back jobs, allow Americans to have weapons, and ensure a conservative Supreme Court. She states that is why pollsters, broadcasters, commentators, and pundits were wrong.

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 states they would rather have a hundred bad haircuts or a hundred vaccination shots than deal with a hundred days of Donald Trump. Speaker 1 says they would rather take a hundred scammer calls or listen to a hundred children on a bus singing "a hundred bottles of beer on the wall" than go through the last hundred days. Speaker 0 says they would rather sit in a traffic jam on Interstate 84 for one hundred hours. Speaker 1 states they would rather cook a hundred family meals or take the bar exam a hundred times than have another hundred days of the Trump administration.

Speaker 0 asks if the speakers support Trump being indicted. Speaker 1 strongly opposes it, calling Trump the greatest of all time and claiming he was set up. Speaker 2 also opposes it, believing Trump can bring positive change. Speaker 3 sees it as political persecution and predicts it will increase Trump's support. When asked if their lives were better under Trump or Biden, Speaker 1 and Speaker 4 both express support for Trump, citing foreign policy, inflation, and border security as reasons. They want to "make America great again."

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

Speaker 0 introduces humor about President Trump, saying, “I give president Trump quite a hard time, but sometimes that dude is just funny as hell. Check this out.” Speaker 1 asks, “And mister president, if you are declaring war against these cartels and congress is likely to approve of that process, why not just ask for a declaration of war?” Speaker 2 responds, “Well, I don't think we're gonna necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. Okay? We're gonna kill them. You know? They're gonna be, like, dead. Okay? Mister president. Yeah. Mister president.” Speaker 0 reiterates, “I don't think we need a declaration of war. We're just gonna we're just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, and they're gonna they're gonna be dead. Okay. Yeah. Like it was just no big deal, man. We're just we're just killing people without trial, without a jury, without being convicted of a crime. You know? We're just we're just gonna kill them. Okay? Dude's funny as hell.”

The conversation threads through a tangled set of relationships and alleged secrets surrounding Erika and her past marriages. Speaker 0 introduces Erika’s first husband, Derek Chelsvigg, and notes a young daughter from Erika’s earlier marriage, questioning why this history is hidden and suggesting possible trafficking concerns. They mention an apparent photoshoot with Erika’s ex-husband and speculate about whether Erika had another daughter, while observing that information about her past is being scrubbed online. The speakers reference Erika’s old Instagram and her ex-husband’s social media remaining private, implying secrecy around Erika’s past. They wonder if Erika is a time traveler and recall a past shoot with someone named Tyler, asking whether he was murdered or disappeared. They mention Cabot Phillips dating Erika after the marriage, and a timeline: seven days after that marriage, Cabot Phillips is seen playing ball with someone named Charlie. They propose theories that Erika could have harmed Charlie or that Charlie simply disappeared, and note that an ex-boyfriend may have reappeared in the scene. The possibility is raised that Erika is a honeypot moving between relationships, with “stepping stones” in her life. Speaker 0 also reveals that Erika has a sister, and asks where she is. Speaker 2 introduces a whistleblower: an insider who warns that exposing the truth would provoke retaliation against him and anyone who helps him. This person found emails, approvals, and signatures tying Erika’s wife’s charity work to the same network, and says he didn’t yell or accuse but went quiet, believing that if Erika is part of the network, everything has been a lie. For him, the matter shifted from politics to a personal crisis, and he says that if he stays quiet, he’s “one of them”; if he speaks, he’s dead, but people deserve to know. Speaker 0 asserts that Charlie discovered information about Erika and discussed filing for divorce two days before Charlie’s disappearance; there has still been no autopsy released, and Erika is the only person who could release it, labeled as “Sussy.” Speaker 1 announces a situation that is “absolutely out of control,” criticizing incompetent politicians and referencing a presidential figure, then broadens to state-level politics with John McCain mentioned. The speaker complains about campaign contributions, special interests, and lobbyists, and predicts political turnover. They vow to “make this country so great again” and describe an event where, according to the speaker, reporters who were crying were present—hard, better reporters who were once known to the speaker as not good people. The exchange ends with a more casual check-in: “How you doing back there?”

Speaker 0: Will Donald Trump win the presidency? Speaker 1: No way. Speaker 0: Trump will never be president. Speaker 1: He won't be elected. Speaker 0: Take it to the bank, he will never be president. Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton has a 100% chance of winning. Speaker 0: What can Trump do to turn things around? Speaker 1: We don't care about Kentucky or Indiana. Speaker 0: All red in the middle of the country. Speaker 1: Ohio is done. Speaker 0: Panic time in Florida. Speaker 1: Trump is now the favorite. Speaker 0: Utah is their only hope.

Speaker 0 expresses doubt about Donald Trump's ability to save the country, suggesting that he should focus on himself first. They mention that people don't appreciate the fact that he is aware of what they have been doing. Speaker 0 believes that Trump cares about the city and women in particular. They emphasize that he is not just concerned about his own family but also about everyone else.

The speaker defends the use of explicit language by saying that it is common behind closed doors and that real men use even ruder language. They argue that Trump's comments were made in a private conversation years ago and point out the scandals involving Bill Clinton. The other speaker tries to shift the focus to the future and expresses concern about the president-elect's behavior. The first speaker dismisses these concerns and emphasizes the need for a strong leader who will prioritize the interests of all Americans, including white people. They criticize the media and pollsters for underestimating Trump's support.

Speaker 0 states they are a proud American, but that doesn't mean they have to be proud of the "Cheeto" in charge. Speaker 1 repeats the sentiment, referring to the "Cheeto" in charge and telling them to "get off" the idea of "making America great." Speaker 0 questions if what is currently happening is "making America great," asking, "Are you serious?"

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 asserts that drones are in the air all day and mentions Palantir as “keeping tabs of on everything that was happening,” suggesting Palantir’s involvement in Gaza. Speaker 1 confirms Palantir’s involvement in Gaza, noting a long-standing relationship with Israel that began in 2014 and significantly scaled up during the Gaza events starting in 2020. They describe the source as biased and imply the article’s phrasing is questionable, but acknowledge the basic fact of Palantir’s use in Israel, including a mention that it’s “even on palantir.com.” - The discussion shifts to perceptions of bias in reporting. Speaker 2 notes that when Jamie mentions an article, Joe Rogan quickly labels it “a very biased article and that no one should trust it,” arguing that Palantir’s technology being used in Israel is a well-known fact. This is presented as something Joe Rogan “plays super dumb to,” influenced by fear of Peter Thiel, according to Speaker 2. - There is a critique of Joe Rogan’s appearance or demeanor, with Speaker 0 making a flippant remark and Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 continuing the thread about Joe’s attitude toward the information and his handlers. - The conversation revisits Joe Rogan’s relationship with his “handlers,” with Speaker 2 suggesting Joe’s handlers have been upset with him, possibly due to a recent Dave Smith podcast in which Rogan appeared anti-MAGA, calling MAGA supporters “a bunch of dorks,” and criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration policy while praising Obama-era deportations. Speaker 2 recounts that JD Vance said he would text Rogan to tell him he was wrong, indicating tension or pressure from political allies. - Speaker 1 quotes/digests a broader concept: “America is great. Make America greater, I’m down. But make America great again and then it becomes a movement of a bunch of fucking dorks,” noting that many participants are “dorks” and “real genuine patriots,” and that the idea of making America great is good, but the inclusivity of the team leads to problems. - Speaker 3 challenges a claim: Rogan roasted the Trump administration and suggested that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are better at deporting people than Rogan, claiming this is almost an exact quote, and questions whether MAGA is “full of dorks.” The group contemplates whether the audience includes many dorks, but asserts a distinction between dorks and genuine patriots. - The dialogue concludes with Speaker 2 asserting that there are people in the government with direct contact to Joe Rogan who push their agenda, implying Rogan might be under pressure to align with certain positions. This is presented alongside the idea that Joe is “skating on extremely thin ice” with these figures, and that Theo’s critique of the administration contributed to tensions. Joe’s response is characterized as telling Theo to “chill out and stop talk.”