She loves when I make her stuff her throat with her dildo while turning her pussy to into a cum dump…practice makes perfect😩🤍 #nsfwtwt #facial #twitterporn #goon #slut #homemade #backshots #vegasfreaks #cnckink #rapekink #asianbunnyx #bbc #asian #ricebunny #chudai #spitroasted #train #nsfw #lasvegas #vegas #702freaks #cnc #breedingkink #chudai #wataa
38,179 次观看 • 8 天前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
![[🥀🪷] Wrote this as an archive because I finally had free time to put my thoughts about them into words, even if it’s a little late. You don’t have to agree with what I wrote here, just as I don’t expect everyone to read them the way I do. This is simply how Murong Qingyi and Ren Susu have always been to me. I’ve always loved stories where two people understand each other better than anyone else in the world, because they’re also the only two people capable of hurting each other that deeply. We all know that Qingyi and Susu do not love in the same direction. We also know that, despite how similar they are, they learned completely different ways to survive. They’re mirrors of each other. Both carry wounds that began long before they met. Both learned sacrifice. Both spent years believing their own happiness mattered less than everyone else’s. And yet, somewhere along the way, their hearts arrived at opposite conclusions about what love is supposed to look like. This is where they begin hurting each other without ever intending to. When Qingyi senses distance between them, his instinct is always to move closer. Not because he wants to control her, but because closeness has always been his way of loving. If someone he loves is suffering, he wants to stand beside them. If they’re carrying something heavy, he wants to carry it with them. If they’re walking into danger, his first instinct is to follow. Susu is the exact opposite. The moment she realizes the person she loves might get hurt because of her, her instinct is to step away. Not because she loves them less, but because distance has become her way of protecting the people she loves. She would rather carry everything alone than watch someone else bleed in her place. And so, without either of them intending to, they begin moving in opposite directions while chasing the very same thing, a love that feels safe enough to stay. What makes this so sad is that neither of them is choosing fear over love. It is that both of them loved with everything they had, but each had learned a different way of protecting that love. Qingyi isn’t trying to pressure her. Susu isn’t trying to reject him. Both are speaking the language of love. They simply aren’t speaking the same dialect. To Qingyi, love means staying. To Susu, love means leaving before staying becomes another tragedy. To Qingyi, sharing someone’s burden is the purest form of devotion. To Susu, becoming someone’s burden is the greatest fear she can imagine. So every time Qingyi helps her, Susu mistakes it for yet another sacrifice she is asking him to make. And every time Susu disappears, Qingyi experiences another loss he cannot understand. Yet the comfort one seeks becomes the discomfort the other experiences, leaving them to mistake protection for pain. Qingyi finds safety in knowing that someone chooses to stay, even when life becomes difficult. Having grown up questioning whether he would ever be chosen, he comes to equate permanence with love itself. To stay, despite everything, is not merely what he longs for. It is how he loves. Susu finds safety in making sure the people she loves have the chance to survive, even if that survival no longer includes her. After carrying guilt for so many losses, love becomes inseparable from sacrifice. In her heart, devotion is measured by what she is willing to give up, until leaving becomes the greatest kindness she believes she can offer. So love becomes something they keep missing, not because it isn’t there, but because they keep meeting it from opposite directions. Qingyi sees distance and feels another unanswered question. Susu sees closeness and feels another life she might destroy. Neither of them is responding to the present. They’re responding to the stories trauma has been whispering to them since they were children Qingyi asks, “Will you choose me this time?” Susu asks, “Will you still alive if I do?” Those two questions are sad because neither of them is wrong. Both fears are profoundly human. Both were born long before they ever found each other. Yet to call it incompatibility would be too simple. What stood between them was not the absence of love, but the presence of fears neither of them knew how to name. It’s sad because their deepest fears are perfectly designed to trigger each other’s. His greatest fear has always been losing the person he loves without understanding why. Her greatest fear has always been becoming the reason the person she loves loses everything. So, he moves closer. She moves away. This is the point where they begin to wound one another. Both believe they’re loving correctly. The same moment calls for closeness in one heart and distance in the other, leaving them to mistake each other’s protection for rejection. But love was never about asking him to stop staying or asking her to stop protecting. It was about helping them understand the fear hidden beneath each other’s choices. They have to see each other not as the enemy of their needs. They were simply same person, but both are shaped by different wounds and protecting themselves in the only language they have ever known. Because in the end, it was never that Qingyi and Susu didn’t love each other enough. It was that they were both trying to protect the person they loved and simply searching for safety in love, each in the only way their heart had ever learned. One stayed. One left. Neither choice came from the absence of love. Both came from quiet hope. They were never standing on opposite sides of love. They were simply standing on opposite sides of fear. They are not simply one person who chases and another who runs. They are two damaged people whose deepest fears are perfectly designed to trigger each other’s. Perhaps it was never about changing the way they love. It was about trusting the very thing they had feared their entire lives, that someone could stay without abandoning them, and someone could stay without being destroyed by loving them. Qingyi believes that if he can endure enough, love will survive. If he can bear enough pain, make enough sacrifices, stay through every storm, then perhaps no one will leave him again. But love was never asking him to prove how much he could survive. It was asking him to trust that he did not have to carry everything alone. Susu has mistaken fear for love for so long that it has become the language through which she loves. She calls it cowardice, because leaving feels easier than watching the people she loves suffer because of her. If she had loved Qingyi a little less, perhaps she could have spoken the words she kept swallowing. She might have trusted him with the truth instead of trying to protect him from it. But she loved him so completely that silence felt kinder than asking him to bear the unbearable weight of loving her. In Jane Austen words, “If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more.” Susu believes love means protecting Qingyi from herself. Qingyi believes love means protecting Susu from everything else. Neither realizes that love cannot thrive when one person is always the protector and the other is always the one being protected. At some point, they must trust each other enough to become partners instead of martyrs. Because the truth is, there was never a version of their story where no one paid a price. Love had already asked something of them both. The only question was whether they would face those consequences separately, each trying to protect the other in silence, or together, with open hearts, clear eyes, and the quiet peace that comes from choosing one another even when the future cannot be promised. Also, I don’t agree with everything Qingyi and Susu did. Sometimes I wanted to scream at both of them, moments I wished they had chosen differently. But perhaps that’s what makes them feel human. They aren’t defined by perfect decisions, but by deeply human ones, choices made in fear, in love, and in the desperate hope of protecting each other. Once you understand the fear beneath their choices, it’s much harder to reduce either of them to hero or villain. So, please… go easy on them. They’ve gone through so much. ❤️🩹 “Who loves who more?” At this point, I think it’s safe to say the person suffering the most in this relationship is me.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2083704976082395195/amplify_video_thumb/2083699973393350656/img/Am4ah0QCAz2NORaU.jpg)
!["The label just says No Brand" GRWM w Desi Generated on Atlas Cloud Wan 3.0 Prime Esr upscale stitched together on ElevenCreative studio prompt Desi: South Asian woman, mid-20s, warm brown skin with natural, realistic texture — visible pores, subtle natural sheen, no airbrushed smoothness. Expressive dark brown eyes, defined brows, full lips. Long dark wavy hair, undone/messy at the start. No jewelry until the earrings beat. Gold jhumka earrings and thin gold necklace are her fixed accessories once applied. Environment — Desi's Bedroom: Modest, lived-in bedroom, soft neutral-toned walls, single window with sheer curtains, warm diffused morning light with real shadow falloff. Wooden/laminate flooring, small woven area rug. Flows from bed area to vanity/mirror corner to a closet/wardrobe area to a doorway. Bed: simple platform frame, unmade, muted duvet, mismatched pillows, folded throw, nightstand with a plain ceramic mug, analog alarm clock, small lamp. Vanity: wooden dresser, plain oval mirror, small ceramic dish holding her rings/studs/jhumka earrings, a plain glass jar labeled "NO BRAND" in small black sans-serif text, a plain wooden hairbrush — all visible on the surface from the start. Wardrobe area: simple open wardrobe/hangers with a small handful of plain unbranded clothing already visible. Doorway: simple wooden door, softly lit hallway beyond. Visual style (all blocks): Cinematic realism, not commercial polish. Soft natural film-like grain, warm slightly imperfect color grading true to real morning light. Skin genuinely textured, never smoothed or beauty-filtered. Smooth floating steadicam/gimbal camera movement throughout, cinematic framing sensibility, not raw flat phone footage. Audio style (all blocks): Warm, natural, close-mic room-tone quality, not sterile or studio-clean. Real object-contact sounds, natural room reverb on her voice. No music, no artificial sound effects. Standing negatives (repeat in every block): No AI morphing of any kind — no shifting, warping, or unstable facial features, body proportions, or object shapes. No items suddenly appearing or disappearing in frame — every object must already be visible in its place before she interacts with it. No over-polished or beauty-filtered skin — natural texture and imperfection required throughout. No overly clean, sterile, or commercial visual grade. No duplicate Desi in any frame. No identity drift from block to block. Every product/container shows either no text/logo or exactly the plain "NO BRAND" mark — simple black sans-serif on plain packaging. No recognizable real-world brand names, logos, or trademarked packaging/clothing design anywhere in frame. No extra fingers, fused hands, or distorted anatomy. No text overlays or captions. No music — natural ambient audio only. Mirror reflections physically accurate and consistent; camera never visible in any reflection. No sudden speed changes, no time-lapse compression, no rushed dialogue delivery. BLOCK 1 — [0:00–0:15] The Alarm, Waking, Yawn, First Line Continuity note: Opening block — no prior frame to match. Action: Dark, close frame on Desi's sleeping face, soft warm morning light beginning to catch her skin's natural texture. A phone alarm begins ringing on the nightstand. Hold on her unmoving for a real beat as it rings. Her hand fumbles slowly toward the sound, silences it. She lies still a moment longer, then opens her eyes slowly, squinting at the light. She yawns — full, unhurried, genuine — stretching slightly where she lies. A long pause settles after. Dialogue: (after the yawn, slow, groggy, real pauses) "Okay... (pause) ...so it is way too early for this..." (long pause, slow exhale) "...but let's get ready anyway." Camera: Static-to-slow-float — begins locked close on her face, only beginning the faintest float as she finishes speaking, ending the block just as she starts to shift toward sitting up. Block-specific negatives: The alarm sound must play first, before any dialogue or visible movement. Do not have her wake up abruptly or sit up quickly — the entire block stays in slow, groggy stillness. Do not begin the standing/sitting motion before the final line completes. BLOCK 2 — [0:15–0:30] Five More Minutes + Coffee Stretch Continuity note: Opens exactly where Block 1 ended — Desi still lying down, having just finished her line, beginning to shift toward sitting up. Match her position, the room's lighting, and her expression precisely to Block 1's final frame. Action: She sits up fully, stretches with a real, full arms-overhead extension, laughs softly at herself. She reaches for the ceramic mug already present on the nightstand, takes a slow sip, holds it a moment, exhales contentedly. Only after finishing the sip does she swing her legs out and stand, unhurried. Dialogue: "Five more minutes..." (pause, small laugh) "...turned into not five minutes." (beat) "Classic." (pause, after the sip) "Okay." (beat) "...That helps." Camera: Smooth floating steadicam, holding a steady elevated angle through the stretch, following her rise to standing by the block's end. Block-specific negatives: Do not skip or shorten the full stretch. The sip of coffee must complete before she stands — no simultaneous drinking-and-standing. Do not have her rush to her feet; the stand is the final motion of the block, unhurried. BLOCK 3 — [0:30–0:45] Moisturizer Continuity note: Opens exactly where Block 2 ended — Desi just risen to standing beside the bed. This block covers her walk to the vanity and the full moisturizer application. Match her position and the room's light to Block 2's final frame. Action: Camera drifts with her as she walks unhurried from the bed to the vanity, arriving at the mirror. The plain glass jar labeled "NO BRAND" is already visible on the vanity surface as she arrives. She unscrews the lid slowly, scoops a small amount, and applies it in full, unhurried circular motions across her face — the entire application shown start to finish within this block. Dialogue: (spoken only once the application is fully finished, near the block's end) "This is like..." (pause) "...the one step I actually never skip." (beat) "Everything else is negotiable." Camera: Floating lateral tracking during the walk, settling into a steady medium shot at the mirror for the application itself. Block-specific negatives: The jar must already be visible on the vanity before she reaches for it — no appearing mid-motion. The application must be shown completing in full before any dialogue begins. Do not rush the walk to the mirror to make room for the application — both get real, unhurried time within the 15 seconds. BLOCK 4 — [0:45–1:00] Hairbrush + Earrings Continuity note: Opens exactly where Block 3 ended — Desi standing at the mirror, moisturizer just applied. Match her position and expression to Block 3's final frame. Action: She picks up the plain wooden hairbrush, already resting on the vanity, and brushes out her hair with several full, unhurried strokes, working through it completely. She sets the brush down, then picks up her gold jhumka earrings from the ceramic dish and puts them on one at a time — each fully finished and settled before she begins the second. Dialogue: (mid-brushing) "Yeah, I don't even know what's in that jar anymore." (soft laugh) "The label just says 'No Brand.'" (beat, as she puts in the second earring) "...Works though." Camera: Steady medium-close shot at the mirror, holding through both the brushing and the earrings without cutting away. Block-specific negatives: The hairbrush and earrings must both already be visible on the vanity from the block's start. The first earring must be fully in place before she begins the second — no simultaneous application. Do not shorten the number of brush strokes to save time; let the motion read as genuinely unhurried. BLOCK 5 — [1:00–1:15] Wardrobe Change (Revised: Explicit Detail + Locked Outfit) Continuity note: Opens exactly where Block 4 ended — Desi at the mirror, both earrings now in place. This block covers her moving to the wardrobe area and changing. New Outfit — Locked Reference (carries into Block 6 and any future scenes): A simple, plain white or cream-colored short-sleeve cotton top with a round or slightly scooped neckline, no graphics, no visible branding — soft, everyday fabric with natural draping and slight creasing. Paired with plain straight-leg or slightly relaxed-fit trousers in a muted neutral tone (soft khaki, warm taupe, or dark grey), no visible logos, no stitched branding on pockets or waistband. Simple flat sandals or bare feet, consistent with the casual, staying-home-in-the-morning energy of the piece. This exact combination — top, trousers, footwear — must remain identical through Block 6 and any subsequent generation; treat it as a locked reference image once established. Action, explicitly detailed: Camera follows her as she walks from the vanity toward the wardrobe area, where the clothing has been visible on the rod/hangers since the environment was established — including the specific white/cream top and neutral trousers she will select, already hanging there from the start. She reaches the wardrobe, looks over the few items for a moment, unhurried, and lifts the plain white top and the neutral trousers off their hangers, laying them briefly over her arm or the chair. She turns slightly away from camera or angles herself naturally at the wardrobe (matter-of-fact, not performative), and removes her sleep t-shirt first — pulling it up and off in one unhurried motion, setting it aside on the chair or a nearby surface. She then pulls the plain white top on over her head, arms finding the sleeves naturally, settling the fabric down over her torso with a small adjusting tug at the hem. She then steps out of her sleep bottoms or loungewear pants — sitting briefly on the edge of the chair or bed if needed for balance, one leg at a time — and pulls on the neutral trousers, standing to fasten or settle them at the waist, a small natural motion to smooth them down her hips. Once fully dressed, she does a small self-check — glancing down at the outfit, smoothing the top's hem once more, rolling one sleeve cuff slightly — before turning back toward the mirror. Dialogue: "Okay..." (pause, mid-change) "...let's see." (beat, once dressed, considering the outfit) "...Yeah. That works." Camera: Floating steadicam following her to the wardrobe, holding a respectful medium distance throughout the change — matter-of-fact framing, never a close or lingering angle, treating the change the way an ordinary morning routine would actually look on camera, not stylized or drawn out for effect. Block-specific negatives: The white top and neutral trousers must already be visible hanging in the wardrobe from the start of the block — no appearing only once she reaches for them. The change must be shown as a clear, complete sequence — sleep shirt removed, new top pulled on, sleep bottoms removed, new trousers pulled on — with no skipped steps or instant swaps between states. The change must read as ordinary and unhurried but not sexualized or dwelt upon — medium-distance framing throughout, natural body positioning, nothing posed. No outfit teleporting at any point — every layer change must be visibly performed by her, not implied through a cut or dissolve (there are no cuts in this piece regardless). This exact outfit (plain white/cream short-sleeve top, neutral trousers, sandals or bare feet) is now the locked wardrobe reference for the remainder of the piece — it must not vary in color, cut, or detail in Block 6 or any subsequent scene. BLOCK 6 — 1:15–1:30 FINAL LOOK → WALK OUT CONTINUITY OPEN Block 6 begins immediately from the final frame of Block 5. There is no cut. Desi stands in front of the mirror wearing the exact outfit established in Block 5. Her: white/cream top; neutral trousers; footwear; gold jhumka earrings; gold necklace; hairstyle; makeup; facial features remain exactly consistent. --- 1:15–1:20 FINAL MIRROR CHECK Desi faces the oval mirror. The camera floats gently into position behind/alongside her. She looks at her reflection. A genuine pause. She looks down briefly at the outfit. Smooths the top once. Looks back at herself. A tiny satisfied nod. No exaggerated posing. No influencer-style presentation. She simply looks like someone deciding that she is ready enough to leave. --- 1:20–1:26 WALK TOWARD DOOR Desi turns away from the mirror. The camera smoothly follows. She walks through the bedroom toward the doorway. Her pace remains natural and unhurried. The camera never overtakes her. No whip-pan. No sudden acceleration. No speed ramp. The hallway beyond the doorway is already visible. Morning light spills naturally from the hallway. Dialogue Desi: "Okay." pause "Human." beat "Presentable." pause "Good enough." A small genuine laugh. --- 1:26–1:30 EXIT Desi reaches the doorway. She opens the wooden door. Warm hallway light falls across her. She steps through. The camera continues following her naturally. Just before she disappears completely, she turns her head slightly toward the camera. A genuine late-arriving smile. Dialogue "Alright..." pause "...let's go be a person today." beat "Bye." She exits. The camera remains inside the bedroom. It settles naturally on the empty doorway. Hold for one quiet beat. END. --- MASTER NEGATIVES & CONSTRAINTS BLOCKS 5–6 CONTINUITY One continuous physical camera take. Zero hard cuts. Zero hidden cuts. Zero jump cuts. Zero dissolves. Zero fades between states. Zero time skips. Zero time-lapse. Zero teleportation. Zero duplicated footage. Zero sudden camera repositioning. WHIP-PAN ONE WHIP-PAN ONLY. It occurs exclusively during the wardrobe change in Block 5. The whip-pan must: physically originate from the camera's current position; move through the same bedroom; temporarily obscure Desi; return naturally to the wardrobe area. It must never be used as a disguised cut. No whip-pan during Block 6. --- NO MORPHING / NO MESHING Absolutely no: face morphing; facial meshing; body morphing; wardrobe morphing; texture morphing; object morphing; environmental morphing; frame interpolation artifacts; identity blending; unstable facial geometry; unstable hands; unstable hair; unstable jewelry. Desi must remain the same woman throughout the entire sequence. --- IDENTITY LOCK Do not alter: eyes; eyebrows; nose; lips; jaw; cheekbones; skin tone; face shape; body proportions; age; hair texture; hairline. No identity drift. No alternate version of Desi. No duplicate Desi. No phantom Desi. --- WARDROBE CHANGE The wardrobe change must be physically believable. No: instant outfit swap; outfit teleportation; clothing appearing on her body; clothing disappearing from her body; clothing growing onto her; magical transition; glowing transformation; particle effect; dissolve; morph. The single whip-pan simply gives privacy while maintaining the continuous physical flow of the camera. --- OBJECT CONTINUITY No object may suddenly appear or disappear. The following must remain spatially consistent: wardrobe; clothing; chair; vanity; mirror; jewelry; dresser; plants; rug; door; hallway. The white/cream top and neutral trousers must be visibly hanging in the wardrobe before Desi selects them. --- OUTFIT LOCK Once Desi finishes changing: WHITE/CREAM SHORT-SLEEVE TOP + EXACT NEUTRAL TROUSERS + SAME FOOTWEAR must remain unchanged through the end. No recoloring. No redesign. No different sleeve length. No different trouser cut. No different footwear. No spontaneous accessories. --- MIRROR CONSISTENCY Mirror reflection must be physically accurate at all times. One Desi. Reflection matches her movements exactly. No reflection drift. No alternate face. No duplicated reflection. No delayed reflection. Camera never appears in the mirror. --- ANATOMY No: extra fingers; missing fingers; fused fingers; duplicated hands; malformed hands; warped arms; elongated limbs; distorted torso; unnatural joints; anatomical meshing. --- VISUAL STYLE Cinematic realism. Natural morning light. Natural skin pores and texture. Subtle film-like grain. Slightly imperfect real-world color. No: beauty filter; plastic skin; excessive skin smoothing; glossy commercial lighting; HDR; hyper-clean advertising aesthetic; artificial glow; excessive sharpening. --- AUDIO Continuous natural audio only: footsteps; fabric movement; clothing rustle; jewelry movement; room ambience; natural breathing; door movement; hallway ambience; Desi's natural voice. No music. No cinematic impact sounds. No artificial transition sounds. No sound effect accompanying the whip-pan. --- VOICE Warm low-mid female voice. Natural morning rasp. Close and intimate. Slow. Unhurried. Conversational. Real pauses between phrases. Never sounds like a commercial, narrator, actress, or influencer reading a script. Do not compress dialogue to fit the timestamps. Natural delivery takes priority. --- FINAL GENERATION LOCK ONE DESI. ONE BEDROOM. ONE CAMERA. ONE CONTINUOUS PHYSICAL FLOW. ONE WHIP-PAN ONLY — BLOCK 5 WARDROBE CHANGE. NO CUTS. NO MORPHING. NO MESHING. NO TELEPORTATION. NO IDENTITY DRIFT. NO OBJECT POP-IN. NO WARDROBE TELEPORTATION. NO DUPLICATION. NO TIME-LAPSE. NO RUSHED MOTION. Block 6 must begin exactly where Block 5 ends, with the exact same Desi, exact same face, exact same jewelry, exact same hairstyle, exact same outfit, exact same environment, and exact same spatial continuity. #AtlasCloud](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2093701367797785024/amplify_video_thumb/2093701197957869568/img/ZREoSERJvFSA0lqh.jpg)
![Well, friends, the interview the John O'Keefe and Karen Read trial world didn't know they wanted has finally occurred. I appreciate The Glarer for having me on his program. We discussed Kate Peter, I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, both sides agreed as to the importance of civil debate and leaving people's families out of the fray and then Will helped Olivia and I move towards amicable discussion. Overall, a 10/10 way to celebrate the day towel become a YouTube partner. Here are my two favorite quotes from Will and myself; [Grant] "If any of you took 10 minutes --not on camera-- to talk to Lindsey Gaetani, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God I will defend that 'till my last day." [Grant] "I realized that there was just this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions." [The Glarer] "If you believe so much in Karen Read’s guilt, then the facts should speak for themselves. You shouldn’t have to bring people’s family members into it. [The Glarer] "But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion." Here's the full transcript: [Grant] Well, good afternoon towel friends. My name is Grant Smith Ellis and in addition to becoming a YouTube partner today I also decided to call into The Glarer's show. It was the collaboration that the world didn't know they needed but now they have. And if you'd like to listen to this fascinating conversation, related to new allegations as to Kate MafiaMasshole Peter being a PI in the orbit of the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney prosecution, as well as somehow both Will and I eventually coming to a discussion where I defended Lindsey Gaetani's honor, along with a closing segment about the importance on both sides of the Karen Read and John O’Keefe case of being mutually respectful, even if we have differences of opinion on those facts, you can do so right now. Will and I shared a belief that positive changes in the Karen Read and John O'Keefe trial world, at least in terms of that improving dynamic as to disagreeing without being disagreeable, are evident. So enjoy the conversation, folks. It was certainly an interesting one. [The Glarer] You're on — who am I speaking with? [Grant] Hey, Will, it's me. I'm Grant... [The Glarer] — hold on, I gotta give you applause, buddy. You made it. [Grant] Well, we certainly may have different views on the case, but I think we share respect for Jesus and we can talk bad about Kate Peter for sure. [The Glarer] Yeah, that we can do. Sure. Sure. So what's up, bud? What do you got to say? [Grant] Well, I think if people have been following me on X, they will know I've been yelling about Kate Peter taking an envelope of cash in the Chick-fil-A parking lot in front of me for months. And I feel vindicated as of the news of this weekend. [The Glarer] Okay. Okay, so wait a minute. That tracks. So the person who is in this sworn affidavit who claims to have seen Kate Peter with the manila envelope — you're claiming to have seen her with the same envelope. Is that what you're saying? [Grant] It wasn't a manila envelope. Well, there's two pertinent facts. So Kate Peter and I met up for the first time — I would say it was in the winter of 2024 — in a Chick-fil-A parking lot somewhere on the South Coast, maybe near Raynham or something. Anyway, she came and got in my car and she was like, "Well, I'm waiting for someone in a white Toyota Corolla to drop me off money. We try to do it with cash so it doesn't leave a record." And I was like, "Well, this seems a little weird." And then the car pulled up. I didn't actually see the car. She got out, went over to it, came back into my car. It was a white envelope with a green thank-you card. She opened it. There were probably four or five hundred — four or five fifties and a bunch of twenties. [The Glarer] Wow.... Okay, now Grant, I gotta ask you a tough question, buddy. I would be remiss if I didn't do that, all right? Now, a lot of people are thinking the same thing I'm thinking right now, which is: how can we believe you? Where's your credibility? Because you've lied about so many other things so easily. [Grant] Well, I would challenge that and say maybe you have different perspectives on me, but that should reinforce what I'm saying here. The Melanie Little and Alan Jackson Aruba thing — I apologized for that on stream and in a post (because Melanie Little told people not to go after Lindsey's kids, and I found that honorable). [The Glarer] Fair enough. [The Glarer] You did apologize. Okay, so you apologized for that. Okay. [Grant] But I'm critiquing someone [Kate Peter] who would ostensibly be aligned with what I believe about the case, and I still believe what I believe about Karen being responsible for John's death— we don't have to get into it — but I'm critiquing someone who supports that view. That should reinforce my credibility here. [The Glarer] Yeah, and MicroDots backs you up at least on this thing, you know, he says he believes you on this thing. I'm just saying — dude, I've read what you've written. You're a talented writer, clearly. But I can honestly say I've got a whole community of people here — a shit ton of people in this chat right now — that I know would agree with me that if you made a habit of reporting the truth, you'd have support, you'd have readers, you'd have a whole audience. I'd be a fan! But your credibility is fucked with me right now, dude. You know, and I hate that, because I actually enjoy reading what you write. [Grant] I appreciate what you're saying. I think I would just say maybe it's smaller than your community, but I just got made a YouTube partner today. I'm actually celebrating that. I have a small community, people do support me — maybe not as many as support your channel, but it's just people with different views consuming different content. [The Glarer] Yeah, but the thing is — like, I'm content with my audience. My audience could be bigger, but I cuss a lot and I use words that offend people and I just don't kind of play by the normal YouTube game that most creators play when they grow, you know? And I'm okay with the rate at which my channel grows because I get to be myself. But I don't hold back and I don't play by these rules. So I get all that. But I mean, I'm not ethically doing anything wrong. If I were spreading misinformation or contributing to any spread of misinformation, I would have a problem with myself and what I'm doing. You see what I'm saying? Like, it's a little bit different. You're telling me that you're content with your audience being small because you like to make shit up? You know what I mean? [Grant] No, no. Because it's a new channel. That's why the audience is growing. Anyway, the reason I shake your hand is I do think you're authentic in your beliefs, even if we disagree. And well — before I forget, one more thing about that Chick-fil-A parking lot cash that's actually important: when Kate got that money handed over, she told me it was for a donation drive to help other people offset babysitting costs or whatever nonsense. Someone sent a text message — a family member of the person who paid her that cash — and they put in writing that they sent the money for Kate's own expenses. So she lied to me in the car about what the money was for. Something’s up with that. [The Glarer] So she told you in the car that the money was for... [Grant] She said it was to pay for babysitters for people who need help and to donate to other people, which I don't believe. Like, of course not. Nobody believes that. [The Glarer] And then you found out — through what — that this money was actually for her personal expenses? [Grant] Eventually a text message got released from someone in the orbit of whoever paid Kate. It was a family member — I don't know who it was. I've only seen the text message. I'm happy to reshare it on my X later. In that text message, it says — quoting the person — "I sent that envelope with my sister over to Kate. It was for her expenses" or something like that. So even that is evidence. [The Glarer] Wow. Okay, so you are strictly of the opinion, based on things you've seen yourself, that Kate Peter is absolutely being paid by the Commonwealth to spin narratives? [Grant] I'll give you one more piece of information, Will, and maybe you or your audience can track this down: I don't think Kate was involved in the Karen Read investigation directly, but I think starting in the fall of 2023 she worked for a private investigator named Marty Kraft. And I believe by proxy she was then retained to work on Aidan's case through that PI firm. [The Glarer] Okay, and then she just became the mouthpiece between the PI firm and the Commonwealth is what you're saying. [Grant] I will say a few things: I reasonably believe she does have direct contact with the DA and agents of the Commonwealth — I've said that before — and I also believe that she has favoritism towards specific witnesses in the orbit of this case. Not all of them — specific witnesses. [The Glarer] Okay, well, I mean, we know who they are, but okay. [Grant] I will also say — I think — that your caller was prescient earlier, and they mentioned there might be some mutual blackmail. Well, we know that Lindsey Gaetani’s phone extraction was manipulated to remove messages from Brian Tully to Lindsey and from Kate Peter to Lindsey. [The Glarer] ...what's your deal with Lindsey? [Grant] Hold, on let's pull it back first. First of all, I think there was a bifurcation: there's charges from October 2023 against Aidan and December 2023 against Aidan. One set of charges, from October of 2023, involved the Karen Read witnesses; the other set, from December of 2023, involved Lindsey. I don't think anyone set Aidan up in December 2023. I think he was just in love with Lindsey and it kind of got out of control. [The Glarer] Bro... [Grant] Well, but hold on, Will... [The Glarer] I'm listening... [Grant] I think that cell phone extraction goes right to the mutual blackmail point your friend talked about earlier. Someone, during the course of the Aidan Kearney investigation involving Lindsey, manipulated that cell phone extraction, and it could have only happened while it was in State Police custody. That is the whole — that's everything right there because of Kate Peter is the only person who could have gotten Brian Tully to get Nick Guarino to manipulate that extraction while it was in State Police custody before Tully leaked it, by hand, to Aidan's lawyer. [The Glarer] Okay, so listen, Grant. Like, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding. Now, I think Lindsey was used. But come on, we know that Kate Peter and Lindsey were colluding to try to set Aidan up. Like, you know this. [Grant] No, I disagree, because I've looked at the timeline closely. Aidan begged to go over there when his indictments got handed down in December. [The Glarer] Well, listen — why? [Grant] Because he got charged in October, but the indictments for the October thing came down December 20th. [Grant] Then when did he beg to go over to Lindsey's? [Grant] I'm about to explain. December 21st, Lindsey tells him, "Hey Aidan, I just got a subpoena for a grand jury." Aidan's mind has gotta' start racing. "Why would there be another grand jury? Is it about me and Karen Read? What is this about?" So he begged her to go over there so he could find out. And that's — like — he looked at her phone that night to see the messages between her and Kate to try to find out about what this new grand jury was about. So no one set him up. He begged to go over there. [The Glarer] So you're just assuming that he begged to go over there based on...? [Grant] I know he begged to go over there. He was pleading because he wanted to find out what the new grand jury was. [The Glarer] The difference between you and Aidan is Aidan posts receipts, dude. But you don't. You get the difference? That's why Aidan has as much of a following as he has. [Grant] If you're asking for receipts of him begging to go over there on that day, I'm happy to provide those. I'll post them. [The Glarer] Then why didn't you do that already? [Grant] Well, I think because what I understand to be the evidentiary record from going to all the hearings is different than what people consume, because not everyone goes to every hearing. But I'm happy to do that. I have it all archived. [The Glarer] Okay, but the point is — like MicroDots is saying — that he was baited to go over there. So even if he begged to go over there under whatever circumstance, we have proof — we've seen proof — that he was baited to go over there based on false information that she was pregnant. [Grant] No. No. She was pregnant. [The Glarer] Oh my, Grant, bro... [Grant] Okay. I will swear on my God about that. [The Glarer] Hold on... [Grant] Well, to move on, I was going to give you some credit. I was going to say you might have been right that the subpoena issued to Lindsey, without her knowledge, could have been to bait Aidan. [The Glarer] But she wouldn't — how do you explain the metadata on the pictures that she sent him of the sonogram, dude? [Grant] First of all, if you're talking about someone's pregnancy — that's a medical issue, and to bring it up on air disgraces Jesus. [The Glarer] Oh, come on, Grant. [Grant] Let's not. [The Glarer] Alright, fine. We won't talk about that anymore. But let's face it, dude — you're making excuses for this girl. And why? Like, do you have a crush on her? Is that what's going on here? And it's okay. [Grant] Oh, oh, please. When I first came into this case, I saw a woman walk into a courtroom, and I started listening to her story. And even in this conversation, there are multiple things I corrected where you were willing to say, "Okay, Grant, maybe that is what happened." And Lindsey doesn't have anyone out there who is voicing that for her, so I'm taking the opportunity to do it. [The Glarer] And do you wonder why she doesn't have anyone voicing things out for her, dude? [The Glarer] Because Aidan isolates people! [The Glarer] Get out of here with that. Stop. Again with the whole "it's Aidan's fault" shit, man. That's between you and Lindsey, dude. I'm asking — like, I asked you why you think that. Nobody is going to bat for Lindsey. And I saw receipts. I heard a recording of her — you're talking about somebody who I heard a recording of [that night with Aidan in December of 2023]. This is... Come on, Grant. [Grant] I was in the courtroom. I saw the people crying when that tape was played. And you know what I also heard, Will? I heard the original version of that tape that didn't have her consent to record, which is why Aidan got charged with felony wiretapping. [The Glarer] Okay, but you're not denying that she said that, right? [Grant] Listen, I have never been awake at 12:30 in the morning. I'm not a woman. I've never been confronted with that situation. I would never pass judgment on someone in that situation. [The Glarer] Every woman that I've ever heard express their opinion on it — pretty negative, dude. Just saying. Pretty negative. Especially the moms. Especially the moms. [Grant] So I don't think any people talking in that way — I don't think you've even met this woman. [The Glarer] You're right. I have not. I have not met her. [Grant] And if — I don't know if she will ever do this — but if any of you took 10 minutes, not on camera, to talk to this woman, you would find someone who believes in God, who cares about her children, who's a good mother, and who's not any of the things you made her out to be. And by God, I will defend that 'till my last day. [The Glarer] Alright. Declared. Got it. I gotta' ask you one more question though. Why are you saying stuff about Olivia Nile — Olivia Nile and her mom — being paid agents for the defense? Come on. [Grant] Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just explain that. I know that's Olivia Lamb. Okay? [The Glarer] Right, yeah, same person. Yeah, yeah. [Grant] Okay, so we all know Christina Lamb does boutique PR consulting for lawyers. She's good at it. Olivia’s good at it. They should own it. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] What — how is that proof, though? That Olivia Lamb is being paid by the defense in some way? You see the problem? [Grant] Hold on. That is an extrapolation some people may make. My argument is only that what she does looks like PR for the defense. I think Olivia hasn't been paid since last year. [The Glarer] But she's saying that's not even what she does, dude. [Grant] Okay, maybe it's not. But I think Olivia's contract ran up at the end of the first trial, if you want me to be very blunt with you. [The Glarer] Contract? [Grant] Mm-hmm. [The Glarer] But her mom doesn't even do that either — what the fuck’s her mom got to do with it? [Grant] Well, why would her mom run some random boutique PR consulting firm for lawyers, and then Olivia just shows up with this extremely high-level acumen, rivaling lawyers? [The Glarer] But that’s not what she does. She's saying that's not even what her mom does or what she does. [Grant] Okay, well, I looked at her mom's website. I archived it going back a few years, so I can post the screenshots again. And I know what she advertised herself as doing. [The Glarer] But you know what I think, Grant? I think that you're a really smart guy. And I think you know you're a really smart guy. And I think what you do is, you convince yourself — because of how smart you are — that if you came up with it, it must be gospel. That's what I think. And that's where I think you get cloudy between the truth and your opinion. Because you state your opinions as though they're fact. And I think that's an ego thing. I don't even think it's malice. It’s just ego. That's what it comes off as, anyway, dude. Because everything you say — every time I ask you, "Where's your proof?" — you explain how you came to your opinion. You give me a laid-out story. Go back and listen to this later on — you'll see what I mean. [Grant] Well, I don't even doubt you, actually, that I'm firm in my convictions. If I'm not there to experience something, I do not know the truth. But I've seen the screenshots. I only found out Olivia Lamb was Olivia Lamb because I found an archived X post where she shared something very sentimental about her grandfather. I didn't like that. I didn't appreciate having to talk about that. But it became relevant because I wanted to know why she was involved in the case. I will listen to her tell me I'm wrong. I want to interview her. [The Glarer] Yeah, but you can't just, like, trap people into interviews by threatening to spread lies about them if they don't, bro. What kind of shit is that? [Grant] Nothing that I said about her grandfather, her acumen or her mother's work was incorrect... [The Glarer] But why are you even talking about her family, dude? Like, that's really low, man. Like — that's... It's low, man. It's low. Her family didn't have nothing to do with this, man. She's doing this because she cares about it. And then people start talking about people's family members and shit. And it's like — it comes off as a not-so-subtle form of intimidation, frankly, Grant. You know, trying to get somebody to shut up. [Grant] No, I don't want to do that. I want to learn about why she's interested in the case. [The Glarer] But you could see how somebody could see it that way, right? Because what if her family starts telling her, "Hey, stop talking about this. Why are we being brought into your shit because you're passionate about something?" What if her family does that and puts her in an awkward position? And then people are cheated out of some really good insight because of that. [Grant] My brother — my brother who at four years old had a colectomy, three-stage, and is developmentally disabled as a result — has a profile someone made mocking him on X. That's a profile that people I respect engage with. Usually I overlook that stuff because I don't believe the people engaging in it are trying to do that. And I hope people realize I'm not doing that to her. I authentically want to know why Olivia's covering this case. [The Glarer] That's all right. So — but that's my point, Grant. I'm just saying, like, if you believe Karen Read is guilty, why not just stick to the facts? Because you don't see me going after anybody's family. You don't see Olivia going after anybody's family, talking about people's family and exposing their family and what they do. You know what I mean? That's not cool. I don't do that. And Olivia’s saying that she will happily talk to you anytime about why she's interested in the case. You see what? That's my point. That's my point — if you believe so much in Karen Read's guilt, then the facts should speak. Everything that you put out there — the facts, the details of the case, and the way you interpret those facts — that should be enough. You shouldn't have to bring people's family members into it. Come on. I feel like you're better than that. That's all. I still have faith that you're better than that. [Grant] Yeah. And I think that's the perfect place to end, because you've given me a lot of time and I share your sentiments. I think that is crucially important. You don't see me out there in the past six months or twelve months talking about Melanie Little, or Olivia or her parents anymore. [The Glarer] I have seen improvement, yes. I have seen it. [Grant] And let me just say why: because I came to believe that there was this toxic atmosphere surrounding this case, and that I couldn't just say I thought it needed to change — I had to reflect that change in my actions. And that's why that happened. So that's it. That's how I feel. [The Glarer] Okay. Yeah, I mean, everybody’s entitled to their feelings and opinions, man. We all are. But yeah, I’m glad that we got this talk. I got to express some things I wanted to express to you. You were very receptive, and I appreciate you coming on and being respectful and being cool. And you’re welcome here anytime, Grant. I can see that we could talk about pretty much anything, and it's fine. That will always be welcome here — no matter what we disagree on. So I appreciate you, Grant. [Grant] God bless, Will, enjoy the rest of your Saturday. [The Glarer] Have a good one. Alright, Grant, y'all. Alright, I'm gonna take another call. Let's do that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1916273688736940311/amplify_video_thumb/1916261346590515200/img/hUvZMgeSmwtcpp9Y.jpg)
