reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We would expand our efforts to raise funds and engage with the business community. Our message is that we are reasonable and won't destroy everything or take away their assets. It's a big job.

Chris, my grandson, and I need to figure something out. We should talk to him about his firm and potential options. Do you have a hard copy? No, but I can give you a digital copy and then I'll give him the main points of what I wrote.

So you emailed him asking if I get a kickback because there's too much "fooking" money, and question whether he deserves it all, suggesting we discuss it. Care to explain that? That's just typical black humor between Peter and me, and others included in these emails. And he responded thanking me for the kind words, and confirming of course, there's a kickback.

I don't want to be seen as a hostile witness. My presence here is not meant to be hostile. I want to clarify that Miss Willis is the adverse witness, not me. Her interests go against Miss Merchant's and are contrary to democracy, but not to mine.

I will expose every deal and protect myself by taking notes from my handlers. I will not hold back.

We're not hiding anything. People came to us for help, and now they are enhanced to modify their network. They remain autonomous but can also act together as a collective mind. This is just the beginning. We were initially concerned it might be overwhelming, but that perception is changing. Evelyn, have you received everything you wanted?

We have Juan Horace and Randy Fine with us, who gave us their endorsement earlier. They were early supporters and have been great friends. We also have Joe Gruters and Anna Maria Rodriguez, who have been incredible and supportive from the beginning. Anna Maria Rodriguez is currently working on important matters and sends her love.

Forms are gonna be excited about this because somebody who owns it and has total control has vowed he's never going to sell. And I put my name and my face out there every single day. The statements highlight that ownership is concentrated in one individual with total control who has vowed not to sell, and that the speaker personally promotes the project by consistently showing his name and face. This combination signals a commitment to long-term involvement and personal branding, presenting the venture as tightly controlled and publicly associated with its owner. The emphasis on not selling and on daily public visibility suggests a deliberate strategy centered on enduring ownership and visibility.

The speaker recounts a chain of rumors and revelations following Charlie’s assassination at Turning Point USA. Water cooler chatter and tip-box tips revealed that several insiders were troubled by management and behavior at the organization, and one rumor stood out: Justin Strife allegedly placed an immediate phone call to a donor prospect on the day of Charlie’s death. The caller was speculated to be connected to a donor who had “a pretty big piece of bait on the hook for Turning Point USA”—a billionaire-level investment tied to the company’s potential IPO, described as life-changing money, possibly in the billions. This donor was said to be French American, named Pierre, with the speaker later realizing the donor could be Pierre DuPont, after mentioning the DuPont family in previous coverage. Only a handful of people were said to know about this secret, implying it was highly top-secret within the donations department, to the point where some involved at Turning Point USA had no knowledge of it. The speaker pursued corroboration with multiple sources at Turning Point USA, seeking to identify which donor was so central and why an immediate call would be significant. The possibility that a donor could be so influential as to impact an IPO and be worth billions raised questions about why such an offer would be on the table and whether Charlie himself knew about it. The speaker notes that billionaires typically do not part with money in this way, especially by offering pieces of their company to non-family members, amplifying the sense that the situation was troubling and entangled in dark, secretive dealings. Additionally, the speaker mentions another line of inquiry involving Andrew Colbert, a close family friend. A contact allegedly told the speaker that Andrew claimed Charlie’s refusal of “Bebe” caused him to miss out on millions, which the speaker flags as another rumor to be investigated. The broader concern is understanding the financial and contractual framework behind these tips and whether compensation or “tips” related to donations might be influencingPR decisions. The speaker underscores the need for transparent answers about who Pierre is, whether the donor is indeed Pierre DuPont, and how an IPO-sized fortune could be on the line. The emphasis is on demanding a clear explanation of these alleged connections, the nature of the secret, and the implications for Turning Point USA. The unresolved questions are framed around Pierre, his identity, and the alleged secret that could have changed the organization’s finances and leadership dynamics.

They discussed their intention to greatly reduce my share, which was incredibly shocking and disheartening. At the time, I was still undergoing radiation therapy.

Okay, so the richest guy in the world is on our team. I know that's a tough pill to swallow if you are competitive, but it's true. I tried to find someone smarter than him, believe me, I searched everywhere, but I couldn't do it. For the good of the country, we settled on the best person for the job. Thanks for having me.

I asked if Sally was working and had her come see me. She mentioned having cancer issues and got emotional. I admitted that I couldn't go through this without crying and promised to take care of whatever it would cost. I value you and that's who I know you to be.

I was introduced to him by Rothschild, a prominent lady in law. He had connections with many influential people.

I'm personally ensuring there are no conflicts of interest. He reports to me, and he wouldn't engage in anything conflicting anyway. We're not allowing him to participate in any matters where a conflict of interest exists. If there was no conflict, it wouldn't matter.

I 100% believe that that's an arranged marriage. Erica Kirk is now taking over Turning Point. That's suspicious as fuck. She's presented as the archetypal 'trad wife'—'the ultimate trad wife'—speaking at the Young Women's Leadership Summit and on podcasts about being smitten with Charlie. Her first speech next to his empty chair was 'totally canned,' with tears that weren't there, and at the memorial she wore a white suit, fireworks, described as 'Mary in her white suit' energy and 'Claire Underwood vibes.' Then she says she's 'running Turning Point now' and 'seizing the reins'—'no one dare question me because I'm a widow.' 'Who is Erica Kirk now?' 'What makes you qualified to run Turning Point because your husband got killed?' This politics feels suspicious; I think it's an arranged marriage.

Are you a lawyer? Yes, I am. You would make a great Attorney General because of your strong moral values. Honestly, I would feel more secure with you leading the FBI, CIA, and even the military. Should we consider this idea? It's worth thinking about, especially as we aim to support Vice President Harris's election. We're putting this out into the universe and manifesting our goals.

When I first arrived, he assured me I could rely on him for anything, offering to be like a father figure. He genuinely hoped to support me in that way. I recognize at least three of you here with me.

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.

The transcript describes a complex web of legal and professional connections surrounding Candace Owens and Brian Harpole. It starts by noting that Harpol, the security firm Harpole uses against Candace, employs Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law. It claims this is part of a broader mix of interests involving the Department of Justice (DOJ) and prominent conservative figures, creating a “rabbit hole” of ties. The argument presented is that Brian Harpole’s lawsuit against Candace appears to be a coordinated strike. Key connections highlighted include: - The lead attorney for Brian Harpole, Zachary Stoner, works for the De Leon Law Group. The firm’s leader is Harmeet Dhillon, who is currently serving as Trump’s assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ. Although Dhillon is on leave from the firm, her influence is described as pervasive, especially in advocating stricter anti-Philadelphia speech laws that are alleged to threaten journalists like Candace. - A Daily Wire connection is noted: Candace had previously been represented by the same law firm (De Leon Law Group) during a lengthy arbitration battle against her. The narrative suggests these lawyers know Candace and are returning for more. - The De Leon Law Group also hired Jacob Roth, an orthodox Philadelphia attorney specializing in civil rights. The “Shapiro tie” is that Roth is Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law, married to Ben’s sister Abby Shapiro. This is framed as an “attack by proxy,” with Ben Shapiro portrayed as a former employer who has allegedly harassed and stalked Candace for years. - There is an appearance by Jacob Roth himself, introducing a personal testimony about troubling issues, reinforcing the network of connections. The speaker suggests deeper connections beyond the law firm, implying a broader pattern of influence and collaboration. A comparison is drawn to “lawfare” cases against a president, with a DOJ member stepping down to work in the same space, which the speaker finds suspect. Overall, the transcript posits that Candace’s adversaries are intertwined through a network of a security firm, a law group, family ties (notably Ben Shapiro’s brother-in-law), and DOJ-aligned figures, creating a coordinated dynamic against Candace.

I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.

I had several dinners with him, hoping he would deliver on his promise of securing billions for global health through his connections. When it became clear that he wasn't genuine, I ended the relationship. It was a mistake to invest time in him and give him credibility. Many others were in similar situations, but I recognize that I made an error.

There are people inside and outside the Capitol, but I won't reveal any more details. I want to clarify that neither Randy nor Doctor Proctor are present, but they are representing us. Let's avoid using last names, just use their first names. There is more to this situation than what you know. When I mentioned 120 to 140 yesterday, I was telling the truth, at least.

They offered serious subjects of conversation about cabinet positions, lower positions, and paying off campaign debt. These conversations could lead toward some real "gotcha" moments.