reSee.it - Related Video Feed

You think anyone can come to the U.S.? If you visit the Statue of Liberty, it seems welcoming. I picked up three guys from Honduras at Home Depot; they have nowhere to go. Hector needs medication twice a day, and they all need to use the bathroom. Can they stay here? No, why not? You support them coming to the country but not into your home? Come on, that's hypocritical. Let’s go, guys. Sorry, man.

I dressed up to look like I work for Kamala's campaign and I'm trying to find a place for some immigrants who just crossed the border. They need somewhere to stay, even if it's just on the floor. I asked if they could sleep on the lawn, but the response was hesitant because of kids living there. I mentioned that they’re supportive of the border situation, and we’re just looking for a safe place for them. There was some confusion about how to pronounce Kamala's name, and I pointed out that it seemed like they were leaning towards voting for Trump instead. The conversation became tense, and it was clear there was a disagreement about the situation.

Speaker 0 asks if anyone is willing to take in refugees, but most people decline due to lack of space or rental restrictions. One person says they would consider it if they had more room. Speaker 1 mentions having a small house and not being able to accommodate a refugee. Another person says they would be willing if they had the space. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking where the refugees should go since no one is able to take them in.

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

Speaker 0 admits to engaging in sexual activities with children who willingly came to his bed. Speaker 1 expresses concern about the harm caused by adults forcing sexuality on children. Speaker 2 shares their experience of being groomed by an adult and manipulated into liking the abuse. Speaker 3 questions how someone as intelligent as Speaker 0 could justify their actions. Speaker 0 defends their behavior, claiming not to know why they engaged in pedophilia. The video ends with Speaker 0 expressing disgust at the idea of acting in their own biography and advocating for intergenerational sex for stronger family bonds.

Speaker 0 defends being naked in front of kids, claiming it's natural and about love winning. Speaker 1 questions the appropriateness, pointing out kids being present. Speaker 0 brushes it off, saying it's fine as long as nothing inappropriate is happening. Speaker 1 highlights the discomfort of nudity around children, but Speaker 0 remains unfazed, insisting it's not a big deal.

Speaker 0 explains that the couple’s ruse may seem odd to some people and does not fit into any “white handbook” about keeping the kingdom orderly. There is no section on how to rescue children from sex traffickers. Speaker 1 interrupts to say they want to explain something. Speaker 0 continues that, using his team, they have had to figure things out on their own. He acknowledges that people may dismiss it, but he emphasizes gratitude for the opportunity to publicly state a principle: he will never confess to something he did not do, no matter who asks, unless God himself and an angel or some divine directive instructs him to lie to protect Elder Ballard’s name from defamation. He asserts clearly that he will not lie or confess to a false wrongdoing unless there is a divine instruction to do so. He reiterates that there is not one person on the planet for whom he would deviate from this principle, unless a direct message from God or a celestial being instructs him otherwise. Speaker 1 closes with a brief interjection: “But by the way, folks.”

Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0 about sleeping in a car at a park. Speaker 0 explains the sunshade was up due to rain. Speaker 1 asks about the window being up. Speaker 0 refuses to roll it down. Speaker 1 mentions park closing at sunset. Speaker 0 points out it's not yet sunset. Speaker 1 leaves, and Speaker 0 questions the encounter.

Speaker 0 confronts Speaker 1 about inviting a minor over. Speaker 1 admits to thinking Speaker 0 was trying to lure him. Speaker 0 insists on discussing the situation seriously. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 not to involve the police and says he will handle it. Speaker 0 agrees not to call the police.

A person is heard making sexually suggestive comments, inviting someone to "bring that juicy ass over here and hop in daddy's new whip." They then ask if the person wants to "rip off that top and hop on in here." Another person responds that this behavior is "not okay" and that "you don't talk to people" like that. The first person states, "I've never been more ready."

Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 claims to hate children in interviews. Speaker 1 explains that in today's world, it's easier for a single man like him to say he doesn't like children. Speaker 0 suggests that Speaker 1 says this to avoid tabloids speculating about him being a pedophile. Speaker 1 agrees and questions how anyone can truly know if he is or isn't.

Speaker 0 describes entering a room where a massage table is in the middle, candles around, and asks the host questions. He asks, “Massage table in the middle of your house? How often do you have a massage?” The host replies, “Everyday,” then gets “weirdly close” and says, “And the right kind of massage.” The wife is present; they exchange looks and decide they must leave. They walk the six or eight steps back to their house and conclude they will never be in the room with that person again, not socially, for business, or philanthropy. If that guy is there, they won’t attend. They regard it as a gift—the voice and the moment. That’s their one and absolutely done.

The conversation centers on a chaotic discussion about the man’s children and relationships with multiple partners. Key points include: - Speaker 0 mentions Christmas with five kids under 10, setting the scene for a discussion about his children and paternity. - A heated exchange arises over how many baby mamas he has. Speaker 1 asks, “How many baby mamas do you have?” and the question is described as triggering; Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 debate the truth of whether he has five baby mamas, with conflicting statements about the number. - The topic shifts to child support, with an implied question about whether he is paying it, and a reluctance to answer. - The dialogue escalates with insults and provocative statements, including a claim that “Are you prostituting these kids, gang?” and assertions about his household containing five kids. - Speaker 0 pushes back by saying someone is coming after his children to shut him down, while Speaker 1 accuses him of bringing “the mob gang” into the discussion, labeling it as irrelevant. - Speaker 2 interjects to emphasize concern for the children, arguing that discussing someone’s children in this way is not nice and suggesting child services should check to ensure the kids are okay. There is a broader worry about the kids’ welfare, with remarks about whether the children are clearly his and the reliability of paternity (e.g., “DNA tested” and “how many baby moms he’s had”). - The group remains divided on the exact number of baby mamas, with Speaker 1 insisting on five, and Speaker 2 and others expressing concern about the impact of the discussion on the children. - The exchange ends with continued disagreement about the children and the relevance of the accusations, and Speaker 0 asking, “Why am I” as the discussion trails off. Overall, the main themes are the number of the man’s children and his baby mamas, the legitimacy of those relationships, child support, the potential involvement of child services, and a pervasive focus on the welfare of the children amid heated accusations and defense.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire to protect someone from experiencing hardships they've faced. Speaker 0 then states feeling violated. Speaker 1 compliments Speaker 0's scent and asks their age. Speaker 0 is 16, turning 17 in two weeks. Speaker 1 says they never smelled that good at 16. Speaker 0 asks if the other would rather be naked on stage during a song or drink blended worms. Speaker 0 says they have young fans and can't give a sex talk, noting they never received one. Speaker 0 asks why a 15-year-old boy would want a sex talk from them, expressing discomfort. Speaker 0 suggests discussing the album, noting the other person hasn't been calling or hanging out like before, and has tried contacting them through partners.

Speaker 0 argues that the situation is “not really pedophilia,” stating it involved no trafficking of five-year-olds and emphasizing a distinction based on legality (“technically not legal,” not trafficking). The speaker then criticizes someone for speaking as if they would know or ask details, describing a scenario where a well-connected “coolest guy” suggests going on his private jet to his private island with “hot girls.” Speaker 0 claims the person in question does not specify ages, implying that the assumption would be that the girls are adults and that a nerd would ask about how old they are. Speaker 0 further adds that the context might be framed as “international waters,” suggesting that this would be treated as irrelevant to the age question. The transcript ends with the speaker repeating “Shut the fuck up.”

Can you clarify the district policy on boys sharing hotel rooms with girls? I'm not sure about the specific district policies regarding this matter. I can send you the video, but I need to know if that's the policy. I don't have the details on every district policy related to all operations at the moment.

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.'

Speaker 0 shares a racist online comment they received: "If her parents did not immigrate here, she would be sleeping in cow shit with no rights, the irony." Speaker 0 asks their mother to react to the comment. The mother asks for clarification, then states that they did have cows in their house, so it's not a big deal.

In this video, the speaker asks how to differentiate between boys and girls. They mention that boys have short hair, but what if both individuals have short hair? The speaker suggests another way to determine gender is by removing their clothes. They also mention being asked explicit and sexual questions that made them uncomfortable, comparing it to how they would feel talking that way to their own child.

There's someone in our broader community whose immigration status is not fully resolved. We decided to offer her a place to stay above our garage, making it clear that we are supportive of her situation.

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?”

The speakers engage in a conversation about a person named Michael, who is described as being big. They discuss whether Michael receives a family discount at Taco Bell and make jokes about his size. One person suggests officially adopting Michael, but another questions the motive behind it. The conversation becomes heated as one person defends their choices and asks for respect. They mention that the boy has been through difficult experiences. The conversation ends with someone expressing concern about another person named Collins.

The speaker instructs someone to remove a blanket and asks who is going for a place. The speaker questions if someone is choosing to be noncompliant. The speaker then instructs someone to squeeze something to see if it goes and to double up. The speaker states they will see someone later and will lift someone up, asking if they want to be lifted to their knees or carried. The speaker then acknowledges carrying someone.

There is a divide being discussed, with one person claiming that they are not buying into it. They emphasize that they have gay and lesbian family and friends and stand in love for them. They accuse the other person of creating the divide and smearing them as haters. The conversation shifts to the law and the request to stop grooming children. The repeated plea is to leave their kids alone.

Speaker 0 gives something to Speaker 1, insisting that it will make them go to the bathroom. Speaker 1 thanks Speaker 0 for their trust. They discuss the concept of trust and how it affects them. Speaker 0 wants to explain something about the cloud, but Speaker 1 interrupts and says they can't talk about it on TV. They discuss where they want to go that evening. Speaker 0 mentions Gabriel, who is an insomniac, and Speaker 1 suggests they go with a twelve-and-a-half-year-old girl. They mention someone who is sixty-two years old. Speaker 1 wonders why they wouldn't be worried about it. Speaker 0 says they should intervene in certain situations, but Speaker 1 is unsure. They end by saying they will follow each other's lead. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss trust, the cloud, and their plans for the evening. They mention Gabriel, a twelve-and-a-half-year-old girl, and someone who is sixty-two years old. Speaker 1 questions why they shouldn't be concerned, while Speaker 0 suggests intervening in certain situations. They agree to follow each other's lead.