TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

The speaker questions the credibility of the individual, pointing out their attendance at a press conference and debate related to Donald Trump. The individual struggles to recall details of their involvement, including who invited them and how they arrived. Despite being pressed for answers, the individual maintains that their lawyers handled arrangements. The speaker concludes by expressing doubt in the individual's testimony.

Jeffrey Edward Epstein, the speaker, is asked to confirm his identity and address. He admits to being convicted of soliciting prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution. When asked about soliciting a minor for prostitution in various locations, he repeatedly invokes his 5th Amendment right. The deposition is terminated at this point.

Speaker 0 asks about the crimes committed by the president's son while in office. Speaker 1 responds by saying they cannot discuss certain things, such as Hunter Biden hiring hookers, smoking crack with Parmesan cheese, putting M&M's on his penis for his deceased brother's wife, or his alleged inappropriate behavior with his niece. Speaker 1 also mentions that they cannot talk about the alleged bribes Joe and Hunter Biden received from China, Russia, and Ukraine, or the suggestion that they should be in jail for treason.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about a testimony where their son claims they were frequently on speaker phone discussing business with a business associate. Speaker 1 denies ever speaking to the gentleman and dismisses the question as lousy. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1, addressing them as Mr. President.

I refuse to answer questions on legal advice. Objection, invoking privilege against self-incrimination. Same response to questions about breaking laws, violating rights, misusing funds, and ethics violations while investigating Trump and working at the Manhattan DA's office.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if biological men should be able to use women's restrooms. Speaker 1 questions the relevance to immigration. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 has ever used the women's restroom, after Speaker 1 allegedly said everyone should use the other gender's bathroom today as a protest. Speaker 1 says they have not and denies advocating for men to use women's restrooms. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 regrets encouraging men to use women's restrooms and if Speaker 1 ever considered that women don't want men in their bathrooms. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 thinks it's appropriate for men to use women's restrooms because Speaker 0 believes Speaker 1 is taking rights away from underage girls.

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

The speaker, Jeffrey Edward Epstein, is asked to confirm his identity and address. He admits to being convicted of soliciting prostitution and procuring a minor for prostitution. When questioned about soliciting a minor for prostitution in various locations, he repeatedly invokes his Fifth Amendment right. The deposition is terminated at this point.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

In the transcript, Speaker 0 recalls that while driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that "only black people could live that way." Speaker 1 responds with "Privilege? Yes. I will turn it over." Speaker 2 accuses Speaker 1 of misleading the committee, noting a written submission that contradicted his testimony, and asks if he will review it during the next break to correct the record, to which Speaker 1 answers "Yes." Speaker 2 then questions Speaker 1 about campaign involvement, asking if he helped out the president's campaign or was involved as a representative or spokesman, and states that it was Speaker 1’s idea for the campaign dating back to 2011; Speaker 1 answers "Yes." Speaker 2 asks about Miss Rona Graf, described as Mister Trump’s executive assistant who sits next to him and is involved in a lot of what went on, and whether she would be able to corroborate many of the statements Speaker 1 has made.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about Donald Trump having his own "pussy riot moment," similar to Russia's. Speaker 1 declines to comment, citing the prevalence of "pussies" around the presidential campaign on both sides and expressing concern about sounding indecent due to English not being their first language.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, a mother of two daughters, about Trump's "grab them by the pussy" comment. Speaker 0 asks if that language makes Speaker 1 feel that Trump is not her guy. Speaker 1 responds that she would "rather be grabbed by the pussy than have a pussy for president" and that she is happy with that language, claiming everyone uses rude language behind closed doors. She then brings up Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Speaker 0 reiterates she is talking about the current president-elect, not the past. Speaker 1 says she is not offended by Trump's comments from 8 years ago and tells Speaker 0 to deal with her own issues. Speaker 0 asks if anyone is remotely concerned about the nature of Trump. Speaker 1 responds that America needed someone with a strong lead who would stand up for white and black people, bring back jobs, allow Americans to have weapons, and ensure a conservative Supreme Court. She states that is why pollsters, broadcasters, commentators, and pundits were wrong.

The speaker was asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including some Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker refused to comment and denied any interaction with their son and brother's foreign business associates, calling it a bunch of lies.

Speaker 0 stated they were more concerned with Donald Trump's congresswoman. Speaker 1 asked if Speaker 0 had served in a combat zone and if they were still friends with school shooters, which Speaker 0 denied. Speaker 1 referenced a debate stage where Speaker 0 allegedly claimed friendship with school shooters. Regarding bullying, Speaker 0 said it's okay to bully the bully at times, which Speaker 1 interpreted as condoning bullying. Speaker 1 accused the Democrat party of violence and asked if Speaker 0 was at Tiananmen Square, to which Speaker 0 responded they were there in January 1990. Speaker 1 then asked, "What is a woman?" Speaker 0 said they didn't understand the question. Speaker 1 wanted Speaker 0 to say a woman is an adult human female and that men can't become women, accusing the party of erasing women.

Speaker 0 pressed: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files?' Speaker 1 responded: 'I have never spoken to president Trump about the Epstein files.' Speaker 1: 'The attorney general and I have had numerous discussions about the entirety of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted by our team.' Speaker 1: 'And we have released where president Trump's name is the files.' Speaker 1: 'During many conversations that the attorney general and I have had on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed' Speaker 0: 'Question is simple.' Speaker 0: 'Who' Speaker 0: 'Did you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein files? Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'Why don't you try spelling it out' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no? Use' Speaker 0: 'the alphabet.' Speaker 0: 'Yes or no?' Speaker 1: 'No. A b c.' Speaker 0: 'Question has been asked and answered.' Speaker 0: 'You've not answered it, and we will take your evasiveness as a consciousness of guilt.'

- The questioning begins with noting a calendar or schedule, then moves to record-keeping instructions: "Turn off the video record at 01:05PM." - Mister Epstein is asked about sexual attraction to underage minor females. The question is objected to as harassing and argumentative. - Epstein invokes his rights: he states he must invoke his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights to not answer questions today or any questions relevant to this lawsuit. - The questions focus on the names of any underage minors who were the subject of criminal charges to which Epstein pled guilty. Epstein responds, "I don't know." - The examiner asks what the charges were about and what the underlying allegations were. Epstein states the charge as "Solicitation of prostitution," clarifying it was not underage prostitution but prostitution. - The examiner asks if the victims or prostitutes were minors. Epstein repeats, "I plead guilty to solicitation of prostitution." - The examiner presses for details of the cases—what happened, what the underlying facts were, how Epstein engaged with the individuals. Epstein repeats that he cannot tell more than that and ultimately says, "I plead guilty to the solicitation of prostitution. Not underage prostitution, but prostitution." - The examiner asks to clarify whether the three females who were the subject of the guilty pleas in state court were procured by Epstein by having underage minor females locate other underage minor females and bring them to Epstein’s house. Objections are raised for argumentative, harassing, and assuming facts not in evidence; the examiner moves to strike. - The examiner asks whether all people with whom Epstein engaged in sexual activity were underage and brought by other underage girls. Objections persist; Epstein states he does not understand the question. - The examiner repeats a question about whether Epstein used underage minor females to bring other underage minor females to his house for sex; the exchange indicates the question had been asked and answered earlier. - Epstein again states, due to his counsel, that he must assert his sixth, fourteenth, and fifth amendment rights and cannot answer that question at the moment. - In closing, Epstein cites that his firm, Edwards and Jaffee, has been described by the US attorney as perpetrating one of the largest frauds in South Florida’s history, crafting malicious cases of a sexual nature to fleece people using bogus schemes and investment schemes. He reiterates his attorneys advised he must assert his constitutional rights, and therefore he cannot answer at this time.

Speaker 0 explains that Epstein’s legal problems began with police investigations into allegations that underage women were coming to Epstein’s house. Epstein allegedly believed that Trump was the first to inform the police about what was happening at Epstein’s house, and from that point they became bitter enemies. Speaker 1 asks if this is what Epstein is telling him. Speaker 0 confirms that this is the version he is relaying, as presented by “Oh, the hoax yesterday.” Speaker 2 clarifies that “the hoax” refers to Democrats using a narrative to attack him. He says Epstein has never said or suggested or implied that the hoax is real; he has talked to Epstein many times. He states that the whole thing comes across as a hoax, not that Epstein’s actions are a hoax. He explains that Epstein believes himself innocent, and that when he first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Maribago. He adds that Epstein was an FBI informant trying to take this matter down. The president knows and has great sympathy for the women who have suffered harms; it’s detestable to him. He and the speaker have spoken as recently as twenty-four hours ago. What he is talking about, according to Speaker 2, are the Democrats who are pursuing this with impure motives. If they truly cared, he asks, why didn’t they act during the four years of the Biden administration when the Biden DOJ had all the records? They didn’t say a word about it, and now they pursue it for political purposes. Speaker 3 notes that our current president has had relationships with Epstein in the past, and mentions Katie Johnson and possibly other victims who have accused Trump of involvement in similar matters. In the speaker’s experience, Trump supporters will not listen to such claims. He admits the court of law isn’t present here. He asks if there is anything that can be said about the validity of those claims or whether more is known. Speaker 1 responds that he can say nothing at all. He states that the only thing he can say about President Trump is that in 2009, when he served subpoenas and gave notice to connected people that he wanted to talk to them, Trump was the only person who picked up the phone and said, “let’s just talk.” Trump offered as much time as needed, provided information that checked out, and helped him so they didn’t have to depose him. He adds that this occurred in 2009. Speaker 3 asks if there is any truth to James Patterson’s claims that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago. Speaker 1 confirms that he definitely heard that.

Speaker is asked if they agree with congressional Republicans' call for resignation, but does not respond when pressed by the speaker of the house.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18. Speaker 1 invoked their Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and declined to answer the question.

Speaker 1 questions a congresswoman about taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and condemns violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 does not answer. Speaker 0 then challenges others to harass him as they allegedly harassed the congresswoman. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to condemn the violent riots in Los Angeles. Speaker 0 declines to answer and asks who Speaker 1 is. Speaker 1 attempts to continue the conversation, but Speaker 0 walks away. Speaker 1 then asks Speaker 0 if he has a foreskin.

The transcript captures a short, informal discussion about Donald Trump’s handling of the Epstein files and the broader question of whether presidents protect rich and powerful people at the expense of victims in sex-crime cases. The dialogue unfolds between Speaker 0 and Speaker 1, with a recent history/politics flavor and an on-the-record moment later in the exchange. Speaker 0 begins by asking Speaker 1 how Trump fought to avoid releasing the Epstein files, noting that Trump initially indicated a release but then reversed course. Speaker 1 responds noncommittally, suggesting that Trump “probably” had friends who were involved and that Trump “saved them” from trouble. The question is framed as whether this constitutes presidential conduct—protecting powerful people rather than victims. Speaker 0 presses further, asking if protecting rich and powerful people over sex-crime victims is appropriate for a president, and whether such behavior is common in presidential history. Speaker 1 counters by pointing to historical examples, stating that many presidents have favored their friends and families, adding that while JFK’s affairs were noted, he claims Kennedy “got caught,” implying possible crimes. Speaker 0 acknowledges Kennedy’s infidelity but questions whether there were crimes, while Speaker 1 reiterates the point that Kennedy “got caught,” and asserts that such behavior is not becoming of a United States president. The conversation shifts toward evaluating current leadership: Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 agrees with Trump’s protection of powerful individuals at the expense of crime victims. Speaker 1 answers, “All depends on who the powerful people are,” suggesting a conditional view rather than a blanket condemnation or approval. The discussion then veers to the expectation that a president should serve all Americans, not just the wealthy, and Speaker 0 reiterates the moral question. Speaker 1, initially evasive about personal details, asserts that they are a state representative and holds a badge, claiming to work for their country. The exchange ends with a sense of irony in the narrator’s commentary: the “moral of the story” being that it’s acceptable for Donald Trump to protect rich and powerful men because he himself is rich and powerful, effectively equating protection of the powerful with personal parity. Overall, the transcript presents a back-and-forth debate about why presidents might shield powerful individuals, how historical precedents factor into current judgments, and whether leadership should be equally accountable to all segments of society, ending with a skeptical, wrap-up sentiment about the perceived fairness of such protections.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

During a deposition, a witness was asked if he had what was described as an egg-shaped penis. Another individual stated he hired psychologists to profile Jeffrey Epstein, finding him to be a narcissist lacking empathy who saw himself as a master of puppets, needing to be in control. The witness was then asked if it was true that a friend of Epstein sent him three 12-year-old girls from France who spoke no English for him to sexually exploit and abuse on one of his birthdays, after which they were sent back to France the next day. The witness stated that his attorneys advised him to assert his fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment rights. He was then asked if he was invoking his fifth amendment rights because his answers would incriminate him and could result in prosecution for these crimes.

Mister Bernal declined to answer questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. He declined to answer whether he advised President Biden to pardon Hunter Biden. He declined to answer whether President Biden was fit to execute the duties of president. He declined to answer whether any unelected official or family member of President Biden executed the duties of the presidency. He declined to answer whether President Biden ever instructed him to lie regarding his health, including in his testimony to Congress. It was stated that it was his intention to decline to answer all questions put to him by the committee based on his Fifth Amendment rights.