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.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 if they had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, clarifying if they had socialized with him. Speaker 1 answered affirmatively. Speaker 0 then asked if Speaker 1 had 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.

She approached me and said that Donald Trump's wall is meant to keep out women. I asked what he was keeping them out of, and she pointed to how he talks about and treats women, including his wife. She mentioned the inauguration, where he walked ahead and left her behind, showing a lack of care. She expressed that he has disdain for women, citing his infamous comment about grabbing women. I suggested he might have been referring to women who tolerate such behavior, but she had no response to that.

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

The speaker claims a mock trial was run to determine if a jury would believe her. The speaker states the jury believed two people could be in a dressing room if something sexual happened, but that she was seen as too old for anyone to believe she wasn't begging for it. According to the other speaker, during jury exercises, women jurors disliked when the speaker suggested she wasn't a victim, supposedly because they or women they knew had similar experiences. The speaker had difficulty admitting weakness or how Donald Trump had irreparably damaged her life; she was never able to date again. An expert witness, a psychologist and trauma theory developer, spent 26 hours with the speaker, who learned she had given up everything erotic and romantic in her life because of the attack. It was important for the speaker to say it in a believable way, which required her to believe it.

In all your years in the industry, have you ever sexually harassed anyone by grabbing them against their will? No, never. But there were some hesitant individuals. Have you sexually harassed anyone? What are you implying, Howard? Could it be that you persuaded someone who was hesitant by giving them a gentle squeeze? More than gentle. Translation: Have you ever sexually harassed someone by grabbing them against their will in all your years in the industry? No, never. But there were some hesitant individuals. Have you sexually harassed anyone? What are you implying, Howard? Could it be that you persuaded someone who was hesitant by giving them a gentle squeeze? More than gentle.

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.

In 2016, the speaker reveals that they were sexually assaulted by a Hollywood agent at a party. They explain that the assault was a display of power and control. Despite feeling the urge to be violent, the speaker's wife had prepared them to avoid such situations. The speaker mentions the risks faced by black men in America and how violence can lead to imprisonment or death. When asked about retaliation, the speaker shares an incident where a producer asked their manager to drop the case against the assailant in exchange for a role in a movie. However, the speaker decided to take a stand against abuse and declined the offer.

Speaker addresses rumors that 'Trump did something gross with women' and says, 'I 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 assert they've seen no indication of it and have spoken to people, 'to be totally honest with you, 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 remarks emphasize that the issue isn't about that alleged conduct. The speaker then questions, 'But why is no one talking to Les Wexner?'

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.

But this ex model says several years ago she went to Jean Luc's house and didn't get away. She asked to have her voice and face disguised. He gave you a drink? Yes. You drank it and then what? I blacked out. I don't remember anything after that. Next thing you remember was being in this man's bed. Who was he? Do I have to say the name? It was Jean Luc from Karen's Modeling Agency. You were raped? Yes. I do know that. You sure? Yes. I'm positive. I I know. You think everybody knows this about Jean Luc Brunel? Oh, yes. A lot of people know that. A lot of people. They continue to deal with him. But everyone will continues to deal with it. I don't know why.

The speaker states that she met Donald Trump at parties hosted by Jeffrey Epstein when she was 13. She alleges that Trump requested and received a hand job from her at one party, insisting she use a glove. She claims Trump knew she was 13, partly because she resembled his daughter. She says that Epstein also knew her age and tried to force himself on her. She states that she was recruited to these parties under the guise of modeling. She alleges that Trump made racist remarks and engaged in disturbing behavior, including acting out a rape fantasy and a scenario involving maids. She claims that Trump raped her during one encounter, despite her protests and Tiffany's attempts to intervene. She says that Trump told her she should be thankful he "popped her cherry" and that she could get an abortion if she became pregnant. She is coming forward now because she believes people should know what kind of person Trump is. She says the experience destroyed her self-worth and ability to have healthy relationships.

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 discussion centers on allegations that Erica Kirk’s backstory has been exposed as a lie. The speakers claim that, while she lived in New York, there are indications she did date and drink, contrasting with statements that she avoided dating and did not drink. One concrete example cited is a photo of Erica Fronsbee with a glass of champagne, captioned “it’s Wednesday, so treat yourself to little champagne,” suggesting she did enjoy alcohol. Further evidence presented includes a 2017 image posted by internet sleuths showing Erica Fronsbee with Cabot Phillips, captioned, “yes. we’re that couple who gets painting lessons together.” The image is interpreted as indicating they were more than just a one-off date, implying they were an actual couple. The speakers note that Cabot Phillips was at one point Charlie Kirk’s producer and is now a senior editor at The Daily Wire. They add that Phillips recently spoke about “how to lead like Charlie,” and that the speaker believes Phillips “is not from this world of media,” describing the situation as “incestuity.” The narrative is broadened to claim that Erica was dating before Charlie, which is described as normal, but there is also mention of her being engaged, perhaps even married. Luna Bear Studios is cited with a post from 03/16/2015, praising Erica Fransvi and JT Massey, stating, “Erica Fransvi and JT Massey, you both are amazing humans, and I love shooting you so much laughter and love. It was perfection.” This is used to argue that her entire image is built on something not true. A recurring question posed is why Erica would lie about being a conservative woman, with the assertion that such deception would be visible online, concluding that “the Internet is undefeated.” The speakers imply that Erica’s public persona as a conservative woman is inconsistent with the alleged past relationships and activities documented in the posts and photos. The overall claim is that there are contradictions between her claimed identity and her dating and social media history, challenging the authenticity of her presented backstory.

On July 19, 2023, Judge Lewis Caplan denied Donald Trump's request for a new trial, confirming he raped E Jean Carroll. The judge stated Carroll's testimony of painful forced penetration was corroborated by witnesses. The ruling concluded that Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll, meaning he raped her. This ruling will be submitted to Congress. Gentlewoman from Iowa, for what purpose do you seek recognition? Translation: The judge confirmed that Donald Trump raped E Jean Carroll, as her testimony was supported by witnesses. This ruling will be presented to Congress. Gentlewoman from Iowa, why do you seek recognition?

The speaker discusses the controversy surrounding their behavior and text messages. They claim that the texts were taken out of context and that they were being sarcastic and inappropriate. They explain that the term "next victim" was a sarcastic way of referring to their past relationships with baseball players. They admit to seeking attention and behaving inappropriately but argue that the texts do not address the actual events in question. The speaker acknowledges that there are differing accounts of what happened, with one party admitting to hitting them but claiming it was consensual. They express their discomfort with the explicit nature of some of the texts.

The speaker states they will be politically incorrect and issues a trigger warning. They question the claim that a wealthy man, married to a supermodel, would sexually assault E. Jean Carroll in a Tiffany's store. The speaker highlights that the alleged incident occurred at the height of the man's career, with no prior accusations for twenty years, and only surfaced when he ran for president. The speaker dismisses the accusation as "complete rubbish and political nonsense."

- The conversation centers on Andrew Tate and a divide in the conservative space about whether he is a “good guy” or a bad guy. A video of Tate is shown to frame the discussion. - A video excerpt from Speaker 1 features Tate describing how he became a multimillionaire by creating a webcam studio. He explains he took girls who lacked experience or equipment and built a system that allowed him to convince them to participate, retain 100% control of their income, and ensure they were effective in a highly competitive industry. He stresses that it’s not easy money and that the process requires many tips and tricks to ensure a girl can make money from home, implying that once trained, a girl could potentially earn unlimited money. He also questions why a girl would stay with him once she can make money independently. - Speaker 0 argues that Tate was a webcam operator who objectified women and acted like a pimp. They reference a separate video showing Tate allegedly whipping a girl and note that if the girl was 15 at the time based on Tate’s stated age, that would be problematic. They ask whether Tate should be given a pass and invite thoughts on fairness in criticizing him. - Speaker 2 weighs in with nuance, saying it is not black-and-white and that they have not done a deep dive into Tate’s entire situation. They acknowledge Tate’s past involvement with encouraging girls to participate in OnlyFans-style content and express disapproval, hoping Tate would publicly acknowledge that this was a mistake and express regret. They note that many women enter porn or stripping due to desperation or trafficking, suggesting vulnerability in those Tate might have preyed upon. They admit uncertainty about whether Tate committed criminal acts, mentioning potential legal age issues (Tate operating in a country where the legal age of consent is 16, and a separate girl possibly being 15) and the absence of victims coming forward. - Speaker 2 also claims Tate has been unfairly persecuted. They describe a prior raid/arrest and a social media “PizzaGate” narrative on X (formerly Twitter), arguing that while PizzaGate itself is real, Tate’s alleged actions do not compare to Hillary Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged activities. They emphasize that Tate is being portrayed unfairly and that redemption would be preferable. - Both speakers discuss redemption and reform: Speaker 2 suggests Tate could seek redemption by stating regret for past actions, condemning the porn/OnlyFans route, and encouraging women to avoid or leave such work, highlighting the need for support, healing, and respect for women who have experienced abuse. They suggest a forgiving community could respond positively to an acknowledgment and a commitment to change, rather than punitive treatment.

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.

Donald Trump is accused of inappropriate behavior towards women. The speaker finds it disrespectful to women who are victims of rape. They recall a past encounter with Trump involving lingerie. The speaker expresses anger and panic, mentioning death threats. They ponder the possibility of DNA evidence on the lingerie. The conversation shifts to Trump's statement about the accuser not being his type. The speaker challenges the perception of rape as sexy. The discussion pauses briefly.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about a viral moment after a game against the Indiana Fever, in which many people believe Speaker 1 said, "effing white girl" or "effing white girls." Speaker 1 states definitively that she did not say that and would never say that, as there is no place for that type of language in the league. Speaker 0 asks if it's possible that's what Speaker 1 said, even though Speaker 1 can't remember. Speaker 1 reiterates that she knows that's not what she said because she wouldn't use that type of language.

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.

The speaker questions why Donald Trump would be considering pardoning a known sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell, and notes that there has been no satisfactory explanation from MAGA supporters. They point out that Maxwell abused kids and that Trump has already given her a “really nice prison… like a club fed,” and is now considering pardoning her. The speaker asks, “He said it. Yeah, I'd consider why? Okay, hey, would you consider pardoning Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? I bet he would say no to that, as he should. Would you consider partnering Ghislain Maxwell, a known sex trafficker who abused kids? I have to think about it. Why? Why Mago? Why? Why would he have to think about it?” They urge that, before mentioning Biden, one must explain why Donald Trump would consider it, insisting that Biden is not president and is not the answer. The speaker asserts that Biden wasn’t the one who made a big deal about releasing the Epstein files. In contrast, they claim Trump attacked Biden for not releasing the Epstein files, whereas Biden assumed DOJ was doing their job and Trump didn’t. The speaker maintains that Trump can release the Epstein files right now. They further state that if someone brings up Biden in response, the only acceptable way to do so without appearing to defend a sex trafficker would be to first answer the question: why would Donald Trump even consider it? The speaker ends by saying they look forward to reading the response.

The speaker met Tiffany who suggested she wear a blonde wig. Donald Trump specifically asked about her because she reminded him of his daughter and Tiffany told him she was 13. He knew her age the first time he saw her but took a liking to her because she looked like his daughter. The speaker is coming out now because when it happened originally, she wanted to forget it, but when she saw that he was running for president, she felt it was her responsibility to tell the country what kind of man he is. After meeting Tiffany, she went to a party run by Jeffrey Epstein, who had a private interview with her. The first time she met Epstein, he tried to force himself inside her. At about the 3rd or 4th party, he forced penetration during a massage. She told him she didn't want that, but he got irritated. By that time, she realized she wasn't there for modeling and was being used, holding him responsible.

The speaker describes her encounters with Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein at parties organized by Epstein. She was 13 years old at the time and was coerced into performing sexual acts on Trump. She also reveals Trump's racist and derogatory comments towards Epstein and others. The speaker expresses her fear of Trump and her belief that he is unfit to be president. She shares her decision to come forward with her story to expose the kind of person Trump is. The speaker discusses the lasting impact of the traumatic experiences on her self-esteem and ability to trust men.