reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Both parties have a history of questioning election legitimacy. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter, among others, delegitimized Donald Trump's 2016 win. Clinton continues to be unrepentant about this. The Obama administration used the apparatus of government to spread the falsehood that Russia got Trump elected, even though intelligence reports judged Russian meddling as insignificant. According to the speaker, there was a conspiracy using government and intel agencies to delegitimize Trump. The speaker cites John Brennan's flippant response to the unverified Steele dossier as evidence of this. The speaker references the book "Rigged" by Molly Hemingway, which details the Democrats' disregard. Democrats, including Raskin, voted against seating electors in 2016, claiming the election was rigged. The speaker concludes that both parties have accused each other of election malfeasance and suggests moving forward.

In 2016, there was controversy surrounding the hacking and recount of voting machines in Michigan and Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton was upset because the machines she had hacked got unhacked, and Jill Stein demanded a recount. It was believed that Hillary expected the same treatment as Joe Biden in the election. She had been promised that the game would be rigged for her, but it didn't happen. This caused her to lose her mind and throw things. In 2016, someone counterhacked the people who were going to hack on Hillary's behalf, but that didn't happen this time. The speakers know who did it but will save that for another discussion.

In 2016, it was known that hacking could occur during the presidential election. The election results were surprisingly close compared to the polls, indicating possible interference. However, no US states examined enough paper ballots to determine if the computers were hacked. This revealed a significant gap in our system. With a deadline approaching for states to finalize their electoral college votes, there was a need to expose any fraud that may have occurred. Election integrity advocates struggled to find a solution to ensure the examination of physical evidence that could detect cyber attacks.

Hillary Clinton personally signed off on something. Robby Mook made it clear that Clinton paid Fusion GPS through her campaign and lawyers, and was told the papers provided hadn't been verified. They figured the media would vet the information, specifically Slate, not the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. This occurred while Clinton was deleting emails and having server issues. Clinton's team had an October surprise, and on October 31st, she retweeted Jake Sullivan's tweet about Trump's server with Alfa Bank, which was a lie. Robby Mook testified that Comey, not Trump, caused the most damaging days of the campaign. Hillary Clinton said in May 2017 that if the election were on October 27th, she would be president.

- Inside the TCF center, Speaker 0 recounts that local media said the events didn’t happen. Patty called on November 4 from inside the TCF, saying: “I just heard that a van dropped off boxes of ballots in the middle of the night,” and she was working there that morning. - They filed a request to obtain the video, which took months to acquire, and they obtained the footage described as a gateway (likely a video) about the incident. They shared the video on Twitter and their site, and as a result they later lost their Twitter account after posting it. - The video shows a lead escort car arriving. Each time, someone adds something to one side, and then the van drives in. The van is said to have entered twice. - Local media, including one of the top reporters, is quoted as saying that this never happened, that he was there all night, and there was no fraud.

We learn about DC leaks and the connection to APT 28, a Russian military intelligence hacking group. The morning the Hunter Biden story broke in the New York Post, it was confusing. We didn't know what to believe, but it seemed like a possible hacking campaign by APT 28. Despite that, I didn't feel comfortable removing the content from Twitter.

The speaker recounts an incident where Hillary Clinton fell while entering a van. According to the speaker's head of security, she was not going to the hospital to avoid examination, but instead to her daughter's apartment to see a "phony doctor." The speaker claims the staff had no loyalty to Hillary and observed her looking wobbly. One staff member said she almost fell into the crowd on stage. The speaker believes she was also sick with some kind of infection, observable for about a week. The speaker states they had people following her because the press doesn't provide truthful explanations.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

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.

In the video, the speaker discusses the release of Hillary Clinton's emails from the late 2010s, which contained embarrassing details such as her speeches to Goldman Sachs. These emails damaged her image as she pretended to be a friend of the people. The speaker also mentions the leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee, which were wrongly blamed on Russia. They suggest that a DNC employee leaked the emails due to favoritism towards Clinton's campaign over Bernie Sanders'. The speaker asked if the publisher realized how powerful Clinton was, to which they replied that it was fun and they enjoyed it.

The speaker states that the recounts support the correct election outcome, providing assurance that Donald Trump won without doubt. While there is no strong evidence of fraud or cyberattacks, the incomplete counts make verification imperfect. President Obama ordered an investigation into hacking before leaving office, with intelligence agencies agreeing that hacking likely influenced the outcome. Although the speaker can sleep at night, they cannot completely rule out fraud. Another speaker mentions that the recounts further confirm that the election was not hacked, increasing confidence in the election. However, they also discovered that hacking a US presidential election would be even easier than initially believed.

A team of six people took two and a half weeks to investigate a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden. It is claimed that with more staff, the story could have been reported within a week. It is argued that a story could have been run stating that a laptop had emerged, purported to be Hunter Biden's, noting that its authenticity had not been completely verified, but that it corresponded with government records released a week prior. The speaker claims that the media often reports on unverified information, citing the anonymous dossier as an example. They suggest that the New York Times or other mainstream media outlets could have reported on the laptop by October 21st, even if they first learned about it from The New York Post.

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.

The transcript states that Russia claimed to have very, very damaging information—high level DNC emails relating specifically to Hillary Clinton's physical and mental health and DNC leaders questioning whether, if elected, she would be capable of carrying out the duties of the presidency. Russia had this information. If they wanted to swing the election for Donald Trump, they would have released it in September or October 2016 at a pivotal time to swing momentum in Donald Trump’s direction and damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. They did not do that deliberately. They understood that Hillary Clinton would likely be the inevitable president of The United States. They didn’t think Trump could win like a lot of other people. And so they were withholding this damaging information about Hillary Clinton and planning to release it in the days or weeks leading up to her inaugurate expected inauguration in order to once again sow chaos within The United

The speaker discusses the hacking of the DNC and mentions someone named Seth who allegedly provided information. However, the speaker does not reveal their sources. They believe that the files were not hacked by Russia but rather leaked from within the building. The speaker mentions Bill Binney, a former NSA officer, who supposedly demonstrated this. They also mention that lies about the hacking led to tensions with Russia. The speaker admits to initially dismissing the conspiracy theories surrounding the issue but later realized the truth. They express frustration with the lack of transparency and understanding surrounding certain actions and question the motives behind them.

Host: Epstein is Pizzagate. Ten years ago, Pizzagate was the top Twitter trend, with the claim that pedophile elites preyed on children deemed insane by many. I was the first mainstream reporter to dare present the facts around Pizzagate; my corporate career was destroyed, and others who suggested it were blacklisted or shadow banned. But just days ago, the largest dump of Epstein files revealed what some of us have been telling you for a decade: Pizzagate is real. Not that there’s a pizza parlor at the center of a child trafficking ring, but that child trafficking rings run by powerful people do exist. Tonight, I want to remind you of what I told you then and compare it to what we have learned. Guest: Pizzagate became a major story when an armed man went to a DC-area pizza place to investigate for himself, firing a rifle at the floor. The media labeled the entire story a hoax or fake news. I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? The story known as Pizzagate did not begin with a rumor, nor was it created by Macedonian sheep farmers as CNN claimed. It began with WikiLeaks, authentic verified emails from John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Those emails were real, and within them were communications that researchers and former law enforcement found unusual. A group of self-proclaimed pedophiles on 4chan and 8chan claimed Podesta was using their coded language. An urban dictionary entry from 2010 confirms that “cheese pizza” is a commonly coded term for child pornography. Host: I want you to see these images. The triangle in the Besta Pizza logo was linked to a “boy lover” image, and Besta Pizza changed its logo after Pizzagate investigators pointed it out, removing the triangle. Guest: Ten years ago I was dismissed as a dangerous conspiracy theorist for suggesting pedophiles and possibly elite pedophiles might use coded language, even though online pedophiles themselves acknowledged it. The new Epstein release mentions the word “pizza” 911 times in emails, often paired with “grape soda.” Examples include: “Well, this is better than a Chinese cookie. Let’s go for pizza and grape soda again.” “Mister Epstein would like to see the menu from the pizza place. Could you someone send it, please?” and a 2014 note: “Are you sitting? Jeffrey says he wants to go out to a pizza place with you.” The emails range around 2014, similar to the Podesta emails published by WikiLeaks, which started the Pizzagate saga. Host: There was talk about the Podesta brothers; John Podesta’s email showed a close relationship with Dennis Hastert, who was sentenced to fifteen months for abusing boys. An email from John Podesta to his brother Tony, “last night was fun,” begins with “still in torture chamber.” A 2009 Epstein email asking “where are you? You okay? I love the torture video” gained attention. Guest: The Epstein files show communications between elites—from a co-owner of an NFL team to billionaires like Elon Musk—described in coverage as a closer look at connections from Hollywood to Washington and beyond. CNN and other outlets allegedly suppressed discussion for a decade, conditioning the public to ignore the topic. There has been no public investigation by local police, the FBI, or others, raising the question of why no investigation has taken place. This is presented as evidence that the establishment protected and sustained this evil by avoiding honest engagement in 2016, choosing mockery over investigation, thereby creating the environment in which the mystery could thrive. Epstein is Pizzagate, and Pizzagate is bigger than Jeffrey Epstein alone.

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

Speaker 0 states that a federal investigator told Fox News that an FBI forensic report on Seth Rich’s computer showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and that Rich provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10; his wallet, cell phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later showing top DNC officials trading ideas on how to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, leading to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC’s top three officials because of the apparent conclusions in those emails. Speaker 1 asks if there is an October surprise and whether anything is known about what is being sat on. Speaker 2 replies that WikiLeaks never sits on material, noting that whistleblowers take significant risks to provide material. He references a 27-year-old DNC worker who was shot in the back in Washington two weeks earlier for unknown reasons, insisting there is no finding that it was a robbery, and questioning what is being implied. Speaker 1 presses, asking if the murdered man was one of their sources. Speaker 2 declines to comment on sources, reiterating that the stakes are high in the United States and that sources face serious risks, which is why they come to WikiLeaks to protect their anonymity. He acknowledges the seriousness of the murder and says they are investigating what happened with Seth Rich, though no conclusion has been reached, and that a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when such events occur. Speaker 3 contends that Seth Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and implies the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. He asserts Rich was murdered after leaking information to WikiLeaks, describing Rich as a young, idealistic patriot who wore American flag attire, and argues that the murder is connected to corruption in the Democratic Party. He reflects on his own experience with online detractors and acknowledges flaws in many political figures; he asserts that it is rare to find someone who wants to be “the king of the world” and notes his own perceived lack of reputation. Speaker 4 contributes with emotion, insisting that Seth Rich was murdered and that the claim of a botched robbery is unfounded, listing inconsistencies (wallet, watch, phone left behind). He references Julian Assange and Russia, calling Assange the “darling of the left” when Obama was in office and later noting that Assange is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. Speaker 5 and Speaker 6 discuss broader context: Speaker 6 notes that the week WikiLeaks coverage happened on Fox News coincided with Mueller’s appointment and Comey’s firing, suggesting Fox pivoted from Russia stories to Seth Rich to deflect. Speaker 7 explains DNC data release timing, claiming FAT (file allocation table) formatting changed last-modified times on files, implying data was downloaded to a physical device before publication, suggesting an inside job rather than a Russian hack. Speaker 8 links the chain of events to the FBI, CrowdStrike, and questions about the investigation, alleging possible media silence and questioning why the murder case wasn’t more scrutinized. Speaker 9 recalls a private investigator’s work and notes that the FBI came to possess Rich’s laptop, with some at the DNC suspecting political motivation behind his murder; he asserts a media lack of follow-up. Speaker 10 presents a much broader claim: on 11/01/2016, Hillary and Bill Clinton allegedly orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-optation, and a counter coup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated by intelligence communities to prevent Hillary from becoming president and to indict Obama administration figures, describing this as a silent, internet-based counter coup and promising a peaceful transition without violence.

Speaker 0: Well, I'm I'm not suggesting cooperation at all. Keep in mind that those statements were in the context of everyone now acting surprised by the CIA assessment that this was done purposely to, improve Trump's chances. And my only point was that shouldn't be treated as a blockbuster because that was the worst kept secret in this town. Everybody understood that. It was reported on. Steve, if you go back and look at your stories, if you read any mainstream publication, you would see that if you have a hack of the DNC and a hack of Hillary Clinton's most senior advisors' emails, and those things are then released in drip, drip, drip fashion over the course of months. And that seem to generate consistently negative coverage despite the fact that there's nothing in there that's particularly controversial, that it's mostly just, as I said, political gossip or routine emails between folks who are working, in a campaign environment, then it it's a pretty clear inference that people would draw and did draw that this was helping the Trump campaign and it was hurting the the Hillary campaign. That doesn't mean that the Trump campaign was coordinating. It just means that they understood what everybody else understood, which was that this was not good for Hillary Clinton's campaign. And when you combine that with the fact that the president-elect has been very honest about his admiration for Putin, and that he hopes to forge a more cooperative relationship with him and focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism, then my only point was we shouldn't now suddenly act as if this is a huge revelation. In October, we said, after being very careful about it because we had no interest in appearing as if we were putting our thumbs on the scales, we did what was almost unprecedented, which was every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians had hacked, the DNC, and the information was that was now being released, was as a consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels. So what the CIA is now assessing, which was it was done purposefully to tilt the election in another in the direction of a particular candidate, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody and in fact isn't a surprise to anybody.

On the Sunday after the election, the speaker received an urgent email from an election integrity advocate, inviting them to join a phone call with the Clinton campaign. Although Hillary Clinton was not present, her campaign manager and other top officials were. They discussed the possibility of requesting a recount in key states. The campaign had concerns about the evidence of hacking, the cost of the recount, and the potential backlash from retracting their concession to Donald Trump. The speaker found it frustrating that the campaign wanted evidence of hacking before considering a recount, as the purpose of a recount is to gather evidence.

At 2 o'clock in the morning, the speaker noticed that Trump was ahead by 10% in the election. However, their monitor suddenly rebooted, leading them to question the accuracy of the numbers. When they woke up later, Biden was in the lead. The speaker mentioned that only 120,000 out of the expected 170,000 absentee ballots had been processed by midnight. They believed there were still around 50,000 missing. The speaker also mentioned Sydney Powell's discussion about this issue in Rudy Giuliani's press conference. They noted that voting had stopped in the middle of the night, but only those at the processing tables would have witnessed the laptops rebooting. When asked about the political affiliation of those thrown out, the speaker said that if they clapped, it indicated they were Republicans.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard unveiled new evidence alleging that former president Barack Obama and top aides conspired to subvert President Trump’s February victory and undermine the democratic will of the American people. The private actions contrasted with publicly presented peaceful transfer of power, as Obama allegedly sought to sow discord and sabotage his successor. The released evidence purportedly confirms that the Obama administration manufactured politicized intelligence that was later used to justify baseless smears against President Trump in an effort to delegitimize his victory before he took the oath of office. The speaker asserts that President Trump never had anything to do with Russia, and that the Russia collusion hoax was a massive fraud perpetuated from the start, with Obama and others allegedly knowing the truth. The speaker names several officials as part of the alleged scheme: former CIA director John Brennan, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, former FBI director James Comey, former deputy director Andrew McCabe, and other officials. The report is said to corroborate that there was no collusion or corruption by Trump, but rather wrongdoing by Barack Obama and the weaponized intelligence agencies at the time. The Russia hoax is described as a blatant lie, devised by Democrat political operatives, approved by Obama, and leaked to the media to launch a years-long witch hunt against Trump and his first administration. Allies of the president, including Donald Trump Jr., were smeared as Russian assets, with some having their lives destroyed due to the allegations. The speaker notes that the first two years of Trump’s presidency were overshadowed by this fake distraction, with extensive resources, time, and political capital spent debunking the lies from the highest levels of government. Nearly ten years later, declassification of documents by the director is said to reveal the truth, vindicating Trump, his family, and allies who were smeared. The speaker claims there is now damning evidence implicating those who attempted to sabotage a duly elected president and harmed the republic. Thanks to work by CIA Director Ratcliffe and committee Chairman Rick Crawford, a newly declassified 2020 report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, declassified by DNI Gabbard, allegedly finds that the intel community did not have direct information that Vladimir Putin wanted to help elect Trump in 2016; rather, Russia was preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory, but was allegedly steered by Obama’s unusual direction to publish implausible intelligence suggesting otherwise to sabotage the incoming president. The speaker describes this as one of the greatest political scandals in American history and criticizes reporters from legacy outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, who allegedly continued to propagate the hoax, saying they were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for disinformation. The call is made for those awards to be stripped from journalists who produced disinformation in service of the Democrat Party and certain intelligence officials.

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 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.