reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: I know a little about human trafficking. The human trafficking portfolio fell underneath me in the counterterrorism shop where I was ahead. I worked with Tim Ballard at the White House to stamp out human and child sex trafficking. He was doing incredible work back then. Speaker 1: I'm the bad guy in the story. Last week, I got a call from some of the accusers, and what they're accusing him of is really not just—they're just really bad stuff. Really, really bad things. At first, because I've been friends with Tim for so long, I thought, that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Blew by them. Ridiculous. Until they persisted, and I started hearing more. I just heard somebody had filed in the HR complaints or something. Like, that's not possible. Well, the more the complaints come out, the worse it gets. These women called last week, and they wanted to do a show with me. That's not something I've even offered Tim. And I don't want to be the one making the calls on this. I'm not a journalist, and I'm also involved. Tim has been a friend of mine. OUR is a great organization, but I also stand up for victims. And I don't feel remaining silent on this or neutral if I know is acceptable. I don't know what they've done, but I've passed the women's number onto Leon Wolf, our news director, and said, put a journalist on this if you want. And I told him at the time, take it where it leads. I just want the truth. I just want the truth. So he put our best investigative reporter on it, and I heard last night that they are close to finishing the story. I was hoping that it was gonna be released today because this is yeah. If if if if it's true, I can't believe how many of us were duped. Speaker 2: Got pearlized. But it's still some guy who got fried and cried by the side. We gonna steal, slide, slide, slide until they all die. These niggas ain't seeing me because these niggas be small fry. I got big dude status, k l

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

The speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

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

The speaker asked for evidence of Steve's innocence, and a call between two individuals was provided. In the call, one person thanks the other for their support and expresses excitement for the future. The second person mentions a request for tokens and ETH worth a certain amount, but offers to give even more. The first person apologizes for being on their first cup of coffee. The speaker explains that this call is the alleged extortion incident, where the government claims Steve extorted the other person despite being offered more than he asked for.

The speaker discusses various legal proceedings and allegations of fraud in a conversation with another person. They mention the involvement of different individuals, including lawyers, judges, and government officials. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action and accountability in their case. They also mention a private investigator who tried to help but faced obstacles. The conversation touches on corruption and the speaker's belief that those in positions of power are part of a larger network of criminals.

Speaker 0, a lawyer who clerked for a federal appeals judge, says, "we have a a potentially serious case here for defamation," and that he is "speaking with lawyers, and we'll see what happens." He states, "She is lying in a way that is resonating with people in a way that damages you significantly" and adds, "It's just so evil." He describes Charlie as "a good friend of mine" he had known for "five, six years," noting they were "really close over the final year, year and a half" and "in daily communication." He says he doesn't know precisely how much Candice communicated with Charlie, but "she very much was on the outs of Turning Point USA" and they were "not in touch at all" aside from "a happy birthday" moments. He ends with, "Aaron, when I first found out that Charlie had been shot."

The conversation centers on Tina Peters, her defense team, and alleged procedural and ethical problems surrounding her case. The speaker details his personal involvement, including paying a million dollars to Doug Richards to defend Peters. He recounts discovering misgivings about Richards’ defense plan a few days before trial and visiting Richards’ hotel room to hear his theory of the case. Richards allegedly arrived resentfully on a Zoom call with other criminal defense attorneys and proposed a strategy to put Peters on the stand, claiming that “colonelson” told her to image a hard drive. The speaker notes that colonelson was the president’s attorney, not Peters’ own attorney, and Richards supposedly argued Peters could claim it was legal advice from an attorney, although the speaker states California does not have a legal advice exception and Colorado law would render such a defense nugatory. The proposed strategy allegedly aimed to create jury sympathy for a 68-year-old grandmother rather than present substantive legal arguments or evidence of fraud. The speaker contends that Richards’ strategy would have resulted in Peters going on the stand with no other witnesses, effectively inviting jury nullification and failing to argue legitimate defenses or present critical motions. Peters reportedly fell ill during this period, and she fired Richards at the last moment, seeking proper counsel. The judge and Richards are described as part of a “railroad” process in Colorado, with Richards allegedly designing an ineffectual defense to push Peters to testify, thereby enabling possible indictments of Kurt Olson and 45. The speaker asserts that several local criminal defense attorneys on a Zoom call were horrified by Richards’ strategy and that the defense was deliberately weak. Stephanie Lambert, currently indicted in Michigan, who is in leg irons in Washington, DC, then took Peters’ case and filed motions that, in the speaker’s view, should have been filed earlier. These motions contend that Peters, as county recorder, had the right to make a backup of election data, and that the backup was a legitimate act; a friend with a cyber background and a surfer athlete allegedly participated with Peters’ permission, though the employee “Billy” later denied it. The speaker asserts Peters did nothing wrong and that the charges should have been dismissed. The speaker criticizes the legal profession more broadly, claiming mass coordination by state bar associations and “Project 65” to deprive people of Sixth Amendment rights, citing John Eastman as another example. He mentions a concerted effort to undermine the defense and hints at promises of federal judgeships in exchange for cooperation. He notes that Peters’ motions filed by Lambert should have been filed earlier and accuses Richards of crafting a strategy that would have allowed immediate indictments of Donald Trump’s legal team. The speaker references a Supreme Court filing and a constitutional crisis, stating that the Supreme Court already has “everything it needs” as of the prior night. He praises one DC judge as fair and straightforward, while his other cases are described as varied, though he intends to proceed even if it means jail time. He promises to upload a confidential brief and invites the audience to read the filing with SCOTUS, signaling ongoing legal action.

Speaker 1 admits that mentioning being armed was to deter threats. They regret their choice of words and clarified their friend never said that. They received threats and harassment online even 14 months later, with a recent influx after a court subpoena.

First speaker: says "Calcula is cut. I'm unable to work or go to school. I understand. Fraud is bad." Second speaker: says "I'm sure what happened there at the end trade. I admit that she thought that was not supposed to be in there, but fraud is bad, and it's it's a bad issue publicly with the gun types in Minnesota."

People reacted strongly, demanding action, but the speaker says they have sacrificed for two years, facing ostracization, harassment, and threats. The speaker states that while others lived normal lives, they risked everything. The speaker emphasizes that nobody got hurt on their watch, and the allegation concerns something from six years ago that was hidden from them. The speaker also claims the alleged victim wasn't even harmed.

Speaker 0 discusses Dr. Francis Boyle as a highly distinguished human rights lawyer who worked at the highest levels of global treaties and advocacy, and who wrote the bioweapons treaty governing the United States. Boyle is described as having intimate knowledge of what a bioweapon is, what it does, and what it looks like. Early in the COVID-19 period, Boyle is said to have stated that COVID and the vaccine are bioweapons, echoing similar points made by others about their similar structures and common origins. The speaker notes Boyle warned the world that this is a bioweapon and cites Boyle’s status as a powerful voice on the matter. The speaker recalls an interview conducted in 2023 or 2024 with Boyle, describing him as deeply knowledgeable and brave, and asserts that the interview should have been front-page news. The speaker quotes Boyle as saying publicly that the virus and the vaccine are bioweapons and that their goal is to depopulate, disable, and kill. The speaker paraphrases Boyle’s words to emphasize that the aim is to disrupt reproduction and to disable and to kill, asserting that Boyle’s statements connected these outcomes to the design of the bioweapons. Boyle died in January, described as dying suddenly while being in good health and active in his early seventies. The speaker notes Sasha Ladopova’s claim that there is a problem with Boyle’s death, while avoiding speculation about the specifics, and states that Boyle was intended to be one of five witnesses slated to testify in a Netherlands trial against Pfizer, Albert Bourla, and Bill Gates regarding depopulation, disabling, and murdering people with the injection. Sasha Ladopova is reported as expressing concern about Boyle’s death and its timing, though the speaker declines to elaborate further, citing respect for the family’s privacy and avoiding baseless speculation. The transcript adds that the lawyer who would lead the prosecution in the same Netherlands context was arrested and detained under severe circumstances, highlighting a dramatic intervention that the speaker says does not align with the rule of law and due process in the Netherlands. The speaker closes by noting Boyle’s exceptional character and expressing a sense of great loss. Speaker 1 then warns listeners to be cautious about trusting Sasha Ladopova and Naomi Wolf, advising that if something is hard to swallow, one should pay attention, stating that these two individuals should be questioned at one's own peril. The speaker asserts personal familiarity with both women and urges listeners to recognize potential risks in accepting their reporting.

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.

There is no client list detailing people Jeffrey Epstein trafficked. Instead, there is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers accusing various people of improper sex. The speaker, as the former lawyer involved in investigations, knows the identities of those redacted, but claims none are public figures currently in office. Some were previously in office, and some are dead. The redactions are the result of court orders from two judges in Manhattan protecting alleged victims. Pam Bondi, the Justice Department, and Donald Trump are not responsible for these redactions, and the speaker is unaware of any undisclosed information they could release. The speaker claims the vast majority of names in the files are already public knowledge, appearing in articles and books. The speaker believes the media has not done enough to find the people already disclosed in the public record.

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.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

The speaker recounts a long-standing pattern of interactions with federal agents, noting that jokes about agents reading their chats stopped being funny for a period. They describe being pressured to work for these agencies for months, a pressure that left no paper trail and was deliberately concealed. Each time agents visited their home, they were asked to shut off their phone and told not to tell anyone about what was happening. The speaker explains that the only reason they can discuss the situation now is that they made a deliberate, fear-driven decision to do so. They recall sweating and nearly vomiting, and they went so far as to clip a DJI microphone to their bra before every visit, anxious that the device would beep or reveal what was being discussed. This precaution reflects the level of fear and the stakes involved in the interactions. They claim to have later confronted Parliament about the surveillance and pressure campaigns they faced, actions taken after they recorded evidence of these activities. The speaker asserts a broader possibility: there exists a very real world in which they did none of that—where they would still be online today as an independent influencer while privately secretly acting on behalf of Canadian intelligence agencies—because they were made to believe they would go to jail. They emphasize that they are not the only person affected by this dynamic, suggesting a wider pattern or network behind these experiences.

These two individuals, with over a decade of experience each, are known for their expertise in international tax evasion cases. Their testimony has remained consistent throughout, and recently, an FBI agent confirmed their statements. The question arises: who should we believe? The justice department's story has changed three times in just 33 days, while these two individuals have remained steadfast. It is worth noting that the justice department has been criticized for censoring Americans and making controversial statements about moms, dads, pro-life Catholics, and extremists. Given these circumstances, it is up to you to decide who to trust.

The speakers discuss alleged hidden dynamics within Turning Point and connections to international and ideological forces. Speaker 0 claims that Arizona has long investigated Turning Point, and that conversations within the state finally broke into the public sphere. He says he spoke with Liz Harris, a former Arizona House member, and asserts that Harris told him, “Turning Point's Mossad. Tyler Boyer is Mossad. They're all neocons. They're connected to Mossad.” He says he has the report and a recording of Harris saying this, emphasizing that many people warned him but he wanted to verify for himself. He states that "when Charlie died that was it for me" and that he decided it was time to come out and reveal what he witnessed and participated in, apologizing to the American people. Speaker 1 acknowledges familiarity with Liz Harris and then asks for details about internal communications leaking after Charlie’s death, which allegedly show that he was leaving the Zionist cause and that leadership faced questions about Israel policy. The question is whether Tyler Boyer was explicitly asked about this direction and what his answer was. Speaker 0 describes an incident in Boyer’s office where a female associate asked Boyer, “why are you so against Candace Owens. The Israel cause etcetera.” He says Boyer closed the door, pulled the speaker’s friend in, and told her, “listen, I’m a Zionist. Candace Owens is a black conservative who wants to be relevant in this movement. And she's doing whatever she can at all cause to stay relevant.” He presents this as proof, claiming it is in the text he sent to Stu and that the friend confirmed it in the office encounter. Across the exchange, the core assertions are that Liz Harris labeled Turning Point's leadership as connected to Mossad and neocon interests, specifically naming Tyler Boyer as Mossad; that after Charlie’s death there were internal, leaked communications about Zionist alignment and Israel policy; and that Boyer disclosed a Zionist stance and disparaged Candace Owens during a confrontation in his office, presenting Candace Owens as attempting to stay relevant in the movement.

The conversation threads through a tangled set of relationships and alleged secrets surrounding Erika and her past marriages. Speaker 0 introduces Erika’s first husband, Derek Chelsvigg, and notes a young daughter from Erika’s earlier marriage, questioning why this history is hidden and suggesting possible trafficking concerns. They mention an apparent photoshoot with Erika’s ex-husband and speculate about whether Erika had another daughter, while observing that information about her past is being scrubbed online. The speakers reference Erika’s old Instagram and her ex-husband’s social media remaining private, implying secrecy around Erika’s past. They wonder if Erika is a time traveler and recall a past shoot with someone named Tyler, asking whether he was murdered or disappeared. They mention Cabot Phillips dating Erika after the marriage, and a timeline: seven days after that marriage, Cabot Phillips is seen playing ball with someone named Charlie. They propose theories that Erika could have harmed Charlie or that Charlie simply disappeared, and note that an ex-boyfriend may have reappeared in the scene. The possibility is raised that Erika is a honeypot moving between relationships, with “stepping stones” in her life. Speaker 0 also reveals that Erika has a sister, and asks where she is. Speaker 2 introduces a whistleblower: an insider who warns that exposing the truth would provoke retaliation against him and anyone who helps him. This person found emails, approvals, and signatures tying Erika’s wife’s charity work to the same network, and says he didn’t yell or accuse but went quiet, believing that if Erika is part of the network, everything has been a lie. For him, the matter shifted from politics to a personal crisis, and he says that if he stays quiet, he’s “one of them”; if he speaks, he’s dead, but people deserve to know. Speaker 0 asserts that Charlie discovered information about Erika and discussed filing for divorce two days before Charlie’s disappearance; there has still been no autopsy released, and Erika is the only person who could release it, labeled as “Sussy.” Speaker 1 announces a situation that is “absolutely out of control,” criticizing incompetent politicians and referencing a presidential figure, then broadens to state-level politics with John McCain mentioned. The speaker complains about campaign contributions, special interests, and lobbyists, and predicts political turnover. They vow to “make this country so great again” and describe an event where, according to the speaker, reporters who were crying were present—hard, better reporters who were once known to the speaker as not good people. The exchange ends with a more casual check-in: “How you doing back there?”

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 speaker clarifies that the paperwork they signed was not done in secrecy and was publicly explained on their Facebook page. Another speaker points out that intent and beliefs do matter, citing an attorney's interpretation of the law. The first speaker agrees, stating that the attorney general seems to have no idea what she's doing and suggests that this is political persecution, not a criminal prosecution.

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

In this video, the speakers discuss a call called the StormX call, which is claimed to be evidence of Steve's innocence. Speaker 1 expresses excitement about building something beautiful and thanks the supporters. Speaker 2 mentions that they will give Steve more tokens than he originally asked for, and Speaker 1 apologizes for being on their first cup of coffee. The speakers suggest that if Steve didn't have a video of this call, the other party would have testified that Steve extorted them. This is one of the instances where the government accused Steve of extortion.

The speaker mentions a little-known aspect of their case involving FBI agents planning to plant child porn on their husband's computer. Another FBI agent in a separate case admitted to doing this. Fortunately, it was not carried out in their situation, but the thought of it happening is disturbing, especially considering they have a young daughter at home.