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.

Speaker 1 acknowledges knowing Ali was bisexual/gay and prioritizes winning/success over that fact. He states he could apologize but it wouldn't be the truth. He cites Marjorie Taylor Greene at AFPAC, involvement in Stop the Steal, and friendship with Kanye West as positive outcomes. He admits to a "sociopathic commitment to accomplishing my goals." Speaker 2 questions Speaker 1 about his continued association with Ali, referencing claims that they communicate daily. Speaker 1 confirms they communicated daily while working for Ye in December and states that "Ye '24 is still going on," implying continued communication. Speaker 2 expresses concern about associating with "creeps." Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of being "weasily."

Congressman from Tennessee discusses the resistance to releasing flight logs and client lists. He suggests that powerful individuals, regardless of party affiliation, prioritize their financial interests over the country. He implies that some members of Congress may be compromised and blackmailed, explaining why they vote for controversial policies. He mentions the allure of attractive individuals and the potential for compromising situations, leading to manipulation. The Congressman emphasizes that power and influence often involve vices like women, drugs, and alcohol. He concludes by stating that although the stakes are higher, the political game remains the same.

Speaker 2 notes that some members of Congress may be personally compromised and don’t want the truth to get out. Speaker 3 says: “You got powerful people, and they write the big checks” who “love their money” and protect it. He describes a honeypot tactic, noting Russians used it; overseas trips can lead to scandal, with a well-dressed man whispering, “There’s tapes out on you” before a key vote. He recalls a trip with Andy Biggs and being pressured after sleeping with someone abroad. He cites a Chinese prostitution ring busted in Washington, DC with a client list of “High ranking officials, in government, elected officials, and lobbyists,” whose story disappeared. He says these people are “employed by forces that want to control Congress” via spouses or employment agencies, “they employ them.” He concludes, “America's not buying that… 12% of the population votes, this is what you get.”

Bill Clinton is mentioned in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's island, which is described as a cesspool. The speaker claims to have knowledge of the planes associated with the island, but clarifies that they are not friends with the people involved. The speaker distances themselves from Epstein, stating that they threw him out of their club many years ago and never visited his island. They mention that others, including James Patterson, have also distanced themselves from Epstein. The speaker acknowledges knowing Epstein in the past but claims to have had a falling out and not being a fan of his for about 15 years.

Speaker 0 discusses Jerry Epstein and the Lolita Express, claiming Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s planes “like, on 20 flights,” and alleging Clinton flew to a Middle Eastern country with a “chic that's admitted pedophile with multimillion dollar checks and Bill Clinton on the plane.” They state Clinton is a “known sexual predator” and reference lawsuits against Donald Trump with Jane Does alleging involvement with Epstein, saying there was no proof in the law because they log flights on private jets, and asserting Trump “had been a defuse” (likely misstatement) of these claims. Speaker 1 shifts to John Podesta, describing him as a “progressive guru” and alleging he is connected to an “underage sex slave op,” and mentions “cover upper defending unspeakable dregs.” They question what MMFA is, and Jamie asks what it means. The term MMFA is identified in the dialogue as Media Matters. The speakers then discuss Soros and connect him to ownership of a pizza place where “this all went on.” They claim Media Matters’ head guy, David Brock, has a boyfriend and that the organization hosts major Democratic Party fundraisers. They mention “rock bands there” performing “live Spoken word dissertations of the love of children,” including references to men in goth drag speaking about their love for children. The speakers acknowledge not wanting to repeat some content and suggest they could pull up more footage of these claims. Speaker 1 asks rhetorically why this is such a bizarre subject and comments on the overall strangeness of the topic. Overall, the transcript presents an interwoven set of unverified allegations involving prominent figures (Epstein’s associates, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, John Podesta, Soros, and Media Matters), claims of underage sex operations, and allegations about events at a pizza place tied to Media Matters, including reportedly graphic performances by performers discussing love of children. The speakers imply a broader conspiracy or cover-up framework linking political figures, advocacy outlets, and entertainment venues to illicit activities.

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.

Jeffrey Epstein's closest relationship in life was with Donald Trump. These were two guys joined at the hip for a good fifteen years. They did everything together, pursuing women, hunting women, sharing at least one girlfriend for at least a year in this kind of, you know, rich guy relationship with each other's planes, to Epstein advising Trump on his taxes, how to cheat on his taxes. These were brothers in arms for a long time. The statements describe a long-standing personal and financial association. The statements suggest a deep, reciprocal partnership across personal life and finances. It characterizes their relationship as longstanding and intertwined.

Politicians in the country may be sexually blackmailed, according to Congressman Tim Birchen. He explains that when politicians are in Washington, D.C., they may find themselves in compromising situations with attractive individuals who later reveal that there are incriminating tapes of their encounters. This leads to a situation where politicians are coerced into voting a certain way. It seems that there are more politicians involved in such situations than previously believed.

A senator forcefully denies allegations against him and accuses the government of manipulating the media. Another person agrees with the senator's claims but also criticizes him for not resigning. The senator accuses his colleagues of acting politically and defends his engagement with foreign governments. The person dismisses the senator's speech and suggests he should focus on his trial. They question why the senator is still being paid attention to despite severe accusations against him. The person also discusses the tendency for senators to support each other in times of trouble. They find it strange that the senator has not been expelled despite being accused of being a foreign agent for two Middle Eastern nations.

The speaker suggests focusing on Bill Clinton, the former president of Harvard, and hedge fund managers, providing a list of individuals who allegedly lived with Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker asserts they did not live with Epstein.

Senator, I deny every allegation against me today that suggests I had sexual conversations or harassed anyone. This hearing is a travesty and should never occur in America. Staffers searched for sleaze and leaked it to the media, and this committee validated and displayed it at prime time. No one would want dirt dredged up and displayed in this manner. The Supreme Court is not worth it. No job is worth it. I'm here for my name, my family, my life, and my integrity. Something is dreadfully wrong when any person is subjected to this circus and national disgrace. As a Black American, this is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who think for themselves. It's a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, you will be lynched, destroyed, and caricatured by a committee of the US Senate.

Anthony Weiner is working for a candidate. The speaker accuses Weiner and the Clintons of involvement in the deaths of people like Jim Walden. The speaker refers to Weiner as someone who has been texting minors and calls him a pedophile. The speaker suggests that the Clinton files will reveal information about Weiner and the candidate he is working for.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Speaker: The speaker argues that we need to step back and examine the bigger picture of what was really going on with Epstein. According to the speaker, Epstein was “more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. He was an incredibly powerful man,” who, in “multiple instances in the files that were just released,” was “talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds.” The speaker emphasizes that this points to a broader pattern or operation, stating a need to “discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place” and asking, “which government that's a special ally of The United States put him up to it?” The speaker then questions the nature of U.S. alliances, asking, “do we really want to be allies with the country that kidnaps young girls, for rape just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy.” This line of inquiry is presented as the bigger underlying issue that, in the speaker’s view, has not been sufficiently discussed. The focus remains on connecting Epstein’s alleged activities to a broader blackmail or influence operation involving a foreign ally, and on the implications of such an alliance for U.S. political decision-making and foreign policy.

A man shares his experience of meeting someone named Barack Obama at a bar. He gave him money for cocaine and they both used it. They also smoked crack together and had sexual encounters. The man admits he had no idea who Obama was at the time. The interviewer asks about Obama's behavior on crack, questioning if it reflects his true character or if he is bisexual. The man suggests it wasn't Obama's first time and implies the media is not interested in reporting the truth.

The speaker argues that when supporting what Donald Trump is doing, there are other predators beyond Trump to consider. They state that while they don’t know all the details about those other predators and are not focusing solely on Trump, they are referring to what has been learned about Epstein and others. The speaker emphasizes that there are other predators out there and adds that they remember Alasso Costa, noting “when he…” (the thought is left incomplete in the transcript).

The speaker claims to have done absolutely categorically nothing wrong, stating that's what lawyers and people do. They were introduced to someone by a lady in law, Rothschild. The speaker indicates that this person knew all the most prominent people.

At age 59, I walked off the bus as a different man. Although I'm not proud of it, what I said was just locker room talk. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has done far worse things to women. He has a history of abusive behavior towards women, and Hillary Clinton has attacked those same women. One of them, Kathy Shelton, was raped at 12 years old, and Hillary represented her rapist and laughed at her. Bill Clinton was impeached, lost his law license, and had to pay a fine to Paula Jones. So, when Hillary brings up my words from 11 years ago, it's disgraceful and she should be ashamed of herself.

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.

The speaker asserts that everyone in politics has a vice worse than alcoholism. They emphasize the importance of releasing the Epstein list.

In Washington, there is a lot of sexual perversion among the older politicians. As a young person, I have admired many of these individuals, but I have been shocked by their behavior. I have been invited to attend sexual orgies at their homes, which is disturbing. Additionally, some of these leaders who claim to be fighting addiction have openly used cocaine in front of me. It's a crazy situation.

People that members of Congress are sleeping with, either legally or not, are employed by forces that want to control members of Congress. That's what they used to do. knew of instances where that happened when I was in the legislature, and now they do it through the employment agencies. Through employment agencies. I have noticed, just having spent my life in DC, that people's personal lives are getting weirder in the Congress. It's not just sleeping with your scheduler, it's weirder than that now. I never heard of anybody participating in an orgy in Washington DC in my entire life, and I've heard a lot about it recently.

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.”

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.