reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker recounts the depth of the evil involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s network as described by survivors during a press conference. They explain that 14-year-old girls were told by a high school friend to come to an old man’s house, give him a massage, and he would pay $200, with a swimming pool and other enticements presented. The massage would escalate to sexual acts, and Epstein would keep their phone numbers. Through the shame and coercion, the girls were compelled to show up at his beck and call whenever he wanted. The only way they could get out of performing sexual favors was to find another girl at their high school who would take their place. One survivor broke down in tears as she admitted that she faced a choice between finding a replacement girl or returning to perform the acts, and she chose to find another girl. The speaker notes that even after it was known that these were 15-year-old girls coerced by an adult man, people still said they were sex traffickers and trafficked these women. The speaker emphasizes the realization of how evil it is for someone to make others commit evil acts and then implicate them, which made it harder for the survivors to come forward. There is discussion of why the names of the victims aren’t released. Epstein’s abuse involved billionaires who could pay off authorities and judges. After girls reached the age of consent, Epstein would traffic them to his friends, arguing that some were prostitutes who were 18 or older and thus consenting. The speaker explains that when these men had money, they could pay off police departments, cause reports to disappear, or influence judges. Many of the girls came from less affluent families, and the money paid to the families ranged from $150,000 up to $500,000, while the girl often would not testify. The men would then use defamation lawsuits to bankrupt the survivors who spoke out or tried to contest their false allegations. The process itself functions as punishment, with survivors forced to go broke just to defend their names.

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 identifies the main issue in the California public school system (K-12) as an epidemic of sexual abuse by teachers, coaches, and other school employees. The speaker notes that it wasn’t until 2012 that a victim could file a civil lawsuit for damages in California. Since then, the speaker’s firm has filed dozens of such lawsuits. The firm states that it alone has discovered over three fifty or three sixty perpetrators, teachers. The speaker confirms there are many more perpetrators beyond those identified by the firm because the firm does not have all of the cases.

Emma Gabbie is being painted as a predator, but the men involved were much older, some in their 30s-50s, while she was underage. In Florida, it's the adult's responsibility to verify the minor's age. The lawsuit mentions social media but the claim she was a sex worker is false. One man, Keith Fox, was convicted of abusing her, and another girl. Candace is protecting Fox, who abused 2 minors, but has no problem saying Emma's name. Marlon Fisher, had texts where Emma allegedly admits to being a pathological liar, it also asks if a butt plug would set off a metal detector. Another man, Dustin Milner, committed suicide. Tyler Hensel also claimed Emma was into BDSM, and these are presented as patterns of behavior. These men are painting her as someone who makes false accusations, there isn't formal reports, so it doesn't add up. This is the behavior of a child who was taken advantage of.

The speaker asserts that the LDS Church is responsible for the mass replacement of white people in Utah. The claim is that this began in 2005 under Gordon B. Hinckley, when the church recognized that white heritage Americans were no longer easily converting, but that illegal aliens, especially from Mexico and Guatemala, were highly receptive to the church. The speaker alleges that the church chose an open borders, globalist route in 2005 and lobbied the Utah legislature to obtain driver licenses for illegal aliens of any state in the country. From 2005 through 2026, the speaker contends, every sanctuary state policy and every refugee policy contributing to the replacement of one-fourth of white Utahns came at the behest of LDS lobbyists. The speaker instructs the audience to consider everyday encounters—at Smith’s, Walmart, or local schools—where third-world individuals speaking Spanish, disrespecting local culture, graffiti, and difficulties in affording a home are observed, and to “thank” Dallin Oaks and other LDS leaders. They cite Ron Mortensen of the Center for Immigration Studies as evidence that the church sends lobbyists to pressure legislators in Utah and even legislators in Washington, DC, asserting that Utah’s senators refused to push against illegal alien sanctuary policies in the most recent legislative session. A specific legislative example is mentioned: HB 386, authored by Trevor Lee, which would have denied tax benefits to illegals. The speaker notes that the bill progressed to the Senate, but, for reasons attributed to Republican Utah state senators who are largely LDS (about 95%), it did not pass. The speaker criticizes these legislators as hypocritical, claiming they publicly present themselves as masculine protectors while being unable to pass what the speaker views as the most important legislation for Utah. The message broadens into a call to awareness directed at Mormons in Utah, describing the Utah “bubble” as real and urging recognition that LDS leadership is part of a “global homo open borders replace white people cabal.” The speaker concludes by stating that genocide of whites is the main issue of our time and urges Mormons to wake up, ending with “Peace out.” Key names cited include Gordon B. Hinckley, Dallin Oaks, Ron Mortensen, and Trevor Lee, with the Center for Immigration Studies invoked as supporting documentation. The core claims revolve around church-led lobbying, open-border policies, demographic change in Utah, and a perceived failure of LDS leaders to act against sanctuary and legalization efforts for illegal immigrants.

I certainly don't know who's behind it. I think it's more Utah based than people wanna admit, which actually does tie into this. The same people that accused Tim came after me just before the election. The same attorneys that are representing those accusers of Tim are the same attorneys that were hired that worked for Spencer Cox. Suzette Rasmussen. I’ll send it to you. The timing of his allegations were very suspect, and it's driven by Mitt Romney and the Mitch McConnell money and the $10,000,000 that's funded comes out here and you get Suzette Rasmussen, governor Herbert's former, attorney, Spencer Cox was lieutenant governor at time. She's the one that's running this case. Tim is going to come out on top of this. I'm a devout member of the LDS Church. I do not want corruption inside the church. All this Charlie Kirk stuff is Utah related. Cox detested Charlie Kirk and his ideology. I'm not DMing. I'm not a stalker. This is

Speaker 0 explains that the couple’s ruse may seem odd to some people and does not fit into any “white handbook” about keeping the kingdom orderly. There is no section on how to rescue children from sex traffickers. Speaker 1 interrupts to say they want to explain something. Speaker 0 continues that, using his team, they have had to figure things out on their own. He acknowledges that people may dismiss it, but he emphasizes gratitude for the opportunity to publicly state a principle: he will never confess to something he did not do, no matter who asks, unless God himself and an angel or some divine directive instructs him to lie to protect Elder Ballard’s name from defamation. He asserts clearly that he will not lie or confess to a false wrongdoing unless there is a divine instruction to do so. He reiterates that there is not one person on the planet for whom he would deviate from this principle, unless a direct message from God or a celestial being instructs him otherwise. Speaker 1 closes with a brief interjection: “But by the way, folks.”

Gabriel, an eight-year-old boy, described a pattern of abuse connected to his father, teachers, and other adults associated with his school and his family’s extended network. The interview centers on two main settings where the abuse occurred: a swimming pool in East Finchley and a school-related party, plus earlier incidents at home and with other adults. People involved - Gabriel and his family: His mother, known as Mama; his caregiver “Papa Hemp” (an adult referred to as Abraham who is described as Gabriel’s father figure and also as a father to him and his sister); his sister Emmy; his nanny Galina (also called Galina or Galina, Ukrainian/Russian family member who helps with cooking and housekeeping); other relatives such as Gabriel’s grandparents, including a Russian grandmother who lives outside England; a variety of named and unnamed extended family members. - Gabriel’s primary caregivers and household: Mama (the mother who is described as kind and supportive, who cooks, cleans, does juices, and provides money); Papa Hemp (the man Gabriel calls “dad” who does hemp juices and spends money on luxury items for Gabriel); Galina (the nanny, Ukrainian/Russian, who helps with pancakes and household tasks); Emmy (Gabriel’s sister); other adults in the household who are named less consistently. - School staff and associates: Christchurch Primary School in Hampstead where Gabriel says many teachers and staff were connected to his father. He names a number of teachers and staff by first and last names, including: - Miss Wilma (year one teacher, described as a friend of Gabriel’s father and the person who introduced him to other teachers). - Miss Forsyth (Kate Forsyth), the head teacher (Kate is her first name; Forsyth is the surname). - Miss Forsyth’s sister, also a head teacher, named Kate too (Kate Ungwyn or Ungwyn is referenced; the exact surname varies in the transcript). - Mr. Hollings (referred to as “mister Hollings,” the year four teacher who is to become Gabriel’s four-year teacher). - Miss Parsons (referred to as a leader among the teachers who knew Gabriel’s father). - Miss Clover and Miss Reese (assistants/teachers who were described as part of the staff). - Miss Wilma (again, described as a year one teacher who knew Gabriel’s father and who helped connect him with other staff). - Other staff names recur with uncertainty due to the chaotic transcript, but a broad network of teachers and school staff is repeatedly cited as being present during events. - Other adults at the events: Gabriel’s father’s friends, a man named Frank who is described as the McDonald’s manager or staff at the pool, and various parents who are named in relation to the disabled toilets incident. Key locations and settings - East Finchley Swimming Pool: Gabriel describes going there with his father (Papa Hemp) and his sister Emmy when he was about four years old. He recalls a changing room where his father and sister were present, and a disabled toilet where the abuse occurred. The pool complex is described as having a McDonald’s nearby and a McDonald’s inside the pool area itself, plus other facilities and a road and stairs near the pool. - The school and the school party: Gabriel recounts an incident on the last day of school in which a party at Christchurch Primary School involved sexual abuse. He describes a party that took place in the school, connected to a church space and school facilities, with dancing, and with teachers and parents present. He states that all the children attended the party and that many people, including teachers, parents, and his father’s friends, were involved in the abuse. He mentions a head teacher and other staff, including the year four teacher, present at the party. - Home and other settings: In the broader timeline, Gabriel refers to various other episodes including his mother’s explanations about anatomy (private parts, semen, the “white stuff” that comes out when wet or rubbed), and the risk and consequences described by his mother. He also describes exposure to alcohol, both wine and beer, provided by his father in various contexts; use of white powder to sniff; and other substances and behaviors introduced by his father and associates. Major events and claims - A pattern of sexual abuse initiated very early: Gabriel states that his father began abusing him when he was a baby or very young (one year old). He describes ongoing abuse across multiple settings, including at the pool and at home/with family friends. - The swimming pool incident: Gabriel details a recurrent pattern at the East Finchley Swimming Pool. He says his father and his father’s friends would take him and his sister into a large, multi-person disabled toilet, where they would perform sexual acts. He explains that the acts involved touching his private area, forcing him to put or be subjected to plastic Willy devices inserted into his bottom, which would bleed after removal. He says the acts occurred in the changing rooms, toilets, particularly the disabled toilet, and involved adults including his father, teachers, and parents who were there “in the disabled toilet” with him and his sister. He also mentions being taught to engage in sexual acts with other children at the pool and with other adults present. - The “plastic Willy” elements: Gabriel describes multiple “plastic willies” of different colors and sizes—bronze/dark skin color (brown), golden color, and white—for insertion into his bottom, describing the process as painful and bleeding after removal. He notes that the devices are made or bought by his father and his father’s associates; he references a person named Daniel as someone who helps make or procure the plastic toys. He emphasizes different color-coded descriptions for what he calls “brown/bronze,” “gold,” and “white.” - The teaching and social settings: Gabriel describes that his father had many connections with staff at the Christchurch Primary School, including Wilma, Forsyth (Kate), Ungwyn (Kate), Parsons, and others, suggesting that these relationships arranged or enabled the abuse. He states that the staff and parents were present at the pool events and at the school party, and that they engaged in or facilitated sexual activities with him and his sister. He describes that his father and the teachers would direct or coerce the children to participate in sexual activities, including oral sex on adults and other acts described in explicit terms. - The party day and the aftermath: The school party is described as lasting six hours and occurring during regular school hours, with a party atmosphere replacing standard lessons. Gabriel recalls being forced to engage in sexual acts at that party, being hit for crying, being injected with a sleeping injection by a nurse teacher so he would fall asleep, and being forced to participate in acts that included sexual contact with multiple adults, including his father, teachers, and other parents. He describes that his father killed babies and ate meat in a later part of the narrative about the party day, but the central focus is the party itself and the abuse that occurred there. - The “white powder” and alcohol: Gabriel recalls being given white powder to sniff by his father or adults, describing it as a substance that causes dizziness, headaches, and a “drunk” feeling. He describes European and Russian family connections as context for these experiences and mentions a green bottle with white powder in it. He also recounts receiving alcohol (white wine and red wine) from his father and feeling dizzy and headache-prone afterward, receiving tablets to alleviate symptoms. He notes that this happened when he was four years old and that his mother later admonished him not to put the white powder near his sister because it could cause babies to be born with severe problems. - The “seeds” and the white stuff: Gabriel describes the white stuff as being similar to semen in boys and having seeds that can multiply if they are brought into contact with another person or water. He explains that he was told to wash hands after handling the white stuff because the seeds can multiply, possibly causing pregnancy if transferred to another person. He emphasizes that the white substance can cause babies that might be blind, deaf, or otherwise disabled. He says his mother told him about the seeds and that it’s dangerous to expose his sister or others to the white stuff. - The self-harm and aggression: Gabriel recounts fighting with his sister, describing that following some of the episodes he engaged in violent acts toward his sister (hitting her, pulling her hair, etc.). He indicates these behaviors intensified after Abraham (Papa) moved in, and that his mother became very stressed as a consequence. He describes subsequent fear about reporting these events and the fear of retaliation by the adults involved, but then he begins to disclose earlier events. Rules and procedural notes from the interviewer - The interviewer (Steve) explains procedural rules for the interview: he is a police officer, with a partner described as Cleo who is the controller of the interview and a camera operator; there is Bethan from social services taking notes; the interview is structured to elicit truthfulness and precision, with an emphasis on avoiding guessing and on not considering Gabriel in trouble for reporting. - Gabriel is encouraged to use truthful accounts and to express himself with the language he chooses, including swear words, and the interviewer explicitly indicates that he would prefer him to supply the real terms (e.g., explicit sexual terms) to ensure accuracy in the record. - The interviewer confirms factual details like the date (11 September, a Thursday), the participants in the interview, and the structure of the interview. He also provides a mock example to illustrate truth-telling and asks Gabriel to identify lies and truths. - The interviewer clarifies that the purpose of the interview is to gather truthfully reported information about past incidents, including events that occurred at the pool, the school, and within the family network. Emotional and safety context - Gabriel communicates fear, confusion, and distress, especially around events at the pool and school. He alternates between recounting explicit acts and the broader social context of an abusive environment. He references fear of retaliation if the information is disclosed and expresses relief at having the opportunity to speak with an adult about what happened. - The narrative includes multiple references to consent, coercion, and the use of physical force to compel participation in sexual activities, as described by Gabriel. Overall content of claims - Gabriel reports extensive sexual abuse and coercion by his father, teachers, and other adults connected to the school and family circle, including forced sexual acts with both him and his sister. - He describes the use of plastic sexual devices inserted into his bottom, causing bleeding, and the performance of sexual acts in changing rooms and disabled toilets at the East Finchley Swimming Pool, in the presence of his father, teachers, and parents. - He recounts participation in a school party that involved sexual activities with multiple adults and a pattern of violence toward him for crying, as well as medical interventions (injections) to suppress crying. - He reports exposure to alcohol and illegal substances (white powder) given or introduced by his father, as well as instructions given by his mother about the dangers of the substances, including the propagation of seeds that could cause pregnancy and birth defects. - He describes a broader pattern of manipulation and complicity among adults at the school, including various named staff who allegedly knew his father and arranged or facilitated abuse. This summary condenses the key points and claims from Gabriel’s account, preserving the explicit statements and descriptions as provided in the transcript, without interpretation or judgment of the claims’ truthfulness.

A rabbi from the Satmar Hasidim community is accused of preying on troubled teen boys, taking them to motels. The victims are between 14-16 years old, with one boy fleeing when the rabbi started rubbing his back. Another boy was groped in the rabbi's car. This incident follows the sentencing of an unlicensed counselor for abusing a schoolgirl. The community is divided on whether to report abuse to rabbis or the police, with allegations of cover-ups. The rabbi's acquaintances defend him as a good man.

In Saint Helens, community outrage erupted at a school board meeting following the arrest of two teachers accused of sexually abusing students. Parents demanded the resignation of the entire school board, expressing anger over the board's inaction as one accused teacher, Eric Stearns, continued teaching for two months while under investigation. Stearns faces charges for abusing six students from 2015 to early 2023 and pleaded not guilty. Parents criticized the board for ignoring prior allegations and police reports. Former state senator Rachel Armitage questioned why Stearns was allowed to harm students for years. A second teacher, retired Mark Collins, was also arrested on abuse charges. Parents vowed to continue fighting for accountability and the safety of their children in the school district. Collins is scheduled to appear in court soon.

The police already in 1997 had indications that former top Justice official Joris Demink and three senior prosecutors were involved in the sexual abuse of underage boys, an old detective testified at the Utrecht court. The testimony is notable because, until now, three ministers of justice, including Opstelten, have consistently denied that Demink participated in any investigation into sexual abuse of minors. According to the former detective, the investigation ultimately yielded nothing because it was sabotaged from higher up. The Rolodex affair, which unfolded in the late 1990s in Amsterdam, concerned a supposed pedophile network in which underage boys were abused by men from wealthy circles. With information from Rolodex, police traced four high-ranking officials, including top Justice official Joris Demink. Despite the ministry’s long-standing denials of Demink’s involvement, today one of the researchers who worked on the case testifies under oath and names Demink. The witness, detective De Kooten, testifies today in a civil case in Utrecht. He is asked to recall which names emerged back then, and he responds by naming three prosecutors and Demink. The word “En Denmink” is repeated, referring to Demink. Minister Opstelten stands by his position that these claims are not correct. As for the RoLodex investigation, it ultimately produced nothing. For the two men who testified in Utrecht, the outcome was frustrating. The chronicle of the case centers on a man named Ger van R., described as a professor in Amsterdam. When, in the late 1990s, the authorities tapped the phone of this Van R., the line suddenly went silent. During a house search, it appeared as if a cleaning crew had been through, and nothing else was found at his home. One of the witnesses who spoke today is Jaap Hoek, a former [the transcript cuts off here].

- Thijs van den Brink introduces himself and is asked to confirm a past interview. He says he has interviewed many people and cannot recall details about a specific interview with Yvonne Köls regarding a child-abuse suspect vice president of the Hague court, mentioning the name Theo Huub. He offers to have the episode sent to him for refreshing his memory. The other speaker notes the exchange as unusual, suggesting it occurred under the CDA cabinets during Lubbers and was swept under the rug. - A separate speaker announces that the radio interview of Thijs van den Brink with Yvonne Köls from 2015 is on their YouTube channel, dated 19 August 2025, and invites listeners to check the text and listen. - The conversation shifts to Yvonne Köls’s 30-year-old novel about a pedosexual child judge. It is noted that it provoked strong backlash against her rather than the judge, including criticism, public opposition, and even physical intimidation. Despite this, the book is being republished. Köls explains that the case still disturbs her because the judge was never prosecuted, and the press largely gave attention to the opposing party rather than Köls or the victims. - Köls is a guest on a program. She explains the reason for reissuing the book: a new generation is interested and can engage with the topic. She mentions that the Catholic Church has taken steps internally and disrupted the system, and that investigations extended beyond the church to include child care institutions and care facilities. She states she had substantial knowledge from that period. - She reflects that at the time she could have spoken more about what she knew, but she was not heard. She notes that the children assigned to her pupils, who were also abused, were excluded from coverage by others at the time. She adds that the men involved are now 45 or 46 years old, and that the abuse occurred when the victims were between 10 and 15 years old. - The program concludes with acknowledgment that the victims have spoken.

Leslie Weston is described as part of a trifecta of sexual abuse scandals, with the speakers pressing for justice for the survivors. One line of questioning targets Johnson, asking, “Are we gonna get some justice for the survivors?” and “Johnson, you ever get tired of telling lies for these people?” Another asks, “Where’s Wexner? What’s he doing today?” and notes that “Wexner’s people right there were chairman John Ziger as his personal lawyer.” The conversation includes a tension-filled interaction where a participant blurts, “I suck. See? I don’t you know?” and a debate over potential conflicts of interest, with one side asking, “You don’t think it’s a conflict of interest,” and the other responding about the university. The speakers discuss public perception and accountability, with one insisting, “To you later. This was fun. Mister Carpenter, we’re gonna get some justice for the survivors today. Mister Marshall?” and another calling out an individual as “This gentleman is here accosting people coming into the courtroom.” There is a debate about whether Wexner’s name should be associated with other controversial figures, such as Woody Hayes, and mentions the trifecta: “and you guys act like you got no power.” The conversation escalates around Leslie Wexner’s influence, with someone asserting, “Leslie Wexner’s been running around this city for forty years being a sex criminal.” A powerful figure is reminded of influence: “I’m just a county commissioner. You’re one of the most powerful people in this county, brother.” The dialogue questions whether information is being hidden “at the national level” and asks about the Wexner facility, noting it was named “with Woody Hayes, the most prestigious name in the university history.” The donors behind the Wexner facility are discussed: “$5,000,000 donation. 2.5 came from his wife. The other 2.5 came from Jeffrey Epstein. His foundation, which is Del Maxwell. 2.5.” A response indicates willingness to investigate if details are forwarded: “If you wanna forward that to me, I’ll look at it. I’ll contact the person.” Language about accountability continues with the notion that a “storm” is coming and a probing question about returning money: “Will you give his money back? … Will you give the money back to charity? Sure.” The exchange ends with a cryptic close, referencing “the question” and “Sad saint of affairs, brother.”

I am a survivor of sexual abuse, and I believe the circumstances that led to my abuse and allowed it to continue are a direct result of the fact that USA Gymnastics and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee failed to do their jobs. I don't want another young gymnast, Olympic athlete, or any individual to experience the horror that I and hundreds of others have endured before, during, and continuing to this day in the wake of the Larry Nassar abuse. I blame Larry Nassar, and I also blame an entire system that enabled and perpetrated his abuse.

A new round of abuse-coverup allegations has resurfaced in federal court, this time targeting the daughter and son-in-law of church president Russell M. Nelson. The 79-page suit includes decades-old claims of sexual abuse against children as young as one year old, with the defendants identified as John and Jane Doe being Brenda Miles and her husband Richard, who are Russell M. Nelson’s daughter and son-in-law. The defense filed a 141-page motion to dismiss, denying all allegations. The plaintiffs allege that the abuse dates back to the 1980s and that after the victims came forward, church elder Neal A. Maxwell blessed them and told them to forgive and forget, and that if church leaders had taken further action with police, the abuse might not have happened. Although the LDS Church is not named as a defendant, the church issued a statement noting that allegations of interference or cover-up are baseless and offensive, adding that law enforcement investigated the matter in the 1980s and took no action against the church or its leaders. The plaintiffs’ attorney said the motive for filing now is that the alleged victims “now have a voice they want to be believed and they want justice for living with the shame and pain of what happened to them as children.” The defense argues that the statute of limitations has passed and that this is grounds for dismissal. A copy of the complaint was posted on kutv.com, fully redacted. In related discussion, a commentator described a conflict over how the church handles criticism, arguing that the only way to resolve it is through “brute force,” likening it to excommunication of critics, and asserting that the church avoids dispassionate dialogue to protect its brand. The commentator referenced Russell Nelson’s involvement in the Strengthening the Church Members Committee in the 1990s and claimed that Nelson was on that committee with James Faust. The segment also recaps a controversial personal history involving Bill Carstensen, a diagnosed child abuser who, after the church failed to discipline him, married Marilyn Brady, an employee in the church’s membership department. Brady reportedly trusted Nelson and ended up marrying Carstensen, who had abused multiple children, including a child later identified as Justin Hoyman. The report connects this to broader rumors about Nelson’s leadership and alleged shifts in church branding, noting rumors that Nelson emphasized not calling church members “Mormons” and suggesting derivations from Gordon Bowen’s influence, although no documents are provided to substantiate this claim. The segment closes by reiterating the existence of these allegations and the ongoing debate surrounding Nelson’s leadership and church branding.

The position being discussed “doesn’t make sense” logically and rationally, and it is described as vitally important to the case for two reasons. First, it is claimed to expose a multi-agency cover-up involving the FBI, the Utah State Bureau of Investigation, and multiple sheriffs/jurisdictions in Utah, including the sheriff in Utah County (Orem/Provo) and the sheriff in Washington County. The transcript alleges that the Washington County sheriff has “multiple times” gone on the record saying he did not arrive, and it also alleges that the records custodian in Washington County “fiddled around with the tapes and wouldn’t give them over to News 2.” It further claims the prosecutors could face a “bad deal” if they try to go forward with the “nonsense,” framed as a consequence of the alleged cover-up. Second, it is claimed to expose “Fed-sloppers,” described as dishonest actors. The transcript argues they can examine the “totality of the body of the evidence” and only support a particular interpretation by asserting that Tyler Robinson, “20 hours after leaving his parents,” with no cell phone, and without knowing what his parents were doing or whether they contacted an attorney, is still thinking that his parents are trying to contact “Doug Terry.” It describes this alleged reasoning in detail, claiming that Tyler Robinson is portrayed as using the jail’s steel toilets as a “crystal ball” to determine whether Doug Terry has been contacted by observing toilet water. The transcript depicts this as an attempt to infer the status of communication even though Tyler had not talked to them for the day Friday and did not know whether Doug Terry’s office was open. The transcript characterizes this as a “Fed slot problem,” asserting that a major part of the case involves “lying sacks of bull butter” on the opposing side who support the “Fed slop narrative” because they know it has “fallen apart,” is “crumbling,” and is “dying every single day.” Finally, it argues that while being Mirandized more than once is possible, it claims that if someone were Mirandized a second time, they would still refuse to answer questions rather than respond with requests like “I would like an attorney named Doug Terry.”

I reported Ghislaine Maxwell's involvement to the FBI back in 1996. I made her role very clear to them at that time. It makes me angry that they allowed this to continue for twenty-six years. The majority of the victims you are hearing from now became victims after I made my report. Essentially, they created most of these victims by failing to act when they had the information.

I'm suspicious of people who jump ahead to arrest, conviction, incarceration, or execution. Let’s start with an interview. I know a lot of people have been interviewed — hundreds, in the FBI context. In a federal investigation, it’s not crazy to call somebody; it happens every single day. It happened to every relative of every J-six prisoner — got called in, “Can we come talk to you?” That’s not weird. That’s the beginning of justice: the first step in finding out what happened, punishing the guilty, exonerating the innocent, is having these conversations in the context of a federal investigation, like an FBI interview. It’s strange to see television mentions that there’s no evidence to indict someone or to call a grand jury. Why not just ask questions of the FBI? If they’re not doing that, you wonder why. Now, here’s the bigger picture you’re qualified to provide, even if I’m not. The implication in this file dump is that there are basically religious rituals, sexual in nature. That’s very common through history — temple prostitutes for a reason. There are rituals involving children underway in the United States and the West, rich and powerful people sexually abusing young people. That is very hard for a lot of people to believe or metabolize, but it feels like that’s not totally crazy; it happens. Does that happen? Absolutely. It’s so dark that it’s hard for average people — regular people just trying to live their lives — to even approach it. Even a maniac cannot put himself in the shoes of someone so depraved. Regular Americans can’t even put themselves in the shoes of a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, because they’re just trying to pay their bills and can’t — while billionaires are doing certain things that are messing everything up. So, it’s far removed from regular experience, but it’s hard to understand and believe. There’s good evidence of elements of that in various fringe investigations for a long time. I don’t say “fringe” to mean unreliable; I mean fringe to say they never gain traction with mainstream media, for whatever reason. But it’s right there in these emails and these files. It’s not entirely clear what all of it means, but there are very overt references, covert references, and mounting because people are still digging through them. These are millions of files with no effective way to sort through them the way the DOJ released them. So the evidence is mounting that we have: people turning a blind eye (reprehensible), adjacent and complicit, directly complicit, people that venture into the demonic or the truly depraved, and so on.

The speaker addresses questions about their testimony regarding John, particularly concerning victimhood and police reports. They explain they testified only when asked by John's former associates. The speaker agrees their testimony alone isn't enough to convict John, but claims there's corroborating evidence from siblings, an ex-spouse, detransitioners, and online articles detailing past incidents. The speaker alleges John hasn't credibly refuted the evidence, instead resorting to personal attacks and generalizations. They claim many people, some anonymously due to fear, have similar experiences with John. The speaker highlights email evidence where John seemingly incriminates himself. They accuse John of lying about his credentials, including his work with sex offenders, and concealing his divorce and criminal charges. The speaker argues police reports aren't the sole determinant of a legitimate case, as abusers may file preemptive reports or victims may be unable or unwilling to file due to fear, lack of support, or the statute of limitations. They criticize John's behavior as mirroring abusive safeguarders seeking to exploit vulnerable individuals. The speaker believes John is being exposed because he preaches a false gospel and is spiritually abusive.

Speaker 0 asserts: I’m not suicidal. Any creator, politician, or celebrity who tries to make a film or documentary on CPS has wound up dead, including a senator. The November film will be their hardest hitting, and they will “rip the veil off” to the point where CPS shows up at your door. Our government is running the world’s largest child trafficking network. They emphasize they would never kill themselves, do drugs, or put themselves in dangerous environments; if anything happens to them, it is the United States government. They watched the first take of the film and say, “they’re gonna kill me.” They urge a trip down memory lane to discuss Pizzagate, stating this is where it all starts. Speaker 1 begins by saying the Pizzagate story has outrageous connections and promising brand-new whistleblower information that will blow minds. They provide an overview: back to Bill and Hillary Clinton, whom many believe to be child pedophiles. They say there’s never been direct evidence, but in 02/2016 WikiLeaks published Hillary Clinton emails with John Podesta showing coded language about a child trafficking ring centered in a Washington, DC pizza restaurant basement at Comet Ping Pong. Edgar Maddison Welch went to the restaurant with firearms to “liberate the children,” but no one was hurt; it was later said there wasn’t a basement, so the scandal was dismissed, though there’s more to the story. The transcript then ties Hillary Clinton to Laura Silsbee, who was involved in trafficking, and outlines a chain: Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee exchanged documents detailing logistics of trafficking children from Haiti to Boise, Idaho. Laura Silsbee had previously kidnapped several dozen children from Haiti and attempted to cross into the Dominican Republic; she was caught and the children were returned to their families. Shawnee M. King is cited for reporting on Silsbee’s case. Jorge Puello, an attorney for Silsbee’s group, was suspected of leading an international trafficking ring; Puello was arrested in investigations by ICE and Homeland Security; his wife faced charges of sexual exploitation of minors and women. The narrative claims Hillary Clinton and Laura Silsbee were connected; Bill and Hillary Clinton allegedly helped negotiate the release of Laura Silsbee and her accomplices after their imprisonment in Haiti. Speaker 1 then ties the connections to CPS: the number-one source of child trafficking is the U.S. CPS system, and the number-one gateway to sex trafficking in America is the foster care system. The foster care system allegedly lost over 100,000 children in the last twenty years, raised questions about where they went, and claims millions of children are abused in foster care by financially compensated foster parents and social workers. The Adoptive Safe Families Act (ASFA), championed by Hillary Clinton and signed by Bill Clinton in 1997, supposedly created and financed CPS/foster care by diverting Social Security funds to 50 states, giving a financial incentive to “kidnap” children. It is claimed that CPS targets poor and minority children and single-parent families, and that the system now functions as a government-subsidized child-trafficking ring. Speaker 1 lists correlations: CPS is a tool used to target conservatives; CPS offices get paid per child kidnapped; 83% of removals lack proof of abuse. The claim is that Hillary Clinton created the system and that Laura Silsbee, a friend of Clinton, is involved in Idaho’s CPS network. Laura Silsbee allegedly works with Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) and is a registered foster care parent in Idaho, receiving monthly payments for children in her custody, as shown by whistleblower-provided screenshots. Idaho’s Attorney General Raul Labrador opened an investigation into IDHW financial misappropriations, but Idaho’s Department director Dave Jepison resigned and disappeared, and Judge Lynn Norton allegedly issued an order halting the AG’s investigation. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare allegedly dominates Idaho’s budget, and Laura Silsbee’s role with IDHW is framed as proof of a nationwide system. The narrative concludes by warning Idahoans to beware of Laura Silsbee (aka Laura Gaylor), Judge Norton, and supporters of IDHW, asserting that the system extends to all 50 states, including Arizona, Texas, and Florida, which are described as among the worst offenders in CPS corruption.

The speaker states that while names beyond Sean Combs will be revealed, it won't be immediately, as they are ensuring accuracy. The names, once confirmed, will be shocking. Besides Combs, other perpetrators and complicit bystanders will be revealed, including those who participated, encouraged, or facilitated the behavior. Defendants will include individuals and corporate entities like banks, pharmaceutical companies, and hotels that profited from the culture. Victims were often paid cash and threatened. The speaker lists categories of individuals and entities who will be included as defendants, urging them to come forward. There is a common pattern: victims are lured, given a laced drink, and then sexually assaulted while others watch. Victims are then threatened into silence. Claims will include violent sexual assault, rape, sexual abuse, facilitated sex with a controlled substance, false imprisonment, compelling prostitution, sexual misconduct, dissemination of video recordings, and sexual abuse of minors. Cases against Combs and others are expected to be filed within 30 days.

Gary Melton (Gary) and Mitch have a lengthy, meandering exchange that centers on veterans’ histories, alleged government manipulation, personal trauma, and the pursuit of truth around high-profile political cases. The core thread is an effort to verify Mitch’s claims about his SF background and to explore broader claims about political interference, media narratives, and potential conspiracies. Key points and exchanges: - Identity, background, and verification: - Gary identifies himself as a former SF soldier seeking to verify Mitch’s SF history after seeing his Candace Owens interview. - Mitch provides his SF timeline: he was in group from February/March 1993 until November 1996; MOS 18 Charlie (medic). He mentions attending the 300F1 course and a severe on-duty accident at Guadalupe River, involving a 60-foot fall that caused multiple injuries (spine, feet, knee, lumbar, dislocations, torn labrum, etc.). - Mitch describes his treatment (brace, three-week leave, then recycled into the next class and internship at Brookhaven Army Medical Center Burn Ward). He mentions ODA +1 63166/ +1 63/ +1 66 and places himself on +183 and +185 in the old numbering system; later, he notes the transition to the newer numeric system circa 2002-2006. - Gary asks for Mitch’s DD214 to verify the story; Mitch agrees and offers to share it. He references being in “Lake Baja” and knowing Nate (Nate Chapman), whom he spoke with the day before. - Personal stakes, trauma, and family: - Mitch explains a long, difficult divorce and custody battle that spanned many years. He says he was a stay-at-home dad for his son, who is now 13, and describes persistent, aggressive accusations against him (PTSD, abuse, murder) by courts and media figures. - He recounts a prior incident involving a coworker or classmate, Jimmy Walker, and notes that Walker later claimed PTSD and discrimination in SF contexts. Mitch frames this as part of broader patterns of how SF status can be weaponized in custody and legal battles. - Mitch and Gary discuss how the SF environment can foster suspicion, paranoia, and intra-community politics (e.g., clashes with SF Brothers, admin actions, and the difficulty of maintaining contact with peers after leaving the teams). - Candace Owens, TPUSA, and broader conspiratorial discussions: - The callers discuss Candace Owens’ involvement, the TPUSA circle, and the believability of various claims. Mitch says he has wanted to vet the claims through Candace and Joe Kent, and he’s offered to supply documents to verify stories. He notes that Candace has reportedly pulled threads about various shooters and narratives and that this has caused friction with TPUSA. - Mitch argues that Candace might be exploited by political or foreign adversaries and that her narratives sometimes lack corroborating evidence, distracting from “the truth.” He insists on corroborating Mitch’s own story with documents (DD214, other records) before airing anything publicly. - Gary responds with skepticism about online personas but agrees to vet Mitch’s materials, emphasizing integrity and a desire to verify truth. Both acknowledge the risk of backend manipulation, bot attacks, and the use of media figures to push narratives. - Ballistics and the Charlie Kirk incident: - A substantial portion of the discussion turns to ballistics surrounding Tyler Robinson and the Charlie Kirk incident. Mitch (the ballistics expert) explains that many variables affect ballistic outcomes (ammo type, grain, bullet construction, handloads vs. factory ammo, barrel condition, yaw, stabilization). He argues that the 30-06 round’s behavior can be highly variable and that an “atypical” (non-normative) wound could occur for many reasons. - He compares Martin Luther King’s assassination (65-yard shot, 30-06, open casket) to Charlie Kirk’s wound, noting similarities in the trajectory and lack of an exit wound in some high-profile cases. He cites Chuck Ritter (Green Beret) who was shot multiple times with 7.62x54R and survived, and uses these examples to illustrate the complexity of interpreting ballistic evidence. - Mitch asserts that multiple plausible explanations exist for Kirk’s wounds and stresses that the exact ammunition type, projectile, and ballistic conditions are unknown at present. He emphasizes that investigators possess DNA and surveillance records (DNA on the firearm, trigger, cartridge, towel used by Tyler Robinson) and text messages; he notes that Mitch is not claiming to know the entire truth but wants to see corroborating evidence. - The two discuss the possibility of government involvement or manipulation, while acknowledging that ballistics alone cannot prove a broader conspiracy. They note the challenges of obtaining complete ballistic data before trials, and they express openness to future verification once more information becomes available (e.g., during trial proceedings). - Custody, investigations, and accountability: - Mitch recounts the broader pattern of SF members being targeted by legal systems when in contentious custody situations, with accusations and judgments influenced by SF status. He cites examples of coercion, character assassination, and the weaponization of families in court battles. - They discuss how the FBI and other agencies have handled high-profile cases, noting distrust in narratives presented by authorities and media. They acknowledge that public transparency is essential, even as prosecutions proceed. - Platform, vetting, and next steps: - The two plan to continue the vetting process: Mitch will provide DD214 and related documents to Gary, who promises to verify and not disclose sensitive information without Mitch’s consent. They discuss sending further documents via email or text (Gary’s Paramount Tactical contact). - Mitch expresses a desire to appear on Gary’s show and to connect with Nate (Nate Chapman) for collaborative vetting. Gary commits to facilitating, offering to act as an advocate if Mitch’s story is verified and to help set up communications with Nate and Candace as appropriate. - The conversation closes with both agreeing on the importance of truth, corroboration, and accountability. They acknowledge the risk and the emotional toll of revealing sensitive histories but emphasize their commitment to pursuing the truth and preventing misinformation or manipulation. Overall, the transcript captures a tense, exploratory exchange between two veterans and affiliates about verifying SF credentials, the personal toll of custody and legal battles, the influence of political narratives, and the complexities of ballistics and forensics in high-profile incidents. The participants stress verification through documents, corroboration of anecdotes, and cautious, integrity-driven engagement with media figures and audiences.

The speaker recounts a chilling account of abuse, trafficking, and organized networks centered around a group of powerful men, primarily in Chicago, associated with Leslie Wexner and Alan Kramer, and connected to other figures like John DuPont. The narrative covers multiple years, locations, and alleged activities, emphasizing control, money, and illegal sex crimes. Key points and events: - Parties described as mafia or “mafia parties” featured underage boys, often age 14–15, with some boys aged out at 15 and then moved to other associates. Blood was reportedly present at parties, with one person assigned to clean it up; bodies were sometimes removed, with jokes about dumpsters. The speaker mentions various boys being “numb,” held by older participants, and mentions suicides, balcony jumps, and overdoses at such events. - Locations included Chicago estates with extensive underground playrooms designed by Richard Himmel, basements with safes resembling jail cells, and rooms with baths, enema setups, and widespread drug use. The parties included both younger boys and older men, with attempts to separate groups by age and preference. - The group allegedly controlled the entire gay scene in Chicago, funding the creation of gay establishments and clubs through a central figure, Chuck Renslow, while using money to influence the scene. Doctors and other professionals were described as participating in sexual activities, with some doctors supposedly connected to or friends with the group. - The speaker claims intimate familiarity with Huntington-like cycles of power, noting that Allen Kramer and Leslie Wexner would use money to recruit and reward participants, including leaving some people bequests or placements, such as apartments. - There were claims of a broader ideological fixation, including obsession with circumcision and propaganda about medical necessity. The group reportedly pushed to influence hospitals and the medical association to promote circumcision as a health measure, with insinuations about maintaining ethnic visibility to mask Jewish identity. - The speaker describes moving through networks, meeting John DuPont in Philadelphia, and being involved in DuPont Model Management; DuPont allegedly supported the speaker financially and through travel. The speaker mentions blackmail and coercion, including threats, as the group pressed to silence or control him after he attempted to expose them. - A key turning point involved reporting Leslie Wexner’s Chicago activities to authorities via Lance Durfee, including alleged cross-border trafficking from Mexico to the United States. The speaker asserts that these reports led to harassment by federal prosecutors and postal inspectors and to attempts to smear him as anti-Semitic. - The speaker asserts involvement in documenting activities and references to federal case files. They describe witnesses and evidence compiled in two large binders submitted to the court, with allegations of mail fraud related to a misleading newsletter and a postcard sent via mail as part of a broader scheme. - The narrative includes associations with notable figures and institutions, such as Roxanne Hemmell’s acknowledgment of the truth about the Chicago activities and the involvement of Wexner’s circle in Las Vegas and Ohio State-related networks. The speaker connects these to a broader pattern of coercion, intimidation, and attempts to discredit victims. - In later recollections, the speaker notes overlapping motifs with other well-known figures and cases, including connections to Epstein-related discussions and overlapping memories regarding the use of drugs, surveillance, and black binder records of victims. They claim that many within the circle remained unpunished, and that internal investigations or prosecutions did not address the core abuses. - The speaker concludes by noting continued calls for transparency from government agencies, including CIA and State Department files, arguing that uncovering broader truth is essential and that social media today enables exposed voices to reach wider audiences. The discussion ends with an emphasis on ongoing investigations and the need for justice and disclosure of related documents. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes: a tightly controlled, money- and sex-driven network; systemic manipulation of institutions; serious abuse of underage boys; efforts to silence whistleblowers; and the belief that broader revelations (including CIA and State Department records) are necessary to fully understand and address the scope of the alleged crimes.

The discussion opens by acknowledging the courage involved in leaving home for two years to serve a mission. Speaker 1 asks whether a bias toward Mormons would prevent full investigation, to which Speaker 0 responds strongly, expressing anti-Mormon sentiment toward specific individuals (Terry Reed, Romney, Jeff Flake, Rhonda Romney McDaniel) and accusing them of being the worst. Speaker 2 notes that percent of TP USA is Mormon and questions why the conversation has focused on Israel involvement, while Speaker 0 shifts back to the topic, proposing to analyze means, motive, and opportunity. He states that Mormons do not have the means to perpetrate and cover up the crime as it has been, arguing that the politics do, and that the government and various media and federal agencies would be involved. He interjects with a provocative comparison, suggesting the line of inquiry resembles antisemitic accusations about controlling information, asserting that “you’re literally doing what you accuse Jews of doing right now.” The debate then centers on a local crime scene in Utah and the extent to which federal authorities could influence the investigation. Speaker 1 counters that no one claims Mormons as a group killed Charlie Kirk; there is a group of Mormons surrounding him who seemed to be involved, but others around him were not Mormon. They discuss whether Andrew Colvet and Eric Kirk are Mormon, and reference Mike McCoy as part of the conversation about the common denominator. Timmy comments on objectivity, noting that none of the people described as around Charlie Kirk are Jewish, and suggests using an objective approach. Sam is described as feeling marginalized, and Speaker 0 indicates he could explain the difference in perspective. They discuss supremacy and cultural differences: Speaker 1 concedes Mormons are not supremacists, but suggests there is an unspoken higher regard toward them, citing a tendency toward higher-performing culture, lower criminal behavior, and better outcomes in areas like schooling; Speaker 1 mentions that many country leaders, CEOs, technology leaders, and BYU alumni have connections to Mormon institutions. Overall, the exchange covers tensions around bias toward Mormons, the feasibility of Mormons having means or motive in a hypothetical crime against Charlie Kirk, and contrasts between local Utah dynamics and broader federal or media involvement, alongside commentary on perceived cultural traits and leadership pipelines linked to BYU.