TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they had socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 had ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

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

The speaker notes that people might be surprised that he has never interacted with Donald Trump face to face, though that is about to change. The speaker then references a statement made last month by Trump, who suggested that the speaker turned black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of his identity. The speaker dismisses this as the same old tired playbook and declines to comment further. The speaker then expresses confusion as to why a shot wasn't taken. The speaker reiterates that people might be surprised that he has never interacted with Trump.

Speaker 0: Did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between Donald Trump and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: I saw information intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation of conclusion was taking place. Speaker 0: That doesn't help us a lot. What was the nature of the information? Speaker 1: As I said, mister Gowdy, I think this committee now has access to the type of information that I'm alluding to here. It's classified and I'm happy to talk about it in classified session. Speaker 0: And that would have been directly between the candidate and Russian state actors? Speaker 1: That's not what I said. I'm not going to talk about any individual's But Speaker 0: that was my question.

The speaker questions the credibility of the individual, pointing out their attendance at a press conference and debate related to Donald Trump. The individual struggles to recall details of their involvement, including who invited them and how they arrived. Despite being pressed for answers, the individual maintains that their lawyers handled arrangements. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt in the individual's testimony.

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

Speaker 1 clarifies that he was not calling Trump supporters garbage, reading: "I refer to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage, which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable." "That's all I meant to say." "The comments the comments at the rally don't reflect who we are as a nation." "No." "He does not view Trump supporters or anybody who who supports Trump as garbage." He adds: "If the president has said this for more than three years now, he has said multiple times that he is a president for all. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state. It doesn't matter if you live in a blue state." "He believes that he's a president for all."

The conversation covers a mix of topics centered on political connections and accountability. It begins with a reference to Barack Obama, noting he “was president of The United States,” followed by a remark about his time in Chicago and a comment attributed to him: “only black people could live that way.” Attorney Klein is brought into the discussion, and there is a transition to turnover of questions and answers. A committee issue is raised: Speaker 2 accuses the person addressed of misleading the committee, including a contradictory written submission. The person responds that they will review the matter “in our next break to correct the record,” answering “Yes” to whether they will review it. The dialogue then addresses political campaign involvement. Speaker 2 asks whether the person helped out the president’s campaign, acted as a representative or spokesman, and whether it was their idea for the campaign dating back to 2011; the response given is “Yes.” Speaker 3 asks for identification of individuals associated with the Trump organization. The person confirms several individuals: Alan Weisenberg as the Chief Financial Officer, and Miss Rona Graf as the executive assistant to Mr. Trump. The request is for as many names as possible so the committee can meet them. The person confirms Rona Graf’s position and explains that she is the executive assistant, with her office directly next to Mr. Trump’s, and notes that she has been involved in a lot of what went on. There is a reflective aside from Speaker 1 about the difficulty of following the proceedings in real time, and a critical observation regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement: questions are raised about why Epstein would have the contact information of the executive assistant and why she would feel comfortable texting him back during a congressional hearing. Speaker 4 adds commentary on hierarchy and motivation, suggesting that Epstein’s influence is reflected in the assistant’s actions: “Epstein's clearly paying her… she's just following her marching orders for her paycheck.” The exchange ends with the implication that the hierarchy and payoffs influence the responses and behavior of those connected to the Trump organization.

You're a poll worker, right? Why did you say Trump is a racist while people were walking in? I'm not a poll worker. But you and others were saying it. How can you tell me that? Whatever. I'll be reporting this to your supervisor.

Speaker 0: "I don't understand why it's a hostile act. I talked to president Clinton... I'm sorry, president, Trump back in 2009 and several times after that. He didn't think that it was a hoax then. In fact, he helped me. He got on the phone. He told me things that were helping our investigation." Speaker 1: "The only thing... Trump is the only person who, in 02/2009, picked up the phone and said, let's just talk. I'll give you as much time as you want. I'll tell you what you need to know and was very helpful in the information that he gave and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward whatsoever, but had good information that checked out and that helped us. And then we didn't have to take a deposition of him." "So Do you know if there's any truth to James Patterson's claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar A Lago?" Speaker 0: "I've definitely heard that." Speaker 2: "Epstein was inappropriate with the member's daughter. I went to mister Trump and he threw him right out." Speaker 3: "So it's your understanding then that president Trump didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to?" Speaker 0: "That is correct." Speaker 2: "Epstein liked stars... He loaned Clinton his plane at least on four occasions and it was, it had to do with the foundation." Speaker 4: "The pilot said Trump was on the plane; it was actually a trip from Mar A Lago to New York, not to the island." Speaker 0: "And our investigation wasn't looking into him, but he was helping us then. He didn't treat this as a hoax. I want transparency." Speaker 3: "Did anybody see or hear of the president himself doing anything inappropriate as it related to Jeffrey Epstein? No."

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

Speaker 0: 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 makes a controversial statement about being black and supporting Trump. They also make a comment about poor kids and white kids. Speaker 2 suggests bringing social workers into homes to help parents raise their children. Speaker 0 mentions needing an Indian accent to go to certain places. They also describe an ideal African American person. Speaker 1 talks about the challenges of registering and going online in the Hispanic and African American communities. Speaker 0 emphasizes the diversity within the Latino community. They also discuss the importance of taking action against criminals, regardless of their background. The transcript ends with a derogatory remark.

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

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

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

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

Speaker 0 accuses the man of lying, noting he claims he only ever met him once while they had lived next to him for twenty-some years. Speaker 1 explains that, with his wife present, they apologized, left, and decided they will never be in the room with that disgusting person again—social, business, or philanthropy—because that guy was there. Speaker 0 adds that it’s a disgrace how this guy has a job today, calling him a proven liar advising the president of the United States every day, and says they’re done with these people.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

You were asked why black voters should trust you after using offensive language. You defended your record, mentioning employment, opportunity zones, and support for historically black colleges. You criticized the interviewer for being late and for the hostile question. You claimed to be the best president for black people since Abraham Lincoln, dismissing the question as disrespectful.

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.

Of the thousands of lawyers that you could hire to help you through this process, why Marc's aid? Mark Zaid is a leading opponent of president Trump, notorious for his online activity that is very anti Trump. He was heavily involved in president Trump's first impeachment. and furthermore, he advised his clients to leave the country after president Trump won the twenty twenty four election. So I actually was not aware of of any of those, details associated with Mark Notorious for his anti Trump activity and involvement. And you hire you hired that guy. Mark Zaid and I have never spoken about politics. I never asked him about his politics. He has never asked me about my politics. So you're claiming to be naive about Mark Zaid's political activity as he sits behind you advising you for this hearing I have not had That's astonishing.

The transcript discusses Robert Morris, identified as the founder and pastor of a large evangelical Zionist megachurch in Texas, who also served as a spiritual adviser to Donald Trump during his first term in office. The speaker asserts that Morris pled guilty to six counts of abusing a 12-year-old girl, and notes that Morris was sentenced to six months in jail. The speaker emphasizes the severity of the crime by repeating that Morris pled guilty to six counts and adds the claim that “six months in jail” is the sentence he received. The speaker emphasizes Morris’s prominence by noting the church’s size and Morris’s role as Trump’s spiritual adviser in the first term, highlighting the juxtaposition between Morris’s public leadership position and the criminal charges mentioned. The narrative repeatedly stresses the discrepancy between the gravity of the alleged crime and the relatively short jail sentence, underscoring the speaker’s perception of leniency. In addition to presenting the factual sequence—identity of Morris, his role, the guilty plea on six counts, and the six-month sentence—the speaker injects personal commentary to convey strong condemnation. The speaker states, “I guess it pays to be a piece of shit,” using this harsh judgment to comment on the situation. They further add, “If it was up to me, this guy would be and some other things that I really can't talk about here on this platform,” signaling an intent to withhold further discussion of consequences in this venue but conveying a desire for more severe punishment. A recurring question frames the remainder of the remarks: “My question is why is there so many people that are directly involved in Trump's circle that are getting accused and sentenced and pleading guilty to being cheese pizza? Why? Why is that?” This rhetorical inquiry points to a broader concern raised by the speaker about others in Trump’s circle facing criminal accusations, guilty pleas, or sentences, and it uses the phrase “being cheese pizza” as a descriptor within that inquiry. The content of the transcript centers on the alleged crime, the sentencing, and the speaker’s pointed critique of the perceived pattern among individuals connected to Trump.