reSee.it - 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.

In the exchange, Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 whether there was contact with an individual named Shaunte Davies. Speaker 1 recognizes the name as distinctive and says that Shaunte Davies was the name of one of the flight attendants on a 2002 Africa trip. Speaker 0 then questions whether Shaunte or any other young female on that trip was underage at the time. Speaker 1 responds that, to their knowledge, there was no one underage. Following up, Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 ever received a massage or had any physical contact from Shaunte Davies or anyone else on that trip. Speaker 1 acknowledges that there were pictures in view and recounts one specific instance: there was a time when Speaker 1 was sitting up and received a back rub and a neck rub. Speaker 1 adds that they think Shantay performed the back and neck rub, but they are not sure. No additional details beyond this single massage instance are provided in the exchange.

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

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.

Speaker 0 notes the intense public interest in the relationship and asks how Speaker 1 deals with it. Speaker 1 responds that they try not to worry about what others think and focus on doing what feels right for them. Speaker 0 then asks how they met, but neither party is comfortable commenting on the topic.

Questioning whether the speaker was kicked out of CPAC, the exchange goes: "And you were kicked out of CPAC. Right?" The reply: "I wasn't kicked out. Or you were disinvited? What what let's there was some kind of drama on Twitter." The other party says: "Don't think so. Tell me everything. There's no drama." The speaker then clarifies: "I, you know, like I said, I came out here I came out here to CPAC last year, had a great time. You know, met my hero, Ben Shapiro. I met my mentor and friend, Casa Dillon. And and so I just came out again this year."

The physical relationship ended pre-indictment, but the "tough conversation" may have happened after. A man would say the relationship ended in June or July when physical contact ended, but a woman might say it's over when the hard conversation occurs. To a man, the romantic relationship ended before the indictment. The forthcoming indictment had absolutely nothing to do with the end of the relationship. Arguments occurred because Mr. Wade is used to women who can only make him a sandwich, while she believes she is his equal and doesn't need anything from a man. She was giving him his money back because she doesn't need anyone to foot her bills; only her father has ever done that.

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 0: There's more than one person I'm dating. Sarah is the one. They are the one. Speaker 1: Are you joking? I thought it was just one person. Speaker 0: No, it's just Sarah. They don't identify as male or female. They are queer.

Mike Jones tells the president to stay away from his girlfriend, Aya Cooper. Speaker 1 finds it embarrassing and wonders why they feel smart. Speaker 1 didn't know Mike's name, but mentions that there were around 2,000 people there this week. Fortunately, the president was kind about the situation. However, the president couldn't resist making a final remark.

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.

Speaker 0 presents text messages as authentic and not fabricated, stating that they are real and showing the date and time on their phone to prove it. They emphasize, “These are not made up text messages,” and insist the messages are real, noting they looked them up on their phone and that the date and time slide. They reference the phrase “Iron sharpens iron” and describe it as part of a dominance partnership. They explain that “Each hand washes the other” and that this is what Christ talked about as true partnership—reliant yet separate. They say that there is struggle and disagreement, but each side gets stronger and sharper because of the other, and that this is how they are describing their partnership. They reiterate that the messages are real and dismiss the idea of fabrication as “absolute nonsense.” They question what the point would be of making up messages, asking, “What would be the point of that?” Earlier in the message, they state they were very clear at the beginning of the entire thing: “no fakeness and no gayness.” They mention a hypothetical involving Charlie: if you didn’t get along with Charlie, you shouldn’t think you could simply drop a million dollars and rewrite history. They acknowledge that money might exist in such a situation, but assert that truth is on their side: “We have truth. That’s what’s on our side.” Overall, the speaker uses the presented text messages to illustrate a partnership described as mutual strengthening through interdependence, framed within a religious concept of true partnership. They underscore the authenticity of the messages, reject claims of fabrication, and contrast money with truth in their stance.

Mae describes her mom as mean, saying “There is nothing wrong with her. She is mean” and that her mom “yells at people for no reason.” When asked what else her mom does, Mae confirms, “Yeah. I’m pretty sure she does that.” The group discusses how Mae’s mom’s yelling affected others; Speaker 1 recalls living with Mae’s mom and feeling hurt and worried for Nate, noting they tried to deescalate and make Mae’s mom happy so she wouldn’t be mean, while not disagreeing with Mae’s point about the behavior being mean. Mae challenges the idea that her mom is just problematic, suggesting the others are influenced by their feelings, saying, “That’s because she manipulated you because you like her.” Speaker 1 emphasizes their own experience, acknowledging manipulation and lies that led to jail for Nate, but also expressing concern about Nate’s wellbeing and sharing the belief that Mae’s mom’s behavior is harmful. The conversation reveals Mae’s focus on her mother’s hurtful actions and her caution about potential consequences for those around them. During a birthday moment, Nate’s perspective stands out. Speaker 2 explains that Mae wanted to celebrate Nate’s eleventh birthday but Mae says she did not like that day because she was being selfish and not kind, though Speaker 2 counters that Nate’s birthday was celebrated and that Mae’s care for Candice was central to the event. Speaker 1 compliments Nate as “the kindest kid on Earth” and acknowledges the sentiment as sweet. Mae describes her aim to “take care of Candice on my birthday without any thought that it’s my birthday at all. Just take care of Candice.” Speaker 2 remarks that Mae’s generosity was very sweet, and Speaker 1 praises Nate’s goodness. A brief check-in about breakfast follows, with Candice and Nate involved; Mae notes there were two bags, both the same, and expresses concern that Candice cannot eat much because “Mom just throws it away,” urging Nate to eat. Despite the tensions, the group calls for finishing the meal, with caregivers emphasizing that they must leave. The conversation ends with a farewell and a reminder that “love wins” as they provide a hug and prepare to go. In a separate reminiscence, Mitch says he met on 12/31/2022 as a nutritional director in Oregon, not Washington, and recounts the ex-wife narrative of Lynne allegedly abusing their son and the son’s eating disorder, highlighting that Mitch played into that narrative. Mitch notes he had worked for a school district and, while he later reflects, “I don’t believe that there was any abuse from Lynne.”

Speaker 0 asks a question to Speaker 1, who is the Holy Father. Speaker 1 responds by saying that there are no inappropriate questions between them because they respect each other. Speaker 0 then asks about Speaker 1's experience with a girl in California. Speaker 1 mentions that he remembers her eyes, initially filled with love but later filled with disappointment. This taught him the importance of wanting Catholics to be in love and not wanting to see disappointment in their eyes. Speaker 1 admits that there are times when he doesn't believe in himself or his abilities. He mentions someone named Boilev who knows how to do things and still believes in God. Speaker 0 clarifies that Boilev is a politician, not the Holy Father.

Defendant Roman's motion claims a personal relationship between the district attorney and someone that led to a financial benefit. The state has acknowledged the relationship, but it needs to be proven if any financial benefit occurred. An evidentiary hearing is necessary to establish the facts on these allegations. The main focus is on determining whether a relationship existed.

My client's addiction was discussed, along with questions related to the impeachment inquiry. No evidence has been presented.

Here we go. Watch your legs; you keep kicking them out. How many children are you talking to? Just this one. I don’t do that. When you’re fasting, does that make you speak to children? No, I don’t do that. Explain what you don’t do because I know you speak to children online. This proves you can do that. Why were you going to meet a child? I can’t do that. You’ve asked this child to delete messages, haven’t you? No. I have all the messages you sent, including asking for pictures. You even talked about marrying the child. Are you married? No. You’re sick in the head for finding children attractive.

The speaker confirms that the personal aspect mentioned earlier refers to a romantic relationship. They also clarify that this relationship started in 2019 and lasted until their last conversation.

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 opens with Speaker 0 praising Speaks with Didi for a recent video featuring Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk, where they are asked about their engagement, when they met, how they got married, specific dates in their relationship, and how it all came together. They are asked a series of dating/marriage date questions: Have you ever forgotten the date you started dating someone? Have you ever forgotten an engagement date four years into your relationship due to the honeymoon phase? What would happen if your spouse didn’t remember the exact year you were married? Speaker 1 responds by stating they have been married since 2021. They acknowledge their dates are messy because of babies—anniversaries and kids’ birth dates, among others. They explain that they know when it was time to get married and that they just know. They also say, “Don’t waste your time,” and that they are ready to start their life together. Speaker 0 then asks the audience to locate the original video and inquires about what Phoebe was talking about and whether that portion was cut in. The response comments that it’s hard to remember the dates because of the meeting with Phoebe. There is a brief, unclear barrage of phrases: “What? Foot and mouth? Anyone?” followed by “That was live. She couldn't back that up. That's weird.” In summary, the segment centers on a discussion of memory and precision around dating and marriage dates, the reality that their calendars are cluttered by children and anniversaries, and a note about reconstructing or recalling a prior part of the video involving Phoebe, with a mention that the moment was live and difficult to back up. The key details retained are that Charlie and Erica Kirk say they’ve been married since 2021, acknowledge the dating dates are muddled by family milestones, and emphasize a sense of knowing when it was time to commit, while also referencing a live moment related to Phoebe that they found hard to recall or verify.

Their relationship started in 2019 and lasted until their last conversation.

The excerpt opens with a reference to a conference from many years ago, suggesting that the listener might have been in attendance. The exchange then shifts to a brief, awkward moment where someone apologizes and asks for permission to proceed, followed by a request for help. A responder states "No," and a separate remark introduces "the subpoena, for example," indicating a mention of a subpoena within the discussion. The conversation continues with an affirmative interjection—"Oh, good"—and a request: "Can you take off the stage?" The reactions include a startled "Wow" and a meta-comment noting the situation is starting in a dramatic way: "Getting off to a dramatic start already." The exchange ends with a clipped closing, simply "Well," signaling an unresolved or continuing moment in the dialogue. Overall, the passage captures a tense, performative moment at a conference, blending retrospective reference, administrative tension (subpoena), and a stage-direction style query, all underscored by a sense of escalating drama at the outset.

Speaker 0 insults Speaker 1, mentioning dating an Iranian. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 2 about a tweet from Lily Coleman. Speaker 2 denies dating an Iranian, stating all past partners were white. Speaker 3 presses for clarification. Speaker 2 is unsure about the tweet's origin. Speaker 3 insists on confirmation. Speaker 2 admits the account may be theirs. Speaker 3 asks if the Iranian was white, leading to confusion. Speaker 1 doubts the story's consistency.

Speaker 0 expresses gratitude and familiarity with Aryan/Jewish identities, noting “Thank you for that gift. You're Aryan too. I know, but I'm Jewish.” They acknowledge the casual tension and respond to hair. They comment on a recent Instagram post about being reinstated at Facebook, calling the picture “so hot” and expressing appreciation: “That picture you posted on Instagram recently when you got, like, reinstated at Facebook was so hot. Like, seriously. I appreciate it. It's so good. It's a good picture.” They remark on being targeted by Nazis, saying, “Your skin and and the Nazis hate me. It's fun,” and mention joking about gas chambers: “I'll I'll write people when I put me in a gas chamber because they're obsessed with the dude. I don't I think they're just memeing on you, it's It's alright. I don't care.” They describe it as part of the online milieu, noting, “I love it. It'd be like that sometimes. I know. They're just jealous because have big tits and an Ashkenazi IQ. Yes. That's what it is. Yeah. You got it.” Looking ahead, they suggest meeting in New York: “Anyway, next time you're in New York, let me know. We'll hang out. Bring your girlfriend in New York, some tag, and then we'll all hang out.” They propose going to “really cool restaurants” and other activities, and say they will bring their girlfriend Becca: “We'll to, like, really cool restaurants and out, blah blah blah. Yes. Will bring my girlfriend. Yeah.” They express interest in Becca, asking to meet her: “I wanna meet what's Becca? Yeah. Becca. Yes. She's so sweet. You remember? Yeah. Of course. Yes. You'll meet her. You guys are so sweet.” They hope the arrangement works, noting awareness that Twitter content is perceived as fake: “I hope that works out because, like, like I said, I know everything you do on Twitter is, like, so fake and not real, but, like, it's so sweet ex is, like, dating somebody who's, like, super trad life, and she was like, fucking my boyfriend while we were dating and, like, ruined our relationship. And I act like it's okay, but, like, it's really sad because, like, I love I love when people, like, keep, you know, tradition in their relationships. Yeah.” The speaker ends with a brief emotional note: “It's really.”

This is a bombshell revelation with huge implications. The issue at hand is not about a consensual relationship, but rather about lying to the court and potential financial gain. The speaker emphasizes that the credibility of the person in question is severely damaged. If she submitted false and inaccurate information to the court, what else has she lied about? This situation looks very bad for her, and the speaker believes the case is unlikely to succeed.