reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses irregularities in the Assange case involving the CPS and a meeting between the CPS head and Eric Holder in Washington. The CPS refused to provide information on the meeting, claiming it was destroyed. Holder had previously hinted at taking action against Assange. The meeting included key personnel related to extradition, raising suspicions about discussions on the Assange case. The speaker's investigation revealed undisclosed travel expenses and the CPS's lack of transparency.

The speaker emphasized the dangers of Julian Assange's actions, highlighting how WikiLeaks' publication of unredacted State Department documents put lives at risk and hindered diplomatic relationships. They mentioned the State Department's efforts to protect individuals named in the documents but couldn't confirm specific harm. The discussion also touched on Assange's potential entry into the US and the judge's ruling on victims. The State Department's challenges in maintaining trust due to leaked information were noted, with concerns raised by foreign counterparts. The conversation concluded with a reference to private conversations and concerns raised by foreign leaders like Berlusconi.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, became a target for the US government after embarrassing them with leaked classified information. The CIA considered various plans to capture or kill him, but his asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London made it difficult. The embassy's own security company, UC Global, was revealed to have been spying on Assange for the US. WikiLeaks' unique ability to publish classified documents without being involved in their theft made it a game changer. The release of the "Collateral Murder" video in 2010 exposed the US military's cover-up of friendly fire on journalists. Assange's most damaging release, Vault 7, revealed the CIA's hacking division's vulnerabilities. After being arrested and sentenced in the UK, Assange faces extradition to the US and a potential 170-year prison sentence.

Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, faced threats from the US government and CIA for exposing classified information. The CIA considered kidnapping or assassinating him while he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Assange's releases, like Vault 7, revealed CIA hacking tactics, leading to his arrest in 2019. Facing extradition and potential life imprisonment, Assange remains in Belmarsh prison. His fate remains uncertain.

The conversation centers on the Seth Rich murder and its alleged connection to WikiLeaks and the 2016 DNC email controversy. An FBI forensic report purportedly found that Rich contacted WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and Rich allegedly provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10, but his wallet, phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later, showing top DNC officials discussing ways to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, which contributed to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair and the DNC’s top three officials. Speaker 1 questions whether there is an “October surprise” and whether material is being held. Speaker 2 of the Helix group states that they do not sit on material and emphasizes that whistleblowers take significant risks; they note Rich’s murder as an example of high stakes and risk to sources, asserting that sources seek anonymity with them. When Speaker 1 asks if Rich was a source, Speaker 2 declines to comment but says they are investigating what happened to Rich and are concerned about it, though no conclusion has been reached. Speaker 3 argues that Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and asserts that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders; he notes that Rich was aware of this and was involved as it happened, with Donald Brazil also involved. He describes Rich as idealistic and patriotic, and recounts his murder after leaking information to WikiLeaks, insisting that this is not a conspiracy theory but a fact-based concern. He challenges others to acknowledge the alleged corruption within the Democratic party and suggests that those who ignore the facts are engaging in denial. He also critiques media portrayals and online accusations about his own credibility. Speaker 4 discusses Assange and WikiLeaks, criticizing the idea of a conspiracy theory and labeling Assange as a key figure who exposed corruption. He mentions that Assange now “works for Russia” and questions the Ecuadorian embassy situation, describing it as heavily manipulated by interests around Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. He connects the Seth Rich disclosures to broader allegations of a coordinated effort to undermine Clinton and her circle, while acknowledging that some related claims may be questionable. Speaker 6 notes that hacking of the DNC and the role of CrowdStrike remain controversial and points to the subsequent murder of Rich as a focal point for questions that have not been fully explored by the media. Speaker 7 echoes concerns about the timeline, the FBI’s involvement, and past inquiries that were not pursued, emphasizing a sense that the case and the broader narrative around the DNC emails have been inadequately examined. Speaker 8 presents a long, conspiratorial narrative alleging that on 11/01/2016 Hillary and Bill Clinton orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-option of key institutions, while a countercoup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated to undermine Hillary and the Clinton machine. The speaker claims a silent countercoup across the Internet, led by members of the intelligence community, to stop the Clintons from gaining power and ensure Obama leaves without pardon, framing the moment as a major transitional event and a second American revolution conducted without guns.

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.

Speaker 0: This story that's been the biggest thing on the Internet for several weeks, Pizzagate, as it's called, is a rabbit hole that is horrifying to go down. Now if you're a radio listener, this is a powerful video, but I've had it reposted because, again, he finished it, I guess, on Wednesday. It went out Thursday on the nightly news that was taped the day before. This is on infowars.com. Pizzagate is real. The only question is, what exactly is it? Because I'd said, man, I hope this is drug dealing code word or something or, you know, maybe they got the wrong manual because this is the FBI says this is this is pedophilia manuals. These are the terms they use, and then here's the New York Times. Fake news onslaught targets pizzeria as nest of child traffickers. Hey. I don't know why the pizzeria and the one down the street have symbols in the FBI dossier. I don't know why there's devil worship part of the walls. I don't know why it's connected to Potesta. I don't know why they got rock singers there talking about, you know, being you know, going after kids or whatever. This is what's going on, though. And so maybe it's just some genre they picked up. They don't know what they're involved in. I'm not accusing them of anything. Little I mean, it's not like they look like little piggy people or anything. Not like they fit all the cliches or anything when you go to the just like nice people to me, but the point is is that this is tied into Podesta with thousands of emails with, we're gonna have the six year old, the seven year old, and eight year old in the hot tub for your entertainment out at the ranch house. They can be a little persnickety, but they are also willing and enjoy it. Yeah. I mean, there's thousands of these. You're reading it going, what the hell is this? And you start reading it. There's thousands and thousands and thousands, and you know you're reading something real bad. Oh, I'll see you at the feast tonight. Oh, we'll have lots of blood and semen. Oh, good. And then they had, like, Time Magazine worshiping this high priestess the week after we exposed her about the news, all this PR, like, oh, we'll show them. They're attacking our high priestesses. We'll just put them in the news better. Like, we're all upstanding and out in the open and good people. Look. I've been careful about all this. This is lawsuit city. I don't know what the hell is going on with these people. I know straight up devil worship when I see it and find quotes of her saying it's real when she does it privately. Could he harass me anything Reddit accounts? I mean, I know real bathymen worship when I see it, but thousands of emails, I'm not ready to accuse all these people of this. It's up to you to research it for yourself, but you gotta go to infowars.com and actually see the photos and videos inside these places. You've gotta see their menus. You've gotta see it all, ladies and gentlemen, and then you gotta see the FBI law enforcement manuals showing the code words that are used. And by the way, didn't just believe this. I went to the FBI site. I went and looked it all up, and people asked, well, why weren't you on this earlier? We were on it from the beginning. We've been on it the last couple weeks since the election, but we're fighting on hundreds of fronts here. Let's go ahead and go to the report. Pizzagate is real. The question is, how real is it? What is it? Something's going on. Something's being covered up. It needs to be investigated. You just call it fake news. These are real WikiLeaks. This is real stuff going on. Here it is. Speaker 1: A warning to viewers, the following images are disturbing. This all began after WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released hundreds of thousands of secret documents detailing a back stabbing Clinton Foundation, but it now appears the real truth Assange was leading us to was hidden between the blurred lines of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta's, released emails. Fast forward past John Podesta's brother, Tony's, casual email exchange with thalemic spirit cooking adherent Marina Abramovic. Rosetta Stone was needed next. A verification that high level Washington DC predatory pedophiles were using a code to communicate child sex trafficking as casually as ordering a pizza. An FBI unclassified document from WikiLeaks revealed symbols and logos used by pedophiles to identify sexual preferences to include those who sexually abuse children as well as those who produce, distribute, and trade child pornography are using various types of identification logos or symbols to recognize one another and distinguish their sexual preferences. Investigators should also be attentive to pedophilia symbols advertised on websites. During examinations of computer files, investigators should be conscious of subjects who try to conceal child pornography by labeling them with symbols instead of typical suggestive explicit names. Thus, the interest in code words. Now clues. The menu from comet ping pong. Notice the symbol of the ping pong paddles and its clever resemblance to the FBI documents symbol for child love. Alright. Hang on, New York Times. Before you declare this fake news from your ivory tower, now look at the symbol for Besta Pizza just two doors down from comet ping pong pizza, boldly using the symbol for boy lover as was recorded on the unclassified FBI document. The evidence begins to reveal that Besta Pizza and Comet Ping Pong Pizza may be competing for the lucrative Washington DC pedophile market right out in the open. Comet Ping Pong owner James Alifantis needs to explain himself, and so he did via the Hillary Clinton colluding New York Times. But so many questions remain unanswered. Why was this said by the band heavy breathing performing in comet ping pong? Speaker 0: He likes the world sounds. Demolios. And little boys. And children. Think I was his manager. Yep. We all have references. Speaker 1: Why is the art work adorning Comet Ping Pong's walls at the very least so insanely creepy, especially for a family restaurant? Why is Alifantis so close to Tony Podesta as revealed in the WikiLeaks emails? And why does mister Podesta collect questionable artwork specializing in grotesque eroticism and pedophilic images, not to mention Podesta's dabbling in what appears to be cannibalistic rituals while continuing his old friendship with convicted pedophile Dennis Hastard. Why is this man wearing an I love children shirt in this situation? Why did you write hashtag murder next to this incredibly creepy photo you posted? Why do you find it amusing that this baby is for sale? Why do you associate with this artist? Why is any of this okay? And if these code words are eventually proven to be just another method of communication, then why did the Podesta emails mention the code word pasta for either little boy or sex 78 times. Code word cheese for little girl 85 times. And what does Podesta's friend Herb mean by this statement from a Podesta email? PS. Do you think I'll do better playing dominoes on cheese than on pasta? According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the FBI, 460,699 children went missing in 2015 that we know of. Mister Alifantis, this isn't a witch hunt, and it isn't an attack from fake news that your boyfriend David Brock, founder of Media Matters, would have us all ignore. Either you are the unlucky victim of a fake news onslaught due to your own poorly initiated publicity or a decades old pedophile ring operating in the power hoarding shadows of Washington DC is about to be opened from your front door. John Bound for infowars.com. Speaker 0: Trump won. Hillary stole five states. Was ordered to stand down by the intelligence agencies where everything else is gonna come out on this. If you're a radio listener, you're lucky you didn't actually see the video. The art they tweet in Facebook is of children being murdered, cut in pieces, and raped by men with giant genitalia. So oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So I don't know anymore, but that's what they're pushing. It's what they got hanging up in there, and it's what they're doing. And, I I can't go out there and investigate it myself. We've had reporters on that have been there. They say it's really creepy because, I don't have the self control to be around these type of people. So you want us to cover Pizzagate? We have covered it. We are covering it, and all I know is, god help us, we're in the hands of pure evil. We'll be right back. I'm on the show.

Assange has been held in a UK prison without being charged with a crime. The US government wants to indict him, and the British government agreed to keep him in isolation until it's resolved. Before being charged in the US, the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, discussed assassinating Assange. This raises concerns about federal appointees using taxpayer money to murder someone who embarrassed them. Pompeo, however, remains free and even visits donors. It's disturbing that our government would use our money to kill someone who exposed their crimes, and no one seems to have a problem with it. This led the speaker to visit Assange, which turned out to be worse than expected.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, became a target for the US government after embarrassing them with leaked classified information. The CIA considered various plans to capture or kill him, including kidnapping him from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where he was hiding. The embassy, unbeknownst to Assange, had been spying on him for US intelligence. Assange released Vault 7, exposing the CIA's hacking division and tactics, which infuriated the agency. He was eventually arrested, charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and faces a potential 170 years in prison. Assange's fate remains uncertain.

The conversation centers on email leaks and allegations of hacking connected to a political context. One speaker notes that “one hour later, WikiLeaks starts dropping my emails,” suggesting a link between the leaks and his own communications. The group references those emails being public and questions about what might have been coincidental, with lines like “Just get lost into the public. One could say that there might those things might not have been a coincidence” and mentions “those things” that may or may not have been intended to surface. Two days after the initial events, the speaker recounts that “the FBI contacted me, the first thing the agent said to me was, I don’t know if you’re aware, but your email account had might have been hacked.” He confirms awareness of the hacking, stating “I said yes,” and recalls a demand that he change how he is addressed, with references to being told, “From now on, you won’t call me your father,” and “I you will call me your father,” coupled with the assertion “You think you hide shit, don’t you? Just get lost.” The dialogue shifts to broader implications: other campaign officials’ emails were divulged earlier than October 7, and the speakers discuss uncertainty about what exactly had been compromised, noting “there was a document that appeared to come from my account” and realizing “they had the contents of my email account.” The last time one speaker talked to the FBI is mentioned in the context of these disclosures. A separate thread introduces media narratives, with a speaker asking, “Media is telling you the entire story is a hoax or fake news. But what does that even mean?” and stating, “I spent the last month investigating. So what exactly is Pizzagate? And are there any actual facts to support the story?” There is a sense of frustration about interpretation and evidence, captured in the line, “They’re hearing what they wanna hear. They’re not really listening to what I’m telling them.” The transcript ends with a brief aside from another speaker, “What’s that?” indicating confusion or a request for clarification, tied to the ongoing discussion about the emails, hacks, and the Pizzagate inquiry.

Speaker 0 states that a federal investigator told Fox News that an FBI forensic report on Seth Rich’s computer showed he made contact with WikiLeaks through a London-based WikiLeaks director, Gavin McFadden, and that Rich provided McFadden with more than 44,000 emails and nearly 18,000 attachments. Rich was killed near his DC home on July 10; his wallet, cell phone, and watch were not taken. WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails twelve days later showing top DNC officials trading ideas on how to hurt Bernie Sanders at the polls, leading to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC’s top three officials because of the apparent conclusions in those emails. Speaker 1 asks if there is an October surprise and whether anything is known about what is being sat on. Speaker 2 replies that WikiLeaks never sits on material, noting that whistleblowers take significant risks to provide material. He references a 27-year-old DNC worker who was shot in the back in Washington two weeks earlier for unknown reasons, insisting there is no finding that it was a robbery, and questioning what is being implied. Speaker 1 presses, asking if the murdered man was one of their sources. Speaker 2 declines to comment on sources, reiterating that the stakes are high in the United States and that sources face serious risks, which is why they come to WikiLeaks to protect their anonymity. He acknowledges the seriousness of the murder and says they are investigating what happened with Seth Rich, though no conclusion has been reached, and that a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when such events occur. Speaker 3 contends that Seth Rich was a Bernie Sanders supporter who worked for the DNC and implies the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. He asserts Rich was murdered after leaking information to WikiLeaks, describing Rich as a young, idealistic patriot who wore American flag attire, and argues that the murder is connected to corruption in the Democratic Party. He reflects on his own experience with online detractors and acknowledges flaws in many political figures; he asserts that it is rare to find someone who wants to be “the king of the world” and notes his own perceived lack of reputation. Speaker 4 contributes with emotion, insisting that Seth Rich was murdered and that the claim of a botched robbery is unfounded, listing inconsistencies (wallet, watch, phone left behind). He references Julian Assange and Russia, calling Assange the “darling of the left” when Obama was in office and later noting that Assange is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy. Speaker 5 and Speaker 6 discuss broader context: Speaker 6 notes that the week WikiLeaks coverage happened on Fox News coincided with Mueller’s appointment and Comey’s firing, suggesting Fox pivoted from Russia stories to Seth Rich to deflect. Speaker 7 explains DNC data release timing, claiming FAT (file allocation table) formatting changed last-modified times on files, implying data was downloaded to a physical device before publication, suggesting an inside job rather than a Russian hack. Speaker 8 links the chain of events to the FBI, CrowdStrike, and questions about the investigation, alleging possible media silence and questioning why the murder case wasn’t more scrutinized. Speaker 9 recalls a private investigator’s work and notes that the FBI came to possess Rich’s laptop, with some at the DNC suspecting political motivation behind his murder; he asserts a media lack of follow-up. Speaker 10 presents a much broader claim: on 11/01/2016, Hillary and Bill Clinton allegedly orchestrated a civilian coup through corruption and co-optation, and a counter coup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks was initiated by intelligence communities to prevent Hillary from becoming president and to indict Obama administration figures, describing this as a silent, internet-based counter coup and promising a peaceful transition without violence.

The transcript discusses the Art in Embassies program, described as part of the U.S. Department of State that promotes cultural diplomacy through exhibitions, permanent collections, site-specific commissions, and two-way artist exchanges in over 200 U.S. embassies and consulates. It claims Art in Embassies provided Podestas, Jeff Koons, Rockefellers, Clintons, Marina Abramovich, and James Alafontis access to a private shipping channel that could bypass airport security. Hillary Clinton is quoted as saying that what they do is diplomacy beyond governments. The narrative links the Rothschilds and the Clintons as two major pieces in a secretive international group with access to cargo planes and ships, and notes Clinton wrote an article about art in embassies in Vanity Fair. It asserts the foundation for art and preservation of embassies (FAPE) is made up of dozens of billionaire families and politicians with ties to the global elite who can ship artwork around the world outside conventional security channels. It states that Art in Embassies is now run by Beth Dozorits, described as a close friend of Hillary Clinton and famous for helping Bill Clinton pardon Mark Rich on his final day in office. Vanity Fair is cited stating Dozorits drew attention for persuading Clinton to pardon Mark Rich. The transcript claims that Hillary Clinton’s State Department did little to oversee embassies but invested substantial effort into promoting art in embassies. Dozorits is said to have worked with Alafontis and they are closely linked among the DC elite, implying Alaphontis is tied to globalist power centers in America, as are the Bodesta brothers and company. It claims the Art in Embassies program involves Yale-connected elites including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Starr (dean of Yale School of Art), along with other industrialist families behind major American brands. Examples include the Sacklers, described as the family behind Purdue Pharma who were involved with Valium and OxyContin, said to have promoted the arts with the “global elite.” It alleges the Sacklers coordinated events with James Elephantis, presenting medals to Marina Abramovich and Jeff Koons, whose works have been transported on these aircraft multiple times, some directly via the Tony and Heather Podesta collection. Podesta allegedly arranged for Abramovich’s bloody works to be transported to Whitechapel in London, supported in part by the UK Friends of the National Museum of Women’s Artists. The narrative suggests organizations’ diplomatic groups function within art galleries, implying that events celebrate art while “announcing the sending of the paintings.” It mentions the Aga Khan, who owns private islands in the Caribbean, attending a Sackler Art in Embassies event with Alifantis and Tony Podesta. An image from the 2005 segment of the Art in Embassies project is referenced. The transcript then shifts to allegations regarding the State Department. It reports that internal memos indicate the agency called off or intervened in investigations into allegedly illegal and inappropriate behavior within its ranks during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, claiming investigations were whitewashed or quashed and that those orders came from high up. NBC’s Chuck Todd provides a briefing on these allegations, including prostitution and pedophilia claims related to State Department officials, an ambassador, and security agents. Japanese journalist Yoshi Shimatsu is cited as linking Nicholas Negroponte to a Cambodian orphanage, with Cambodian police shutting down an orphanage’s satellite link tower used to uplink child pornography and connect American pedophiles to victims. Teachers purportedly say computers and satellite systems were isolated and maintained by Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab, who allegedly frequented the orphanages and arranged weekend pajama parties for VIPs. Shimatsu is described as noting that the one laptop per child project was initiated by Negroponte, who is also the brother of former UN ambassador and intelligence official John Negroponte; John and his wife Diana are board members of FAPE. Negroponte is also said to appear in Jeffrey Epstein’s “Little Black Book.” The transcript concludes by noting the One Laptop Per Child initiative. A brief reminder to subscribe and view more videos is included at the end.

The transcript captures a discussion about Clinton-related death conspiracy theories and how these claims circulate in political commentary. Speakers repeatedly assert that “the Clintons have killed” a large number of people—well over 100, with an figure cited of about 130—arguing that such deaths are linked to the Clintons’ power and to foreign policy actions, including a bombing campaign in Iraq and a massive blockade around Iraq that, according to UN estimates, contributed to the death of hundreds of thousands of children. One speaker emphasizes that “the body count is about 130” and notes that people know the body counts, even if some refuse to acknowledge the implication that politicians might have people murdered. A recurring theme is that there used to be a Clinton Body Count website tallying people connected to Hillary and Bill who were said to have been secretly killed; one participant says Hillary should demand its return and that the record is misrepresented. The conversation frames this as a widely held belief rather than proven fact, acknowledging skepticism about the claims while insisting there is “a lot of very suspicious deaths around the Clintons” that are fair to bring up. The discussion then shifts to particular cases and figures associated with Clinton circles. Vince Foster’s death is described as a conspiracy theory that never produced evidence, but the idea lingers. The panel also references other individuals—Mary Mahoney, John F. Kennedy Jr., James McDougal, and Mark Middleton—along with the broader pattern of deaths that are framed as connected to the Clintons, though without definitive proof being established on many of the cases. In the case of Mark Middleton, described as a longtime Clinton adviser who allegedly facilitated Epstein connections, Middleton’s death is recounted with details: found dead after driving to a Heifer Ranch, with an elaborate scenario involving hanging and a shotgun, an autopsy described as unclear, and a family that disputes the notion of suicide. The family has sought to seal photos and footage, arguing that releasing them would fuel conspiracy theories. The conversation also foregrounds Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was shot in Washington, D.C. The panel notes that Rich was connected to WikiLeaks and allegedly provided thousands of emails to WikiLeaks, with claims that Fox News reported an FBI forensic finding showing contact with WikiLeaks and the release of top DNC emails leading to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There is debate among participants about whether Rich’s death was a botched robbery, noting that his wallet and watch were left behind and his phone was not taken, and that claims of murder are contested by others on air. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are discussed as adding to the conspiracy milieu: Assange raises questions about killings, offers a reward for information, and is described as “working for Russia now.” The panel references the broader political pinboard: the Clinton/DNC nexus, the FBI/CrowdStrike narrative about the 2016 hacking, and the media environment around Russia investigations and alleged election interference. There is a sense of ongoing investigation and uncertainty, with speakers insisting that sources face danger and that certain deaths remain unresolved or contested in public discourse. Toward the end, the speakers reflect on how reputations attach to candidates; they compare Clinton-related reputations with those of other politicians, asking how, over the last fifty years, the pattern emerges that people close to Clinton figures die, while noting that public perception often constrains open discussion of these claims.

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 discusses the destruction of blackberries with hammers in the State Department. They ask for a fact check on this claim. The fact check confirms that 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads were used with the private email server, and some of them were indeed destroyed with hammers. This action is criticized as a violation of the rules and regulations in the state department. The speaker concludes by saying that this incident undermines any remaining reasons to support the person in question.

The discussion centers on alleged child sex abuse within the United Nations and how it is handled internally. The second speaker asserts that many UN employees, including those at the UN, treat child sex abuse as “a cost of doing business.” They state that French peacekeepers were abusing children in the Central African Republic, with children as young as eight years old being forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for food. This claim is described as despicable and the opposite of the UN’s mission. The second speaker further contends that, according to their account, anyone involved in cover-ups of child sexual abuse “without exception, has been promoted.” In contrast, those who report abuses or attempt to stop them are said to have been fired or resigned. They claim the UN has spent more than 3,000,000 US dollars on silencing them personally. A broader critique is offered of the UN’s stance on whistleblowing, summarized by the assertion that “the UN's position on whistleblowing, whether it's this, child's excuse, or anything, is destroy the whistleblower.” The first speaker appears to challenge whether such allegations are being spoken about publicly by someone within the organization who knows about ongoing abuse, implying fear of job loss as a deterrent to speaking out. The second speaker presses the point with a direct personal inquiry, noting that an assistant secretary general is “not speaking out about someone he knows who is raping multiple children because he's worried he's gonna lose his job,” and asking, “Yeah. What's his name?” Overall, the exchange attributes a systemic pattern of abuse and retaliation to silence whistleblowers within the UN, highlighting specific alleged incidents in Central African Republic involving French peacekeepers and a broader accusation that reporting abuse is penalized while cover-ups are rewarded.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.

Some stories are challenging to report, especially regarding attacks on intelligence, military, and state department personnel. These incidents have occurred in over a dozen countries, revealing common patterns in the types of injuries sustained. Evidence suggests that a foreign adversary may be responsible for these attacks. The affected individuals are part of a highly vetted group, entrusted with sensitive government secrets. Acknowledging that US personnel are being targeted while on assignment sends a concerning message: no one is safe.

Donald Trump's recent weeks have been disastrous, reflected in the polls where he needs a miracle. The concept of an "October surprise" exists in American politics. The interviewer asks if WikiLeaks has any surprises, to which the representative responds that they don't sit on material and that whistleblowers take significant risks to provide them with information. They mention a recent incident where a 27-year-old DNC employee was shot and killed in Washington, emphasizing the risks their sources face. The interviewer questions if the victim was one of their sources, but the representative doesn't comment on that. They express concern about the situation and state that other sources are also worried when such incidents occur.