reSee.it - Related Video Feed

At a party in 2016, a Hollywood agent sexually assaulted the speaker, who was with their spouse. The agent made explicit gestures and grabbed the speaker's genitals, causing them to react in shock. Despite being physically strong, the speaker chose not to respond violently. They explain that as a black man in America, they feel the need to carefully navigate their actions to be seen as a valuable member of society.

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.

The speaker recounts meeting PDD and Jay Z, along with Leonardo DiCaprio. The speaker wanted to greet someone and chose "him," referencing "getting to the Greek." Upon shaking his hand, the handshake was prolonged. The speaker then tried to speak to Jay Z, but was shoved by Jay Z's bodyguard for leaning in, causing the speaker to fly across the room. The speaker then went to sit with Eddie Goldstein.

Speaker 0 describes life as loud, with a lot of noise and people they outgrew, and many nights when silence felt overwhelming and they reached for something unattainable. Then the other person walked in at the exact right moment, not trying to fix things or change them, simply sitting in the mess and not finding it strange. In that moment, they realized the other person was different from the rest. Speaker 2 adds that the other person didn’t run when they saw them in their mess, but pulled up a chair, stayed for a while, and met all the chaos with a quiet smile. They describe the other as the calm within the chaos they’ve been living. Speaker 1 reflects on how they’ve scared off many people with their intensity, being “too intense, too much, too hard to prove.” Yet the other person appears to understand them, not as a problem to solve or a child to fix, but someone to be with in the moment. The other person lets them be exactly what they are in the moment, without requiring performance or ownership of their feelings. It’s conveyed as “just me. Just me. Just you. Just whatever comes through.” The message emphasizes acceptance and presence: the other person doesn’t demand change or control; they offer a space where the speaker’s loud parts can quiet down. The speaker admits not knowing how the other person does it, but it’s clear that their presence creates a steady calm amid the earlier chaos. The overall theme is a transformative, nonjudgmental companionship that makes intensity feel manageable and genuine connection possible.

Speaker 0 recalls a scene set in a public place where one moment was plain and not the other person’s fantasy, describing it as his own. He notes that 'World play' occurred in the dressing room of Bergdorf, where the woman was trying on lingerie and he would burst in. The exchange pauses for a moment as he confirms details: 'When did you and she have your date?' The answer is approximately six weeks ago, 'Six weeks ago, maybe,' followed by, 'She wrote.' The account centers on a private, intimate moment in Bergdorf dressing room tied to a date roughly six weeks prior, ending with an incomplete remark from the other person.

Speaker 0 describes a scenario involving mister Ballard and Julie, described as a high-end escort. They were not going to a hot tub but to a pool at a very nice hotel, the Ritz Carlton. It was a public indoor, heated pool with many other guests present. Ballard had Julie at the pool alone in a public setting and was trying to get her to disclose information. She indicated she was willing, but there were cameras and they were out in public, so she was hesitant. They then allegedly moved toward going up to a bedroom. There were three rooms, two normal, though Speaker 1 questions whether this was part of a 30 list. There is mention of semen, with Speaker 0 confirming that the semen was involved in the discussion, and Speaker 1 noting that it was in the same skirt with the semen located somewhere else. Speaker 0 clarifies that test results for the skirt or the semen had not been provided, but there was one incident where it could have and probably did occur. Speaker 0 continues by saying Ballard called Matt Cooper, who is present in the discussion, and asked for a little time alone with Julie in the room. Julie says they voluntarily vacated the room and let Ballard go up because it was part of their plan. They did not object to him going up, as it was part of the arrangement to extract information. Speaker 1 indicates they are following along, and Speaker 0 notes that what Julie says contains both truth and untruth. Page 11 of Julie’s account is referenced, wherein it is stated that Ballard takes Julie up to the room and gets information from her, which she concedes. However, she then wants to have sex; the overall goal of the couple’s ruse was to avoid sexual contact. Ballard is described as very loyal to his wife and family, and the contrast is drawn with his actions. Speaker 0 adds that the situation was exacerbated by Ballard’s skirt, as it was involved when he was in Julie’s room, using her skirt to facilitate the act, and that this was the excuse he used with the prostitute.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire to meet Jimmy Savile someday and suggests that if the person has a sister, she could be brought along to meet him. Speaker 0 notes they don’t have any sisters. Speaker 1 replies that he doesn’t usually meet fellas, but if Speaker 0 has a sister, that would be okay. Speaker 0 mentions a personal assistant named Marsha, whose job description includes greeting, meeting, and massaging anyone Speaker 0 demands she greet or meet, and notes that Marsha is very attractive. Speaker 1 says that’s a good start. Speaker 0 asks what kind of introduction or arrangement Speaker 1 would like. Speaker 1 answers that he would prefer Marsha to wear nothing. Speaker 0 confirms that he wants Marsha, the assistant, to meet Speaker 1 naked, and Speaker 1 says there’s nothing wrong with that. Speaker 0 adds that last time he spoke like this was with Father Christmas. Speaker 1 comments that he has not trusted Father Christmases in Debenhams or other stores in the past, and says a similar sentiment about stores. Speaker 0 suggests that Speaker 1 has always been thought of as a Father Christmas figure, someone who solves problems, and makes a comparison to Father Christmas with regard to dropping wages. Speaker 0 then thanks Speaker 1 for talking with him in the restaurant and asks whether Speaker 1 could pass on best wishes to his dinner companion and consider coming on the show again in the future. Speaker 1 responds vaguely with “Who knows?”

I witnessed the discomfort Aaron felt while walking through a room full of white people. It was painful to watch. We decided to skip a job interview and instead join a recruiting class at the American Society of Magical Negroes. I don't fully understand why, but it seems easier to deal with the most dangerous animal on the planet than with white people feeling uncomfortable. Their discomfort often leads to negative consequences for us, so we constantly fight against it. The happier they are, the safer we are.

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.

In the VIP lounge, the speaker was warned about a super VIP guest. It turned out to be Andrew, whom the speaker recognized from reading about him. Andrew was with two children who seemed uncomfortable and were later found half-naked. Andrew touched them inappropriately, causing the speaker to leave the room. When the speaker returned, the children were still behaving strangely. Andrew and the children were taken away in a helicopter. The speaker felt emotionally drained and regretted not taking action. The experience traumatized the speaker, making them uneasy when seeing children with adults. They eventually left their job and regretted not reporting the incident to the authorities.

The speaker describes observing someone who appeared to be negotiating with a deaf prostitute. The speaker claims this person gestured, "I want some of this, then you do some of this, and I'll do some of that back to you, and then we'll do this, and then I'll pay you, and then we'll do it again." The speaker says the woman kept refusing, suggesting alternative arrangements like, "You do this one first, then we do this one, then we give a little back and forth."

Speaker describes traveling with him to his house in Palm Beach, Ohio, and sleeping in the same bed. Epstein told me that he had a heart condition. 'A what? Heart condition.' He said this 'meant that he didn't have intercourse alone,' which 'suited kind because I actually do have a medical condition, which prevents me having a lot of intercourse.' The speaker asks, 'what was your understanding of his heart condition and why that prevented him from having intercourse regularly?' The response: 'I don't know.' 'I mean, he liked other forms of sexual ethics.' 'Let's come back. We're gonna obviously spend some time.'

The transcript follows a tumultuous, intense romantic arc between two partners who repeatedly move between craving connection and fearing loss. It opens with a shared resolve to keep chasing intensity, despite numbness and the risk of getting hurt. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly express a willingness to dive back into the relationship, acknowledging past scars, thrills, and the lure of “the highs” even as they recognize the lows, ghosts from previous hurts, and the sense that love can feel like a dangerous pursuit. The relationship unfolds as a recurring pattern: moments of intense closeness and mutual healing, followed by fear, distance, and potential rupture. Early on, they describe building a “tiny universe inside a single room,” where no phones or outside voices intrude, and where they confront each other’s past wounds as they share secrets and fragile trust. They talk about liking the way the other makes them feel seen, even as they struggle with certainty, pride, and the fear of being haunted by past injuries. As the weeks pass, the couple experiences a dramatic shift from the new-relations high to the creeping realization that fear and old patterns are resurfacing. They begin to notice triggers tied to childhood trauma and past relationships: loud voices, silences, and the fear of abandonment. They learn each other’s triggers—lowered voices, avoidance of confrontation, and the pull to cling to what they’ve built—while trying to stay present and supportive. They acknowledge that they are “damaged” and that their love requires ongoing work, honesty, and boundaries. They practice staying during tensions rather than retreating, using small, consistent acts of trust—texts, shared routines, and patient conversations—to sustain the bond. A pivotal moment arrives when the couple confronts the possibility that the foundation they’ve built may not be enough. They have a candid, painful exchange about whether the relationship can survive the weight of their histories and the pressures of daily life, including work stress and the erosion of early closeness. They describe the morning-after conversations that aim to repair damage, offering a realistic portrait of healing as incremental, non-heroic work rather than grand gestures. The narrative then accelerates into a turning point: a betrayal that shatters the fragile trust. The speaker returns home to find the partner not alone in bed—an admission that the relationship’s core has been violated. This discovery leads to an abrupt end of the relationship, marked by the choice to leave rather than try to fix things, and the partner’s possession of things like a toothbrush serving as a painful symbol of what’s been lost. The ending returns to the speaker alone in a gray, numb space. The cycle of chasing connection and risking heartbreak appears to begin anew, with a stubborn willingness to pursue the next 1AM, even as the emotional cost remains high. The overarching theme is the tension between the desire to feel seen and connected and the enduring impact of trauma and trust issues, which push the relationship toward both renewal and ultimate dissolution.

Just this is a personal gift from the president of the Russian Federation. "Absolutely. I thought it was a hoax because they don't know me. I don't know them. There is no reason why they could have should give me a bike." "I haven't done anything for them or to them, and I don't know anybody. So, yeah, it's it's so absolutely astronomically random that it was hard for me to understand why this happens." "I think the fact that it's in a public place. When you meet someone and there's it's in a public busy hotel lobby, I think the anticipation of danger is pretty low." "I don't think it if if I was accepting this gift for some nefarious purpose or for some favor or something else that I had to do to interact with them, I would definitely not do it."

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

Speaker 0 states that when you have a scene like this, you have to bring bosses with you. He indicates the scene is female-friendly because there is a woman present. He refers to her as "butt ball" and "raw dog." He says he is not going to turn himself in, and that once everyone leaves, it will just be him and the woman. He states he is doing what he does best. Speaker 1 exclaims, "Oh, shit," and asks if the camera caught something. They then demand the camera be cut off.

Speaker 0 recounts a 2022 experience described as a “mini abduction” at a UFO conference. He was taken to a vacant room and then onto a balcony by a woman he knew loosely. A stranger named Eric sat close to him in a way that caused intense physical discomfort, with Eric’s knee against his groin. The stranger claimed that the closeness was necessary for something to work, and then the moment passed. Two weeks prior, while washing dishes and considering quitting their TV/podcast work, Speaker 0 says the same strangers telepathically conveyed a message: “we know you’ve been thinking about quitting lately, and we’d really prefer you not do that yet.” He notes the interaction involved an entity or entities communicating through the man he’s calling Bruce pluribus sort of TV show, with the message that once he knows who they are, he’ll understand how they know that private thought. He recalls no telepathic moment before this. Speaker 0 was told that he would continue looking, but a darkness would come from top to bottom, and they would put things in his brain which he would see coming but would not have access to once they were done. He was asked for permission to do this, with free will preserved, and he agreed. The “eyes went dark” and a massive stream of information flowed into his brain. He describes the moment as exhausting but not painful and notes the transition from vocal to telepathic communication as seamless. Afterwards, the room filled with more people, who watched as the encounter unfolded. He was lifted out of the altered state and walked back through the hotel corridor; his head felt heavy, and he lay on a bed fully dressed, sleeping for about thirteen hours. Upon waking, he cried uncontrollably, not from fear or sadness, but as the memory of the event resurfaced and clarified. He later wrote down a transcript of everything that happened to ensure accuracy, distinguishing between memory and past details. Speaker 0 mentions the possibility that the stranger may have done the same thing to Speaker 1, noting that the experience could involve a future event or series of events, with memories possibly blocked consciously. He describes a temporary or ongoing memory manipulation and suggests the telepathic shift and the presence of three women who closed a door during the encounter, with a fourth individual observed. The experience included confirmation that the information inserted into his brain was time-released or timestamped for future disclosure. He contemplates the possibility that someone could have drugged him, but rejects this by referencing his prior extensive experience with acid, and notes that a “flashback” could be suggested by others. The account emphasizes the astonishment at the brain’s ability to receive and store such information, with limited access to it afterward.

Speaker 0 describes an experience with a person they dated. They say sex is very special and very important to them, but they haven’t had sex with many people. They note that normally, not all the time, everybody respects them when they don’t want to do sexual things, and they thought it would be fine to go into his room and kiss because they believed he would stop if they didn’t want to do anything else. They were on his bed kissing for a bit, and whenever he would try to put their hands places or place his hands somewhere they didn’t want, they would move them away and return to kissing. Then, at one point, he said, “if nothing is going to happen, then what’s the point?”

Speaker 0 recounts instances of workplace harassment by both men and women, clarifying that not all incidents reach the severity of Harvey Weinstein's actions. One incident involved a woman tweaking his nipples at CNN, which he didn't report due to perceived double standards. Another incident involved a female colleague's harassing behavior outside the office, which he also didn't report initially, fearing potential repercussions. He also recalls the discomfort of unwanted advances at cocktail parties, particularly from men with bad breath. Speaker 0 notes that his personal history of childhood molestation influences his perspective, giving him a sense of control in handling unwanted advances as an adult man. He believes he can reject unwanted advances directly, without needing to involve HR, but acknowledges some people have made a business out of it. Speaker 1 shares a contrasting experience, viewing a woman grabbing his genitals as a sign of "arrival." He also mentions a recent similar incident involving a man.

The speaker's first impression of Peter Nygard was that he was arrogant and serious. Nygard invited her to his warehouse to pick outfits for a photoshoot in the Bahamas. While at the airport, he asked to hold onto her ID, which she didn't think much of. Arriving at Nygard's property, she was shown around by a woman who revealed that having sex with Nygard was expected. The speaker refused, but the woman offered to take her place for the first night. Reluctantly, the speaker listened to Nygard and the woman engaging in intercourse. The next night, she was forced to have sex with Nygard against her will. Feeling trapped and unable to leave, she complied.