reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In my 30 years as a prosecutor, judge, and DA, I have never seen a witness torn apart like Michael Cohen. He lies constantly, including to congress, judges, and in court. Cohen claimed to have resolved an issue with Trump in 2016, but evidence showed otherwise. This case is a circus led by a liar. A judge should dismiss it before going to a jury.

The speaker points out that the prosecutor in the case has intertwined her political interests with the case, which could backfire. The prosecutor has been removed from part of the case due to a conflict of interest and has made inappropriate public statements. The speaker believes this is bad form for a prosecutor and could be a problem when the case goes to court. They predict that Donald Trump will argue that the prosecutor has improperly mixed politics with the case and should be removed. The speaker acknowledges that these arguments may not succeed, but the prosecutor has created problems for herself.

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

The speaker discusses the testimony of a woman in a legal case. They praise her performance on the stand and mention that the press was quiet because the day was uneventful. The speaker explains that the case requires proving intent to defraud and reliance, particularly with sophisticated banks like Deutsche Bank. They criticize the bank's involvement in private business contracts and mention that the only testimony about the president came from Michael Cohen, who they claim lied under oath. The speaker accuses Cohen and Letitia James of not being above the law and wasting taxpayer dollars.

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 conversation centers on controversial claims about political figures and their spouses, and how these claims intersect with media coverage and political strategy. - The speakers discuss Candace Owens’ allegations about “Macron’s wife,” presenting a complex and sensational backstory: Macron reportedly has a wife who was younger and whom he met when she was a teacher, with contradictory accounts about her gender history (initially claimed to be a man who transitioned, then said to be his father who transitioned and returned). They describe a 25-year age difference and ongoing public appearances in which Macron’s wife is said to speed him up in public, with video footage cited of her at events, described as a man by the speakers. - They note that, despite the sensational backstory, Candace has made specific legal moves, including warnings about lawsuits and the involvement of expert gynecologists and witnesses regarding where she was at certain times. Candace, according to the speakers, proposed a simple DNA test: a cheek swab that would settle the matter quickly, suggesting NDA or DNA arrangements, and claiming if she’s wrong she would admit it. The counterpart pushes for a public clinic, a rapid and definitive test, and questions the motives behind the other side’s requests for extensive testimony. - The dialogue touches on the broader credibility and motivations of those involved. One speaker mentions meeting Candace recently and describes her as highly intelligent and aligned on many beliefs, while noting that high-level US intelligence reportedly confirms there is a French operation connected to Macron. There is reference to “a French operation” and “Macron head out on her,” with speculation about whether information is purposeful misinformation or suppression. - They discuss media figures and sources, including Gannon, Paul Watson, and Charlie Kirk, with a stance that while the claims are damaging to Trump overall, they still seek truth and acknowledge that some information appears to be being covered up. They acknowledge distrust and the sense that “something’s being covered up,” but stop short of making definitive judgments about truthfulness. - The discussion expands to broader political consequences. They contrast the alleged French operation and internal controversies with Donald Trump’s situation regarding Epstein, noting that Trump’s handling of related disclosures has been criticized, though the participants affirm that Trump is not implicated in Epstein per the victims’ statements. They highlight a tension between pursuing controversial narratives and maintaining focus on elections. - Toward the end, they discuss the potential strategic impact on public discourse and electoral politics, suggesting that real-time distractions from these allegations could influence public attention. They acknowledge that while the France-related allegations are “real” to some extent, the central political question remains: what is happening with elections and related geopolitical concerns, including mentions of Venezuela as a proximate political issue.

The speaker questions the credibility of the person testifying, mentioning past accusations of lying. The speaker also brings up payments made to the testifier's attorney by a political action committee. The speaker criticizes the testifier for calling various individuals, including the FBI and colleagues, liars. The speaker expresses skepticism towards the testifier's claims of truthfulness.

He arrives at her house late at night, leaves in the early morning, and texts her shortly after. The case involves Fannie Willis and her boyfriend lying under oath about their relationship timeline. Cell phone data contradicts their claims. Despite lacking experience, they lived lavishly together. The speaker questions if justice will be served for their perjury.

The speaker discusses the verdict in the E Jean Carroll defamation case against Donald Trump. They criticize the outcome, calling it unjust and politically motivated. They highlight Carroll's lack of evidence and questionable motives. The speaker also criticizes the media's biased coverage of the trial and expresses concern about the corrupt judicial system. They argue that this case sets a dangerous precedent for using the court system as a political tool. The speaker concludes by urging people to be aware of the potential consequences and to protect themselves.

Speaker 0 questions if the person is their partner and accuses them of always lying. They express frustration but also acknowledge that they find the person's lies entertaining.

The discussion centers on allegations that Erica Kirk’s backstory has been exposed as a lie. The speakers claim that, while she lived in New York, there are indications she did date and drink, contrasting with statements that she avoided dating and did not drink. One concrete example cited is a photo of Erica Fronsbee with a glass of champagne, captioned “it’s Wednesday, so treat yourself to little champagne,” suggesting she did enjoy alcohol. Further evidence presented includes a 2017 image posted by internet sleuths showing Erica Fronsbee with Cabot Phillips, captioned, “yes. we’re that couple who gets painting lessons together.” The image is interpreted as indicating they were more than just a one-off date, implying they were an actual couple. The speakers note that Cabot Phillips was at one point Charlie Kirk’s producer and is now a senior editor at The Daily Wire. They add that Phillips recently spoke about “how to lead like Charlie,” and that the speaker believes Phillips “is not from this world of media,” describing the situation as “incestuity.” The narrative is broadened to claim that Erica was dating before Charlie, which is described as normal, but there is also mention of her being engaged, perhaps even married. Luna Bear Studios is cited with a post from 03/16/2015, praising Erica Fransvi and JT Massey, stating, “Erica Fransvi and JT Massey, you both are amazing humans, and I love shooting you so much laughter and love. It was perfection.” This is used to argue that her entire image is built on something not true. A recurring question posed is why Erica would lie about being a conservative woman, with the assertion that such deception would be visible online, concluding that “the Internet is undefeated.” The speakers imply that Erica’s public persona as a conservative woman is inconsistent with the alleged past relationships and activities documented in the posts and photos. The overall claim is that there are contradictions between her claimed identity and her dating and social media history, challenging the authenticity of her presented backstory.

Speaker 0 admits being paid to say things in front of cameras, regrets supporting abortion, and reveals it was all an act. Speaker 1 acknowledges unethical behavior towards Speaker 0 and questions if Speaker 0 was playing them. The truth is revealed.

I have full custody of our kids due to my ex-wife's behavior. She owes over $21,000 in child support, was arrested for check fraud, stole $1,000,000, and faked cancer. She is not a full-time mom, goes out often, and lacks a job. She is not an inspiration for single moms. Respect to hardworking single moms. This is who she really is. Peace. Translation: The speaker has full custody of their children because their ex-wife has not fulfilled her responsibilities. She owes a significant amount in child support, has been involved in criminal activities, and has lied about having cancer. The speaker believes she is not a good role model for single mothers and wants others to know the truth about her.

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 believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and criticize the outside world for not taking action. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness, who admitted to lying. They defend their actions and argue that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money, considering the pressing issues the country faces. The speaker concludes by stating that the public is fed up with the situation, making it a sad day for America.

Speaker 0 argues that when information isn’t released directly, it leads to questions about Erica’s potential involvement, but she believes Erica had no connection. She says that implying otherwise would victimize the victim, noting that Erica lost her husband and children. She recalls being with Erica at the White House and emphasizes the personal devastation if such a tragedy happened to one’s spouse or children, framing it as a devastating situation.