reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I've encountered people like Trump before, and so have you. These are guys who avoid paying their taxes by claiming they're smart and know how to manipulate the system. But I'm fed up with these so-called smart guys. We truly believe in our son. He is incredibly intelligent.

The speaker criticizes Tucker Carlson for calling him a "weird gay kid in the basement" from Chicago, arguing Carlson is an out-of-touch elite pretending to represent disaffected white people. The speaker claims to be a genuine "disaffected white young white man" who was "red pilled by Trump" and punished for questioning Israel, unlike Carlson and Candace Owens, who only addressed Israel recently. The speaker contrasts his background with Carlson's privileged upbringing and his father's alleged CIA connections. He also contrasts himself with Owens' marriage to British royalty. He accuses Carlson of hypocrisy for mocking people in basements while supposedly caring about issues like credit card debt and home ownership. He highlights his own working-class background and struggles, contrasting it with Carlson's elite connections and Peter Thiel's alleged involvement with the CIA. He states that he had to fight for everything he has, unlike Owens and Carlson who received contracts and jobs through connections.

Speaker 0 claims his life is awesome, while Speaker 1 is going to work. Speaker 0 mocks Speaker 1 for going to community college and working with his hands. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of shitting on blue-collar workers while trying to appeal to them. Speaker 0 clarifies he is trying to appeal to rich people and identifies as an elitist, "kind of" like Richard Spencer. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0 has never worked with his hands and lives a terrible life. Speaker 0 says he likes being poor and that it's manly. Speaker 1 says he's not poor, it's just cheaper to live the way he does. Speaker 1 asserts that every functional member of society works, except Speaker 0. Speaker 1 says he'd rather be a functional member of society than be unique. Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 wants to be a cog.

The speakers discuss the pressures that come with being in the public eye and having wealth. Speaker 1 notes that revealing personal material isn’t hard, but revealing it and then being told you’re a spoiled white rich kid makes it difficult, implying judgments from others based on background. Speaker 0 responds by asking if this is something Speaker 1 has faced personally, to which Speaker 2 confirms the world’s judgment and acknowledges the challenge of being the son of a public figure who faces assumptions about him. Speaker 2 explains that he understands what it’s like to be the son of a prominent figure and to have people make assumptions, describing it as very difficult. Speaker 0 asks how he handled it, and Speaker 2 recalls the 1960s atmosphere with plenty of drugs but emphasizes the need to block out extraneous noise. He says this is the first time the young man is receiving a lot of attention, with both his father and grandfather in the picture, and people will say whatever they want. They note that others don’t understand what he has experienced or why he has acted as he has. The conversation highlights that simply being born into wealth does not shield anyone from issues, and suggests that people often misunderstand human complexity. Speaker 1 adds a contrast, pointing out that tabloids or social circles criticize wealthy individuals (citing the Kardashians as an example of shopping yet complaining about air conditioning) while not harshly judging them for similar behavior. The group discusses the reaction to a film about drug use and personal struggle, noting that people have said things about it despite its topic. Speaker 2 emphasizes staying focused on their goals and what they do. Speaker 0 reflects on their project’s purpose and reiterates focus. Speaker 2 recounts telling his son during the movie’s production that he doesn’t care about external validation or whether anyone sees the film; he says, “We’re winning,” because they are dedicating themselves to their work and positive outcomes are emerging. Finally, Speaker 2 mentions an NPR appearance where listeners called in to express gratitude for sharing their story and describing how it helped them with their own struggles, underscoring the potential positive impact of their efforts.

The speaker claims that "Ma'am Donnie's" Robin Hood persona is fake and that he is a manufactured communist candidate. Campaign records allegedly show that $1,600,000 of the $1,700,000 donated to his campaign was funneled through a single bundler. Only 77 individual contributions, totaling $0, had no bundler attribution. His campaign then received $7,000,000 in matching funds, and Super PACs added another $1,900,000, bringing the total to $10,600,000. The speaker asserts that "this guy" wants socialism, which is communism in disguise, despite growing up in a wealthy Manhattan neighborhood with a filmmaker mother and a professor father, attending private schools, and living in a $2,000,000 apartment. "Ma'am Donnie" is quoted as critiquing capitalism and advocating for a better distribution of wealth, echoing Dr. King. Despite being a "nepo baby" who got his first job at 29, he stated that he doesn't think billionaires should exist.

Having a spouse that's good at insider trading, like Paul Pelosi, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how some people acquire wealth. Talking about the other methods is risky, and frankly, it's not lengthening my life expectancy to discuss this. I was supposed to go back to DC, but how am I going to survive? These people are going to kill me for sure. I actually have to be careful that I don't push too hard on the corruption stuff because it's going to get me killed.

I could be a dog catcher and was voted for president twice. But someone interrupts, asking to talk about Jeffrey Epstein and the Lolita Express. The conversation gets interrupted again, but the speaker mentions feeling sad about Arkansas.

Speaker 0 confronts someone over a claim about their net worth, reacting with disbelief and frustration. The sequence centers on the assertion that the person is “worth 50” or “worth $50,000,000,” which Speaker 0 treats as unbelievable and insists that they should stop believing such stuff. The phrases escalate: “You're worth 50 I'm million not worth $50,000,000. 30 to 50,000,000 the fucking Internet, son.” Speaker 0 urges the other person to “Just stop believing that stuff,” expressing irritation at the claim and at the surrounding debate. As the exchange continues, Speaker 0 attempts to disengage from the conversation, saying, “Go back to cable news. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry,” then veers back to the core tension: “But I'm just look. Okay. You're too annoy you're too annoying.” They reference a prior interaction with “the last chick who, like, disagreed with me,” noting that such a person could have “a normal conversation,” implying that the current back-and-forth is derailed by the insistence on the wealth claim. The dialogue emphasizes the incredulity and defensive reaction to the wealth assertion. Speaker 0 repeats the accusation that the other person is stating they are worth “$50,000,000,” and presses, “Stop. You got real defensive there.” They describe the situation as reading “a number that's like a lot of money” and admonish, “Jesus Christ, calm down. Don't don't use that phrase.” The pattern of insistence followed by outbursts continues: “You're worth I I we're done. Well, look Just just stop. I say one Don't no. You can't. Not after you say that. Leave. Alright.” Overall, the exchange centers on Speaker 0 challenging what they perceive as an inflated claim about wealth, expressing frustration with the other person’s defensiveness and view that the claim is inappropriate for a calm discussion, and ultimately signaling a desire to end the conversation if the claim persists.

The speaker is being accused of being a CIA operative by Tucker Carlson and Peter Thiel's associates. Tucker Carlson called the speaker a "weird gay kid in the basement" from Chicago with trust funds, while Carlson attended a private high school and Ivy League school, and his father was a Reagan appointee. The speaker identifies as a "disaffected young white man" who was "red pilled" by Trump and punished for questioning Israel, years before Carlson addressed the topic. The speaker accuses Carlson and Candace Owens of gatekeeping and personality attacks, forgetting they pander to the same demographic. The speaker contrasts his background with Carlson's elite upbringing and Owens' marriage to British royalty. The speaker questions who is inauthentic, highlighting his own struggles and contrasting them with Carlson's CIA-linked father and connections to Peter Thiel. The speaker claims Carlson's and Owens' success came from contracts and connections, while he fought for everything.

The speaker questions the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious founder of Bitcoin, noting that the person apparently died but no one knows who he was. They grew up in Washington, DC, in a government family, and speculate it could be a CIA connection, though they admit they cannot prove it. The speaker expresses skepticism about investing in something with a founder who is shrouded in mystery and mentions billions of dollars of unused Bitcoin. They ask, “What is that?” and point out that even among the biggest Bitcoin holders they know personally, the common attitude is that it doesn’t matter, whereas for the speaker it does matter.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

The speaker acknowledges the strong influence of donors, special interests, and lobbyists over politicians. They claim to have turned down significant amounts of money from these sources, stating that they are not accepting any money from anyone except the people of the country. Speaker 1 brings up the speaker's past relationship with Hillary Clinton, suggesting that it worked for her. The speaker responds by saying that as a businessman, it was their job to get along with people, including politicians. They emphasize that they did a good job in doing so.

I'm not sure if Musk was pro-apartheid. He grew up while it was happening, before Nelson Mandela fixed it. But he might have been too young. I don't know for sure. So, Elon, please don't sue me! It feels like others can say anything, but we have to be careful. That's why this show is important.

“Even his name is fake.” He didn’t go by Vance until he was 30; Vance was the name of his meemaw, and he changed his name to Vance before publishing a book he’d long been working on about his meemaw. For thirty years he was JD Hamill and went by other names. He talks about his book at the Aspen Institute and at investment bank retreats. “He’s the deplorable Trump whisperer,” and “a complete artifice that was created by neocons and defense contractors.” “Peter Thiel’s net worth comes from an intelligence contractor called Palantir,” founded with In-Q-Tel; its first client for seven years was the CIA. The speaker says Vance is fabricated, backed by Silicon Valley liberals and intelligence interests, pushed as a dissident right winger. “Vance for president 2028”—born a week after Trump’s inauguration in 2017; “not organic to get $15,000,000 to run for senate from a CIA contractor.”

The speaker questions the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, describing him as mysterious and noting that he apparently died, but no one knows who he was. The speaker adds that they grew up in Washington, DC, primarily in a government family, guessing CIA involvement but acknowledging they cannot prove it. They express concern about investing in something whose founder is so enigmatic and who allegedly holds billions of dollars of unused Bitcoin, asking, “what is that?” The speaker emphasizes that no one can answer this question, even among some of the biggest holders of Bitcoin in the world, whom the speaker knows personally. Those holders say, “it doesn’t matter,” but for the speaker, it matters.

The speaker references Brock Pierce, described as an Epstein client and alleged child abuser and as a cofounder of Tethr, and asks, “Who is friends with Epstein client and alleged child abuser, Tethr cofounder Brock Pierce.” They then say, “I don't know shit about Brock's history, and I've never met him. I don't know if he's an Epstein client. I don't know anything about these allegations, and I don't really care at this point because it doesn't affect my life at all.”

Speaker condemns the notion of privilege, stating, "Privilege isn't being white, bonehead. Privilege is living in government housing and calling people oppressors while they pay your fucking bills." Real privilege is "wearing $200 sneakers when you haven't worked a day in your life" and "walking around with $300 Beats headphones... on food stamps," paid for by "people who wake up and grind every day." Privilege also means "being able to protest every little thing that offends you" without worrying about calling in sick to work, and "being able to cheat, lie, fail over and over again... and still get bailed out" while others who "play by the rules" get punished. This isn't about race. This is about accountability. The speaker decries a culture that rewards victimhood and taxes the people who keep society running, arguing for a return to a "society of strong men."

The speaker states they are "extraordinarily loaded" due to inherited money from multiple trust funds, including the "Swanson deal." They claim never to have needed to work and that their involvement with cable news was merely a "phase." The speaker admits to being an "elitist" and an "asshole," but clarifies they are an "out of the closet elitist" who doesn't pretend to be a "man of the people."

The speaker asks about the message to Democrat billionaires regarding stopping corporate greed, and the response is "be billionaires." The speaker then asks if that sentiment applies to people like George Soros. The response clarifies that it's not about everything, but becoming a billionaire requires impressing someone, indicating a failure of the system. When asked if some billionaires are good, Bill Gates is mentioned as an example because he is "curing aide."

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

Candace Owens is described as a former friend of Charlie and at one time an employee of Turning Point, accused of peddling conspiracies and “building her business off of these lies,” with the assertion that she is making “a huge amount of money” from them. The speaker’s response to Candace Owens and others spreading these lies is simply: “Stop.” The conversation then shifts to a revelation that the interview was prerecorded, with sources from CBS News and audience members who say they had to do multiple takes because Barry wanted to read a prompter and questions were pre-submitted. In addressing the question, the speaker asserts that the podcaster Candace Owens and others are “lying,” and that “All of the money. Millions upon millions of dollars” have been earned by some people, while others did not benefit as claimed. The speaker argues that Candace Owens implies that building a business from podcasting results in immediate wealth, but claims the speaker “already had this business” and was “already at top of the chart.” Eric responds, and the speaker’s response to what to say to Candace Owens who is lying is “stop,” with a request for Erica to be explicit about what was lied about. The speaker claims to have reviewed lists and cannot find the lie, asserting that “The lies that I find are coming out of Turning Point USA.” Examples cited as lies from Turning Point USA include Mikey’s blood on him, Mikey’s dad being confused, and Rob McCoy’s statements about his father, which the speaker says Rob McCoy was confused about. The speaker also says Mikey’s departure as a hero does not feel honest, and alleges Charlie’s claim that he stopped a 30-06 bullet due to healthy eating and strong bones was a modern-day Christian miracle and a lie. The speaker asserts Charlie never wavered in his support for Israel, calling that a “nasty lie,” and accuses Turning Point USA of lying about Charlie’s life in the last weeks. The speaker also mentions claims that Barry won something, and questions whether Charlie’s evangelical commitment and preference for Catholic architecture were misrepresented as lies. The speaker notes further that Turning Point USA lied about various other points, including a supposed “blood bad blood” between Ben Chifferro and others, and Terrell Farnsworth being told to remove an SD card by police, stating that Terrell Farnsworth personally told the speaker that was not true. The speaker claims Terrell removed the SD cards because hats were being stolen, not because of other thefts, and questions the logic of taking the cameras instead of just the SD card, especially the camera behind Terrell’s head. Additional alleged lies include Charlie establishing a Doge, which is claimed not to have existed, and prior to Elon Musk’s government-accountability remark, that Charlie Christine flew drones—described as a major lie by Brian Harpold, who also allegedly stated that security had communicated with UB police to secure rooftops, which the speaker calls a lie. The speaker asks what they lied about, acknowledging mistakes but insisting they have not found a lie, and asks why there isn’t the same energy about lies from the feds, who allegedly told lies as well. The speaker references missing footage of Tyler Robinson turning himself in, unresolved questions about Egyptian planes, and years of tracking Charlie and Erika, with others laughing at these points. The speaker asks explicitly what they lied about and requests clarity, noting possible time-zone mistakes and a timeline discrepancy, and asking where the speaker is lying.

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.

The transcript contrasts “legend” that young Bill Gates built his computer empire out of his garage with “reality” that Gates was born into wealth and privilege. It says his grandfather and great grandfather were banking moguls, and that his father, William Gates senior, was a prominent Seattle-based lawyer and political lobbyist. It adds that Gates learned the “ins and outs” of law and politics and “how to manipulate those governing forces.” The transcript includes Bill Gates’ identity statement (“I’m Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft.”). It claims Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft and is credited with inventing the operating system that became Windows, but says he “played no part” in Windows’ invention, stating that he bought an existing operating system from Seattle Computer Products, had it modified, and licensed it to IBM “then licensed it to IBM,” while still taking credit. It also includes Paul Allen suffering from cancer while Gates allegedly “seized the opportunity” by attempting to cheat Allen out of his share of Microsoft’s fortune. A deposition excerpt describes Allen’s share being planned to be diluted “down to almost nothing.” The transcript says Gates’ business strategies came under fire in 1998 when the United States Department of Justice sued Microsoft for antitrust violations, and that Gates gave hours of videotape testimony during an eighteen-month trial. It then says that, “in a move to overshadow the negative press,” Gates invested $100,000,000 to set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, transforming his public image and leading to a doubling of his net worth and him being titled the richest man in the world. It includes a claim from Gates about vaccines producing “over a 20 to one return,” citing a Wall Street essay that calls vaccines “the best investment I’ve ever made.” The transcript describes the Gates Foundation expanding into a vertically integrated multinational organization and includes claims about controversy: it says critics ask whether the world’s largest private philanthropy is causing harm, alleging investments in “69 of the worst polluting companies” and other portfolio accusations including forcing people to lose their homes, child labor, defrauding, and neglecting patients, while stating the Foundation “has not provided details.” It also claims Gates is a top donor to the WHO and CDC and that “no one man” has more power than Gates to influence health and medical freedom. It then presents vaccine-and-policy statements and planning language: “Normalcy only returns when we’ve largely vaccinated the entire global population,” “Until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk,” and “We need to produce it and to deploy it in every single corner of the world,” including full vaccination of children and pregnant women, syringes already bought, and military mobilization for rapid distribution. A historical section says Ronald Reagan signed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986, granting total immunity to vaccine manufacturers, and that after a decade of lawsuits, vaccine makers were going bankrupt. It claims taxpayers would pay damages for adverse reactions. The transcript then asserts events in India: allegations about tribal girls being used as guinea pigs after HPV vaccine administration; it says caregivers were told they were being given “wellness shots” and some were misled that it would cure cancer, with seizures, cancer, and “seven girls” dying. It states India created a task force, studied the matter, and “kicked out the Gates Foundation,” while also saying the foundation denies having clinical trials. The transcript claims scientific findings about polio vaccine-related paralysis in India and says the story was buried by U.S.-based media and fact checkers, while pointing to an NIH.gov posting. It further asserts that without medical training, Bill and Melinda Gates founded the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization to vaccinate the world, and claims governments of some countries sued it for causing serious harm through experimental programs. Later, the transcript lists other alleged initiatives: a Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment to block out the sun, Earth Now’s global surveillance with hundreds of satellites, an “invisible certificate” vaccine/records concept using “quantum dot tattoo” scanning, genetically modified mosquito releases for malaria, and “flying syringes.” It also claims the New York Times reported connections between Gates and Jeffrey Epstein, saying they met multiple times, traveled on Epstein’s plane, and were involved in cofounding a charitable fund. The transcript ends by posing a framing question about Gates being “either the most misunderstood man alive, or one of the most convincing con men,” and includes a closing personal sentiment from an unspecified speaker expressing a desire to believe Gates is doing good and unaware of damage.

Speaker 0: “You shoot me with that. I’m shooting you with mine. Your butt is built on bad people, bro. You're Hold on. Right here. Good. $9.45. 9. It’s only okay to And I got $3.80 in my bucket. Your side. Yeah. Yeah. It’s a big shame. It’s embarrassing. I almost bought my 40, but I’m an ex con.”