reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I apologize to everyone here. However, our apology is not accepted by the speaker. They are tired of liberal apologies and believe they hold no value. They mention an ethics violation in February and another one now. They criticize our pride on the first day and claim that Justin Trudeau's actions prove we cannot be nonpartisan. They suggest that if we have any integrity, we should step down.

The speaker begins by making offensive racial remarks and claims that the jokes were written by Whoopi Goldberg. They proceed to make more offensive comments and insults towards others. The speaker is confronted about their language, but continues with their offensive remarks. The transcript abruptly ends.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane. The speaker admits to previously attacking people who questioned 9/11. The speaker states they are now ashamed of this behavior, but admits to doing it on tape more than once. The speaker claims their reasoning at the time was that questioning 9/11 was divisive. The speaker concludes that they were a child and an idiot at the time.

The speaker was asked what office they were elected to and if they needed support. The speaker responded that they are not the one to ask and that the person should speak with a man. The speaker then stated that they speak to over a million people.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

The speaker discusses an unnamed woman whose teleprompter went off, and she "didn't do well." The speaker relates to this, saying it has happened to them, and "you have to be able to do it." The speaker believes the woman "shouldn't be there anyway." The speaker then says "North Carolina is so bad," and mentions Kamala Harris was there for 3 hours today.

A speaker stated that some males will refuse to vote for a female president because they don't think females are smart enough. The speaker then said, hypothetically, that those men could be lined up and shot for not understanding the way the world works. The speaker immediately retracted the statement and asked for it to be removed from the recording to avoid repercussions from the dean.

A speaker was asked to apologize to Trump or Republicans for sharing a picture of a sign put up in Tucson. The speaker said they would acknowledge wrongdoing when Trump apologizes for racist, misogynistic, sexist, and inflammatory comments about women, people of color, LGBTQ, immigrants, and anyone who disagrees with him. The speaker committed to pausing before sharing posts that might incite harassment. Another speaker, a legal immigrant from Cuba, stated that what the first speaker said constitutes fighting words and hate speech. They claimed the speaker is protected by corporate media and that former President Trump has been attempted suicide twice because the corporate media promotes it.

The speaker denies saying that Europeans are parasites. They state, "I didn't said I don't know what didn't say it. I don't even know what you're talking about." The speaker then urges to move on to the next topic.

Speaker 0, known as the "beautiful vegan Messiah," talks about their name and their dad. They mention liberating pigs from small cages and criticize their mom. They also claim to have a high score on Hot or Not. Speaker 1 interrupts and tries to calm Speaker 0 down, but Speaker 0 continues with offensive language. Speaker 1 calls for security to remove Speaker 0 and apologizes to the audience for the behavior.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

A speaker stated that males are smarter than females, then immediately said that anyone who believes that females are not smart enough to be president should be shot. The speaker then retracted the statement about shooting people, saying they did not want the Dean to hear it.

The event featured a man yelling, "screw the billionaires," followed by a billionaire who was well-received. There was apparent hypocrisy, with dislike for billionaires being conditional. The event also included people mocking Yale attendees, despite the presence of Yale graduates. Democrats present included individuals who had prosecuted sexual predators.

Speaker 0 interrupts and is asked to sit down. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to leave the auditorium. Speaker 2 comments on the situation. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a sick person for turning it into a political issue.

The speaker accuses someone of incompetence, referencing a prior statement made on PBS where they called Joe Biden competent, which they then had to retract. The speaker objects to being insulted publicly by the chairman and claims this behavior is discourteous and outside the committee's guidelines, characterizing it as a personal shot while also criticizing Biden.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

The speaker expresses disapproval of Elon Musk, citing concerns about his behavior and influence. They claim Musk makes Nazi salutes, is being sued for sole child custody due to lack of involvement, and appears high at the White House due to severe drug addiction. The speaker contrasts Musk with Bill Gates, alleging Musk isn't using his wealth to help people. They believe Musk is off the rails, rabidly addicted to drugs, and using his power to influence elections. The speaker predicts Musk's legacy will be unnecessary death, disease, and disability for the world's most vulnerable, not innovation. They state that his behavior is not what it means to be an innovator, an American, or a man.

Harry and Meghan spoke at the United Nations about climate change and its impact on vulnerable communities. However, they faced criticism for using a private jet to travel to a Katy Perry concert in Las Vegas, which contradicted their stance on green issues. The world is currently facing a growing crisis, and it is crucial for our leaders to take action.

The speaker criticized someone for making inappropriate and false personal comments. They mentioned that meeting with President Biden is challenging because he is intelligent, curious, and pays attention to details.

The speaker questions why Greta Thunberg never criticizes Saudi Arabia or Russia, only Western energy. They ask if she will condemn OPEC energy and every delegate who arrived on a private jet. They challenge her to condemn private jets and ask if she has ever been on one. The speaker claims to own 100 private jets and asks if Greta has ever been on one, to which she responds affirmatively.

The speaker is asked about a previous statement regarding having a gay son. The speaker deflects the question and insults the interviewer. The interviewer then brings up the speaker's comments about the trans community and asks if they will continue to address it. The speaker goes on a rant, calling the trans community an infection and expressing opposition to teaching about gender diversity. The speaker concludes by labeling the interviewer as the enemy.

The speaker claims to be the reason college and high school athletes are getting paid. He calls himself "Mister influencer to influencers." He states he fights to eradicate childhood malnutrition. He accuses the mainstream media and Hollywood of being pedophiles until flight logs are released. He asks if he is canceled yet.

The speaker discusses the idea of eating synthetic meat and bugs to combat climate change. They suspect ulterior motives behind this suggestion but acknowledge the role of profit. They claim that the person in question has caused the deaths of thousands of children in India and Africa through medical experiments, including the HPV vaccine. They mention that this individual has been banned from India. The conversation ends abruptly due to time constraints.

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

A speaker stated that some males will refuse to vote for a female president because they don't think females are smart enough. The speaker then said, hypothetically, that those men could be lined up and shot for not understanding the way the world works. The speaker immediately retracted the statement and asked for it to be removed from the recording to avoid repercussions from the dean.