reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The record cites page 55 of the committee’s interview with FBI employee Roya Demlow, conducted on 07/17/2023. The line records a question: If someone were to leave the interview and suggest or imply that when you said the laptop was real, that it meant the FBI had affirmatively determined in October 2020 that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that the contents belonged to Hunter Biden, and that the contents had not been manipulated in some way, would they be representing what you said? Correct? Miss Demlow’s answer: They would be representing what I said because I don't have much knowledge of that. They would be misrepresenting what I said because I don't have much knowledge of that. The statement continues with the speaker noting that this committee “likes to misrepresent or leave off complete sentences of what individuals said,” and adds, “I'd like to introduce this into the record.” The speaker then references the FBI's usual “no comment” stance, noting that such a response is common “when there's an ongoing investigation, particularly when it's a couple of days before an…” The transcript ends there, but the portion presented emphasizes Demlow’s caveat about knowledge limits and the record-keeping concern about misrepresentation by the committee, alongside the referenced context of no-comment responses in ongoing investigations.

Speaker 1 received access to emails from sources at Twitter. Mr. Musk did not contact them; they were brought in by a friend. They agreed to conditions for covering the story, including attributing sources to Twitter and breaking news on Twitter. Speaker 1 initially denied having conditions but later admitted to them.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker admits to not knowing anything about it until it came out publicly. They mention that there were many names on the list, but the press only focused on a few. The speaker reiterates that they had no knowledge of the situation.

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 claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they gained any evidence after a certain point, to which Speaker 1 responds that they weren't collecting evidence. Speaker 0 then questions if they should be able to recall such information. Speaker 1 clarifies that they presented themselves as witnesses, not investigators, when they approached the FBI. Speaker 0 suggests that they made a complaint without evidence, and Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that they believed a crime had occurred in good faith. Speaker 0 interrupts and asks why they didn't talk to Ken Paxton, but Speaker 2 requests that Speaker 1 be allowed to finish answering. The transcript ends.

The speaker was asked whether they had communicated with a long list of people in relation to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. The responses were predominantly negative. Specifically, the named individuals were: Richard Khan, Darren N. Dyke, Sarah Kellen, Doug Band, Lawrence Summers, Huma Abedin, Noam Chomsky, Leslie Groff, Nadia Marcincova, John Luke Brunel, Alan Dershowitz, Kathy Rumler, Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew), Peter Mandelson, Reid Hoffman, Karina Shuliak, Bill Gates, Eyud Barak, Woody Allen, Sandy Berger, Jess Staley, Paul Morris, Leon Black, Sultan Ahmed bin Salim (listed as Sultan Ahmed bin Souliam in the transcript), Leslie Wexner, Jack Kessler, Mark Middleton, Harvey Weinstein, Ellie de Rothschild, Ariane de Rothschild, Lynn Forster de Rothschild, and any other members of the de Rothschild family. Speaker 1's replies were mostly “No,” indicating no communication with these individuals regarding Epstein or Maxwell. The dialogue includes an exception: Huma Abedin. In preparation for the hearing, Speaker 1 acknowledged having talked to Huma Abedin about this topic, with the explicit question, “Have I ever talked to her about this in preparation for this hearing? I have.” Outside of that preparation conversation, Speaker 1 stated, “Not that I recall.” There is also a moment where Speaker 1 comments on familiarity with the list: “No. I don't know most of these people. Should I tell you that I don't know who they are or just tell you I never talked to them?” This reflects uncertainty about the identities of several individuals and a preference for simply answering that they never talked to them. Finally, the inquiry regarding the de Rothschild family elicited a uniform response of “No,” including a specific question about “Ellie de Rothschild,” “Ariane de Rothschild,” and “Lynn Forster de Rothschild,” followed by “Any other members of the de Rothschild family?” with the reply “No.”

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

Your investigation uncovered witnesses who told you that or told your team that CIA Director John Brennan overruled intelligence officials who were objecting to the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the intelligence community assessment. How well would some of those witnesses hold up in court or in a public hearing of the House Oversight Committee? Well, these are some of the most senior intelligence officials within the CIA who came forward and spoke the truth to the House Intelligence Committee's, majority staff team that launched this investigation. They invest they they spoke to and interviewed over 20 intelligence community professionals, senior officials within the CIA, which is how they uncovered the truth of what actually happened as reported in the documents that we released yesterday.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

The speaker claims that the biggest scandal was when their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees, saying there is no evidence. The speaker insists that it is all over the place and that it was bad for Biden. The other person explains that they can't put on things they can't verify. The speaker continues to assert that it has been verified and that they got caught. The other person denies knowing about it.

The speaker questions why the FBI paid Christopher Steele $1 million to verify a dossier on Trump and offered $3 million to Twitter to suppress a story on Hunter Biden. They express concern over the FBI's actions being politically motivated. The FBI director responds by explaining the payments to social media companies are for legal process costs. The speaker accuses the FBI of damaging its reputation and questions if the FBI requested financial institutions to provide customer data. The FBI director is unsure and the speaker presents an email from Bank of America as evidence.

The speaker was asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including some Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker refused to comment and denied any interaction with their son and brother's foreign business associates, calling it a bunch of lies.

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.'

Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manager Robbie Mook testified that Clinton herself approved the idea of giving the Alpha Bank story to a reporter as part of the Trump-Russia narrative. He described a moment when the campaign told Clinton they had information alleging a link between the Trump Organization and a Russian-based bank through a back channel, and that she agreed to let it be shared with the media. To provide background, the report involved an allegation about the Trump Organization, via a back channel to a Russian bank named Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. In 2016, campaign attorney Michael Sussman went to James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel at the time, informing him that he had information linking the Trump Organization to a Russian bank through a back channel and via a computer server. James Baker took the information to the FBI, which investigated and found nothing substantial. The Clinton campaign also learned about the information, and Robbie Mook later stated that Clinton was briefed on the allegation and gave the approval to disseminate it to the media. Sussman faces one count of providing a false statement to the FBI. The moment described by Mook—that Clinton personally approved sending the story to a reporter—was presented as surprising in court, especially since the information later turned out to be baseless. During coverage, a reporter quotes Mook: “we told her, Hillary Clinton, we have this, and that's the information about this bank allegedly having this communication or at least the server suggested so with the Trump Organization. We told her we have this, and we wanna share it with a reporter. She agreed to that.” The discussion also notes that the information was ultimately false or lacking evidence. Questions are raised about why the information was given to reporters, including a claim that they did not have the expertise to judge the information and were briefed by Mark Elias about it. Mook says they decided to give it to a reporter so the reporter could run it down more. It’s argued that reporters may not have done due diligence to verify with the FBI or other sources, and that the story was amplified despite its lack of substantiation. Speaker commentary emphasizes the perceived strategic value of the release and critiques the media’s coverage, suggesting that the Russia narrative was intensified by those opposed to a Trump presidency. The discussion also references Mark Elias, who led the law firm that funded the Steele dossier, tying the episode to broader assertions about campaign desperation and attempts to influence the political outcome.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

President Obama tasked us with the intelligence community assessment, which led to the ongoing Special Counsel Mueller investigation. However, neither President Obama nor I knew about the FBI investigation on Trump. I personally found out about it as a private citizen through the Washington Post. It's important to note that the White House traditionally does not involve itself in such matters. The Republicans in Congress are focusing on the dossier, but they had no involvement in it.

Speaker 1 denies being warned about potential conflicts of interest by former White House aides. Speaker 0 mentions that State Department official Mr. Kent testified about raising the issue, but Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 1 claims that the warning was never communicated to their staff and suggests that it may have been due to their son's critical condition at the time.

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.

Did you serve as CFO for Hillary Clinton's campaign? Yes, in 2016. Did you facilitate the payment for the Steele dossier? That was not something I was aware of. Yes or no? It was not something I was aware of. I yield back the rest of my time.

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker states that they were not aware of this until it came out, and upon looking into it, they noticed that there were many names on the list. The press only focused on a few well-known individuals. The speaker confirms that they have no knowledge about the situation.

One speaker accuses Christopher Steele of being a "grifter" who colluded with the Clinton campaign to undermine Donald Trump and sabotage his Russia/Ukraine policies. They claim Steele "weaponized" FISA courts and spy agencies to smear Trump as a Russian asset, and is now trying to tank the "America First" movement. The speaker also brings up the Hunter Biden hard drive, saying Steele likely helped draft the letter claiming it was Russian disinformation. Steele responds that he is a professional intelligence officer, not a politician, and a loyal ally of the United States for 40 years, working closely with both Republican and Democrat administrations. He denies working for or having contact with the Clinton campaign, stating he was a subcontractor for a Washington firm and reported his findings to the FBI, which he believes was the right thing to do.

The speaker claims the biggest scandal was spying on their campaign, insisting it's verified despite lack of evidence. They urge to air it for Biden's detriment. The interviewer refuses, citing the need for verification. The speaker insists they were spied on and caught, challenging the interviewer to check the papers. The interviewer remains skeptical.

Speaker 0 asks if there is concern about retribution for opposing McCarthy. Speaker 1, not worried, says he is not a political person but believes they will work through it. He dismisses the idea of retribution, stating he is from New York and has faced worse. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 facilitated payment for the Steele dossier as Hillary Clinton's CFO. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it and states it was not something he was aware of.