Search
AI Powered
Latest News
More from
Lipreader Breaks Down What Leonardo DiCaprio Was Flamboyantly Saying In Viral Golden Globes Video
In case you missed the viral Leo video, here it is:
Luckily for those of us that don't read lips, there are folks on TikTok willing to share their skills.
Billing herself as the "human hot mic" and "local deafy," Jackie G (@tismejackieg) routinely shares her skills on both her TikTok and Instagram accounts to reveal what microphones didn't catch.
She shared her interpretation of the DiCaprio viral moment here:
Including the disclaimer that lipreading isn't exact, Jackie G shared that Leo told an unknown person:
"I was watching you with the K-pop thing, you were like: ‘Is that… Who’s the K-pop? Are they… Oh, it is!’”
He then laughs, telling the other person:
"We were laughing, you were like: 'Is that… Who is that? K-pop!'"
At the end, DiCaprio turns to sign an autograph, saying:
"Sure, OK, I'll sign."
The over-the-top gestures were Leo mimicking the other person, which Jackie G guessed was his One Battle After Another costar Teyana Taylor.
Though it hasn't been confirmed, others agreed.
@tismejackieg/TikTok
The K-pop reference is likely for the Netflix film KPop Demon Hunters, which won two Golden Globes that night.
On Instagram, CBS—which aired the Golden Globes—thanked Jackie G for her insight.
People are still surprised at how animated the usually reserved DiCaprio was.
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
@tismejackieg/TikTok
Looks like new meme material, courtesy of Leo DiCaprio, coming right up.
Most Read
The Clintons Scorch GOP Rep. While Refusing To Testify On Epstein In Mic Drop Letter
While several former presidents have voluntarily appeared before Congress, none has ever been compelled to testify. Comer has also signaled that the committee would not seek to force testimony from President Donald Trump, a fellow Republican, noting that Congress lacks the authority to compel a sitting president to appear.
In their letter, the Clintons rebuked Comer, who had warned that the panel would pursue contempt of Congress proceedings if they failed to comply with the subpoena.
The Clintons argued that Comer’s handling of the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role,” and said Comer has “done nothing” to compel the Justice Department to meet its disclosure obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was passed late last year.
They began:
"This past year has seen our Government engage in unprecedented acts, including against our own citizens. People have been seized by masked federal agents from their homes, their workplaces, and the streets of their communities. Students and scientists with visas permitting them to study and work here have been deported without due process."
"The people who laid siege to the U.S. Capitol have been pardoned and called heroes. Agencies vital to the country's national security have been dismantled. Universities, media companies, and law firms have been subjected to threats to their funding, access, and licensing unless they made concessions and surrendered their right to constitutionally protected free speech."
"American troops have been deployed on the streets of our towns and cities. The Justice Department has been used as a weapon, at the direction of the President, to pursue political opponents. And most recently and searingly, an ICE agent killed an unarmed mother only days ago."
"Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time."
"We are lucky by virtue of the positions we held, and the protections afforded by them. But we are not blind. Every day we see the country we dedicated our lives to take step after step after step backwards."
"As chairman of this powerful congressional committee, you have immense power to target anyone and subject them to closed door interrogation and more. The decisions you have made, and the priorities you have set as chairman regarding the Epstein investigation, have prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government's role."
The Clintons accused Comer of running a hollow, politically motivated investigation while neglecting his actual oversight responsibilities, arguing that “the facts speak for themselves.”
They noted that Comer had subpoenaed eight people besides them, but “dismissed seven of those eight without any of them saying a single word,” making “no attempt to force them to appear.” Since launching the probe last year, they wrote, Comer had interviewed “a total of two people. Two.”
They also cited a legal analysis from two law firms concluding that the subpoenas were “legally invalid,” accusing Comer of selectively defending their legitimacy while remaining silent when a sitting president had taken the same position “barely more than three years ago.”
The Clintons urged Comer to release that legal analysis publicly, calling the situation “yet another example of the casual disregard of the law of the land.” At the same time, they faulted him for doing “nothing with your oversight capacity” to compel the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and release all relevant records, “including any material regarding us, as we have publicly called for.”
They argued that progress on Epstein disclosures had come not from Comer but from bipartisan pressure, noting that access to any files occurred only because “four Republicans, out of 220, joined every Democrat to reach the minimum number of Members to force a vote,” adding pointedly, “You were not one of those four.” Even now, they wrote, Comer had declined to consider subpoenaing the sitting attorney general despite the DOJ’s alleged failure to follow the law.
The letter warned that Comer was “on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt” by pursuing contempt proceedings “literally designed to result in our imprisonment,” calling it “not the way out of America’s ills.” If Republicans’ agenda was stalled as a result, they suggested, that would be “our contribution to fighting the madness.”
While emphasizing that they had tried to provide “the little information we have” because Epstein’s crimes were “horrific,” the Clintons said the committee’s focus should be on why the government may have failed to fully investigate and prosecute those crimes:
"We have tried to give you the little information that we have. We've done so because Mr. Epstein's crimes were horrific. If the Government didn't do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work -- to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so."
"Instead, you have forced the victims to relive their painful experiences, while doing little to give them and everybody else what's deserved: truth and justice. There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics."
"You accepted the least from those who know the most but demand the most from those who know the least. To say you can't complete your work without speaking to us is simply bizarre."
"You have asked what we know. To answer your inquiry, we are providing you with the same or more than seven of the other eight individuals you subpoenaed regarding the handling of the Epstein investigations and prosecutions, which may be why you have not publicly released their written statements."
"We expect you will say it is not enough. We expect you'll reject it. You may even set out an empty chair or stand in front of the cameras and outright dismiss what we have provided. We expect you will direct your committee to seek to hold us in contempt. You may even release irrelevant, decades-old photos that you hope will embarrass us."
"You will say your caucus, and the Speaker and the President are behind you 100%. We hope, perhaps in vain, that they will not allow you to singlehandedly hijack the Congress by unilaterally making this decision for your colleagues, your party, and our country.
"You will say it is not our decision to make. But we have made it. Now you have to make yours."
The Clintons closed their letter by warning that they were ready to confront Comer both inside Congress and beyond it. They said they were “prepared to make our case to your 45 committee members, and if need be, more,” and pledged to “defend ourselves in the public arena,” ensuring Americans understand “exactly what you are doing and why you are doing so,” rather than advancing the work “the American people… need.”
They predicted that for “most people — maybe even the bulk of the Congress — today will be the first they learn of this dispute,” but expressed confidence that “any reasonable person” would conclude, based on what the Clintons plan to release, that Comer’s effort is designed “to punish those who you see as your enemies and to protect those you think are your friends.”
They added a blunt warning: if Comer continues to “mislead Americans about what is truly at stake,” he will discover that the public is “better at finding the truth than you are at burying it.”
The letter ends:
"Continue to pursue autopens instead of penning laws Americans need, and you will learn that you are signing away any remaining chance of being on the right side of history."
"Continue to abet the dismantling of America, and you will learn that it takes more than a wrecking ball to demolish what Americans have built over 250 years."
You can see the complete letter below.
@BillClinton/X
@BillClinton/X
@BillClinton/X
@BillClinton/X
Their response resonated with many given the highly partisan nature of the Epstein investigation.
Comer said any contempt finding would first require approval by the committee and then a vote of the full House, after which the Justice Department would decide whether to pursue prosecution—a process that could carry penalties of up to $100,000 in fines and a year in jail.
But lawyers for the Clintons argued that the effort to force them to testify in person runs up against clear limits on Congress’s investigative authority as defined by the Supreme Court.
They pointed to the court’s requirement that there be a demonstrable “nexus” between a committee’s legislative purpose and the witnesses it seeks to compel, saying Comer had failed to explain how the Clintons’ testimony would be relevant to that aim. The lawyers urged Comer to “de-escalate this dispute.”
