reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asserts: it's a terrible, unspeakable evil, and he believes that himself. When he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down. The president knows.

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

I admitted to tearing up voter registrations and asked if there would be any consequences. I mentioned having three trunks with Alice, but said that I would handle it if necessary. When asked if the Hillary campaign staff was okay with tearing up Republican registrations, I claimed to not know who a reporter named Max was. The speaker mentioned that Max was on his way. When asked if I would let Democratic registrations go through, I said there would be no issues, but did not specify my stance on Republicans. I was given a final chance to respond.

He claimed he had a cold, but having a cold doesn't explain his confusing behavior. Many found it difficult to watch.

"you guys were basically stealing people's stuff and not paying them, and then he wound up murdered." "Also a great tragedy. He committed suicide." "I really do." "It looks like a suicide to me." "No. He was definitely murdered, I think. There were signs of a struggle, of course." "The surveillance camera, the wires had been cut." "Blood in multiple rooms; no indication at all that he was suicidal, no note, and no behavior." "Has there ever been a suicide where there's no indication at all that the person was suicidal who just ordered takeout food?" "Have you talked to the authorities about it?" "I have not talked to the authorities about it." "And his mother claims he was murdered on your orders." "I immediately called a member of congress from California, Ro Khanna, and said, this is crazy. You gotta look into this. And nothing ever happened." "The kid was clearly killed by somebody."

Did you coach a parent on how their biological son could spend the night in hotel rooms with girls during field trips? No, that did not happen.

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

Jake Lang, associated with the group 1776, has been in the news for doing a lot of things. The transcript alleges that yesterday he was driving around the speaker’s city “for some reason humping a goat in the back of a van,” but it clarifies that “Jake's not interested in goats.” The report then claims that Lang is interested in young underage women. It mentions a friend of the speaker, Arlen, also known as the Zurg, who allegedly “does underage things.” The account alleges that Lang was foolish enough to give Arlen his number and was creepy enough to interact with him thinking he was a 15-year-old girl. According to the narrative, Lang and Arlen began working on this back in November by following Lang’s account. Lang purportedly reached out and asked, “you coming to my next protest in Texas?” Lang immediately goes for the phone number. The presenter emphasizes that the profiles involved are clearly high school-related, noting that they “always have some sort of high school and some throwback to being in high school.” The speaker also states that they cannot show the profiles publicly because that would reveal the operation, but reiterates the claim that the profiles are clearly linked to high school imagery. The situation allegedly worsens when Lang insisted on moving the interaction to a text message conversation, saying, “I have too many DMs. Text only, sweetie.” A decoy provides a phone number. Lang becomes chatty and asks, “How old are you, by the way?” The decoy responds that she is 30, and Lang asks questions like, “Why are you up so late, young lady? How old are you, baby? Unless you are under 18.” The decoy then claims, “I’m 15 and sends a selfie.” The speaker states that Lang sends “possibly the creepiest message a 30 year old grown fucking man could send to a 15 year old,” asking, “When do you turn 16?” The decoy replies that she will turn 16 in six months and adds, “I won’t get you in trouble. If that's what you're worried about, I can keep a secret.” Lang reacts by liking the message and pressing further, asking, “What state do you live in? I can’t see you till you’re 16.” The closing remark questions Lang directly: “Jake, you’re 30. Is this crazy right-wing influencer thing going so poorly for you that you have to try fucking children, or are you just a pedophile, bro?”

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

The speaker questions the credibility of the person testifying, mentioning past accusations of lying. The speaker also brings up payments made to the testifier's attorney by a political action committee. The speaker criticizes the testifier for calling various individuals, including the FBI and colleagues, liars. The speaker expresses skepticism towards the testifier's claims of truthfulness.

Mister Crooks was asked if he was aware of his son's activities and why his son had a limited social circle. He was also asked if he had a statement to share. Mister Crooks stated he had to pee.

James O'Keefe stated that a girl who works for him recorded someone. The person recorded was at Meta and was talking to someone else. After O'Keefe said "oh," the person hung up the phone.

He got caught making up phony stories, speeches, and everything else. He's a sick and corrupt politician.

Spencer Pratt released a new video, which was described as rocking the political world and triggering intense reaction in Los Angeles. The video was framed as more than a concession, presented instead as a declaration of war. It was reported to have reached 1.1 million views, 10,000 reposts, and 43,000 likes within minutes. In the video, Spencer Pratt claimed he would not leave the race or leave politics and said that after “they stole it from him,” he possessed criminal material involving lead candidates in the race, which he said would cause them to drop out and resign in disgrace. Spencer Pratt’s message also claimed that his mission to “save Los Angeles” was moving from a campaign phase to a more aggressive phase. He said he had ridiculed and “slayed everybody,” then announced he wanted to apologize to “absolutely nobody.” He rejected claims that he was in the race for a “grift” or to roll up and leave if he didn’t reach City Hall, stating that he aimed to expose a “corrupt machine” and said nothing had changed. He described the situation as “war” and “zero hour for Los Angeles,” attacking “two morons” he said were responsible for the city’s problems and predicting intensified harm if they received four more years. Pratt alleged that major developers, hoteliers, business owners, and entrepreneurs were texting him that they were packing up and leaving town, and said this would lead to fewer tax revenues and cuts to services, including more potholes, fewer firefighters, and less police patrols. He claimed there would be more criminals and drug addicts terrorizing communities. He cited images of the city as proof of worsening conditions, including weeds growing from cracks, graffiti across public spaces, and garbage, drugs, and abandoned storefronts. He said Angelenos were about to “reward the arsonists” with more destruction and claimed he would continue stopping “commie animals.” He stated that “we have some recordings” involving one of the “exalted candidates,” which he said would make her resign in shame, asserting he saved them for the general election. He repeatedly urged Karen Nithya to ask whether an employee may have a recording that would force resignation. He then claimed that the FBI was going to “bust in the door” and said they were coming. The transcript also discussed a comparison to Donald Trump and included claims of public excitement over Pratt’s communications. It stated that Steve Hilton had been doing television and interviews, saying he plans to run with Spencer Pratt. The transcript claimed this included on-the-record statements by Steve Hilton about running with Pratt, raising questions about Pratt’s role. It further stated that HUD Secretary Turner announced ending “fraud-filled homeless funding” for Los Angeles, and that HUD federal dollars were being used, per the transcript’s claim, to rig elections by paying for “infinity homeless people to live in Los Angeles.” In a separate exchange, one person asked whether they had talked to Spencer Pratt, and another replied they had not spoken with him since then. The discussion described support for substantive plans, especially on homelessness, and stated that the door would be open to working with Pratt without rushing. They added that they had not yet heard from him publicly.

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.

If he did his job, I wouldn't need to do this. I received a malicious report. Look, they're all pointing. Someone's on the roof. There he is, laying down. We have dangerous people in our country causing trouble.

The witness denied being on social media after the incident and claimed not to know his name and picture were circulating online as the shooter. The witness struggled to recall details when questioned about it. No further questions were asked, and the witness was excused.

We lack production charges and information on this matter, suggesting that he is engaging in improper conduct.

- I recognized an individual and 'have taken down the cameras minute four after Charlie was shot? The back camera of all the ones when you take the front camera.' - 'I've never seen that. He's never been behind me at an event. He's never been lingering around me at an event.' - I asked about 'his presence behind Charlie' and 'the mysterious phone call ... minute three after Charlie was assassinated.' - He told me explicitly that 'they were trying something new that day. Like, it was something new. Charlie's super ambitious. And on the AV thing, they were trying something new, and they wanted to be able to feed it back instantly to Arizona.' - 'None of it makes sense to me because these events are typically livestreamed. But again, something new. Okay?'

I informed the social security office about the suspicious person. I mentioned it at the meeting. The student may have seen or been with him.

Thing new on the investigation. You say he admitted that. Confessed? No. Not not again, he's he's not confessed to, to authorities. He he is he is, he's not cooperating. But, but but all the people around him are cooperating, and I I think that's, that's that's very important. Thing new on the investigation. You say he admitted that. Confessed? No. Not not again, he's he's not confessed to, to authorities. He he is he is, he's not cooperating. But, but but all the people around him are cooperating, and I I think that's, that's that's very important. Thing new on the investigation. You say he admitted that. Confessed? No. Not not again, he's he's not confessed to, to authorities. He he is he is, he's not cooperating. But, but but all the people around him are cooperating, and I I think that's, that's that's very important.

Speaker 1 says that throughout the Biden administration he sought records about decision-making and why the U.S. funded Wuhan, China research, including why evidence about the virus origin being from a lab accident was being suppressed, but “we got nothing.” He says the Biden administration “stiff-armed” him by preventing access to virtually any documents. He says many of the findings during the Biden administration came from Freedom of Information Act requests by people outside government and from court actions forcing disclosure. He says that after the new election, he received promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that documents would be revealed. He says it took about six months, with resistance he attributes not to Secretary Kennedy but to “minders” around him. He says that after finally receiving documents, they have been reviewed for about a month. Speaker 1 states that in communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including Francis Collins, Fauci is depicted telling others to read materials, then delete them, and that he allegedly instructed them to delete “this material” after reading. Speaker 1 says deleting emails and discussions about government business is illegal for someone in the executive branch. He adds that Fauci testified he did not do that, and says this creates “two crimes”: destroying federal records and a prior sworn statement that he wouldn’t do it. Speaker 1 identifies a “big question” involving what he calls an “auto pen pardon” and says it will have to be challenged. He says there are thousands of auto pen pardons and raises whether President Biden was aware. He says they interviewed the person running the auto pen, who said they never met the president, and that the person said they did not discuss it directly but heard about it from higher-ups who allegedly talked to the president. Speaker 1 says this provides “a lot to go on” and describes it as a chance for the issue to get into court and for the Department of Justice to fight it out. Speaker 1 says he has invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily; if accepted, they will bring him in, and if not accepted, they will subpoena him. Speaker 0 asks whether the alleged wrongdoing falls under the auto pen time frame, noting that in some earlier auto pen matters there were specific time frames. Speaker 1 responds that the “umbrella” was “a decade,” described as leading up to the end of Biden’s term, and says this raises questions about whether a pardon can cover crimes not alleged at the time, whether it can be “all inclusive,” and whether a pardon can be upheld if it doesn’t specify the crime. Speaker 1 contrasts this with how pardons are typically specific to an accused or trial-ready crime. Speaker 0 asks about specific consequences, including prison time, regarding destroying federal records. Speaker 1 says lying to Congress is the biggest issue, that it can be five years in prison as a felony, and that destroying records adds to the crime and is against the law. He then ties this to contemporaneous emails, asserting that while Fauci said publicly he had no idea the virus came from a lab and that it couldn’t have been gain-of-function, privately he was “very worried” about the lab because he knew it did gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 also says gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Anthony Fauci’s approval, and claims Fauci’s pandemic guidance about origins and about cloth masks was contradictory to privately discussed concerns, including that Speaker 1 says cloth masks do not prevent transmission.

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.

Ms. Sandburn was asked if Ray Epps incited violence, but she couldn't answer. The next day, Epps was seen whispering to someone who then tore down barricades. When asked if Epps encouraged this, she couldn't provide a clear answer. Translation (if needed): Ms. Sandburn was asked if Ray Epps incited violence, but she couldn't answer. The next day, Epps was seen whispering to someone who then tore down barricades. When asked if Epps encouraged this, she couldn't provide a clear answer.