reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims someone is lying about a conversation and has fabricated components of it. The speaker reveres the office of the presidency and will keep the readout confidential, but asserts the individual in question has been a "stone cold liar" regarding their discussion. The speaker states the National Guard was never discussed. The speaker would like to share what was actually discussed, claiming it would be shocking, but attorneys prevent them from doing so.

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.

The speaker explains they paid $15,000 to go and interview Clavicular for a thirty-minute session. The purpose was to ask about Clavicular’s funding, his business, and rumors about him and Peter Thiel, because those rumors are everywhere. However, the moment the interviewer brought up Peter Thiel and Palantir, Clavicular panicked, flipped it on the interviewer, and claimed that the interviewer was the one funded by Peter Thiel. Clavicular stated that his team did research on the interviewer and that there were blockchain ties from Thiel-funded parties to the interviewer’s wallet, which, according to him, there’s zero proof of because it never happened. He claimed he literally couldn't show one single receipt that the interviewer is Peter Thiel funded or Peter Thiel backed, and he said, “I'll wait.” The interviewer asks for clarification: “So let me get this straight. You charge $15,000 for thirty minutes, and then you can't handle a single question. Like, source, I just made it up.” The interviewer adds, “And then you're calling me a scammer, but literally what you just did is scamming. Like, nobody told me to do this. I went solo. I came alone.” The interviewer explains that the only reason for asking about Thiel was because everybody was saying that Peter Thiel is the one that got clavicular released from jail and dropped all of the charges. The interviewer concludes, “So, yeah, I just got fraud maxed, but it's pretty pretty clear that clavicular is funded by Peter Thiel.”

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

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker admits to not knowing anything about it until it came out publicly. They mention that there were many names on the list, but the press only focused on a few. The speaker reiterates that they had no knowledge of the situation.

The speakers discuss a potential conflict of interest involving Vivian and an Israeli intelligence firm called Blackfeet. Vivian denies any affiliation with the firm. Keith Wood mentions the case they are involved in, but the conversation quickly moves away from it. They note that the information being discussed is not available on Wikipedia.

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.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about payments made through GC Strategies and their relationship with Mr. Firth. Speaker 1 states they are not friends with Mr. Firth and have only met him a few times. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 trusted Mr. Firth for an important project, mentioning the expensive cost and illegal detainment of Canadians. Speaker 0 also mentions allegations of lying and rule-breaking, leading to an RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 admits that Mr. Firth was not honest, but is unsure about the others. Speaker 0 requests a detailed written explanation of their dishonesty. Speaker 1 agrees to provide it within 72 hours.

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 conversation centers on Tina Peters, her defense team, and alleged procedural and ethical problems surrounding her case. The speaker details his personal involvement, including paying a million dollars to Doug Richards to defend Peters. He recounts discovering misgivings about Richards’ defense plan a few days before trial and visiting Richards’ hotel room to hear his theory of the case. Richards allegedly arrived resentfully on a Zoom call with other criminal defense attorneys and proposed a strategy to put Peters on the stand, claiming that “colonelson” told her to image a hard drive. The speaker notes that colonelson was the president’s attorney, not Peters’ own attorney, and Richards supposedly argued Peters could claim it was legal advice from an attorney, although the speaker states California does not have a legal advice exception and Colorado law would render such a defense nugatory. The proposed strategy allegedly aimed to create jury sympathy for a 68-year-old grandmother rather than present substantive legal arguments or evidence of fraud. The speaker contends that Richards’ strategy would have resulted in Peters going on the stand with no other witnesses, effectively inviting jury nullification and failing to argue legitimate defenses or present critical motions. Peters reportedly fell ill during this period, and she fired Richards at the last moment, seeking proper counsel. The judge and Richards are described as part of a “railroad” process in Colorado, with Richards allegedly designing an ineffectual defense to push Peters to testify, thereby enabling possible indictments of Kurt Olson and 45. The speaker asserts that several local criminal defense attorneys on a Zoom call were horrified by Richards’ strategy and that the defense was deliberately weak. Stephanie Lambert, currently indicted in Michigan, who is in leg irons in Washington, DC, then took Peters’ case and filed motions that, in the speaker’s view, should have been filed earlier. These motions contend that Peters, as county recorder, had the right to make a backup of election data, and that the backup was a legitimate act; a friend with a cyber background and a surfer athlete allegedly participated with Peters’ permission, though the employee “Billy” later denied it. The speaker asserts Peters did nothing wrong and that the charges should have been dismissed. The speaker criticizes the legal profession more broadly, claiming mass coordination by state bar associations and “Project 65” to deprive people of Sixth Amendment rights, citing John Eastman as another example. He mentions a concerted effort to undermine the defense and hints at promises of federal judgeships in exchange for cooperation. He notes that Peters’ motions filed by Lambert should have been filed earlier and accuses Richards of crafting a strategy that would have allowed immediate indictments of Donald Trump’s legal team. The speaker references a Supreme Court filing and a constitutional crisis, stating that the Supreme Court already has “everything it needs” as of the prior night. He praises one DC judge as fair and straightforward, while his other cases are described as varied, though he intends to proceed even if it means jail time. He promises to upload a confidential brief and invites the audience to read the filing with SCOTUS, signaling ongoing legal action.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.

Someone sent the speaker a video of a young, talented person from Chicago attacking him, claiming his father was in the CIA. The speaker initially dismissed this as untrue. However, after his father's death in March, he learned his father was indeed involved in that world, which shocked him. The speaker questions how this person knew about his father's involvement in intelligence, given his father's age. The person in the video claimed the speaker was a CIA operative. The speaker vehemently denies this, expressing strong animosity towards the CIA. He also says the person has since claimed he is funded by Russia. The speaker finds the CIA accusation personally offensive.

The speaker questions the credibility of the person testifying, mentioning past accusations of lying. The speaker also brings up payments made to the testifier's attorney by a political action committee. The speaker criticizes the testifier for calling various individuals, including the FBI and colleagues, liars. The speaker expresses skepticism towards the testifier's claims of truthfulness.

Speaker 0 opens by saying he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was about. Speaker 1 asks to know, and Speaker 0 begins to explain. Speaker 0 reflects on his past views: he has no incentive to lie, he runs a business with his college roommate, and he supported the Iraq War vehemently, supported the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett (calling it a huge mistake and that it wasn’t what he thought), and he supports John Roberts. He says the list of “dumb things” he supported is long, and he has spent the last twenty-two years trying to atone for his support for the Iraq War. Speaker 1 acknowledges appreciation for that, and Speaker 0 continues. He says he isn’t seeking affirmation but explains the text in question concerns a discussion with a producer about election integrity. He describes a January post-election conversation with someone at the White House after Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he was willing to believe allegations and asked for examples. The White House regional contact offered seven or eight dead people who voted, asserting they could be proven because death certificates and obituaries showed they voted and were on voter rolls. He states he did not claim “slam dunk” proof and insists he does not trust campaigns or campaign consultants, but he believed the claim was verifiable. Speaker 0 recounts going on air with the claim that “seven or ten dead people voted” and listing the names to show the evidence. He says, within about twenty-five minutes, some of the deceased people contacted CNN to say they were not dead, and CNN exposed that he had made a colossal error. He emphasizes that there is nothing he hates more than being wrong and humiliated, and that he should have checked whether someone had died; he acknowledges not checking carefully. Speaker 1 asks why he didn’t say these things on Fox News earlier. Speaker 0 says he did the next day. Speaker 1 contends he did not, and asks for the tape. Speaker 0 asserts he went on air the next day and admits he was completely wrong, blaming the Trump campaign for taking their word and also blaming the staffer who provided the information; he says he is still mad at that person. Speaker 1 challenges ownership of the situation and asks about the influence and the value of his career, implying he holds substantial influence with a top-rated show. They clash over sincerity and the magnitude of his earnings. Speaker 0 denies alignment with the accusation of insincerity, but Speaker 1 remains skeptical and asserts a belief that his sincerity is in question and that his views may be financially motivated. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to stop and declaring they’re done, as Speaker 1 pushes back about the immense wealth and status, prompting Speaker 0 to end the exchange abruptly.

The speaker discusses being accused of horrible things due to being Jewish and receiving messages questioning their trustworthiness as a dual Canadian-Israeli citizen. Another speaker asks if they work for an Israeli intelligence firm called Black Cube, to which the speaker denies. The conversation shifts to a specific point that the speaker didn't fully answer before abruptly ending.

The speaker discusses a text conversation where someone planned to steal money from him. He mentions meeting the person and their net worth, and how they discussed getting money from him. The speaker refuses to pay any money and mentions a court case where evidence was concealed. The judge found the person's claims to be misleading and denied their request for a restraining order. The speaker sued the person and they counter-sued. Both lawsuits have now been settled, with no money exchanged. The speaker is glad to move on with their life.

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.

Speaker 0: "Do you owe your conspiracy theory friend an apology? The government has finally admitted that they have a contract with the WEF, a $105,000,000 for a digital identity program. No. Would you take a look at that? Oh, there it is. Right there. Okay."

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

The speaker is asked about a claim made by Steven Nayeroff, who said that when he was arrested, the FBI demanded information from him about various people, including the speaker. The speaker states that they were not aware of this until it came out, and upon looking into it, they noticed that there were many names on the list. The press only focused on a few well-known individuals. The speaker confirms that they have no knowledge about the situation.

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

Speaker 0 emphasizes transparency and discusses a resentful exchange, then trails into a confession about past political positions. He says he tries to be as transparent as possible and offers to share what the text in court filings was. He explains that the text involved a producer and him, in January after the election, when Trump claimed the election was stolen. He says he told the White House he would believe that claim if there were verifiable evidence, and cites a specific example the White House gave: seven or eight dead people who voted, with death certificates and obituaries to prove it. He recounts that he publicly stated there was talk about election theft and that dead voters were on the rolls, naming individuals like Wanda Johnson of Sioux City, Iowa, and Jack Klein of Corpus Christi, Texas, and promising to show their obituaries. He notes that within about twenty-five minutes, CNN confirmed the deceased were not dead, exposing that he had made a colossal error on air. He emphasizes he hates being wrong and humiliated and acknowledges he did not verify the information independently and should have checked. He states he was enraged by the incident and his stance was that if someone claimed the election was stolen, they should prove it; he is an adult and does not take anyone’s word for anything, especially from campaign consultants whom he distrusts, though he still thought the claim could be verifiable. Speaker 1 asks why he did not say these things on Fox News, and he asserts he did the next day on Fox News. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 challenges the sincerity and ownership of the views and statements. Speaker 0 contends there is a conversation about honesty and ownership, and asks what is being claimed. The dialogue shifts to questions about his influence and wealth. Speaker 1 questions the magnitude of his influence, implying a large net worth, suggesting he is worth around $50,000,000, which Speaker 0 rebuts with a defensive outburst. Speaker 0 denies the monetary figure and accuses Speaker 1 of being overly fixated on it, telling him to get off the internet and stop believing such numbers. The exchange grows heated and ends abruptly with Speaker 0 telling Speaker 1 to leave, and Speaker 1 attempting to interject one more time before Speaker 0 cuts off the conversation. Overall, the transcript covers: a claim of transparency; a January discussion about alleged dead-voter evidence and its on-air fallout; an apology and admission of not verifying the information; subsequent on-air correction; tensions over sincerity and ownership of views; and a confrontational exchange about influence and wealth.