reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with a life of endless work for low pay, returning home to drown troubles, and a sense of disappointment with the world. He laments living in the new world with an old soul, wishes politicians would look out for minors, and criticizes blackmail and the way money is obtained. Speaker 1 discusses a claim: she states to the justice department that she was part of the beginning process of the Clinton Global Initiative and believes Jeffrey Epstein actually funded the Clinton Global Initiative, with them developing the idea together on a trip to Davos. He notes this aligns with the start of the Clinton Foundation in 2002, when Epstein was personally flying President Clinton around Africa as an aerial chauffeur on multiple trips. He asserts that this period marked Epstein’s proximity to power as Clinton Foundation preparations were underway. He argues that the Clinton Foundation engaged in pay-to-play while Hillary Clinton rose in New York Senate politics and later became secretary of state, enabling foreign policy to be influenced by donors and major corporations. The claim is that U.S. foreign policy was effectively shaped by the state department, defense, CIA, and USAID to benefit those who funded the Clintons, in contrast to national interest. He presents Epstein as a money bundler, a deal maker, and part of the origins of the Clinton Foundation’s influence machine. He adds that the Justice Department shut down three FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation and the IRS investigation as well, with the IRS claiming lack of resources to pursue the case, implying political cronyism and large-scale fraud that allegedly could not be prosecuted. Speaker 2 recounts a first-person experience at Wexner’s residence. He mentions having a driver’s license and being given Jeffrey Epstein’s SUV, but notes there were sharpshooters around. He describes a basement area that wasn’t on the lower floor, featuring a huge sauna, a vault, and an underground tunnel. The tunnel’s existence was confirmed by their maid, who explained that the door led to the main house, revealing the tunnel connecting underground passages. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes personal disillusionment with systemic allegations about the Clinton Foundation and Epstein’s role in its origins, alongside a vivid, confessional account of a private residence with security measures and secret tunnels.

Speaker 0 explains that not all Republicans are registered with APAC, and that many colleagues would vote with him if not for political backlash back home. He says some Republicans tell him, “that’s wrong what APAC is doing to you,” and they want to talk to their APAC person. He notes that nearly everyone except him has an APAC person, which he likens to a babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. When these members are in DC, they lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their cell numbers and keep conversations going. He mentions that four members of Congress have said they’ll talk to their APAC person to try to get ads dialed back. He questions why this isn’t more widely known, arguing that it benefits nobody for constituents to know they have a “buddy system with somebody who represents a foreign country.” Speaker 1 asks what APAC is, and Speaker 0 explains the concept further, noting that the APAC person is connected to the congressman and that this dynamic exists on the Republican side. He says the APAC person is embedded in the caucus presence, and that conversations with them occur when members come to DC. He remarks that this arrangement is not beneficial for public disclosure, so members don’t tell their constituents about it. Speaker 1 asks if any other country does anything similar. Speaker 0 responds emphatically that they do not: “Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don’t they they don’t have a Britain guy. They don’t have an Australian guy. They don’t have a Germany dude.” He asserts that APAC is the only country with someone who uniformly matches a congressman to an APAC contact, and that there is likely a spreadsheet at APAC mapping the APAC contact to the congressman’s votes on issues. He adds that APAC pays for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel; he notes he may not be the only Republican who hasn’t taken the APAC Israel trip, but he’s among a minority who hasn’t yet. Speaker 1 asks about the trip, and Speaker 0 describes it as “vacationy,” including visits to the Western Wall and other sites, and mentions swimming in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1 comments that Israel is a great country and that Jerusalem is wonderful, but clarifies that this appreciation is distinct from the government of Israel and its politics. Speaker 0 agrees that Israelis are entrepreneurial and publicly minded, and Speaker 1 shares a personal fondness for Israel, praising the country and its people, while noting the difference between the people and the government. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss their affection for Israel, with Speaker 1 distinguishing his personal love of the place from political influence, and both agreeing that Israel is a special place, with Speaker 0 emphasizing the distinction between people and government.

The speaker asks about President Biden's conflicts of interest regarding sanctions on individuals who have done business with his family. They mention a report alleging that the First Son's company received $3,500,000 from a Russian woman. The speaker questions how Biden is navigating these conflicts and asks for an explanation of the $3,500,000. The other speaker responds by saying they have no confirmation of the report's accuracy and no further details. When asked about conflicts of interest, the speaker questions what those conflicts would be and points out that Biden has sanctioned more oligarchs than before, suggesting it is not a conflict of interest.

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.

Governor Gavin Newsom met with President Xi in China, but it is unclear if the White House coordinated or sanctioned this trip. The speaker does not have any information on the visit and suggests contacting the state department or the governor's office for more details.

Speaker 0 begins by questioning the veracity of a claim regarding Peter Thiel’s involvement or endorsement, asking explicitly, “Is it fake news that Peter Thiel backs you?” Speaker 1 responds concisely, “That is fake news,” and collapses the claim as false. The exchange then shifts into a tension-filled moment, with Speaker 0 expressing skepticism: “I don’t believe you.” The doubt is anchored in perceived connections or ties, as Speaker 0 asserts there are “too many ties,” implying a network of associations that could influence perception or credibility. The discussion moves to a specific anecdote or clip in which Speaker 0 refers to a claim about Peter Thiel inviting Speaker 1 to “his own version of a Diddy party.” Speaker 1 addresses this directly by recounting their understanding of the invitation. They state that they were told about it “in San Diego,” but they did not end up showing up for the event. In other words, Speaker 1 is saying they received information about such an invitation, but they never attended. Speaker 0 presses further, seeking clarity on whether being contacted by “that type of person”—implying Peter Thiel or his circle—was legitimate or credible. Speaker 1 clarifies the nature of the invitation as “not direct,” clarifying that the contact was “through a mutual.” This description suggests a mediated or indirect approach to the invitation rather than a direct personal invitation from Thiel themselves. In attempting to interpret the sequence, Speaker 1 adds a brief reflection on the claim by noting that they had “claimed that I worked for Peter Thiel or something,” which they then retract or contextualize as not accurate. The conversation touches on underlying associations without presenting a definitive endorsement or formal role. Speaker 1 reiterates that the connection was not direct and emphasizes the indirect path of communication, implying that any asserted alignment with Thiel’s circle was mediated rather than a straightforward, explicit affiliation. Towards the end of the exchange, Speaker 1 attempts to summarize or contextualize the matter by mentioning “there's something to do with, like, the fashion,” indicating a contextual or thematic element related to fashion that may be part of the broader conversation or perceived associations, though no further specifics are provided. The dialogue centers on contested claims about backing, the reliability of social connections, and a debated invitation that was discussed in San Diego, ultimately noting an absence of direct contact or attendance.

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 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies any knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

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.

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.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

The speaker confirms that the person mentioned in the affidavit reimbursed them for shared travel expenses in cash. The speaker clarifies that the reimbursement was not made through checks. The speaker is warned to step out if they interrupt again. The speaker acknowledges that all the vacations were paid for in cash by the person mentioned. The speaker also confirms that they used their business credit card to purchase these vacations but did not include them as deductions on their taxes.

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 conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1, who was the CFO of Hillary Clinton's campaign, about facilitating payment for the Steele Dossier. Speaker 1 denies knowledge of it. Speaker 0 brings up John Podesta's involvement and accuses Speaker 1 of being aware of the campaign's payment for the dossier. Speaker 1 maintains that they were not aware. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not holding themselves to the same standard as private sector CFOs. Speaker 1 clarifies that the SEC's focus is on financial accuracy, not campaign payments. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking if Speaker 1 accurately paid for the dossier.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Claims in the speaker's remarks center on funding and connections. They state that the project is largely funded by USAID money, allegedly authorized by the Biden administration and later affected when Trump took office. The speaker also mentions alleged links to a prominent UK figure involved with intelligence and a spouse in the civil service. Specifically, they describe a man said to be a top officer in MI6 and a wife described as high up in the civil service. The wife is said to have worked in the Foreign Office for five years as the personal assistant to the permanent secretary, the highest-ranking civil servant in that department. The transcript raises questions about these individuals’ exact roles and affiliations based on the presented claims.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about his son's involvement in a Ukrainian energy company facing corruption charges. Speaker 1 claims to have no knowledge of his son's activities and trusts him. Speaker 0 questions the lack of accountability, but Speaker 1 deflects by mentioning Trump's family. Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing and states that there is no evidence against his son. When asked about guardrails if elected, Speaker 1 asserts that his relatives will not engage in foreign business due to the current administration's controversies. No foreign business dealings will occur.

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.

Mister Birchitt (the chair) and Congressman discussions about US foreign aid and terrorism. - Congressman asks Roman if the US is sending $40,000,000 a week to the Taliban. Roman confirms. - He asks for other instances of foreign aid going to terrorist organizations. Birchitt/ Roman responds: US assistance has gone to Al Shabaab in Somalia; the Hamzee network in Sudan; Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Kabaiba Hezbollah; Hayat Tahrir al Sham’s in Syria. Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect US aid. - The Congressman requests elaboration on mechanisms to stop aid to terrorists and why they aren’t working. Birchitt/Roman describe Gaza as a case study: $2.1 billion in American taxpayers’ money to Gaza since October 7. USAID provided emergency use funds to parties USAID previously had relationships with in the Gaza Strip, vetted by OFAC and special designated terrorists lists; waivers granted due to emergency, bypassing usual screening. As a result, 90% of US aid via Gaza ended up in Hamas-controlled areas. The aid underwrote Hamas’s ability to survive until the ceasefire. No strategic thought behind it; no screening. - The Congressman asks if the emergency might have armed terrorists to kill civilians. Birchitt agrees. He adds: Samantha Power, administrator for USAID, was intent on Israel not being able to defend itself. - The Congressman mispronounces Primarack (Birchitt jokingly comments). They discuss how terrorists exploited foreign aid loopholes. - Witnesses discuss how international NGOs and UN agencies lobby Washington against vetting policies. A former senior vetting officer at USAID describes that the UN and others lobby against stricter vetting; InterAction, the largest NGO lobby, is mentioned as having a former employee on the panel. USAID effectively self-funds its own external private lobby that then goes back to Congress asking for more money for USAID. The implication is that taxpayers fund this lobby against American interests, potentially harming allies and Americans. - They claim USAID programs have not been aligned with U.S. national security interests and have actually helped China. The programs are said to push the world toward China on the green energy agenda, and to push ordinary people toward China due to perceived social reengineering. - They note that many countries benefit from funding without needing lobbying, such as South Africa. Lobbyists have pressured to kill HR 160, a bill from the last session intended to increase transparency in USAID funding of overseas organizations and to enable terror-financing investigations. - They reference a regulation from the prior administration requiring terrorist financing screening databases for entities handling money in terrorist-prone areas; that regulation was overturned by Biden. - The Chairwoman notes having only five seconds left as the exchange ends with a brief mention of concluding remarks.

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.

Joe received $3,500,000 from Russia through Putin, who had a connection with the former mayor of Moscow. Joe's family also received the same amount. Speaker 1 denies receiving any money from foreign sources, including China, and claims that his son is the only one who made money from China. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the money he received, but Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing in Ukraine, stating that investigations found no basis for such claims.