reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

There were suspicious donations made in the name of the speaker, but they do not recognize them. The donations were made using their name and address for small amounts, but the speaker usually only donates around $75. They suspect someone else may be using their information for larger donations. The speaker wants a refund for the unauthorized donations and would have noticed if they were making such large contributions.

On February 17th, $1,000 was given to Mike Leiszek, followed by another $1,000 on February 18th, and $1,000 on April 16th. However, on April 19th, only $200 was given to Mike Leiszek. The speaker is being accused of stealing money, but they present receipts to their lawyer as evidence. They mention $10,000 to Lutz in Trust, along with other amounts. The speaker expresses frustration with people ruining lives without evidence and sharing unverified information.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Speaker 0 informs Speaker 1 about numerous donations made in their name, but Speaker 1 denies making any donations. Speaker 2 explains that people are using Speaker 1's name and address to make donations, which is confusing. Speaker 1 expresses surprise and mentions their financial difficulties, making it unlikely for them to make large donations. Speaker 2 shows Speaker 1 a list of donations, including some for $500 and $250, which Speaker 1 confirms are not theirs. Speaker 1 agrees to get a refund for these donations and mentions changing their credit card recently. They emphasize that they would have noticed such large charges and would not be able to afford them.

Speaker 0 criticizes others for attacking a black woman in power. They express disappointment in smear campaigns and emphasize the need to live harmoniously in the community. Speaker 1 denies using a credit card for personal expenses in Las Vegas. Speaker 2 mentions taxpayer money spent at restaurants. Speaker 1 defends their actions, stating they answered questions about spending.

I have never received any money from any foreign source in my entire life. It has come to our attention that the current president has paid significantly more taxes in China, possesses a hidden bank account in China, conducts business in China, and has made claims about me accepting money. However, I want to clarify that I have never accepted any money from any country at any time.

I'm at an outside meeting and need you to deliver evidence to someone. Do you have a card? Yes, I do. Just give it to him. We want confirmation that he received it. Thank you. You're welcome. Have a great day. Thank you, you too.

There was an issue with refunds, as some money went out and there were many refunds requested within three days. There were different situations, with some people returning the money and others not. They decided to stop all expenses and wait until everything is settled before returning the money. They mentioned that they received tickets from the media and vendors, but they needed more information to confirm if everything was legitimate. They planned to refund everyone on the 15th and couldn't do it earlier.

The speaker is asked about accepting and participating in a large Visa IPO deal in February while serving as Speaker of the House, given pending legislation affecting credit card companies. The questioner asks if the speaker believes it was appropriate to accept a favorable stock deal and whether it constituted a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. The speaker denies any conflict of interest, stating it only appears so if based on a false premise. They deny acting upon an investment.

The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes. Translation: The speaker questions the witness about using personal email for official business, citing emails indicating an intentional avoidance of FOIA. The witness denies intentional avoidance, claiming personal emails were not government business. The witness explains a technical issue causing confusion between personal and official emails. The speaker expresses disbelief and concludes.

I never traveled to DC with Mr. Wade for personal or business reasons. We have never been in DC at the same time. I have been to DC for an interview at Howard University and the Global Summit, but not with Mr. Wade. I did not visit the White House during my trips to DC.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1's travel expenses are being paid and by whom. Speaker 1 says it depends on the expenses and doesn't see why they have to justify their travel to Quinell, but confirms they were invited. Speaker 0 asks who invited them and if they are selling books, inquiring about their motivation for going. Speaker 1 states they receive no money for the books. Speaker 0 suggests it's a lot of trouble to claim 215 children died to get $7,000,000, implying there are easier ways to obtain that amount.

The speaker is describing issues with payment deposits that were supposed to be made to their account. They indicate that deposits were scheduled for January 7 and January 14, but to date, nothing has been deposited. They point out that deposits on those dates were expected, yet “they deposit nothing,” leaving the account without funds. They then discuss what they were supposed to receive in total. The speaker asks what they were supposed to receive and references the last payment, confirming an amount of 3600 pesos. They reiterate that the amount discussed is 3600 pesos, and they refer to “the first” payment in connection with that amount, indicating that 3600 pesos was associated with the initial or first payment in the sequence. In relation to where the money should go, the speaker confirms that the funds are supposed to go to their bank account. They ask whether the money goes to a bank account or a card, and the responses confirm that there is both a bank account and a card involved. The participant confirms, “Yes,” there is an account and a card. Finally, the speaker clarifies the current status of funds. They ask if anything is on the card now or if there is money elsewhere, and the responder confirms that there is no money: “Dinero, No, no hay dinero.” They restate that there is nothing at all and that no deposits have been made, leaving them with no funds in the account or on the card.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

The speakers discuss the vaccination landscape around human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines, focusing on a controversial issue they claim has been known and disseminated since early on: contamination with DNA (DNA residuals) from Deinococcus or related genetic material in vaccines and the implications of aluminum adjuvants used in Gardasil/Gardasil 9. - They begin by asserting that HPV vaccines, including Gardasil/Sil, have been the subject of remarkable legal actions worldwide, including four major lawsuits in Japan. They note that historically, in Japan, many young women and girls stood as plaintiffs, and that the core problem they highlight is the DNA contamination issue (referred to as “ディー エ ヌ エー 混 入 汚 染 問 題”). - The claim is that from early on, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and others acknowledged this contamination as central. They reference a 2012 paper that reportedly made the DNA contamination problem very clear, naming pathogens such as Human Papillomavirus, HPV, and DEIN? They describe that vaccine particles (HBV? HPBL DNA fragments) were found to be directly bound to aluminum adjuvant particles in Gardasil, implying a mechanism by which residual DNA could be involved in adverse effects. - The speakers say that the 2012 study, and subsequent work, led to attention from doctors worldwide who listened to the voices of women and girls and wondered what was happening with the vaccine recipients. They claim that samples showed that residual HPV DNA fragments were consistently present and directly linked to aluminum adjuvant particles, and that “PCR” detection indicated the same DNA sequences across samples. They mention that the 2012 paper’s findings were followed by reporting that, by 2014, vaccination had been suspended in Japan earlier than many would have expected. - They recount a process in which major scientists from various countries (France, the UK, and others) were involved in investigating adenoviral or genetic components (they reference Shihan? and others) and that the Japan-based researchers, including Ishii Ken, were central figures. They describe meetings, PowerPoint presentations at a hotel, and a sequence of visits to the UK and the US (including HR-related planning with U.S. FDA and the UK authorities) that were interrupted by closures in the Obama era, leading to documentation and discussions about the safety concerns. - The speakers claim that by the 2012 report and again by 2014, all vaccine samples from multiple countries contained residual DNA, and that Japan became a hub for disseminating awareness of these issues globally. They state that the issue was present not only in the early Gardasil (Gardasil-4) but also in later forms, with references to Gardasil-9 and the idea that the DNA contamination and adjuvant interactions could contribute to immune and neurological symptoms in recipients, particularly in women and girls. - They discuss changes to WHO and FDA guidelines on residual DNA limits, noting a progression from 10 picograms to higher thresholds over time, implying corporate interests in allowing higher residual DNA quantities in vaccines. They emphasize that the shift in limits is tied to pharmaceutical companies’ needs, not human biology changes, and argue that Japan highlighted the problem of Deinance-DNA contamination during the cervical cancer vaccine era, signaling that researchers, journalists, and victims were aware long before others. - Finally, Speaker 1 adds that two points became clear a year earlier: the disruption of messenger RNA–type vaccines as a response to safety concerns, and the subsequent rise in adverse outcomes after widespread vaccination, including deaths, which they claim intensified opposition to these vaccines. Note: The summary presents the speakers' claims and sequencing of events as described in the transcript without evaluation or endorsement.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

I want to clarify that my father had no financial involvement in my business.

The speaker states they were on Jeffrey Epstein's jet twice: once in 1993 with their wife and two children to visit their mother in Florida for Easter, facilitated by Glenn Maxwell, and another time with their family, including four children and their wife, to Rapid City, South Dakota, for fossil hunting. The speaker claims they were never on the jet alone and have been open about these trips from the beginning. They assert that these flights occurred before Epstein's nefarious activities were known. The speaker believes all information regarding Jeffrey Epstein and his connections to high-level political figures should be released to the public without redactions.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

I will not comment on allegations regarding my family's business dealings. The claims are false. I did not interact with their business associates. There are many questions.

Did you serve as CFO for Hillary Clinton's campaign? Yes, in 2016. Did you facilitate the payment for the Steele dossier? That was not something I was aware of. Yes or no? It was not something I was aware of. I yield back the rest of my time.

The speaker confirms that the person in question reimbursed them for shared travel expenses in cash, not by check. The speaker also states that all vacations were paid for in cash. When asked if they included these expenses as deductions on their taxes, the speaker denies doing so.

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.