reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker notes that there is fear people want Trump to have done something gross with women, but 'I really don't believe wanna be clear. I do not believe that. Yeah. Not covering for Trump. I just don't think that's true.' They insist there is no indication, saying they've spoken to people 'close to Epstein, very close to Epstein, who've told me off camera, in private, no, it's not. Trump never did that shit.' The speaker adds, 'So I don't think it's about that.' They question why 'no one talking to Les Wexner?' and end with 'And' (truncated). The focus remains unclear.

Peter Thiel was asked about Palantir's surveillance of the American people and his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The questioner stated people are concerned about the Epstein connection. They claimed Thiel is setting up a "big brother surveillance system" and asked if he thinks Americans want this tech used against them. The questioner asserted Thiel is meeting with certain people and that people are waking up to what he is doing.

The questioner asked whether the public will learn the identities of the men who abused the girls connected to Epstein, with the information being released, and if not, why not; followed by a quick additional question. The questioner framed the issue as identifying the men who abused the young women through Epstein's activities. The official responded by challenging the assumption embedded in the question. They asked what it would mean to learn about “men that abuse these girls” and pressed to clarify that term. The official stated that, as of July and continuing to today, if the Department of Justice had information about men who abused women, they would prosecute them. They referenced ongoing work and restated that there is no “hidden tranche of information … that we know about, that we're covering up or that we're not prosecuting.” The official emphasized that they do not know whether there are men out there who abuse these women, noting uncertainty about whether such individuals exist or remain unidentified. The underlying point was that there is no claimed concealment of information or selective prosecution, and that the existence of further leads or prosecutions would be pursued if information were present.

The speaker doesn't understand why supporters are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein story, as Epstein is dead and "was never a big factor." The speaker believes the case is "pretty boring stuff" and doesn't understand why it continues to be discussed. The speaker suggests that "only pretty bad people, including fake news, wanna keep something like that going." They state that if there's credible information, "let them have it." The speaker then pivots to a question about AI.

Bill Clinton is mentioned in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's island, which is described as a cesspool. The speaker claims to have knowledge of the planes associated with the island, but clarifies that they are not friends with the people involved. The speaker distances themselves from Epstein, stating that they threw him out of their club many years ago and never visited his island. They mention that others, including James Patterson, have also distanced themselves from Epstein. The speaker acknowledges knowing Epstein in the past but claims to have had a falling out and not being a fan of his for about 15 years.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The speaker believes Kamala Harris is a "marionette" controlled by over 100 "puppet masters." The speaker claims to know most of them and suggests a strong overlap between these individuals and the Epstein client list. The speaker is surprised that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker believes a reason for Kamala Harris's support is that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list will become public, which terrifies some billionaires backing Harris. The speaker specifically names Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates as potentially nervous individuals, noting Hoffman was the speaker's VP of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.

Speaker 0 asks a series of questions about specific connections: Whose parents have a dedication stone on the Wall Of Zion in Jerusalem? Who helped work on the Iron Dome facilities in Israel? Who worked at the same real estate company as Jeffrey Epstein? And whose parents run a fucking children orphanage. Erica Kirk.

The speaker defends himself against allegations and claims to have nothing to hide. He offers to release all evidence to prove his innocence. The interviewer brings up the association with Jeffrey Epstein, to which the speaker explains that he and his wife had massages at Epstein's house but denies any wrongdoing. He mentions that many prominent individuals also had massages there and that his friendship with Epstein was purely academic. The speaker argues that having a massage does not make him guilty and that the person making the allegations has admitted to possible mistaken identification. He concludes by stating that he and his wife are innocent.

The speaker suggests focusing on Bill Clinton, the former president of Harvard, and hedge fund managers, providing a list of individuals who allegedly lived with Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker asserts they did not live with Epstein.

The speaker defends himself against allegations and claims to have nothing to hide. He offers to release all evidence to prove his innocence. The interviewer brings up the association with Jeffrey Epstein, to which the speaker explains that he and his wife had massages at Epstein's house, but denies any wrongdoing. He mentions that many prominent individuals also had massages there and that his friendship with Epstein was purely academic. The speaker argues that having a massage does not make him guilty and that the person accusing him has admitted to possible mistaken identification. He asserts his innocence and states that neither he nor his wife are guilty.

Discussion centers on why Epstein files aren’t public and reluctance; Tucker Carlson is mentioned. Speaker 1 says the president views it as "this is all a trap" and that it "reminds him of Russiagate"; "He had nothing to do with Epstein," and transparency "would have helped the country" and "the administration a lot." The other host wonders why fear of exposure matters. Speaker 1 testifies, "I knew Epstein. He did creepy stuff at my club. I kicked him out." Epstein was "always around" with figures like "Ahud Barak is living there. He's got Stephen Hawking and he's got members of the British So Royal on that level," and "half the people on television hung out with Epstein." He notes Epstein had contact with Israeli, US, and "most critically British intelligence" and ends, "There's nothing bad that happens that doesn't have British intelligence involved in it, I have noticed a lot."

Speaker 0: The speaker alleges a cover-up by people including Bill Barr and Mike Pompeo. Bill Barr, described by Jeffrey Epstein as “CIA,” allegedly covered up Epstein’s murder in federal detention, with Barr saying publicly, “we gotta make sure everyone thinks this is a suicide.” The speaker asks why Barr isn’t being questioned about this. Mike Pompeo is accused of plotting to murder Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks. The speaker notes that WikiLeaks released the first tranche of emails to the public, and that Assange suggested on Dutch TV that his source was Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was found murdered in Washington in what was described as a robbery where nothing was taken. Assange hinted in the interview that his sources faced great risks, mentioning Seth Rich; the interviewer pressed whether Rich was murdered for the leaks, and Assange said he couldn’t reveal sources but that they faced risks. Shortly after, Assange was incarcerated, first in an embassy in London and then in Belmarsh Prison, without criminal charges, actions the speaker attributes to the CIA and Mike Pompeo. The speaker contends that someone should ask Pompeo about this. Speaker 1: The speaker expresses anger at what they see as broad, systemic cover-ups versus ordinary Americans facing jail for minor offenses. They reference Pizzagate and Epstein, asserting that cover-ups extend across other issues, including Benghazi and Hillary Clinton material, which they claim were never properly pursued with the appropriate parties. They point to a long list of alleged co-conspirators connected to the Epstein matter, including those revealed in a recent document drop and corroborated subsequently. The list reportedly includes ten co-conspirators: one named Leslie Wexner, pilots (three identified by name), and others such as Ghislain Maxwell and various assistants who recruited girls, as well as individuals trafficking models. The speaker asserts there were many people around Epstein who were deeply involved and deserve serious questioning. They also reference Ehud Barak as among those connected to the network. Overall: The conversation presents multiple allegations of high-level complicity and cover-ups involving Bill Barr, Mike Pompeo, Julian Assange, Seth Rich, and a broad network around Jeffrey Epstein, including named and unnamed individuals, with claims of documented co-conspirators and ongoing questions about accountability.

Powerful Epstein clients like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Reid Hoffman, may have been worried about the list coming out. It's frustrating that the list isn't being released. Releasing insignificant information is pointless. The public will be frustrated if no one is prosecuted, especially since Ghislaine Maxwell is in jail for sex trafficking. It's insane not to name the clients. It's stunning they've held it back so long. Many things are common knowledge, but we lack proof. When Epstein's place was raided, there must have been a mountain of evidence. Who took possession of it? Where are the tapes? We need tech-savvy people. When they raided his home and the island, they must have gotten everything. If it wasn't there, where is it? It has to be uploaded somewhere, with a chain of custody and a mountain of evidence.

People are talking about Epstein's relations with Ahud Barak. A lot of emails got leaked, and it included Peter Thiel. Reporting Carbine, their security company. But all of that was mapped out a long time ago.

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.

The transcript centers on an email from Howard Lutnick to Jeffrey Epstein and the surrounding reaction to Epstein’s public notoriety. The message indicates travel plans: Lutnick asks Epstein where he is located and what the exact location for Lutnick’s captain is, noting that they are landing in Saint Thomas early Saturday afternoon and plan to head to Saint Bart’s/Anguilla on Monday, with a dinner proposed for Sunday evening. Lutnick mentions traveling with “another couple, Michael and Mary Lerman,” and states that “each of us has four children.” The ages of the children are listed in the email as “two 16s, two 14s, a 13, a 12, an 11, and a seven year old.” The speaker points out that this is “forty years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted.” Following the email, the speakers express strong, unambiguous condemnation of Epstein and the surrounding circumstances. Speaker 1 asserts, “How this guy has a job today is a disgrace. That is There is no room That is disgusting. Fire. Fire. I'm done with these fucking people. Fire this guy right now. What is your excuse?” They emphasize a history of alleged deceit, with one speaker stating, “He’s a liar. Neighbors with this dude. Claims he only ever met him once. Lived next to him for twenty some years. That's crazy. Proven liar advising the president of The United States every fucking day.” The emotional tone escalates, with both speakers declaring, “I'm so done with these people. Yeah. That is so That is done with these That is absolutely abhorrent. I'm so fucking done with these people.” They mention tax-related concerns, noting, “and we gotta I gotta fucking file taxes in a couple weeks.” The dialogue then questions accountability and the persistence of Epstein’s influence in high-level circles: “What is the conversation when he's like, hey, I'm about to email Jeff back. You got you're four. What are their ages? I gotta what are their ages? Like, I get like, what a fucking” (truncated in the transcript). Overall, the excerpt juxtaposes a routine social planning email involving Epstein with a contemporaneous, vehement condemnation of Epstein’s legacy and ongoing professional influence, highlighting the contrast between personal arrangements and public outrage.

Speaker A: We're on the list because we were at a party or a wedding or something that somebody might have been. That's what I found out anyway. The guy was at Trump's wedding to Marla. Right. Maybe Epstein was there too. Who knows? I don't know. So that means that I'm not guilty, obviously. But these other ones, how are you going to decide who's really guilty and who's not? Speaker B: It's very tricky. I think it no. I think it's it's very I think it's very clear because when you when if you look, you know why my name is there. Because someone was looking for a plane, and that's what people do. They go to all the people who have private planes and say, do you have one? I didn't get on the plane? I didn't know they were looking for a plane. Yeah. I had no idea that the plane that I was supposed to be on was no longer available. So so I'm named in there like Whoopi Goldberg is needs a plane. There are a lot of people—Speaker A: that are named Marilyn Monroe was on the list. Yes. There were plenty of people that were were plenty of people named in in the list that that may have not done anything wrong. Yeah. But I think that there are a lot of people that are on their list that are guilty of wrongdoing. Speaker A: And I have no confidence, unfortunately. It gives me no pleasure to say I— Speaker B: I think they are going to hold on, Joy. I think they are going to they're going to do it like, you know, how you eat around an apple till you get to the core? Yes. I think that's how they're gonna do it. They're gonna eat all this stuff all around here. I need a of gonna get, hopefully, then they'll get to the court.

The speaker claims to have compiled an Epstein client list using victims' testimonies, internal emails, court documents, settlements, financial records, and staff testimony, not a single "black book." This list was released publicly in 2019 but received little attention due to the speaker's prior cancellation for opposing Israel. The speaker asserts that Epstein was working for a foreign government, compromising powerful Americans. Contrary to popular belief, people *have* been prosecuted and companies have paid large settlements related to Epstein, but it's not publicized. Jean Luc Brunel, allegedly the number three man in the Epstein ring, was arrested but died in prison. The speaker believes the truth about Epstein is being ignored, similar to 9/11 conspiracy theories. They state that videos from Epstein's properties exist and that many pedophiles and human traffickers are being arrested, but the media is silent. The speaker shares pages from the list and urges someone with media reach to discuss the issue.

Speaker 0 asks if Ghislaine Maxwell will turn in powerful people, mentioning Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. Speaker 1 responds that they haven't been following the case too much, but wish her well, having met her numerous times in Palm Beach. They claim to not know the situation with Prince Andrew or be aware of it.

Speaker 0 addresses the topic of the Epstein situation, expressing a controversial viewpoint about labeling the matter. They begin by saying, "This whole pedo thing, it's like, isn't it really pedophilia? I don't wanna be the one that has to say it, but I guess I'm being forced to say it." They then attempt to clarify their stance by asserting, "It's not really pedophilia, okay? They weren't trafficking five year olds, it was like they were technically not legal. Big difference in my opinion." The speaker acknowledges that this interpretation is controversial, adding, "I know that's a controversial take, but that's not really the issue there, Okay, the issue is not that they were barely legal teens, which is what it is." They continue to differentiate between the legality and the ethical horror, insisting, "It's horrendous, it's awful, it's pedophilia, okay." However, despite labeling it pedophilia, they pivot to a different focal point, stating, "No, the issue is that Epstein is a Jewish spy probably working with Israel." The speaker characterizes Epstein as being "probably working with Israel" and frames this as the underlying dilemma. They conclude by reiterating their position, "He's working with Israeli intelligence," emphasizing that this supposed affiliation constitutes the core of the dilemma discussed.

My best friend was Jeffrey Epstein's personal chef and went on many trips to the island. If your best friend was named on the Epstein flight logs and was his personal chef, wouldn't you know? It's hard to believe they had no clue. You can tell when something is off just by looking at people's photos on Instagram. It's not difficult. They expect us to believe they had no idea, but that's a lie.

Speaker 0 discusses someone who is vehement about Ian Carroll conspiracies, jokingly calling him a Rothschild plant and noting funny Charlie Day-style connections. He mentions forgetting to pin information onto their canvas board and recalls basic emails they already knew. He asks about Brock Pierce, seeking an explanation for a part of the theory that he is friends with Brock Pierce because he knows someone who knows Brock Pierce. The response explains Brock Pierce as the cryptocurrency pioneer who met with Epstein. Pierce is described as a former Hollywood child actor turned tech entrepreneur and cryptocurrency pioneer who had documented direct contact with Jeffrey Epstein in September 2011, after Epstein's 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor. The material notes Pierce’s background per Epstein’s files: a former Hollywood child actor who starred in The Mighty Ducks and First Kid. The conversation remarks, “Oh shit, for real?” and “That’s crazy, dog,” while referencing the Mighty Ducks and a China connection. The speaker emphasizes the connection to Epstein and Pierce’s early acting career, tying it to the broader discussion of the conspiracy theory network and potential links. A final note references a “Connection to China.”

The speaker doesn't understand why supporters are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein story, as Epstein has been dead for a long time and was never a big factor. The speaker believes credible information has been given and references the Mueller investigation and steel dossier as examples of fake information. The speaker finds the Epstein case boring and doesn't understand why it continues to be discussed, suggesting only bad people and fake news want to keep it going. The speaker states that if there is credible information, it should be released. The speaker is then asked a question about AI.

Speaker 0: Do you agree with Candace Owens that the reason we are not going to see the client list is because Israel is implicated? Speaker 1: Israel is implicated. I’m just going to say that. Speaker 0: But what would Israel have to do with Epstein? Speaker 1: I mean, the former prime minister of Israel, he had Barack lived at Epstein's townhouse for years. I mean, the allegation is that Epstein was running a blackmail operation against powerful people where they would be videotaped having outside of marriage or illegally with underage women, that information will be used against them to get them to comply with whatever request that government wanted them to comply with. I think it's absolutely fair to ask to what extent was Epstein involved in a foreign intelligence operation on our show. This is our country. This country doesn't belong to any foreign country. Okay. This is our country. I was born here. I pay taxes here. So if some foreign country, I don't care if you claim it's our ally or not, is running an intel operation on my soil, I have a right to know what that was.