TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @imUrB00gieman
reSee.it AI Summary
Today, I watched USAID Administrator Samantha Power testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rand Paul challenged her on what he called blatant lies regarding the Biden Administration. It's interesting to note her previous role as Obama's Ambassador to the UN.
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ซ
Today: USAID ADMINISTRATOR SAMANTHA POWER TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE. Watch Rand Paul blow torch this Biden Administration Official over blatant lies she is telling him. #PartyOfLies https://t.co/sw3AOzD0hD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan? We did not fund gain of function research. The PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did involve funding that may have gone to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There are concerns about funding to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in China, but records are not accessible. Despite requests for documents related to the PREDICT program, USAID has not provided them, raising suspicions about transparency. The agency claims to have shared documents with relevant committees, but there is frustration over the lack of information available to senators. There is a demand for clarity on grants related to coronaviruses, as the ongoing lack of response leads to concerns about potential hidden information regarding the origins of COVID-19.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China?
Speaker 1: We did not fund gain of function research
Speaker 0: as you know.
Speaker 1: That's not the question.
Speaker 0: The question is, did you fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China?
Speaker 1: Before my time, there was the PREDICT program with which you are familiar, which ended in China in 2019.
Speaker 0: This is a $200,000,000 program and the GAO has also identified that some of these grants went directly to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where there is a suspicion that the lab leak began, that began the pandemic. Has USAID awarded funds to the Academy of Military Medical Sciences in China?
Speaker 1: Not to my knowledge, but I'd have to give I
Speaker 0: think the answer is once again yes. GAO has found that there have been sub awards of NIH money as probably as well as USAID money that went to the Academy of not just medical research, military medical research in China. Now part of the unknowns here is we can't get the records to look at this. So I've been asking for months months for records. In September of last year, I wrote miss Powers, the USAID, a request asking for records from the PREDICT program.
These are not classified. These are simply records of scientific research and we want to read the grants to find out what they were doing and whether the research was dangerous or not. The response I got from your agency was USAID will not be providing any documents at this time. They're just unwilling to give documents on scientific grant proposal. We're paying for it.
They're asking for $745,000,000 more in money, and we get no response. So 2 weeks ago, the ranking member, Rish, myself, and 25 other Republican senators, unfortunately, so far, signed a letter once again. They've it's still no response. We're not asking for a classified information. We're not asking for anything unusual.
20,000,000 people died around the world. You're supposed to be an agency that cares about the death of people around the world. We, you know, talk about starvation and famine, and 20,000,000 people died from a virus, and you won't give us the basic information about what grants you're funding around the world and who you're funding. Should we be funding the Academy of Military Medical Research in China? They're now off limits.
But did we fund them? And who was making the decision? You know who ran the predict program? UC Davis. Have you had any conversations with UC Davis about research in China and whether it was advisable?
Speaker 1: So, again, to set the record straight, first of all, the predict program ended in 2019. We have people
Speaker 0: And yet it goes on in other forums and other names.
Speaker 1: That's that's certainly not USAID program.
Speaker 0: Well, you have you have a program called emergency pandemic threats program still, don't you?
Speaker 1: If I could just just finish in response to the first set of allegations, we have provided hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents related to the PREDICT program for the very reason that you say because we are involved
Speaker 0: Not to us.
Speaker 1: We are, again, as I know you had an exchange with secretary Blinken as well, consistent with longstanding practice.
Speaker 0: Not going to give them to us.
Speaker 1: Responsive to the committees of jurisdiction.
Speaker 0: Not going to you've been consistent and not giving us any information. That's true. But what you're saying
Speaker 1: is provided hundreds of pages in response to the fair ranking.
Speaker 0: To who?
Speaker 1: To the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, for example. We've had extensive changes in the none
Speaker 0: of it. I'm on that committee as well. The thing is is what we get from you and from the state department at large is that if senator Menendez signs it, you'll give it, documents. Until then, you'll give us nothing. And we have got nothing, 0.
You said, we'll not be providing any documents. I now have 25 senators have sent you a letter and you aren't responding.
Speaker 1: And we don't we want
Speaker 0: we wanna see the scientific grants. We give you the money. The tax payers give you the money. We deserve to know where the money went, whether it happened look, you're right. It had it ended in 2019.
When did the virus come about? In about 2019. Some of the research proposals that came about in 2018 were Wuhan Institute of Virology asking for money to create a virus with a furin cleavage site in it. A coronavirus, a SARS like virus with a furin cleavage site. That's exactly what COVID turned out to be.
They wanted money to create such a virus. So we wanna know, are there other research proposals that you either granted or denied that were on the same veins of creating viruses that could have become COVID 19? We can't tell because you won't give us the information.
Speaker 1: Again, we consistent with long standing practice, we are providing extensive documentation. We have a whole team.
Speaker 0: We've been
Speaker 1: doing nothing other than what's back to predict.
Speaker 0: That is not true.
Speaker 1: It is factually accurate.
Speaker 0: That is not true. Everything we have asked, we have not gotten. I have not seen one document on the predict program.
Speaker 1: I understand that. Again, consistent with common practice process that
Speaker 0: you're not gonna give it to any senator.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. We're providing, all of the kinds of documentation that you're describing.
Speaker 0: You are not. You're being dishonest. You're being dishonest. We haven't gotten one scrap of paper from you. Not one scrap of paper.
Speaker 1: Committees of jurisdiction, we are providing all of the paperwork requested
Speaker 0: by the chair. I'm on the other committee. I'm the ranking member on the other committee, and I haven't seen the scrap of paper from that committee either.
Speaker 1: Well, that is I've See, here's what the American people can't tell you what happened.
Speaker 0: Think this, that because you won't respond and because you respond with a non response that you have something to hide. I don't know if you have anything to hide or not. I wanna see every grant proposal that had to do with coronaviruses that went to China from the US government, from all facets of the US government, and every bit of the Biden administration is stonewalling us and will not give us the information. It makes us think and makes us suspicious that you're hiding something. And it wasn't even you.
This was the previous administration. We go back 2 or 3 administrations. We just wanna see the information, and yet you sit there and you say we will do something. We are doing something, which is absolutely the opposite of the truth. You are not being honest.
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ซ
Samantha Power was Obamaโs Ambassador to the UNโฆ ๐
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ซ
Here it is. This video is extremely difficult to find. #Please #share: @jaketapper clarifies the fine people hoaxโฆ โ ๏ธโ ๏ธโ ๏ธ https://t.co/LiyQHEPfAG
Video Transcript AI Summary
There were very fine people on both sides, but this does not include neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who should be condemned entirely. The president did condemn these groups in his remarks, clarifying that he is not referring to them as very fine people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, quote, there were very fine people on both sides. And I'm not talking about the neo nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. Now elsewhere in those remarks, the president did condemn neo nazis and white supremacists. So he's not saying that the neo nazis and white supremacists are very fine people. Now elsewhere in those remarks, the president did condemn neo nazis and white supremacists.
So he's not saying that the neo nazis and white supremacists are very fine people.
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
Have you heard about the terrorist attack that was covered up? Here ya go ๐ https://t.co/bFyQL2krRL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two Jordanian nationals posing as Amazon delivery drivers tried to breach Quantico military base, leading to their detention by military police. The incident raised concerns about a potential terror plot, but details remain undisclosed. ICE confirmed the Jordanians are in removal proceedings. Similar security breaches involving foreign nationals have occurred at other military bases recently. The situation is being closely monitored for updates.
Translation: Two Jordanian nationals disguised as Amazon delivery drivers attempted to enter Quantico military base, prompting their arrest by military police. The incident sparked fears of a possible terrorist attack, but information is limited. ICE stated the Jordanians are undergoing deportation procedures. Similar security breaches by foreign individuals have been reported at different military bases. The situation is being monitored for further developments.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News alert. We've just confirmed that 2 Jordanian nationals tried to crash their way into a military base earlier this month, and it was covered up. On May 3rd, the 2 unnamed men rolled up to Quantico in a box truck acting like they worked at Amazon. But military police knew something was fishy when they couldn't show credentials, so they waived the truck over to do an inspection. And according to a base spokesman, the driver ignored their directions and tried to access the base before soldiers threw up emergency barriers in their way.
The Jordanians were then detained and handed over to ICE. Was this the foiled terror plot? We have no idea. No one will tell us. No one's touching this story.
Thankfully, our very own stupid son of a bitch, Peter Doocy, challenged Binder to open up.
Speaker 1: The deputy director of ICE is telling us that 2 Jordanian nationals are in removal proceedings now after posing as Amazon delivery drivers to crash the gates at Quantico. Does the White House think this might have been a failed terrorist attack?
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna be really mindful of these 2 Jordanians, that you're speaking of remain in ICE, ICE custody. And given that it is an active law enforcement matter, so I would have to refer you to ICE. I just can't dive into this, because, again, the there's a law enforcement this is a law enforcement matter.
Speaker 0: Oops. Wasn't in the binder. This comes months after a Chinese illegal was caught driving onto a military base in California. We're seeing a pattern here, and we'll keep you updated.
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
๐๐ฒ ๐จ๐ง๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐๐ซ๐๐งโ๐ญ ๐๐๐ง๐ง๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐จ๐ซ? ๐ https://t.co/ZmtIadSWHw
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Biden honored his uncle's military service, who died in a plane crash during World War II. The president emphasized the importance of supporting and honoring American veterans, condemning disrespectful remarks towards them. He highlighted the need to care for those who serve and their families, emphasizing the duty to equip and protect those sent to war. Biden's actions were meant to show respect and gratitude towards American veterans, aiming to uplift and honor their sacrifices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why is president Biden saying that his uncle Bozzi was eaten by cannibals? So, you know, I I answered this question yesterday. I believe I've seen some clips on your on your network about me answering this question. I don't have much to say, beyond what I said to some of your colleagues. Look, I was there.
I think you traveled with us too to Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if you were there at the memorial, in, in Scranton. The president had a emotional and, I think a symbolic moment. He had an opportunity as president, to honor his uncle's service in uniform. He had an opportunity, to be there as President, to to, you know, to speak to the bravery of his uncle, and not just his uncle, but many US service members that put their lives on the line on behalf of this country.
So his uncle who lost his life when the military aircraft he was on crashed in the Pacific after taking off near New Guinea, The prize the president highlighted his uncle's story as he made the case for honoring our sacred commitment to equip those we stand we send to war and take care of them and their families when they come home. And as he iterated, the last thing American veterans are or the last thing Americans should be called are suckers and losers. And, and that is those types of words should not come from a commander in chief as we have in the past, and we should actually be lifting up our American veterans and honoring them. And that's what you saw from this president.
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
Rt to infinity and beyondโฆ https://t.co/ZRADmjBHtD
Video Transcript AI Summary
Director Ray refused to discuss Joe Biden's handling of classified information, deferring to the special counsel. He also stated that there is no counterintelligence investigation into Biden or Trump. When asked about communication regarding search warrants at Mar a Lago and classified documents, he denied any involvement. Finally, he expressed concerns about national security threats posed by TikTok.
Translation: Director Ray avoided discussing Joe Biden's handling of classified information and denied any involvement in search warrants at Mar a Lago. He also stated there is no investigation into Biden or Trump and expressed concerns about TikTok's national security risks.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister Fanning.
Speaker 1: Director Ray, have you read Robert Hur's special counsel report?
Speaker 0: I have reviewed it.
Speaker 1: Do you believe Joe Biden mishandled classified information?
Speaker 0: I'm I'm not gonna discuss the report. That's the special counsel's report, and I'd refer
Speaker 1: to him. Opinion as director the FBI, do you believe he mishandled classified information?
Speaker 0: Again, I'm just gonna refer to the report, and the special counsel can speak for himself on his report.
Speaker 1: Are you aware and this is breaking news right now. Are you aware that there's an audio recording of Joe Biden saying to his ghostwriter in February of 2016, quote, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs, end quote. Are you aware of that audio recording?
Speaker 0: Again, I would just respectfully refer you to the special No.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you, are you aware as director of the FBI? You're either aware or you're not.
Speaker 0: I'm aware. Am I aware of what now?
Speaker 1: Whether the audio exists of Joe Biden saying in February 2017, quote, I just found all the classified stuff downstairs, end quote, to his ghostwriter.
Speaker 0: Again, I'm I'm just gonna refer to the special counsel and his testimony and his report.
Speaker 1: It sounds like you might be aware of it then. In front of this very committee in an open session, your predecessor, Jim Comey, testified that he did not follow the proper protocol regarding the notification of congress of the opening of the crossfire hurricane that will be the counterintelligence investigation into president Trump in 2016. To address this illegal abuse of power by the FBI, this committee included direction to the FBI in the IAA requiring notification to congressional leadership of any counter intel investigation into a federal candidate for office. Is there any counterintelligence investigation into either Joe Biden or Donald Trump?
Speaker 0: I would just say I'll refer you to the special counsel has
Speaker 1: It's not a question about the special counsel. That's a requirement in the IAA of the FBI. Is there a counterintelligence investigation into either Joe Biden or Donald Trump?
Speaker 0: There's no investigation that I could confirm here. No.
Speaker 1: Is there a is there a counterintelligence investigation?
Speaker 0: Again, I'm not confirming any investigation into either candidate.
Speaker 1: Are you aware that you're required by the IAA to notify congress of any counter to intelligence investigation?
Speaker 2: And we will comply with the law.
Speaker 1: Have you already complied with the law? Has there been a notification?
Speaker 0: I believe we have been in compliance with the law.
Speaker 1: You believe we you have been, or has there been a notification to Congress of any I believe we have intelligence investigation with a federal candidate?
Speaker 0: I believe we have complied with
Speaker 1: the law. Has there been a counter intel assessment conducted on either president Biden or president Trump?
Speaker 0: Again, there's no assessment that I would confirm here in any way. I believe we have been in compliance with the law.
Speaker 1: How about on an immediate family member, and by that I mean spouses or children of either president Biden or president Trump?
Speaker 0: Again, I'm not in the business of confirming, especially not in open hearings, assessments, or anything like that, when it comes to counterintelligence matters.
Speaker 1: So you will confirm in the classified setting when we ask you this question of whether there's a counterintelligence investigation because you are aware that according to the IAA, you are required by law to notify congress of any counterintelligence investigation, not just for presidential candidates, but any federal candidate?
Speaker 2: We will comply with the law.
Speaker 1: So you will answer this in a classified hearing later today?
Speaker 2: We will comply with the law.
Speaker 1: And what's your understanding of the law?
Speaker 0: There's a whole series of oversight requirements that we have related to counter intelligence matters. I'm not gonna try to go
Speaker 1: Specifically, the notification of Congress of a counter intel investigation onto a federal candidate, how do you what is your understanding of the law?
Speaker 0: Again, I would wanna refer to the lawyers to make sure that I'm appropriately complying with it, but I can tell you we're gonna comply with the law. And my understanding is we have been.
Speaker 1: Is your assessment that you're required to notify Congress of any counter intel investigation into any federal candidate?
Speaker 0: I would again, I'm gonna defer to the lawyers as to the
Speaker 1: understanding of the requirement in the IAA?
Speaker 0: We're gonna comply with the law, including whatever's in the IAA.
Speaker 1: I wanna turn to the search warrants and the search. In one case of Mar a Lago, an unprecedented raid and a search working with Joe Biden's legal team. Were you or your staff did you have any communication about either the execution of the search warrant on Mar a Lago or the search of documents working with Joe Biden's lawyer, was there any communication with Joe Biden of you or your team?
Speaker 0: Not my knowledge.
Speaker 1: With any White House staff?
Speaker 0: By by me or my team?
Speaker 1: By you or any personnel at the FBI?
Speaker 0: Again, I wanna make sure I've got your question right. By me or my staff with who about which?
Speaker 1: With the White House staff about execution of a search warrant on Mar a Lago or the search working with Joe Biden's lawyers of classified information?
Speaker 0: Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 1: What about the attorney general?
Speaker 0: I I can't speak for the attorney general.
Speaker 1: No. Did was there any communication with your staff, with the attorney general, or you regarding the execution of the search warrant or the, search of Joe Biden's classified documents?
Speaker 0: Well, any search would be, would be done in coordination with the Department of Justice as to who may have communicated with whom
Speaker 1: I'm asking if
Speaker 0: you in the FBI and the department. I that I I can't
Speaker 1: I'm asking if you communicated.
Speaker 0: Whether I communicated?
Speaker 1: With the attorney general prior or after the execution of the search warrant on Mar a Lago.
Speaker 0: No. Do
Speaker 1: you think it is a national
Speaker 0: law prior or after?
Speaker 1: Prior or after.
Speaker 0: Well, I would have had conversations with the attorney general about the, appointment of, at that time, mister Lausch.
Speaker 1: And what were those conversations?
Speaker 0: Just about the fact that that he was going to be named, but that's not really about the search itself, I suppose.
Speaker 1: And my last question is, do you think it is a national security threat to have a federal campaign account on TikTok?
Speaker 0: Well, I've been very clear about my views about TikTok and the national security concerns it presents.
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
Impressions is controlled entirely by The ๐ #tweepcredalgo This has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of individual tweets. This is ๐ putting its thumb on the scale of social justice just like shady butchers of the past did. https://t.co/q1fZYFGZCA
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
Iโm saving this pic for The Next Time somebody posts a pic of somebody getting their ass beat and they ask why nobody is helping. https://t.co/9c5ZYvxIQ6
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
๐๐จ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐จ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐บ๐ธ Joe Biden, โThese ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ are a threat to democracy...โ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ดโโ ๏ธ๐ฅ๐บ๐ธ https://t.co/uvhD7KYUqz
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
Who the fk withdraws $1.6M in cash from his ATM??? https://t.co/uBQA0ULITZ
@imUrB00gieman - ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐สฐโฑแตแตแตโฟ ๐ดโโ ๏ธ
Watch: ๐๐ดโโ ๏ธ๐ฅ๐ https://t.co/suxyoep0PP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker examines the claim of ethnic cleansing by Israel against Palestinians by presenting population statistics. They highlight the significant decrease in Jewish populations in various Arab countries since 1948, while the Arab population in Israel has increased. The Jewish population in Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon has drastically declined, while the Arab population in Israel has grown to over 2 million. The speaker questions who is actually engaging in ethnic cleansing based on these statistics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Palestinians claim ethnic cleansing by Israel. But is this true? Let's examine the numbers. The Jewish population in Morocco was about 265,000 in 1948, while today, it's only about 2,000. Let's continue.
In Algeria, in 1948, about a 140,000 Jews lived. Today, only about 50. Indonesia in 1948, about a 150,000 Jews live. Today, only about 50. In Libya in 1948, about 38,000 Jews live.
Today, there is not even one. In Egypt, in 1948, about 75,000 Jews lived. Today, only about 40. In Yemen, in 1948, about 55,000 Jews lived. Today, only about 50.
About 150,000 Jews lived in Iraq in 1948. Today, only 7. In Syria in 1948, about 40,000 Jews lived. Today, not even 1 Jew. About 20,000 Jews lived in Lebanon in 1948.
Today, only about a100. And now Get the following figure. How many Arabs lived in Israel in 1948? About 156,000. And how many Arabs live there today?
2,178,000. Are you getting it? Over 2,000,000. For comparison, the Jewish population in Arab countries decreased by 99.83%, almost 100%, and the Arab population and increased by 1,296.15%. So according to these facts, who's ethnically cleansing whom?