TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @mazemoore
@mazemoore - MAZE
Before the 2016 election Obama repeatedly said that you're not supposed to cast doubt on the legitimacy of an election. Right after the election Obama launched the Russia hoax to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election. Perhaps the biggest scandal ever in American politics. https://t.co/PmfWgyYdZN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of our elections undermines democracy, calls it dangerous, and says it is work that benefits adversaries because democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters and that those who occupy power were chosen by the people.
Speaker 1 states that every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians hacked the DNC, and that the information released was the consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels; the CIA assesses that it was done purposefully to tilt the election toward a particular candidate, which is not a surprise, and this was helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Hillary campaign.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When you try to sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds about the legitimacy of our elections, that undermines our democracy. No. No. No. I want everybody to pay attention here.
That is dangerous. You're doing the work of our adversaries for them because our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters, that those who occupy the seats of power were chosen by the people.
Speaker 1: Every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians had hacked, the DNC, and the information was that was now being released was as a consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels. So what the CIA is now assessing, which was it was done purposefully to tilt the election in another in the direction of a particular candidate shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, and in fact isn't a surprise to anybody. This was helping the Trump campaign, and it was hurting the the Hillary campaign.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that Mayorkas repeatedly claimed all Afghans were vetted before being brought to America, but under oath at 2:45 he shifts to saying he has no idea if any were vetted.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2021. Mayorkas is asked if the Afghans who were flown to America during the botched withdrawal were vetted. Mayorkas claims repeatedly for almost three minutes that all the Afghans were vetted before being brought to America. At the 2:45 mark he is reminded that he is under oath and he then goes from claiming that they were all vetted to saying that he has no idea if any were vetted.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on the Afghanistan withdrawal and the vetting of evacuees who boarded planes. The opening exchange frames the withdrawal as a historic evacuation led by the Department of Defense and the Department of State. The senator asks specifically how many of the evacuees were vetted before they got on the plane.
The official responds by stating it is the policy to vet and screen evacuees for the United States. When the senator presses for a numerical figure, the official first indicates uncertainty about Afghanistan-specific cases but reiterates the policy. The senator clarifies the question: for those who got on the C-17s and other planes, how many were vetted before they boarded, by American officials? The official replies that for those brought to the United States, it is their policy to vet and screen 100% of them.
The senator pushes for a precise, testable number, asking if the answer is a sworn 100%. The official reiterates the policy and adds that all of the individuals who arrived in the United States have been screened. The senator presses further, asking for the exact percentage, and the official begins to provide a quantified estimate: well over 99% of them were fully screened and vetted before they boarded a flight. The senator seeks sources for that information, but the official continues, noting that if any were not screened before boarding, they would have been screened and vetted while in flight, and if any derogatory information was found, they would be placed in immigration enforcement proceedings and removal.
The senator then asks directly, under oath, whether the 99% figure refers to all people who got on the planes in Afghanistan. The official clarifies that precision is important and notes that the question being asked concerns planes from transit countries, the third country scenario, rather than the specific Afghan departures being discussed at that moment. The senator emphasizes the focus on people who got on the planes and left the chaotic airport, asking again for the percentage vetted before they got on those planes. The official ultimately asserts that he cannot speak to those planes from transit countries, but reiterates that the discussion about those who arrived in the United States involves screening and vetting, and that those arrivals have been screened. The exchange ends with the senator acknowledging the limitation, and the official indicating that he cannot provide a detailed accounting for the transpiring circumstances of planes from transit countries, while maintaining that those who arrived in the United States were screened.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was Afghanistan a successful withdrawal?
Speaker 1: As senator, the evacuation that the Department of Defense and the Department of State State led was historic in evacuating so many individuals and
Speaker 0: Of those that are evacuated, how many were vetted before they got on the plane?
Speaker 1: Senator, it is our policy to
Speaker 0: That's a simple question. How many of them were vetted before they got on the plane?
Speaker 1: Out of Afghanistan? Yeah. Cannot speak to that, but it is our policy.
Speaker 0: So you can't tell us how many people were vetted before they got on the plane to come to America?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry. If you're speaking of the plane to come to America, let me if I may, senator, explain the process. Because we, working with our ally
Speaker 0: Okay. Here's a question. Very simple. Those that got on the plane
Speaker 1: For America, it is our policy to
Speaker 0: Please. Please listen. Please listen to my question.
Speaker 1: I apologize.
Speaker 0: To those who got on the c seventeens and other planes, how many more vetted before they got on the plane by American officials?
Speaker 1: To The United States, it is our policy to vet and screen a 100 of them.
Speaker 0: So a 100% of those people that got on the plane were vetted. That's your testimony under oath?
Speaker 1: It is our our policy to do so.
Speaker 0: That's not I don't care what your policy is. I'm asking how many people were vetted before they got on the plane. Do you know the answer?
Speaker 1: Senator If
Speaker 0: you don't know, just say I don't know.
Speaker 1: Senator, I do not know if anyone aborted a plane that was not fully screened and vetted.
Speaker 0: Can you tell me that all the people that got on the plane were vetted?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I can tell you that all of the individuals
Speaker 0: Before they got on the plane.
Speaker 1: If if I may, senator, all of the individuals who arrived in The United States
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Have been screened That's
Speaker 0: not listen. I'm not this I'm not trying to trick you. I'm trying to ask a simple question. We've had thousands of people that got on c seventeens and flew out of the most chaotic situation I've seen since the fall of Saigon. And I'm asking you, before they got on the plane, how many of them were vetted by The United States?
Can you tell me what percentage?
Speaker 1: Senator, I would posit and I will confirm this that well over ninety nine percent of them were fully screened and vetted before they boarded a flight. Okay. If in fact any of Where do you get that information from? May may I, senator? If in fact they were not, they were screened and vetted while in flight, and if any derogatory information was adduced, They were placed in immigration enforcement proceedings and, in removal.
You do know you do know you're under oath.
Speaker 0: Are you telling this committee under oath that 99% of the people who got on these planes in Afghanistan were vetted by our government before they got on that plane?
Speaker 1: I wanna be very clear because precision because you're not. No. No. No. Senator, if I may, you are asking me about planes from transit countries, the third country
Speaker 0: I'm talking about people got on the plane and hobbled airport.
Speaker 1: No. I I can't speak to that.
Speaker 0: Well, that's okay. Good.
@mazemoore - MAZE
December, 2020. Letitia James goes on The View and brags that as soon as Trump is out of office, she is going to get him. At the time, she didn't even know if Trump was guilty of anything. That didn't matter to her. "President Trump cannot avoid justice."https://t.co/xHeQ8S0O9V
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 explains the investigation is civil in nature and not criminal, and that "our civil suit will continue, whether he's president or not." After January 20 at 12:00, "our investigation will continue." Regarding pardons, "There’s no way a potential pardon for Trump or his three eldest kids would shield them from anything you're investigating." He adds, "He cannot pardon himself," but "he could step down and allow the vice president, vice president Pence, to pardon him," and "I suspect that he will pardon his family members, his children, his son-in-law, and individuals in his administration, as well as some of his close associates." Then "at some point in time, he will step down and allow the vice president to pardon him." He notes that "he is pardoned from federal crimes, but he is not pardoned from state crimes." He says, "Last year I introduced a bill in the state legislature, which would close the pardon loophole so that individuals such as the president of The United States would not evade justice. ... it is now the law in the state of New York. President Trump cannot avoid justice in the great state of New York."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You also intend to prosecute him after he is out of office. Correct?
Speaker 1: Joy, again, our investigation currently is civil in nature. It is not criminal. In the event that we uncover any activity or conduct Yeah. If in the event that
Speaker 0: we uncover any conduct suits.
Speaker 1: Oh, yes.
Speaker 0: But will you go ahead and send him a suit? Oh.
Speaker 1: Yes. Our civil suit will continue, whether he's president or not. And so after January 20 at 12:00, our investigation will continue, Joy.
Speaker 0: There's no way a potential pardon for Trump or his three eldest kids would shield them from anything you're investigating. Am I right? That's what you just said, I believe. Correct.
Speaker 1: He cannot pardon himself. What he could do is step down and allow the vice president, vice president Pence, to pardon him. In all likelihood, I suspect that he will pardon his family members, his children, his son-in-law, and individuals in his administration, as well as some of his close associates. And then I suspect at some point in time, he will step down and allow the vice president to pardon him. Now it's important to understand, he is pardoned from federal crimes, but he is not pardoned from state crimes.
Last year, I introduced a bill in the state legislature, which would close the pardon loophole so that individuals such as the president of The United States would not evade justice. It's important that we have this check on presidential powers and that the legislature the state legislature I'm so happy they passed that bill, and it is now the law in the state of New York. President Trump cannot avoid justice in the great state of New York.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Here’s a look back at how undocumented migrants fared during the Biden years. Not a single word about it from any of the people who now spend their days pretending to care about the plight of illegals immigrants.https://t.co/pCMW6n7Ii7
Video Transcript AI Summary
A 17 year old migrant died in US custody this week.
Child died yesterday in border patrol custody.
Migrant children who come to The US without their parents here are working twelve hour shifts or more at factories even though it violates child labor laws.
Along the southern border, you see thousands of these wristbands. These are children being sold into sex slavery, and you don't even know what they are.
So now approaches a 100,000 children according to public reports.
A 100,000 children lost by your department and the Biden administration.
lawmakers urging the Biden administration to provide explanations for the disappearance of 85,000 migrant children.
Migrant children sold in to labor trafficking and sex trafficking.
At least five HHS staff members said they were pushed out after raising concerns about child sick safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Texas morgues are reportedly overflowing as migrants, including young children, are dying. How many migrants have died under president Biden?
Speaker 1: In Eagle Pass, Texas, rows of makeshift crosses mark the final resting place of unidentified migrants, and the morgues in those border towns are running out of space. The remains of the dead now overflowing into the morgue's parking lot, where five refrigerated trucks hold 260 bodies and growing by the day.
Speaker 0: Sir, do you know how many died? I do not. You do not. Of course, you don't. Eight hundred and fifty three.
Twenty twenty one, what happens? You get in office, and that red line are dead bodies.
Speaker 2: US border patrol agents are holding migrants in outdoor cages amidst a record setting heat wave. More than a 100 migrants have died from heat at the border so far this year, thirteen alone in the past week.
Speaker 0: A 17 year old migrant died in US custody this week.
Speaker 2: Child died yesterday in border patrol custody. It's actually the second
Speaker 0: Sempty trailer. Now tied to the deaths of 53 men, women, and potentially children left packed inside.
Speaker 3: Children were still being kept in said cages. Families were still being separated at their border.
Speaker 2: While the policy of separating families no longer exists, the practice continues under the watch of the Biden administration.
Speaker 3: Where is the twenty four seven wall to wall twenty four hour fury?
Speaker 2: And tonight, lawmakers urging the Biden administration to provide explanations for the disappearance of 85,000 migrant children.
Speaker 4: So now approaches a 100,000 children according to public reports. A 100,000 children lost by your department and the Biden administration. Migrant children sold in to labor trafficking and sex trafficking.
Speaker 5: We've never had such a bad problem with child labor trafficking and child sex trafficking, and it is enabled by the Biden administration's policies. It's really astonishing how much the Biden administration is willing to look the other way.
Speaker 4: At least five HHS staff members said they were pushed out after raising concerns about child sick safety.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration's repeatedly ignored or missed warnings about a surge of migrant children as young as 12 working in factories across The United States.
Speaker 6: Migrant children who come to The US without their parents here are working twelve hour shifts or more at factories even though it violates child labor laws. The the three little boys that that died, I mean, you know, were injured and died. One of them fell from a roof in in construction.
Speaker 1: They have to go work the most punishing jobs in the country.
Speaker 0: What are what are these wristbands?
Speaker 6: I don't know what they are.
Speaker 0: You don't know what they are. Along the southern border, you see thousands of these wristbands. These are children being sold into sex slavery, and you don't even know what they are. That is astonishing.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2007. Joe Biden: I would not allow sanctuary cities. They turn into dumps. Enforce federal immigration law.https://t.co/ACfuhKH7AU
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?"
"The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need."
"Pick up the New York Times today. There's a city not far across the river from my state that imposed a similar sanctions."
"And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps in in the dumpster. Stores started closing."
"Everything started to happen, and they changed the policy."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?
Speaker 1: The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need. Pick up the New York Times today. There's a city not far across the river from my state that imposed a similar sanctions. And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps in in the dumpster. Stores started closing.
Everything started to happen, and they changed the policy. Part of the problem is you have to have a federal government that can enforce laws. This administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements that are needed even to enforce the existing law.
Speaker 0: Biden, yes or no? Would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law? No. You okay.
@mazemoore - MAZE
The fraud known as Jen Psaki. I wonder how many people Psaki personally got banned from social media. https://t.co/G6mAxZQT3A
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes the news about Jimmy Kimmel as a watershed moment, stating "The news about Jimmy Kimmel, I think, is, a pretty watershed moment." They say, "I think we all need to be talking about," and "We actually and it's not just a media story." They insist "it's not just a media story" and frame it as a democracy and freedom of speech issue: "It's a democracy story. It's a freedom of speech story. It's so many things." They claim, "We're make regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives." They conclude, "You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others, if you for, providing misinformation out there."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The news about Jimmy Kimmel, I think, is, a pretty watershed moment. I think we all need to be talking about. We actually and it's not just a media story. I know you agree with me on this. It's not just a media story.
It's a democracy story. It's a freedom of speech story. It's so many things. We're make regularly making sure social media platforms are aware of the latest narratives. You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others, if you for, providing misinformation out there.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2019. Charlie Kirk responds to being called a fascist. https://t.co/s6jqRanUsL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Charlie Kirk recounts an UNC lecture where protesters called him a racist and 'fascist' and 'These people shouldn't be allowed to live.' Asked, 'What did they say that's hateful and racist?', he says they couldn't articulate anything he believes and that it was 'open ended insults, and it's things that are completely fake and false.' He explains, 'if anyone disagrees, they're allowed to come to the front of the line and ask any question they want to whatsoever.' He laments that administrators didn't encourage dialogue, calling campuses 'almost islands of totalitarianism' and noting 'the left is wrong' while 'the left think that we as conservatives are bad.' He emphasizes TPUSA is 'diverse' and 'representing all students of all different backgrounds' though protesters 'know nothing of that' and 'they've never met me.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1: Yes. And why why do you say that? Smell him. She was like a Don't you think that if you're gonna, you know, attack a guy like that, you should probably have some instances of things that he said that are offensive or that are racist or anything like that? Comrades.
And what did they do that's fascist and that's racist?
Speaker 2: Well, they are very supportive of white supremacist, Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: These people shouldn't be allowed to live.
Speaker 3: I believe any Trump supporter is officially a
Speaker 2: fascist because he is a traitor at this point.
Speaker 1: What did they say that's hateful and racist?
Speaker 4: Unbelievable. Wow. Right? That's, hate directed at Turning Point's Charlie Kirk as he attempted to lecture at the State University of North Carolina along with his guest, Larry Trump. He was being called a racist because apparently anyone who dares to have a different point of view on the economy and foreign policy, anyone who dares to support president Trump is labeled a racist by university groups these days.
I mean, don't know why. Right? They couldn't actually say why. They just didn't want him there. Doesn't think he has a right to exist.
They say he's a fascist. Joining me right now for reaction, the man that was attacked himself, Turning Point USA founder, Kirk, along with someone who has become all too familiar, unfortunately, with this brand of hate, Fox Nation host, Tommy Laren. Welcome to you both. Charlie
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: What do you have to say about that? I mean, people calling you a fascist. You wanna educate them a little bit on what fascism really is?
Speaker 0: Yeah. No kidding. Well, little do they know that we actually when we do our campus events at Turning Point USA, if anyone disagrees, they're allowed to come to the front of the line and ask any question they want to whatsoever. But, Trish, what I found to be most disheartening is that instead of actually coming in to have a conversation, they were screaming outside because it made them feel good, not because it actually did good. And, I mean, this was kind of virtue signaling in real time.
And unfortunately, the university administration or college professors, they weren't out actually encouraging the students to have dialogue or meaningful conversation. And Trish, what's so amazing is they couldn't even say one thing that I believe and said it's just innuendo, it's open ended insults, and it's things that are completely fake and false. It's too bad because when when yeah. When you don't talk to people, then really bad things unfortunately start to happen.
Speaker 4: Agree. They didn't either do their research. They had no idea who you are, really what you stood for. All they knew is that you support the president, and therefore, in their view, be a really bad person.
Speaker 0: Supposed to be a marketplace of ideas where you can have debate and dialogue and discourse. And unfortunately, these campuses have become almost islands of totalitarianism, where students feel as if just because you disagree with me, you therefore must be a bad person. And unfortunately, you know, we as conservatives believe the left is wrong. The left think that we as conservatives are bad. And then if you play that out and you see the kind of rage that these protesters have, they've never met me.
They don't know me. They don't know one thing I've ever said. They don't know anything about our organization or the fact that our organization is proudly one that is very diverse and is one that is very much, you know, on college and high school campuses representing all students of all different backgrounds. They know nothing of that. Instead, it makes them feel good because someone told them that I'm a bad person.
No facts, no logic. And when that happens, Trish, with no dialogue and discourse or debate, all of a sudden you're raising a generation of activists and protesters, not act actually educating the next generation.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
In January 2024, after Aaron Rodgers suggested Jimmy Kimmel might be linked to an Epstein list, Kimmel defended himself by stating that he doesn't fabricate stories and has a dedicated team to verify facts before making jokes. He threatened legal action against Rodgers and criticized conservatives for labeling others as child abusers. Ironically, Kimmel, along with the mainstream media and many in the Democratic Party, has spent months making similar accusations against Trump, which he now condemns.
@mazemoore - MAZE
January, 2024. After Aaron Rodgers insinuated that Jimmy Kimmel might be on some Epstein list, Kimmel responded by saying that you can't just make stuff up about people. Kimmel: "We don't make up lies. We have a team of people who work very hard to sift through facts before I make a joke." Kimmel threatened to sue Rodgers and then lambasted conservatives for accusing people of being child abusers. It's funny because Kimmel, the MSM, and most of the democrat party have spent the past four months doing to Trump what Kimmel whined about Rodgers doing to him.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"He decided to insinuate that I am a pedophile."
"You don't like Trump? You're a pedophile."
"It's their go to move, and it shows you how much they actually care about pedophilia."
"We say a lot of things on this show. We don't make up lies."
"In fact, we have a team of people who work very hard to sift through facts and reputable sources before I make a joke."
"Even he deserves that consideration, and we give it to him because the truth still matters."
"And when I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize for it, which is what Aaron Rogers should do, which is what a decent person would do."
"But saying someone is a pedophile is not an opinion, nor is it trash talk. Sorry, Pat McAfee."
"And wanted to make false and very damaging statements like that, that we should do it in court so he could share his proof with like a judge because, you know, when you hear a guy who won a Super Bowl and did the all the State Farm commercials say something like this, a lot of people believe, hopefully, many many decent people out there who vote conservative or whatever you wanna call what goes on now. I don't see anything conservative about any of it, but to those of you who are part of that, I want to say this and I hope you will listen and give it a little bit of consideration. If you are a member of a group that think it's okay to randomly call someone a child molester because you don't like what that person has to say, maybe you should rethink being a part of that group."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He decided to insinuate that I am a pedophile. This is how these nuts do it now. You don't like Trump? You're a pedophile. It's their go to move, and it shows you how much they actually care about pedophilia.
And as far as the, well, you say things about people all the time argument goes, Yes, I do. It's not the same. It's not even close to the same. We say a lot of things on this show. We don't make up lies.
In fact, we have a team of people who work very hard to sift through facts and reputable sources before I make a joke. And that's an important distinction. A joke about someone. Even when that someone is Donald Trump, even a person who lies from the minute he wakes up until the minute he's smearing orange makeup on his MyPillow at night. Even he deserves that consideration, and we give it to him because the truth still matters.
And when I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize for it, which is what Aaron Rogers should do, which is what a decent person would do. But saying someone is a pedophile is not an opinion, nor is it trash talk. Sorry, Pat McAfee. Yeah.
And wanted to make false and very damaging statements like that, that we should do it in court so he could share his proof with like a judge because, you know, when you hear a guy who won a Super Bowl and did the all the State Farm commercials say something like this, a lot of people believe, hopefully, many many decent people out there who vote conservative or whatever you wanna call what goes on now. I don't see anything conservative about any of it, but to those of you who are part of that, I want to say this and I hope you will listen and give it a little bit of consideration. If you are a member of a group that think it's okay to randomly call someone a child molester because you don't like what that person has to say, maybe you should rethink being a part of that group. Yeah. And
@mazemoore - MAZE
2023. Jimmy Kimmel celebrates Tucker Carlson getting fired from Fox. https://t.co/KkvVRc4At6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Fox News has severed bow ties with Tucker Carlson. After all these years, they are parting ways, which means he was fired. He's already on a plane to Moscow to meet with his manager. Now Tucker can spend more time at home tanning his testicles and touching himself to that sexy green m and m. Sadly, he's probably not done poisoning old people's brains. The question now is where will he do it next? Will he go to OAN? Will he go to Newsmax? Will he crawl back up Satan's fiery b hole from whence he came? We don't know. One of the most despicable Mother Tuckers ever to appear on American television.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Fox News has severed bow ties with Tucker Carlson. After all these years, they are parting ways, which means he was fired. I mean, that's really what parting ways means. Tucker couldn't be reached for comment. He's already on a plane to Moscow to meet with his manager.
But what a shock. I mean, what an absolutely delightful shock this is. Now Tucker can spend more time at home tanning his testicles and touching himself to that sexy green m and m. Sadly, he's probably not done poisoning old people's brains. The question now is where will he do it next?
Will he go to OAN? Will he go to Newsmax? Will he crawl back up Satan's fiery b hole from whence he came? We don't know. One of the most despicable Mother Tuckers ever to appear on American television.
@mazemoore - MAZE
March, 2021. CNN breaks the news that the Pfizer vaccine is 100% effective in preventing infection and sickness in 12-15 year olds.🤔 That was quite the false claim.https://t.co/28QFofJN15
Video Transcript AI Summary
Pfizer announced that its vaccine trial for adolescents shows its coronavirus shot was '100% effective at preventing infection and sickness among twelve to fifteen year olds,' a result that could be a major game changer for reopening schools across America.
Joining us is Doctor Chris Pernell, a public health physician and fellow at the American College of Preventative Medicine.
Host: 'A 100% effective? Is that unusual to find that efficacy rate?'
Dr. Pernell: 'Well, that's even higher than what we were reported, when we had ninety five percent efficacy in adults. Look. We know these mRNA vaccines are a game changer. The technology is different. The technology is very promising.'
Host: 'I mean, it's a hundred percent. I mean I mean, you know, it does not get any better.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We do have some breaking news. Drugmaker Pfizer just announcing the results of its vaccine trial for adolescents. It says its coronavirus shot was 100% effective at preventing infection and sickness among twelve to fifteen year olds. This could be a major game changer for reopening schools across America. So joining us now is Doctor.
Chris Pernell. She's a public health physician and fellow at the American College of Preventative Medicine. Doctor. Pernell, great to see you. A 100% effective?
Is that I mean, I John and I haven't heard numbers like that. Is that unusual to find that efficacy rate?
Speaker 1: Well, that's even higher than what we were reported, when we had ninety five percent efficacy in adults. Look. We know these mRNA vaccines are a game changer. The technology is different. The technology is very promising.
Speaker 0: I mean, it it's a hundred percent. I mean I mean, you know, it does not get any better.
@mazemoore - MAZE
December, 2020. Letitia James goes on The View and brags that as soon as Trump is out of office, she is going to get him. James should be thrown in prison for making such a mockery of the justice system.https://t.co/xHeQ8S0gkn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Joy, again, our investigation currently is civil in nature. It is not criminal. Our civil suit will continue, whether he's president or not. After January 20 at 12:00, the investigation will continue. There’s no way a potential pardon for Trump or his three eldest kids would shield them from ongoing inquiries. He cannot pardon himself; he could step down and allow the vice president, vice president Pence, to pardon him. It’s expected he would pardon family members, his son-in-law, and others in his administration, then step down and let the vice president do the pardoning again; he is pardoned from federal crimes but not from state crimes. Last year I introduced a bill in the state legislature to close the pardon loophole, now law in New York, ensuring President Trump cannot avoid justice there.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You also intend to prosecute him after he is out of office. Correct?
Speaker 1: Joy, again, our investigation currently is civil in nature. It is not criminal. In the event that we uncover any activity or conduct Yeah. If in the event that
Speaker 0: we uncover any conduct suits.
Speaker 1: Oh, yes.
Speaker 0: But will you go ahead and send him a suit? Oh.
Speaker 1: Yes. Our civil suit will continue, whether he's president or not. And so after January 20 at 12:00, our investigation will continue, Joy.
Speaker 0: There's no way a potential pardon for Trump or his three eldest kids would shield them from anything you're investigating. Am I right? That's what you just said, I believe. Correct.
Speaker 1: He cannot pardon himself. What he could do is step down and allow the vice president, vice president Pence, to pardon him. In all likelihood, I suspect that he will pardon his family members, his children, his son-in-law, and individuals in his administration, as well as some of his close associates. And then I suspect at some point in time, he will step down and allow the vice president to pardon him. Now it's important to understand, he is pardoned from federal crimes, but he is not pardoned from state crimes.
Last year, I introduced a bill in the state legislature, which would close the pardon loophole so that individuals such as the president of The United States would not evade justice. It's important that we have this check on presidential powers and that the legislature the state legislature I'm so happy they passed that bill, and it is now the law in the state of New York. President Trump cannot avoid justice in the great state of New York.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2014, I reflected on Obama's dismissal of Russia as a major threat during the 2012 debate, where he mocked Romney's concerns. At that time, Obama asserted that Russia was a regional power acting out of weakness, downplaying the urgency of the situation in Ukraine and withholding military support. Fast forward to now, many who previously showed little interest in Ukraine are advocating for unlimited funding to combat Russia, framing it as an existential threat. This shift highlights the influence of the narratives surrounding Russiagate.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2014. Russia had already taken Crimea and had moved 30,000 troops to the Ukrainian border. Obama is asked if he was wrong about his statement during the 2012 debate in which he mocked Romney for calling Russia our biggest threat. "The 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years." Obama doubles down and explains that Russia invading Ukraine is not a threat to us. "Russia is a regional power threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness." Notice how there was no sense of urgency or talk that Putin would not stop in Ukraine. Obama wasn't even supplying Ukraine with weapons to fight back. People who couldn't care less about Ukraine or Putin in 2014 now support unlimited funding to keep the fighting going until Ukraine has no more people alive to fight. "Russia is an existential threat! Putin will take over Europe if we don't stop him in Ukraine." It shows the power of the Russiagate narratives.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1: We have not gone to war with Russia. Russia is isolated, more than five years ago, a regional power threatening neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine had influence for decades since the Soviet breakup. We have considerable influence on our neighbors and generally don't need to invade to have cooperation. Russia's military action violates international law and signals less influence. They don't pose the number one national security threat to United States; I am concerned about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Speaker 2: It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide how they organize themselves. The Ukrainian government is prepared to negotiate with Russia, and the international community supports a diplomatic process to de-escalate tensions, move Russian troops back from Ukraine's borders, and organize elections; the Ukrainian people will choose leadership. They will want a relationship with Europe and with Russia; this is not a zero-sum game.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, thank you. In China, in Syria, in Egypt, now in Russia, we've seen you make strong statements, issue warnings that have been ignored. Are you concerned that America's influence in the world, your influence in the world, is on the decline? And in the light of recent developments, do you think Mitt Romney had a point when he said that Russia is America's biggest geopolitical foe? If not Russia, who?
Speaker 1: With respect to the situation in Ukraine, we have not gone to war with Russia. I think there's a significant precedent to that in the past. That does not mean that Russia is not isolated. In fact, Russia is far more isolated in this instance than it was five years ago with respect to Georgia and more isolated than it was certainly during most of the twentieth century when it was part of the Soviet Union. The the point is that there are always gonna be bad things that happen around the world.
With respect to mister Romney's assertion that Russia's numb our our number one geopolitical foe, the truth of the matter is that, you know, America's got a whole lot of challenges. Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness. Ukraine has been a country in which Russia had enormous influence for decades since the breakup of the Soviet Union. And,
Speaker 0: you
Speaker 1: know, we have considerable influence on our neighbors. We generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them. The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more. And so my response then continues to be what I believe today, which is Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to The United States.
I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of, a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.
Speaker 0: Julie Peace, Associate Press.
Speaker 2: You've been criticized during this dispute with Russia as not understanding president Putin's motivations. As recently as last month, you and others in your administration said you thought Putin was reflecting or pausing his incursion into Crimea. Did you misread Putin's intentions and what do you think his motivations are now?
Speaker 1: I don't think that any of us have been under any illusion that, you know, Russia has been very interested in controlling what happens to Ukraine. That's not new. That's been the case for years now. That's been the case dating back to the orange revolution. But what we have said consistently throughout this process is that it is up to the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions about how they organize themselves and who they interact with.
The Ukrainian government has said it is prepared to negotiate with Russia, that it is prepared to recognize its international obligations. And the international community has been supportive of a diplomatic process that would allow a de escalation of tensions, a moving back of Russian troops from Ukraine's borders, and rapidly organized elections that allow the Ukrainian people to choose their leadership. And my expectation is is that if the Ukrainian people are allowed to make their own decisions, their decision will be that they want to have a relationship with Europe and they wanna have a relationship with Russia and that this is not a zero sum game.
reSee.it AI Summary
As Zelensky's popularity soars, I reflect on his rise to the presidency, notably his ties to oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky, a corrupt businessman, co-founded PrivatBank, which he exploited to launder billions before the bank's nationalization in 2016. He backed Zelensky's campaign and returned to Ukraine shortly after Zelensky took office. Allegations emerged linking Zelensky to offshore accounts tied to PrivatBank. Despite pressure to distance himself from Kolomoisky, the media portrays Zelensky as untouchable, neglecting these critical connections.
@mazemoore - MAZE
As the Zelensky worship reaches fever pitch, it's worth looking back at how this "Churchill" became President. Here's a 2019 video from RFERL on then candidate Zelensky and his oligarch backer, Ihor Kolomoisky. Don't expect our media to ever cover this. Ihor Kolomoisky is a Ukrainian born Israeli businessman who held Israeli, Ukrainian, and Cypriot citizenship, even though dual citizenship is generally not permitted in Ukraine. In 1992 he and his partner started PrivatBank. At one point the bank handled 30% of all deposits in Ukraine. Kolomoisky quickly became one of the richest men in Ukraine. He was also completely corrupt. Kolomoisky stole billions from PrivatBank. He would transfer the money to subsidiary PrivatBank Cyprus and from there, launder it all over the world, including the U.S. Although not all of it was stolen, approximately $470 billion was moved from his bank in Ukraine to PrivatBank Cyprus over the years. In late 2016, after PrivatBank began crumbling and much of the country faced substantial loses, the government of Ukraine took over PrivatBank and nationalized it. Shortly after, Kolomoisky left Ukraine. Kolomoisky also financed and directed militia groups in Eastern Ukraine. He founded and controlled the Dnipro Battalion and funded the Azov Brigade. He even used militia in an attempt to gain control of an oil company. Kolomoisky owned the media company that broadcast Zelensky's TV show. He was the main backer of Zelensky's campaign for President. Almost immediately after Zelensky became President, Kolomoisky returned to Ukraine and managed to avoid extradition. After becoming President, Zelensky removed numerous officials who were deemed threats to Kolomoisky's interests. The Pandora Papers leak in 2021 showed that Zelensky had a network of offshore companies holding millions in assets. The offshore companies were also used to buy pricey London real estate. Although it hasn't been conclusively proven, it has been alleged that $41 million of the money in the offshore accounts came directly from PrivatBank. After the PP leak, Zelensky claimed that he had handed over his shares of the offshore network to a partner, but records show that Zelensky's wife continued to receive payments from the accounts. After pressure from our government and others, Zelensky began to separate himself from Kolomoisky. In September of 2023 Kolomoisky was arrested in Ukraine and is still being detained, pending trial. You will not see any of this in stories by our media on Zelensky. Instead they tell us that Zelensky is above reproach, someone we should have no problem giving a blank check to.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Ukrainian actor Volodymyr Zelenskyy has achieved fame portraying a president in this TV show, which is broadcast on a channel owned by a man backing his real life presidential campaign." "Billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky has provided security, lawyers, and vehicles for Zelensky." "His bodyguard accompanied Zelensky on the campaign trail." "The car Zelensky uses belongs to a company owned by one of Kolomoyski's companies." "Kolomoyski's lawyer is now working for Zelensky's campaign." "Kolomoyski is an arch foe of Poroshenko and one of the richest men in Ukraine with holdings in the metal, petroleum, and media sectors." "In 2016, Polushenko's government seized control of Privet Bank, claiming that billions of dollars were embezzled from it." "Kolomoyski denies any wrongdoing and is fighting in court to get Privet Bank back."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ukrainian actor Volodymyr Zelenskyy has achieved fame portraying a president in this TV show, which is broadcast on a channel owned by a man backing his real life presidential campaign. Billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky has provided security, lawyers, and vehicles for Zelensky. His bodyguard accompanied Zelensky on the campaign trail. The car Zelensky uses belongs to a company owned by one of Kolomoyski's companies. And Kolomoyski's lawyer is now working for Zelensky's campaign.
When the results of the first round of the election became clear on March 31, president Petro Poroshenko did not mince his words. Kolomoyski, filmed here in Switzerland in 2018, is an arch foe of Poroshenko and one of the richest men in Ukraine with holdings in the metal, petroleum, and media sectors. He set up Prevart Bank in the nineteen nineties, which quickly grew to be one of the biggest financial institutions in Ukraine. But in 2016, Polushenko's government seized control of Privet Bank, claiming that billions of dollars were embezzled from it. Kolomoyski denies any wrongdoing and is fighting in court to get Privet Bank back.
Kolomoyski has himself briefly held public office, becoming governor of his native Dniepera Petrovsk region in 2014. It was shortly after mass protests toppled Ukraine's Kremlin friendly president, Viktor Yanukovych. Within months, Kolomoyski was helping to finance volunteer units to fight against Russia backed separatists who had seized control in nearby regions of Eastern Ukraine. He was credited with helping to prevent them from advancing into his region, but critics suggested he was also building a private army. On 03/19/2015, armed men occupied the offices of a state owned oil company in Kyiv.
Kolomowyski was involved in a struggle for influence at the company called Uker Transnafta. When he emerged from the building, an RFERL journalist asked what he was doing there. Days later, president Poroshenko dismissed him as governor after Kolomewski offered to step down. Kolomoyski continued his business activities later moving to Switzerland. Zelensky traveled to Geneva in February 2018 to attend Kolomoyski's birthday party.
In April 2019, RFERL asked Kolomoyski about his ties with Zelensky. But by checking flight records, RFERL discovered that after that birthday party, Zelensky flew to Geneva another 10 times. Furthermore, after Kolomoisky moved to Israel, Zelensky flew to Tel Aviv three times between October and December 2018. They both insist their relationship is professional and based on Zelensky's TV work.
@mazemoore - MAZE
They have been calling for Trump to be investigated, indicted, and thrown in prison for almost a decade. "Investigate Trump! He's got to be guilty of something." Also from the same people.. "Investigating Obama is against the norms. End the witch hunt!"https://t.co/dbYOLswonl
Video Transcript AI Summary
"58 house Democrats have recently voted to advance articles of impeachment."
"Impeach him first and then indict him."
"Yes. The president, a sitting president, can be indicted."
"On the day Donald Trump leaves office, the justice department may indict him."
"It's clear that Trump is the target, and he'll be indicted eventually."
"The only thing worse than indicting him would be not indicting him."
"Merrick Garland, if you indict Trump, you'll be my person of the year of the decade."
"There should be no case in which they wouldn't indict."
"The only reasons Trump hasn't been indicted by now is because he's a former president and because he has handpicked judges on his side."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: 58 house Democrats have recently voted to advance articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: Impeach him first and then indict him.
Speaker 2: Yes. The president, a sitting president, can be indicted.
Speaker 3: Even if the president were to somehow find some way to terminate Mueller, the the indictments would continue to grind.
Speaker 4: You could impeach anybody on anything. You can try and indict. He is not functioning as the president of The United States. Frankly, if he ever gets indicted, he'll have insanity as a defense, I suppose, from a criminal charge. But it it it's hardly you know, this is a serious matter.
Speaker 3: You're starting to hear people talk about the possibility that Donald Trump leaves office in two years and then finds himself in the crosshairs of these New York prosecutors. This sitting president can and should be indicted.
Speaker 2: President, they're for sure is more than likely going to serve some jail time.
Speaker 3: It's clear that Trump is the target, and he'll be indicted eventually.
Speaker 1: On the day Donald Trump leaves office, the justice department may indict him. Now there is talk of jail time for the president.
Speaker 2: That Mueller could indict the president for obstruction of justice. Donald Trump should be indicted for calling a cooperating witness a rat. He should have been indicted. The sitting president can be indicted by the justice department. Why aren't we at the target, Trump, having committed crimes to get the presidency?
So why aren't we at an indictment yet? I think there's
Speaker 0: generally consensus the president has probably committed indictable crimes.
Speaker 1: It's very strongly in favor of indicting the president when he is out of office.
Speaker 3: That there may be enough evidence to indict Trump. Is Donald Trump going to be indicted? Maybe it'll happen. Maybe he'll go to prison. I you know?
Speaker 5: Will you ever see the inside of a prison cell?
Speaker 2: DA could get a ham sandwich indicted. Hey. Listen. Trump's the big mac.
Speaker 3: Donald Trump himself is not ever indicted. There is another way that prosecutors can actually indict the entire Trump org.
Speaker 6: We hope, that the attorney general sees the importance of moving ahead, with this indictment, moving ahead with locking Steve Bannon up.
Speaker 3: The whole enchilada, the whole company indicted by next week.
Speaker 2: Why not pursue it and see what happens?
Speaker 1: Merrick Garland, if you indict Trump, you'll be my person of the year of the decade. The only thing worse than indicting him would be not indicting him.
Speaker 3: Would be folly not
Speaker 2: to indict them. Donald Trump is an ordinary citizen and is committing crimes right now.
Speaker 3: I like the idea of Mark Meadows going to jail for the rest of his life, but I still think that the committee has laid out that the person on top of all of this, in charge of all of this, doing all of this was Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I think now for him not to indict, frankly, would cause this country more harm than even if he indicts and there's a hung jury or not a successful conviction. I think there should be no case in which they wouldn't indict. I don't think we should be treating him the way other ex presidents were treated.
Speaker 1: I think the extent of what Donald Trump's done is so egregious that no attorney general, no fair minded attorney general would have any choice.
Speaker 2: According to The Atlantic, Garland is preparing to indict Trump despite moving at the cautious pace of an institutionalist.
Speaker 5: The only reasons Trump hasn't been indicted by now is because he's a former president and because he has handpicked judges on his side.
Speaker 6: Accountability for some people means that we get a pound of flesh from Donald Trump and that he ends up behind bars.
Speaker 2: Why do you think it's about time for special counsel Jack Smith to just indict Trump?
Speaker 3: And would such a move take Trump off the campaign trail?
Speaker 7: Is this the charge you would want him to be indicted on? Would a January 6 DOJ indictment or say a Georgia election interference charge carry more weight?
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared that NBC reported incoming AG Letitia James plans to investigate Trump, his family, businesses, presidency, and 2016 campaign. It seems like a blanket investigation aimed at taking him down, with Democrats and the media cheering her on. The hunted is now the hunter. Good luck, Tish.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2018. NBC breaks the news that incoming AG Letitia James is planning investigations into Trump, his family, his businesses, his presidency, even his 2016 campaign. Blanket investigations with the stated goal of taking him down. Democrats and the MSM cheered her on. The hunted is now the hunter. Have fun Tish.
Video Transcript AI Summary
NBC News has exclusively learned that the newly elected incoming New York attorney general plans to launch sweeping investigations into president Trump and his family. Leticia James tells NBC News, "we will use every area of the law to investigate president Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well." She plans to
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: NBC News has exclusively learned that the newly elected incoming New York attorney general plans to launch some sweeping investigations into president Trump, into his family. Leticia James tells NBC News, quote, we will use every area of the law to investigate president Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well. She plans to look into the following. Donald Trump's real estate holdings in New York, that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian official, any government subsidies that Donald Trump received, whether he's in violation of the emoluments clause, the Trump Foundation.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2018. James Comey and Stephen Colbert smear Trump by discussing the "unverified" details of the Steele dossier. This was all planned and scripted. Comey knew the dossier was fiction and that it was paid for by the Clinton campaign. He is there to slander Trump. Evil stuff. https://t.co/pgdlloSPla
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker informed President Trump in January 2017 about unverified information alleging he was with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel and that Russians had videotaped it. The speaker did not mention specific details. Trump interrupted and denied the allegation strongly, asking if he looked like someone who needed prostitutes.
The interviewer stayed in the Presidential Suite at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow. He asked if anyone from the speaker's office ever investigated the room, and the speaker said no, not while he was director. The interviewer then asked the speaker if he had any questions about the room. The interviewer stated the bedroom is long enough for someone to be at a safe distance from the activity, out of the "splash zone."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You went in in January 2017 to tell president Trump about the Steele dossier. How did you tell him that there was a and I wanna put this delicately, pee pee tape. How did you tell him about that rumor?
Speaker 1: I spoke about information, the unverified, that related to an allegation that he was with prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow and that the Russians had videotaped it. I didn't go into the rest of it. I thought that was notice enough. Uh-huh. And I
Speaker 0: was So you didn't mention the salacious detail of of the two prostitutes getting up on the bed that o the Obamas had stayed in because it was the Presidential Suite and and, you know, engaging in some water play. You didn't you didn't you didn't mention that at all.
Speaker 1: I thought I'd I'd served enough notice without going to that part.
Speaker 0: And what did he what did he say when you told about this?
Speaker 1: He denied. He interrupted me and denied it in pretty strong terms and asked, I assumed rhetorically whether he looked like a guy who needed the services of hookers and then and then Okay. Okay. Alright. Let's keep on going.
Just so you know, the people out there know, I actually went
Speaker 0: to that room. I stayed at the Ritz Carlton Ritz Carlton, Moscow. I went to that room. We rented that room, which is really all you need to do. Now you're an investigator.
Did did did anyone from your office ever go to that that that hotel and look at that room?
Speaker 1: Not while I was director.
Speaker 0: Okay. I don't know. Anyone from the press who went, you're an investigator. Would you like to ask me anything about that room? Ask me anything about that room.
Speaker 1: Is it big enough for the a germaphobe to be at
Speaker 0: a safe distance from the activity? The bedroom is very long. You could be you could definitely be out of what we call it SeaWorld, the splash zone. Okay? Okay?
Alright?
reSee.it AI Summary
In a revealing hour-long interview with NPR on December 16, 2016, Obama contradicted the intelligence report he had just received regarding Russia's interference in the election. Throughout the discussion, it was clear he was not being truthful and understood the implications of his statements. After the interview, he returned to announce a forthcoming "Intelligence Assessment," seemingly preparing the media for a report that would support his narrative. The significance of his actions during this interview cannot be overstated, especially given his choice of NPR as the platform.
@mazemoore - MAZE
December 16, 2016. Obama does an hour long interview with NPR. The entire interview is stunning for a few reasons. 1. Almost everything Obama says is in direct contradiction to the intelligence report on the election that he had just recently received. The majority of this interview was spent discussing Russia's election interference to help Trump. We now know that Obama had just received a report informing him that did not happen. 2. It was extremely obvious throughout the entire interview that Obama was lying and that he knew the significance of what he was doing. 3. Obama finished the interview, left and returned to talk about a new "Intelligence Assessment" that would be dropping before Trump's inauguration. He was priming the media to be on the look out for the bogus report he had just asked for. It's impossible to overstate the magnitude of what Obama was doing during this interview. And of course he turned to NPR to help him do his dirty work.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the Russian hack of the DNC contributed to an atmosphere focused on Hillary Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation, overshadowing policy debates and impacting the election. The speaker states that the CIA assessment that the hack was intended to improve Trump's chances shouldn't be surprising, as it was widely understood that the hack was helping the Trump campaign and hurting the Clinton campaign.
While the president-elect has expressed admiration for Putin and a desire for cooperation, the speaker emphasizes that the consensus among intelligence agencies was that the Russian government was behind the DNC hack. The speaker notes that various agencies are still assessing the motivations behind the hack. The speaker highlights that the current information is based on CIA leaks, not an official document, and that agencies are still comparing notes. The speaker requested a report be issued before the 20th, so that unclassified aspects can be presented to the public and Congress.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did the Russian hack of the Democratic National Committee and other targets actually affect the results of the election in your view?
Speaker 1: There's no doubt that it contributed to an atmosphere in which the only focus for weeks at a time, months at a time, were Hillary's emails, the Clinton Foundation, political gossip, surrounding the DNC, And that whole swirl that ended up dominating the news meant that number one, issues weren't talked about a lot in the coverage. Huge policy differences were not debated and vetted. Elections can always turn out differently. You never know which factors are gonna make a difference. But I have no doubt that it had some impact.
Everyone now acting surprised by the CIA assessment that this was done purposely to improve Trump's chances. And my only point was that shouldn't be treated as a blockbuster because that was the worst kept secret in this town. Everybody understood that. It was reported on. It's a pretty clear inference that people would draw and did draw that this was helping the Trump campaign and it was hurting the the Hillary campaign.
The president-elect has been very honest about his admiration for Putin and that he hopes to forge a more cooperative relationship with him and focus on the threat of Islamic terrorism, then my only point was we shouldn't now suddenly act as if this is a huge revelation. Every intelligence agency in the federal government arrived at a consensus that the Russians had hacked, the DNC and the information was that was now being released was as a consequence of a decision by Russian intelligence and Russian officials at the highest levels. So what the CIA is now assessing, which was it was done purposefully to tilt the election in another in the direction of a particular candidate shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, and in fact isn't a surprise to anybody.
Speaker 0: You had something you wanted to add.
Speaker 1: When we're discussing the issue of the Russia hack, I think it is worth noting that when it comes to the motivations of the Russians, that there are still a whole range of assessments taking place among the agencies. And so when I receive a final report, you know, we'll be able to, I think, give us a comprehensive and best guess as to those motivations. But that does not in any way, I think, detract from the basic point that everyone during the election perceived accurately that in fact what the Russian hack had done was create more problems for the Clinton administrate the Clinton campaign than it had for the Trump campaign.
Speaker 0: I think you're stopping short of endorsing the CIA conclusion that the hack was designed to help Donald Trump as opposed to some other objective.
Speaker 1: Well, think the point I'm making is is that right now what you've had are CIA leaks, not an official document. And I think it's important for the process of various agencies comparing notes and thinking about these assessments because it's not as if in any of these circumstances, you know, you just have a signed letter in regarding Russian intentions that's floating around. These are all assessments made based on a wide range of evidence and different agencies are still looking at all that stuff, gathering it together and hopefully putting it into a single package. That's precisely why I've asked that report to be issued before the twentieth, so that those aspects of it, at least that are not classified, can be presented in some form to the public. Those aspects of it that aren't classified can be presented as we've consistently done on a bipartisan basis to the members of Congress and the relevant committees.
@mazemoore - MAZE
This video is a great representation of the MSM and government over the past decade. Lie. Lie. Lie. We need to protect you from disinformation.https://t.co/0jWc80Exz4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The dossier alleges the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, not just benefiting from interference but actively participating. The Trump campaign and Alpha Bank appeared to hide covert communications between their servers.
Vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person, unable to use them as a host.
News organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered live platform to remarks by former president Trump, not out of spite, but because of the cost of knowingly broadcasting untrue things.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The bottom line of this dossier, the bottom line allegation, the point of it is that the Trump campaign didn't just benefit from Russia interfering in our presidential campaign. The point of this is they colluded. They helped. They were in on it. This is kind of a real story.
The connections between the Trump servers and the Alpha Bank servers were real. They were covert communications that someone was trying to hide, that the Trump Organization and Alpha Bank appeared to have been trying to hide. Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them.
The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people. We and other news organizations have generally stopped giving an unfiltered live platform to remarks by former president Trump. It is not out of spite. It is not a decision that we relish.
It is a decision that we regularly revisit. And honestly, earnestly, it is not an easy decision, but there is a cost to us as a news organization of knowingly broadcasting untrue things. That is a fundamental truth of our business and who we are.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 1997, I reported on China's attempts to buy Democrat politicians, including Pelosi and Feinstein, and their efforts to illegally fund the DNC and influence elections. Interestingly, as discussions about Chinese interference faded, many of those targeted became quite wealthy. Dianne Feinstein notably had a Chinese spy on her staff for two decades. It seems that China has had significant success with California Democrats. Amid all the focus on Russian election interference, I wonder what China, the real threat, has accomplished.
@mazemoore - MAZE
1997. A report on how China was trying to buy Democrat politicians (including Pelosi and Feinstein), illegally fund the DNC, and influence Presidential elections. Strangely, as talk of Chinese interference has subsided over the years, many of the politicians targeted by China became extremely wealthy. Dianne Feinstein even employed a Chinese spy on her staff for twenty years. China seems to do well with California Democrats. With all the bogus talk over the past decade about Russian election interference, it would be interesting to know what China (the real threat) has pulled off.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Washington Post reported on February 13 that the Chinese government attempted to influence the 1996 presidential election. The Justice Department reportedly uncovered evidence that Chinese representatives sought to direct foreign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. On February 28, the Post reported the FBI was investigating possible Chinese involvement in congressional elections. The FBI reportedly warned six members of Congress they were targeted by China to receive illegal campaign contributions.
Senator Dianne Feinstein stated the FBI briefed her with the view that the Chinese may try and funnel contributions to various candidates. The FBI reportedly warned two staff members of President Clinton's National Security Council about a possible Chinese attempt to influence the 1996 election.
Democrat Nancy Pelosi said the FBI told her they thought the Chinese government might be putting money into campaigns in the US, and that the Ministry of State Security of China was aware of and supported that initiative. She added that the FBI told her there would be an attempt by the Chinese to encourage more members to visit China to discuss US-China policy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In a front page story on February 13, the Washington Post reported the Chinese government tried to influence the presidential election last November. The story said the justice department had, quote, uncovered evidence that representatives of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee before the nineteen ninety six presidential campaign. Then on February 28, the Washington Post reported the FBI was investigating possible Chinese involvement in congressional election. And last Sunday, the post reported the FBI had warned six members of congress they had been targeted by China to receive illegal campaign contributions.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to answer any questions that you might One
Speaker 0: of the members, senator Dianne Feinstein of California, described the briefing she received from the FBI.
Speaker 1: The substance of it was that there were some credible sources that presented the FBI with the view that the Chinese may try and funnel contributions to various candidates. That was it.
Speaker 0: I don't think it's On Monday, the story took another turn and provoked an unusual public dispute between the White House and the FBI. The FBI said it had warned two staff members of president Clinton's National Security Council about a possible Chinese attempt to influence the nineteen ninety six election.
Speaker 2: Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California, one of those six members of congress warned last year by the FBI they were being targeted by the Chinese government.
Speaker 3: They said that I might they'd like to know if I had received any unusual overtures from the Chinese government or those who might serve as intermediaries from the Chinese government. That they said they thought the Chinese government might be putting money into campaigns in The US, that the Ministry of State Security of China, their intelligence agency, was aware of and supported that initiative. And they also told me that there would be an attempt on the part of the Chinese to encourage many more members to come to China under the auspices of the Chinese government or their intermediary so that they could talk to them about US China policy in from their perspective.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2018. A delusional Hillary Clinton talks about all the reasons that Putin didn't want her to become president. By this time she may have started to believe her own lies. There is a lot of mental illness in this clip. https://t.co/aipoCn4KSg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin was unhappy with Speaker 1 for raising concerns about the unfairness of Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections. Putin is paranoid about mass movements near Russia that could lead to democracy, closer ties with the EU, or NATO membership.
The speaker believes Russia is still interfering with U.S. democracy by influencing opinions and election systems. She believes she was an obstacle to Russia's plans to undermine U.S. democracy and impose authoritarian control, and that Russia wanted to remove her to achieve other goals.
Russia is still stirring up trouble and influencing people on social media, including efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act to cause political disruption. Electing a president was only part of Russia's plan. Putin aims to undermine democracies using money, blackmail, and inducements to bend political and business leaders to his will. The speaker doesn't know if Trump is a witting or unwitting tool of Putin, but believes Putin is playing a long game to undermine democracies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We don't know as much about what Putin may have seen in Donald Trump that made him want to support Trump, but we do know that he really had it out for you.
Speaker 1: I knew that Putin was very unhappy with me for, again, behaving like a secretary of state and raising concerns about the unfairness of the elections that were held for their parliament in the 2011. Mhmm. He made that very clear. I know that he is paranoid about any kind of mass movement in any country on his border that might result in more democracy, a closer relationship with the European Union, potential membership in NATO. I I certainly knew and understood all of that.
But again, I thought it wasn't personal. I didn't realize how personal it was until all these documents and this information has come out. What I what I'm really interested in now is how we untangle this story because the Russians are still interfering with our democracy. It's not as though they said, Hillary Clinton's gone. Oh, she's not gonna be president.
We're all going home. No. They are trying to influence how we look at one another, how we treat each other. They're certainly as, you know, Trump's own intelligence officials have stated in our election systems. So what is the next chapter?
You see, I think I was an obstacle to their plans to undermine and disrupt our democracy. I think I was an obstacle to their efforts to try to impose greater authoritarian control in Russia, go after people who were opponents of Putin's, whether they were in the LGBTQ community or in the press. And I think that they wanted to get me out of the way. And the question I think is worth asking, why did they want to get me out of the way? What is it they are trying to accomplish now?
And from what we've seen, they're still trying to stir up trouble. They're still trying influence people's minds on social media. Recent information came out about how they had tens of thousands of of, you know, bots and and proxies talking about the Affordable Care Act. They were trying to undermine our effort to get health care to people. Why?
Because they know that that will continue to cause a lot of political disruption in our country. So I think I am a small part of the puzzle. I'm I do believe that we're finding out more about how they viewed me and what they wanted to do to get me out of the way. But to get me out of the way to do what, Rachel? Yes.
Try to elect a president, which apparently they succeeded at, but it was more than that. I I think they play a long game. You know? I don't know whether Trump is a witting or unwitting tool of Putin. I don't know that.
But it's clear he's playing checkers, and Putin's playing three-dimensional chess. Putin has a very clear vision of what he wants to accomplish, and high on his bucket list is undermining democracies. And he uses money. He uses blackmail. He uses all kinds of inducements to political leaders and business leaders to try to bend them to his will, to make them part of the future that he's trying to create.
reSee.it AI Summary
I can't believe what I just saw. After the assaults in Cincinnati, Councilwoman Victoria Parks seemed to celebrate the violence online, claiming the victims "begged for the beat down." It's shocking, especially considering her previous efforts to promote inclusivity in the city.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Can't even make this stuff up. After the Cincinnati assaults, during which a white woman was knocked out in the street, Councilwoman Victoria Parks pretty much celebrated the assaults online and posted that the victims "begged for the beat down." Before she was celebrating hate crimes, Victoria Parks was featured on the news for her work to make Cincinnati more "welcoming and inclusive" for all.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cincinnati city leaders are planning to expand the city's non-discrimination ordinance to create a more inclusive environment. Council members Victoria Parks and Reggie Harris are spearheading the effort.
Currently, Cincinnati's ordinance protects people based on race, natural hairstyles, and sexual orientation, applying to work, public places, and landlords. The proposed expansion would add military status, breastfeeding status, family status, and gender identity and expression to the list of protected characteristics. According to council members, this expansion is a common-sense measure and part of efforts to increase equity in the city.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cincinnati city leaders are making plans to expand upon the city's non discrimination ordinance. Council members Victoria Parks and Reggie Harris say they want to make our city a more inclusive and welcoming environment for all. Right now, Cincinnati protects people based on race, natural hairstyles, and sexual orientation. The ordinance applies to work in public places and to landlords. A new proposal would add military status, breastfeeding status, family status, and gender identity and expression.
We are putting common sense into place. And the other thing, this is a a a component of our efforts to increase equity in this city.
reSee.it AI Summary
This video highlights the stark contrast in media questioning during Trump's annual physicals compared to Biden's presidency. It shows how the same journalists who grilled Trump seemed uninterested in Biden's health, contributing to what I see as a significant coverup.
@mazemoore - MAZE
This video is such an indictment of our media. These are just some of the questions asked during one press conference after one of the Trump's annual physicals during his first term. Listen to some of these questions. Fast forward to Biden's Presidency and for almost four years these same people had no interest in asking questions about the President's health. Instead they participated in one of the biggest coverups in American history.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The press asked about the President's health, diet (including McDonald's and Diet Coke consumption), exercise habits, and cognitive state. Questions included the specific cognitive test administered, whether it could exclude conditions like Alzheimer's (as potentially overlooked with President Reagan), and if further psychological exams were warranted.
Reporters inquired about the President's life expectancy, eating plan, evidence of bone spurs, prostate health (and potential finasteride masking), waist measurement, sleep habits, and whether his health prediction holds if the President doesn't change his diet or exercise.
Other questions concerned potential germaphobia, comparison to the average 71-year-old American male, sedation during colonoscopy, stress levels, specific exercises being considered, and whether anyone monitors the President's emotional state. The press also asked if anyone requested the statement about the President's expected good health and the First Family's involvement in encouraging exercise.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Explain to
Speaker 1: me how a guy who eats McDonald's and fried chicks and all those diet Cokes and who never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he's in.
Speaker 2: You mentioned that you gave the president a cognitive test. Was that
Speaker 3: the mini mental state examination or the full suit test?
Speaker 2: Or if not, can you tell us what specific cognitive test?
Speaker 4: Do you have a life expectancy range for him based on his results? Number two,
Speaker 5: what exactly does the exercise and eating plan look like? Is it you're gonna
Speaker 4: put an elliptical machine next to the the bedroom, and he's gonna use it? What does that look like? And then also, number three, did you see any evidence of bone spurs, which the president said he suffered from?
Speaker 6: There isn't anything that's a part of the president's health records or, his overall, physical fitness or any medications that he's taking that you're not permitted to tell us. Is there anything you're keeping from us for privacy reasons?
Speaker 7: Can you say, given that there's scrutiny of what was overlooked at the time with president Reagan in terms of Alzheimer's and things he was then known to suffer from at a later date, can you say that whether the test that you ran would exclude any of those things and what the possibility of overlooking something like that would be?
Speaker 1: Are you are you confident of his prostate health? You, recited a very low PSA. You're certain that's not a product of finasteride masking?
Speaker 4: A waist measurement for the president. His weight, I think he said two thirty nine. Right? That's it seems I think that's just shy of obesity.
Speaker 8: In continuing his physicals in the future, will you also continue the cognitive test?
Speaker 7: It's recommended that most baby boomers get screened for hepatitis c. Did you do a hep c test or has he had one previously?
Speaker 9: You talked a little bit about his diet here at the White House. Can you
Speaker 10: flesh that out a little bit? What specifically is
Speaker 9: he eating? Is he eating lots of chicken and fishes and white meat? And also, is does he take any sleep aids?
Speaker 4: Do see whether your prediction
Speaker 11: of of good health and
Speaker 4: no serious events for years to come
Speaker 11: still holds if the president does not make changes to his diet and start
Speaker 4: to exercise? Is that still your professional medical opinion? And then also, can you just tell us how long examination the was sort of start to finish, how many people were involved?
Speaker 12: Was there anything that the president or anyone else specifically said for you not to mention today? Some of the president's friends have have told reporters in the past they think he's a germaphobe, that he washes his hands obsessively and is concerned about that. Did you have you seen any indication, of that type of behavior with How do characterize the president's health to an average 71 year old American male? He has evidence of heart disease, and he's borderline obese. Can you characterize that as excellent health?
Speaker 0: Does the president when
Speaker 13: the president has colonoscopy at the next physical, will he be sedated?
Speaker 12: There's been a lot of speculation out out there about his cognitive state.
Speaker 8: Did he express any change, in how stressful this job or or lack of stress that he has experienced as a result of becoming president. Could you take us through some specific exercises, that you and the president are considering?
Speaker 4: The the seated sort of aspect of television watching versus the active lifestyle part of it.
Speaker 0: All the doctors and clinicians all across the country who have said that in this president, they see symptoms of this, that, and the other.
Speaker 4: You said you're you're not sure how much sleep you get tonight, you assume it's between four to five hours. Does that concern you?
Speaker 13: So and does this president ask you about how he could follow his predecessor's example to be as fit as Barack Obama was? Doesn't take any medications that you haven't disclosed here today. Give us an idea of exactly what that cognitive exam involved over that half hour, and does that conclusively rule out any further psychological exam?
Speaker 14: There are other questions that have been asked today about the president's emotional health. Is there anyone on the president's medical team, such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, whose job it is to monitor the president's emotional state or watch for potential psychiatric problems or indicators of those?
Speaker 0: We expect the president to be in good health for the next for the duration of his term or even a second term if he gets it. Was there a specific request from the president to make that statement or from anyone in the administration of the or or anyone in
Speaker 13: the White House?
Speaker 12: Just one more question about the the Montreal exam and and other sort of mini mental status exams. They're pretty good, but they're not really sensitive to someone who's already high functioning. They're not really good at finding early stages of dementia. If the president's worried about it, would you recommend more sophisticated exams?
Speaker 1: Could could you give us
Speaker 12: a sense of how
Speaker 0: involved the first family is? First lady, his daughter, others in encouraging him to be step up
Speaker 1: on
Speaker 13: the exercise.
reSee.it AI Summary
This video highlights the stark contrast in media questioning during Trump's annual physicals compared to Biden's presidency. It shows how the same journalists who grilled Trump seemed uninterested in Biden's health, contributing to what I see as a significant coverup.
@mazemoore - MAZE
This video is such an indictment of our media. These are just some of the questions asked during one press conference after one of the Trump's annual physicals during his first term. Listen to some of these questions. Fast forward to Biden's Presidency and for almost four years these same people had no interest in asking questions about the President's health. Instead they participated in one of the biggest coverups in American history.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The press questioned the president's physician about the president's health, diet (including McDonald's and Diet Coke consumption), and exercise habits. They inquired about specific cognitive tests administered, if any, and whether the tests could exclude conditions like Alzheimer's, referencing concerns about overlooking similar issues with President Reagan.
Reporters asked about the president's life expectancy, prostate health (and potential finasteride use), weight, waist measurement, sleep habits, and potential germaphobia. They also questioned whether the physician's positive health assessment would hold if the president didn't change his diet or exercise habits.
The press further inquired about future cognitive tests, hepatitis C screening, the president's diet at the White House, sleep aids, and whether anyone was monitoring the president's emotional or psychiatric state. They asked if the president requested the statement about his good health for the duration of his term and how involved the First Family is in encouraging him to exercise. Finally, they questioned the sensitivity of the cognitive exams used and whether more sophisticated tests would be recommended if the president was worried about cognitive decline.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Explain to
Speaker 1: me how a guy who eats McDonald's and fried chicks and all those diet Cokes and who never exercises is in as good a shape as you say he's in.
Speaker 2: You mentioned that you gave the president a cognitive test. Was that
Speaker 3: the mini mental state examination or the full suit test?
Speaker 2: Or if not, can you tell us what specific cognitive test?
Speaker 4: Do you have a life expectancy range for him based on his results? Number two,
Speaker 5: what exactly does the exercise and eating plan look like? Is it you're gonna
Speaker 4: put an elliptical machine next to the the bedroom, and he's gonna use it? What does that look like? And then also, number three, did you see any evidence of bone spurs, which the president said he suffered from?
Speaker 6: There isn't anything that's a part of the president's health records or, his overall, physical fitness or any medications that he's taking that you're not permitted to tell us. Is there anything you're keeping from us for privacy reasons?
Speaker 7: Can you say, given that there's scrutiny of what was overlooked at the time with president Reagan in terms of Alzheimer's and things he was then known to suffer from at a later date, can you say that whether the test that you ran would exclude any of those things and what the possibility of overlooking something like that would be?
Speaker 1: Are you are you confident of his prostate health? You, recited a very low PSA. You're certain that's not a product of finasteride masking?
Speaker 4: A waist measurement for the president. His weight, I think he said two thirty nine. Right? That's it seems I think that's just shy of obesity.
Speaker 8: In continuing his physicals in the future, will you also continue the cognitive test?
Speaker 7: It's recommended that most baby boomers get screened for hepatitis c. Did you do a hep c test or has he had one previously?
Speaker 9: You talked a little bit about his diet here at the White House. Can you
Speaker 10: flesh that out a little bit? What specifically is
Speaker 9: he eating? Is he eating lots of chicken and fishes and white meat? And also, is does he take any sleep aids?
Speaker 4: Do see whether your prediction
Speaker 11: of of good health and
Speaker 4: no serious events for years to come
Speaker 11: still holds if the president does not make changes to his diet and start
Speaker 4: to exercise? Is that still your professional medical opinion? And then also, can you just tell us how long examination the was sort of start to finish, how many people were involved?
Speaker 0: Was there anything that the president or anyone else specifically said for you not to mention today? Some of the president's friends have have told reporters in the past they think he's a germaphobe, that he washes his hands obsessively and is concerned about that. Did you have you seen any indication, of that type of behavior with How do characterize the president's health to an average 71 year old American male? He has evidence of heart disease, and he's borderline obese. Can you characterize that as excellent health?
Speaker 12: Does the president when
Speaker 13: the president has colonoscopy at the next physical, will he be sedated?
Speaker 0: There's been a lot of speculation out out there about his cognitive state.
Speaker 8: Did he express any change, in how stressful this job or or lack of stress that he has experienced as a result of becoming president. Could you take us through some specific exercises, that you and the president are considering?
Speaker 4: The the seated sort of aspect of television watching versus the active lifestyle part of it.
Speaker 12: All the doctors and clinicians all across the country who have said that in this president, they see symptoms of this, that, and the other.
Speaker 4: You said you're you're not sure how much sleep you get tonight, you assume it's between four to five hours. Does that concern you?
Speaker 13: So and does this president ask you about how he could follow his predecessor's example to be as fit as Barack Obama was? Doesn't take any medications that you haven't disclosed here today. Give us an idea of exactly what that cognitive exam involved over that half hour, and does that conclusively rule out any further psychological exam?
Speaker 14: There are other questions that have been asked today about the president's emotional health. Is there anyone on the president's medical team, such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, whose job it is to monitor the president's emotional state or watch for potential psychiatric problems or indicators of those?
Speaker 12: We expect the president to be in good health for the next for the duration of his term or even a second term if he gets it. Was there a specific request from the president to make that statement or from anyone in the administration of the or or anyone in
Speaker 13: the White House?
Speaker 0: Just one more question about the the Montreal exam and and other sort of mini mental status exams. They're pretty good, but they're not really sensitive to someone who's already high functioning. They're not really good at finding early stages of dementia. If the president's worried about it, would you recommend more sophisticated exams?
Speaker 1: Could could you give us
Speaker 0: a sense of how
Speaker 12: involved the first family is? First lady, his daughter, others in encouraging him to be step up
Speaker 1: on
Speaker 13: the exercise.
@mazemoore - MAZE
In 2019 Jasmine Crockett claimed that being the victim of a hate crime led to her becoming a lawyer. Now that she wants to run for President, she updated to a new fake story of why she became a lawyer. It’s all BS. She’s a delusional fraud.https://t.co/XRrbxqtKAo
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker initially chose accounting for their aptitude with numbers and potential salary. However, during their junior year, they and a group of friends were victims of hate crimes, including keyed cars and hate mail. The school hired the Cochran firm, and the speaker felt helpless, inspiring a desire to help others facing similar experiences, leading to the decision to take the LSAT.
While in college, the speaker participated in Little Shop of Horrors and was recruited for mock trial. Initially hesitant, believing it was for future law students, the speaker joined mock trial during their senior year, became a national All-American, and was encouraged to attend law school. They applied, received a full ride, and decided to attend law school with the option to quit if they disliked it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I had a great background as it relates to my ability to deal with numbers, and it was gonna pay well. So I was like, I'll be an accountant. Unfortunately, around my junior year, I was the victim of a hate crime or two. And so were a group of my friends, all at the same time. Cars were keyed with the n word, We received hate mail in our on campus mailboxes.
And at that time, my school hired the Cochran firm. And there was a lawyer who graduated from University of Houston who was assigned to me, and it was the first time in my life that I felt helpless. And I was like, I wanna help people that are going through what I've just experienced. And at that point in time, I decided that I was going to sit for the LSAT. I did Little Shop of Horrors.
So when I was in college at Rhodes in Memphis Uh-huh. I ended up doing Little Shop of Horrors. What part did you play in that? I was one of the women that was singing. Okay.
Yes. I was in the chorus. Okay. And so I ended up doing it, and the mock trial coach recruited me to do mock trial. And, I was like, no no no.
By this time, I decided I was going to be an accountant. Didn't want to do anesthesia no more. Still didn't want to talk to people. Uh-huh. So so then he goes, no no no, you should do mock trial.
And I said, that's for the kids going to law school. Long story short, he recruits me. I do mock trial just my senior year. I become a national all american. He says, you should go to law school.
So I applied, got a full ride, and said, fine, if I don't like it, I'll quit.
reSee.it AI Summary
This clip highlights the extent of the Russia hoax, suggesting that James Clapper should face prison for his long-standing lies to the American public. In 2018, Robert Mueller indicted Russian nationals for election interference, with some allegations seeming absurd, like pretending to be Americans online. The mainstream media treated these indictments as proof of Russian attacks, despite the lack of evidence or trials. Clapper's claims about these indictments and his intelligence assessment from January 6, 2017, are now questioned, as the seriousness of the alleged threats appears exaggerated. Anderson Cooper is also mentioned for his supportive role.
@mazemoore - MAZE
This clip shows how far they were willing to go with the Russia hoax. Really evil stuff. James Clapper deserves to be in prison. He has been lying to the American people for a really long time. In 2018 Robert Mueller (the guy who obviously had no clue what was happening during the hearings) indicted some Russian nationals for "interfering" in the election. Some of the allegations were funny. "Pretending to be an American online" to help Trump and hurt Hillary. The MSM considered these indictments proof that Russia attacked us. They still do. It didn't matter that none of the people could or would face trial. We don't even know if these people actually exist. In fact Mueller indicted one consulting company and the charges were dropped by the DOJ when the company wanted to do the discovery process. James Clapper claimed that the indictments confirmed his January 6th, 2017 intelligence assessment. We now know that assessment was pretty much a lie, so what were these indictments? Clapper also claimed that he told Trump about these specific threats on January 6th but that couldn't be true because those threats didn't really exist. At least not in the seriousness alleged by Mueller. Of course there's Anderson Cooper, always there to clap along and say what he's told to say.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses a recently released indictment and its implications with Director Clapper. Clapper states the indictment validates the intelligence community's assessment from January 2017, which outlined Russian objectives: sowing discord, undermining faith in the American political system, hurting Hillary Clinton, and helping Donald Trump.
The speaker notes the President has known about this for a year but continues to call it a hoax. Clapper expresses concern over the lack of response to the Russian threat, stating the President is singular and different in this regard, which poses a peril to the country. He says the administration hasn't punished Russia or developed a government-wide defense strategy.
The speaker suggests the President views any discussion about Russia as an attack on his legitimacy, a weakness foreign leaders can exploit. Clapper confirms this arose during the January 6th briefing, leading to attacks on the intelligence community. He notes the President's recent tweet focused on himself rather than the threat to the country and believes more indictments may follow.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening. For more than a year, the president of The United States has claimed the Russia story is a hoax. Now a stunning indictment says it is not, no matter what the president has been saying again and again and again. Director Clapper, I know you read this indictment. Just generally speaking, what what struck you?
Speaker 1: Well, it was a very compelling reinforcement, validation of intelligence community assessment that we published and briefed in president-elect Trump on in in January '17. And it followed exactly the the three the themes that we outlined in that and what the Russian objectives were. To sow doubt, discord, undermine our system, undermine the faith and trust of the American people in our political system. Secondly, do whatever they could to hurt Hillary Clinton. And thirdly, help Donald Trump.
And of course, that as we saw, it kind of evolved over time. And so what you see in the indictment, in my view, is a validation of that.
Speaker 0: Essentially, you're saying you and the other members of the intelligence community briefed the president a year ago on this Right. In the broad strokes of this. So he's known about this for the past year, yet has continued to to call it a hoax, has continued to say it's a a ruse. And according to, I think it was either Washington Post or New York Times, has held a cabinet level meeting about what to do about Russian interference. If this was a past administration, Republican or Democratic, you would think the president immediately upon his justice department laying out these these incredibly serious
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely.
Speaker 0: Informational warfare as the Department of Justice called, would talk about how we're manning the barricades. What what we are going
Speaker 1: to Well, that's what's so disturbing about this is the threat that is the Russians are posing and which they're gonna continue to pose to our our basic system. And the president is singular and different to this is really a peril to the country. And and to me that transcends whether there was collusion or not, all that. That is significant sure if that is proven to be the case. But what's a greater danger to the country is the lack of response to this.
They haven't punished the Russians. We're not we don't have a whole government approach to defending ourselves against fur further such attacks. And the Russians are gonna keep coming at us.
Speaker 0: I I I don't wanna get too personal, but for a president who likes to call himself strong and whose supporters say, well, he's all about strength, he's strong. He has a weakness which is he's not a very good poker player. Any any foreign leader knows that his weakness on this is that any talk about Russia, he views as an attack on his legitimacy. It's a it's a it's a huge glaring weakness It is. That he cannot separate himself from what is needed for the good of the country.
Speaker 1: And this came up when we, the four of us, briefed then president-elect Trump on the January 6. And the way he took this and the way he interprets this is this is questioning the the veracity or validity of his election.
Speaker 0: Did did he to your like, in that meeting I mean, he that's how he took it.
Speaker 1: That came up then. Right. And that that's really what and I think that's what occasioned the attacks on us as Nazis and all that sort of thing for trying to advise him as the oncoming president of a a profound threat to this country. And and he really hasn't changed his tune. Know, his tweet today was about him.
Didn't say anything about, hey, this is a threat to the country. We need to do something about It's whether, you know, there was collusion or not. And I actually, as a result of reading this damning indictment, I I think there may be other shoes to drop there too.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2018. Tucker Carlson has Eric Swalwell on to present evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia. 🤣 Swalwell on evidence of collusion: "When we look back at this in 25 years, we're going to be amazed at how much of it was right in front of us." 🤡 https://t.co/aiQZoSLkb8
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014-2016, Russians hacked the DNC and weaponized social media. In 2015, Felix Sater allegedly approached Michael Cohen about building a Trump Tower in Moscow to get Trump and Putin together and "make our boy president." There were approaches to get Trump and Putin together and to preview hacked emails about Hillary Clinton, including an offer to George Papadopoulos. Trump publicly invited Russia to hack more.
The speaker argues this invitation is part of the evidence, while acknowledging Trump isn't the "smartest guy." The speaker also points to Trump's admission to Lester Holt as obstruction of justice. The speaker states there is enough evidence to continue looking into conspiracy to defraud the US, complicated by obstruction.
Countering claims of Trump being pro-Russia, the speaker notes actions against Russian interests, such as sending Javelin missiles to Ukraine, opening domestic oil production, killing Russians in Syria, and bombing Assad's government. The speaker also cites "consciousness of guilt evidence" like lies about the June 9 meeting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is there actual evidence? Where's the I've followed this pretty carefully. Where's the actual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin?
Speaker 1: So 2014, fifteen, sixteen, Russians hack into our DNC. They weaponized social media. 2015, they make what I think is the first approach that we know. So Felix Sater, Russian American, former business partner with Donald Trump, approaches Donald Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, and says, let's get Donald Trump to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Right.
We can engineer this, get Trump and Putin together, and make our boy president. So that's the first known approach. So the hacking's going on, and you start to see these different approaches, and there's two different types of approaches. There's the approaches to get Trump and Putin together, which is unusual because he's a candidate, and then there's the approaches to preview the hacked emails that the Russians have against Hillary Clinton. So you see that offer made to George Papadopoulos.
What does candidate Trump do? He invites the Russians on a public stage to hack more.
Speaker 0: I mean, I hate to inject common sense into this. What'd you do in broad daylight? To make secret contact with Russia, your handlers back in Moscow, wouldn't you dial him up in the shortwave in the basement? Would you really send a coded message in the middle of a joke at a press conference?
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he's the smartest guy in the world, Tucker. Never accuse him
Speaker 0: That of what that's that's the part of the evidence. Right there.
Speaker 1: It's part of the evidence. An invitation made by the candidate. At a press it's okay. Okay. But He's not as far as
Speaker 0: Television. Okay. So he's both a secret agent for Putin, but he's so dumb that he spills his secrets at a press conference on TV. The latter. You heard the people laughing at the end of what he said.
Right?
Speaker 1: He's broadcasting. He's he's committing, you know, the If he's broad daylight show.
Speaker 0: Why wouldn't he just act through all the many Russian agents?
Speaker 1: So let me let me continue. So at the same time
Speaker 0: But those are fair questions. Right? It's a little confusing.
Speaker 1: Completely fair
Speaker 0: question. So what's the answer?
Speaker 1: But there's no hey.
Speaker 0: Why would he do it in public? Why did
Speaker 1: he admit to Lester Holt obstruction of justice in public? There's no who could be so stupid. They commit the crime in public exception. He did it.
Speaker 0: Has any secret agent ever broadcast a message at a press conference to his handlers ever?
Speaker 1: Has any businessman ever been elected president? Sometimes you're the first person to do it. So Tucker, again, he made the invitation.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Where's the actual proof that something happened after more than a year of this?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm a prosecutor. I don't have subpoena power. Bob Mueller does. All I'm saying
Speaker 0: is You do have a high level security clearance, and you're on the intel committee. So presumably, you'd have more than, like, a clip of him at
Speaker 1: a I'm only giving you the evidence that I've seen in an unclassified manner. So I'm telling you that all of that warrants looking at whether we could prove beyond a reasonable doubt conspiracy to defraud the United Those are the Are we
Speaker 0: working on that? I mean, we've been working Well, lot of for a long time.
Speaker 1: Well, not with the obstruction that we continue to see. The continued undermining, the trying to
Speaker 0: That's it? That's all you got? No. No. Okay.
So what's the part I haven't heard? Tell me. I'm waiting. I'm because I wanna look. If he's
Speaker 1: It's right in front of your nose, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Tell me what
Speaker 1: it is. It's right in front your another press he gave
Speaker 0: with more secret messages or tell me?
Speaker 1: I've I've again, Tucker, when we look back on this in twenty five years, we're gonna be amazed at how much of it was right in front of
Speaker 0: So we spent Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian rebels. We've opened up domestic oil production here, hurts them and gas production. We have killed over 200 Russians in Syria. We have bombed the government of Bashar al Assad, which is their closest ally outside their borders. In what sense has he been pro Russia as president?
And I say this with sadness because I don't think he should be doing any of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, all all the favorable things that he says, bringing Russians into the Oval Office, kicking out
Speaker 0: 200 Russians. He's been He sent the US military
Speaker 1: I don't think you're giving him too much credit.
Speaker 0: I don't know. He's in look. I'm not flacking for Trump. He's I don't think he should have done it. I criticized
Speaker 1: the show. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 0: I'm just telling you. He's Yeah. Killed 200 Russians. Obama did not do that. He sent missiles to Ukrainian rebels.
Obama did not do that. He is competing in energy with them in a way Obama never tried. Why is he more pro Russian than Obama was? Don't confuse what he has
Speaker 1: to do because the public sentiment is so high and watchful. Again, you give him too much credit. You're giving him too much credit.
Speaker 0: I'm giving him credit. I'm criticizing him. I don't think he should be doing any of it. I'm just saying this whole thing is insane. That's what I'm saying.
So
Speaker 1: And then you have all the consciousness of consciousness of guilt evidence. Right? All of the lies that have have been told, whether it's about the June 9 meeting, the Russian adoption excuse and then moving it
Speaker 0: Right, okay.
Speaker 1: What it was really about.
Speaker 0: Right, okay.
Speaker 1: But, so that's that's conscious of guilt. A lot of times the way someone acts after an investigation is launched can tell you what they were doing.
Speaker 0: I guess. I'm not You know what? I'm not convoyant.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's how I'm on the with a conclusion. There's more than enough evidence to continue.
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2021, I observed CNN targeting a doctor for "misinformation" during the pandemic, despite featuring others who spread real misinformation themselves. The accusations against Dr. Mercola included claims that masks might not work, vaccines could be dangerous, and that Vitamin C and D could help with Covid. CNN hosted experts asserting vaccines prevented transmission while promoting extreme measures like staying indoors and continuous vaccinations. This behavior seemed far from normal and not in the public's best interest. I also view the Center for Countering Digital Hate as a harmful entity.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2021. CNN literally hunts down a doctor for spreading "misinformation" during the pandemic. Meanwhile CNN had plenty of people on the network who were spreading real misinformation during the pandemic. We should not forget how absolutely insane this all was. I've never heard Dr. Mercola speak, but here's the "misinformation" CNN accused him of spreading: ▪️Masks may not work ▪️Vaccines could be dangerous ▪️Vitamin C and D can prevent or treat Covid They wanted to destroy this man for saying those things. Yet CNN continually had on experts who claimed that the vaccine prevented transmission and infection. They had "doctors" on who told us to sit in our house and not go outside during the pandemic and just keep getting vaccine shot after shot. Nothing about this was normal or for the good of the people. Also, the Center for Countering Digital Hate is pretty much a terrorist organization.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Dr. Joseph Mercola is identified as a major spreader of COVID-19 misinformation. The Center for Countering Digital Hate claims Mercola was a source for 65% of anti-vaccine messaging on Facebook and Twitter between February and mid-March. CNN attempted to question Mercola about claims he's made, such as masks may not work, vaccines could be dangerous, and vitamins C and D can prevent or treat the coronavirus.
CNN tried to confront Mercola at his office in Cape Coral, Florida, and later at his home in Ormond Beach, Florida. Mercola did not respond to questions in person. After being emailed, Mercola responded that he encourages people to fully educate themselves to make individual decisions about medical risk taking. Mercola challenged the suggestion that he belongs on a disinformation list. He also stated that over 400,000 adverse events and 6,000 deaths from the COVID-19 vaccines have been filed, a majority of which were filed by medical professionals. The FDA has not established a causal link to these deaths.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Biden administration has come down hard on vaccine misinformation, but one Florida doctor has seemingly gone to great lengths to perpetuate it. Three sixty's Randy Kaye now with the story, the hunt to find him, and the reasons behind his actions.
Speaker 1: He is the ultimate super spreader, not of the coronavirus, experts say, but of misinformation about COVID nineteen. His name is doctor Joseph Mercola.
Speaker 2: It is very likely that most people in America, if not, you know, the vast majority of people in America, have seen misinformation that has originated with this super spreader of lies and misinformation.
Speaker 1: That's exactly why the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit tracking misinformation about COVID online, put doctor Mercola, an osteopathic physician, at the top of its disinformation dozen. A list of 12 people, the group says, were the source for sharing 65% of all anti vaccine messaging on Facebook and Twitter from February 1 through mid March. We try to track down doctor Mercola to ask him about the misinformation he's been posting, Like masks may not work, vaccines could be dangerous, and vitamins c and d can prevent or treat the coronavirus. We first tried to find him at his office in Cape Coral, Florida, outside Fort Myers. So I'm looking for doctor Joseph Mercola.
Speaker 3: Not here. Not here.
Speaker 1: Next stop, more than 220 miles away, Ormond Beach, Florida, which doctor Mercola calls home. We found his house behind a large gate and tried making contact through the security access pad. Later, we spotted Joseph Mercola riding his bicycle. Once he stopped, we thought this was our opening to get some answers as to why he's pushing false claims about masks and the vaccine.
Speaker 3: How are you? I'm Randy Kaye with CNN. Can we ask you a couple questions? We just wanna talk to you about vaccines and what you've been saying about them. Do you feel responsible for people who didn't get vaccinated, possibly got sick and died because of what you told them about the vaccines?
Speaker 1: So despite all his bravado online, Mercola suddenly had nothing to say. Though after we emailed him questions, he responded saying, I encourage every person to fully educate themselves to make individual decisions about medical risk taking. Throughout the pandemic, he's been quite outspoken.
Speaker 0: I wanted to go back to the reason why the mask may not work.
Speaker 1: In his email to us, Mercola challenged any suggestion that he belongs on a disinformation list. Still, by fueling the narrative that vaccines are dangerous, who knows how many of his followers chose to skip the vaccine. What Merkola hasn't made clear to his followers is that according to the CDC, the vaccines are safe and effective. Though he told us via email that over four hundred thousand adverse events and six thousand deaths from the COVID nineteen vaccines have been filed, a majority of which were filed by medical professionals. To be clear, the FDA has not established a causal link to these deaths.
@mazemoore - MAZE
The Big Lie. Russian election interference. Russia collusion. Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russian fake. Russian bounties hoax. All part of one big lie. https://t.co/9Xsqft4HWz
@mazemoore - MAZE
September 29, 2020. Trump is asked during his debate with Biden if he will commit to a free transition. Trump's answer was called a conspiracy theory by the MSM. Not only was his answer accurate, it may have been the reason that his house was raided after he left office. https://t.co/pIl2m9zNGG
reSee.it AI Summary
This is a must-watch reminder of the true nature of these individuals. In 2018, after his firing, James Comey appeared on ABC News, attempting to tarnish President Trump's reputation while knowing the allegations about Russian interference and the Steele dossier were unfounded.
@mazemoore - MAZE
This is a must watch. Let this serve as a reminder of how evil these people really are. 2018. After being fired, James Comey goes on ABC News and does his absolute best to smear President Trump. Keep in mind that Comey knew it was all a hoax. Russian election interference, the Steele dossier...Comey knew it was all BS. Comey: "I don't know whether the current President of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It's possible."
@mazemoore - MAZE
This clip from last year is hysterical. Once Joy Reid realized that Trump had a good chance of winning the election, she went full retard. Reid did an entire show on how the Russians had been grooming Trump to be a Russia agent since 1977. 🤣https://t.co/hMK95FpHyV
@mazemoore - MAZE
Tyranny and oppression can come quickly. We should not forget what happened just a couple years ago.https://t.co/yYC28BiXqh
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following President Trump's tweet to not be afraid of COVID, speakers expressed that everyone should be afraid of COVID and that it is okay if it dominates your life. They emphasized listening to scientists and acknowledged truth to be free of the pandemic. Questioning science was seen as prolonging economic issues.
Not wearing a mask was equated with being a threat, selfish, a COVID denier, and unvaccinated. Some speakers advocated for trusting science, experts, and vaccines, while cautioning against "doing your own research," which was linked to QAnon.
The speakers urged listening to Bill Gates and medical experts, not non-medical professionals. They warned of the consequences of ignoring science and promoted vaccination for hugging grandchildren. The message was to trust and listen to scientists because science works.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Trump wrote on Twitter, don't be afraid of COVID. Don't let it dominate your life.
Speaker 1: Don't let it dominate your life? In terms of responding to to a comment like that, it's gross.
Speaker 0: It's okay to be afraid of COVID, and it's okay that that it's dominating your life.
Speaker 1: Everyone should be afraid of COVID.
Speaker 2: Ching, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
Speaker 3: I can't come in, mom. It it's there it's because of this flu thing.
Speaker 2: We won't be free of this pandemic until we listen to the acknowledged truth. Listen to the scientists.
Speaker 1: Science is truth. You know, science is truth. What is the impact to public health when people are openly questioning the science? Now is the time to do what you're told. By not hearing the truth, by not listening to the scientists, they are prolonging how bad the economy will be.
Speaker 4: But when I see somebody out in the world who's not wearing a mask, I instantly think you are a threat, or you are selfish, or you are a COVID denier, and you definitely haven't been vaccinated.
Speaker 5: You don't wear a mask? Don't go out.
Speaker 3: What does that Are you vaccinated?
Speaker 5: I am triple vaccinated.
Speaker 3: So why are you wearing the mask? Seek out the scientists and listen to their advice.
Speaker 1: Listen to scientists. Listen to the scientists.
Speaker 3: Trust the experts.
Speaker 1: We're gonna trust science. We're gonna trust the experts. Parents who say, well, I need to do my own research. Makes you think of that cartoon I saw of the tombstone that said I did my own research. Republicans are giving their voters license to believe whatever they want to believe.
Speaker 3: Heard somebody saying, listen to the scientists. Do that.
Speaker 6: Let's listen to the scientists.
Speaker 1: That phrase, do your own research, it's popping up a lot in conversations about coronavirus and about COVID vaccines. Doing your own research, it seems so innocent, but it can have serious consequences. Renee, what are the roots of this phrase? I feel like I used to hear it around Q Anon craziness. Come on.
Speaker 5: Taste somebody over a mask. Taste this lady over not wearing a damn mask.
Speaker 1: If some jerk exposed my mother to COVID because they didn't wanna wear a mask, I would want to kill them.
Speaker 3: We can watch the experts, but we shouldn't be listening to Trump, a nonmedical professional.
Speaker 1: Well, the answer is listen to Bill Gates. Bill's right around about a lot of things, and he's a steep learning curve in global health. And we're really seeing just how important it is to to follow science.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Exactly. And we need to listen to scientists.
Speaker 1: The idea that people are questioning the science behind the vaccine.
Speaker 3: The science checks out. Even if you don't believe in the science, you think you're tough enough and you're healthy enough and you're young enough, the scientists were right all along. Eventually, the science catches up with you. Are we doing more harm than good by questioning the science behind J and J?
Speaker 1: Trust that vaccine. Trust the experts. Listen to the medical experts. Trust the experts. If you don't understand the science, you don't know what you're fighting.
Just let the experts speak. So maybe you should just shut up right now. You don't wanna take advice from your golf buddy or from your aunt. You wanna listen to the scientists. And we all stop saying, I need to do my own research.
Speaker 3: You see the ultimate effects of what happens when you don't listen to the scientists.
Speaker 6: This isn't about being scared. This is about scaring us straight.
Speaker 3: Science, science, and science. Only listen to the scientist.
Speaker 6: If we follow science, imagine, instead of staying locked up in their rooms, they're able to hug their grandchildren. This isn't about freedom. It's about freedom for your your neighbors.
Speaker 0: You can give each other a hug as long as everyone is fully vaccinated.
Speaker 3: Listen to the scientists like the rest of us. We have to listen to the scientists. We'll listen to the scientists. Every scientist, every expert, listen to the experts.
Speaker 1: It's it's listen to the science because the science works.
Speaker 3: Very much.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think trust science.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The unvaccinated are blamed for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with some suggesting they should be shamed, blamed, and held responsible for the spread. Some claim the unvaccinated are a threat, untrustworthy, and acting without honor, while the vaccinated are being punished for their actions.
Some suggest that patience is wearing thin, and the unvaccinated, including children and those acting like them, are making others angry. Some argue that it's not about freedom or personal choice, but about the greater good of society.
Possible consequences for remaining unvaccinated are discussed, including paying the price, being taxed, and paying more for healthcare. Some suggest that the choice to remain unvaccinated should be viewed similarly to driving while intoxicated.
If hospitals become overwhelmed, some suggest prioritizing vaccinated individuals for ICU beds over the unvaccinated. It is claimed that every COVID death could have been prevented, and the only people dying are the unvaccinated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When the chips are down, these, these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
Speaker 1: You are the unvaccinated. You are the problem. It is the unvaccinated who are the problem, period. End of story.
Speaker 2: The only people that you can blame. The only people you can blame. This isn't shaming. This is the truth. Maybe they should be shamed.
Are the unvaccinated.
Speaker 3: It's time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.
Speaker 2: Anyone you came into contact with will blame you, as will the rest of us who have done the right thing by getting vaccinated.
Speaker 4: Because frankly, we know that we can't trust the unvaccinated.
Speaker 5: I think it's time to get our moral house in order, Anderson. It's the unvaccinated who are the threat.
Speaker 1: All these vaccinated folks are gonna start wearing masks to protect the unvaccinated folks. It's called a Christian value. They're basically punishing the vaccinated for the the sins of the unvaccinated.
Speaker 4: People are not behaving honorably. The unvaccinated are basically saying, well, it's open season for me. I can do whatever I want as well.
Speaker 5: The the unvaccinated unvaccinated are basically beating their breasts running around the country saying, we don't care. We're living free and so forth.
Speaker 6: We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.
Speaker 7: The unvaccinated, a group that includes children and people acting like children. And the rest of us are starting to get pissed off.
Speaker 0: The vaccinated feel the unvaccinated are making me upset or angry.
Speaker 6: This is not about freedom or personal choice.
Speaker 0: Well, my freedom is being kind of disturbed here. No. Screw your freedom.
Speaker 1: The other day, Howard Stern weighed in with a much different approach. Take a look.
Speaker 8: When are we gonna stop putting up with the idiots in this country and just say, you now, it's mandatory to get vaccinated? Their freedom.
Speaker 0: But you're treading on our freedom, and you're making other people sick. And, really, you're killing other people. The anti vaxxers, they seem to have a thing for death and home remedies.
Speaker 7: The anti maskers turned anti vaxxers are not just putting their own lives at risk. If that was
Speaker 0: the issue, we could just say that we can watch them compete to win places show in the Darwin Awards. We have to start doing things for the greater good of society and not for idiots who think that they can do their own research.
Speaker 2: And don't get me started on the lunatics who won't take any of the COVID vaccines.
Speaker 3: Life is too short to be an ass. Life is way too short to be ignorant of the promise of something that is helping people worldwide.
Speaker 9: Maybe you're doing it because you're you're disconnected or disorganized. Maybe you have some sympathetic psychological reasons. But maybe you're just being antisocial.
Speaker 2: Oh, you can't shame them. You can't call them stupid. You can't call them silly again. Yes. They are.
Speaker 6: Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price.
Speaker 8: The unvaccinated should be taxed. They should pay more for health care.
Speaker 4: We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated.
Speaker 8: We're gonna see, and I've said, almost Mhmm. Two types of America.
Speaker 10: Doctor Fauci said that if hospitals get any more overpowder, they're gonna have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed. I know that choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack, yes. Come right on in. We'll take care of you.
Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo, rest in peace, Weasy.
Speaker 1: Pointing back to the unvaccinated who are really creating a problem in this country, Every death that we are seeing from COVID could have been prevented.
Speaker 8: Literally, the only people dying are the unvaccinated. And for those of you spreading misinformation, shame on you. Shame on you. I don't know how some of you sleep at night.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Conspiracy theorists were right.https://t.co/78KI7ntFLm
Video Transcript AI Summary
Conspiracy theories arise during public health crises and are distractions. A video alleging masks don't work was removed from social media for spreading misinformation. A study found mask mandates were an utter failure, according to the New York Times, citing a British review of 78 randomized studies. Lockdowns' effect on mortality was basically irrelevant, according to economists from Johns Hopkins, who warned against their future use.
There is absolutely no evidence of an overcount of COVID fatalities, but the LA County health director acknowledged the county may be overcounting COVID deaths by as much as twenty percent. COVID can be a contributing or incidental cause of death.
Initially, Dr. Fauci rejected the theory that coronavirus was man-made in a lab in Wuhan, China, but an intelligence arm of the US Energy Department has joined the FBI in concluding that COVID began with a lab leak in China. The Wuhan Institute of Virology worked on coronaviruses, which some find to be a large coincidence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You will always have conspiracy theories when you have, very challenging public health crises. They are nothing but distractions.
Speaker 1: President retweeting a conspiracy video alleging that masks do not work. The video was then removed by Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube because it violated rules against spreading misinformation.
Speaker 2: The second most powerful man in the world revealing himself in this video as a mask truther.
Speaker 3: A major study finding masks made no difference in stopping the spread. Mask mandates, it turns out, were an utter failure. It's not me saying it, but the New York Times. The mask mandates did nothing. Will any lessons be learned?
Brett Stevens cites a comprehensive British review of 78 randomized studies with more than 600,000 participants.
Speaker 4: So that wasn't scientifically fair. Effective. The the mass guidance was
Speaker 5: not It wasn't science based, and the six feet of distancing has was arbitrary.
Speaker 4: All around the country, over the weekend, protests popped up. These morons and Internet conspiracy theories demanding an immediate end to lockdowns. And let's be honest, people. This is both insane and counter productive. Because the more you gather in groups, the longer the lockdown will have to go on.
Did lockdowns during COVID prevent severe effects from COVID nineteen? Did it help in the arc of the pandemic? Economists from Johns Hopkins say no. The report warned against using lockdowns as a pandemic measure in the future because of the low effectiveness on mortality and the consequences for the economy.
Speaker 6: The the lockdowns in terms of their effects on mortality, we measured it against mortality, were were basically irrelevant. They destroyed people. They literally killed people. When you shut down medical care, in spring of twenty twenty alone, there were six hundred and fifty thousand cancer chemotherapy patients in this country alone. Half of them didn't get their chemo because they were afraid.
They were told it was dangerous to go to a medical facility.
Speaker 7: We weighed in on a theory that's been floating around that perhaps the number of fatalities related COVID nineteen is being inflated because people are actually dying of other things. Can what's your read on that theory?
Speaker 0: You know, Savannah, there is absolutely no evidence that that's the case at all. You know, it it I think it falls under the category of something that's very unfortunate, these conspiracy theories that we hear about.
Speaker 8: Even though wackos, Trump wackos are are are doing conspiracy theories saying those numbers are padded.
Speaker 0: What should we say to people who conspiracy theorize about an overcount of the deaths?
Speaker 2: Follow-up now to my conversation with LA County health director Barbara Ferrer who last week acknowledged the county may be overcounting COVID deaths by as much as twenty percent.
Speaker 9: Could it be a secondary contributing cause? So for example, somebody with kidney disease, COVID then pushes them over the edge to have kidney failure. That's COVID as a contributing cause. And then the third is COVID as an incidental finding. So somebody coming in with a gunshot wound or a heart attack, and they happen to test positive.
Speaker 4: Now part of the conspiracy theory is that the disease started in a laboratory in Wuhan.
Speaker 10: Just weeks ago, doctor Anthony Fauci rejected the conspiracy that coronavirus was man made in a lab in Wuhan, China. And yet this week, Donald Trump is still pushing the debunked bunkum.
Speaker 4: A lot of people on the right love that phrase escape from
Speaker 6: the lab because it sounds like something from Marvel movie or comic book.
Speaker 11: Everyone who believes in the conspiracy is saying that it came out of a lab in Wuhan Wuhan rather than, through food at a market.
Speaker 12: And, he continued to push a conspiracy theory that has already been debunked by our intelligence community. This whole notion that the coronavirus was developed in a Chinese lab. That has been debunked.
Speaker 13: There's a report today that another intelligence arm of the US government, this is inside our energy department, has joined the FBI in concluding that COVID began with a lab leak in China.
Speaker 12: Is that I don't know who to trust. Yeah. Right? I certainly don't trust reporters Mhmm. Because reporters treated this initially as if it was nothing more than a crazy unhinged conspiracy theory.
Speaker 14: Yeah.
Speaker 12: So who do you trust? Right? You can't trust the legacy media outlets because that was their narrative.
Speaker 11: It came out of the city that has a Wuhan Institute of Virology,
Speaker 8: a Chinese lab that worked on coronaviruses. And that
Speaker 15: is an awfully large coincidence. And and that's what I've thought
Speaker 14: throughout that that was an awfully large coincidence.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Fauci was wrong or lying about everything.https://t.co/pHg5XsLB5z
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes criticism of them is an attack on science. They stated vaccinated people don't need to worry about serious illness or transmission, but later acknowledged fully vaccinated people can transmit the infection.
Masks were described as working "at the margins, maybe ten percent." School closures were considered an appropriate approach initially, but remote learning may have "forever damaged" kids, though the speaker doesn't believe it's "irreparably damaged anyone."
The speaker claims they didn't recommend lockdowns, but recommended shutting the country down to the president, knowing it would have serious economic consequences.
The speaker suggests the virus originated from the animal-human interface in wet markets, but that the place of origin was not within the market itself. Another intelligence arm concluded COVID began with a lab leak in China. The speaker denies the NIH funded gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute, while others claim NIH funded research that made a bat coronavirus more contagious. The speaker denies that this is gain of function.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
Speaker 1: If you're vaccinated, you really don't need to worry about getting it in a way that's serious or transmitting.
Speaker 0: That is true. That is correct, Chris. It'll lead to protect you completely against infection, and the chances are very likely that you'll not be able to transmit it to other people. The risk is extremely low of transmitting it to anybody else. Full stock vaccinated people are clearly capable of transmitting the infection.
When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better. If people are not wearing masks, then maybe we should be mandating it. I often myself wear two masks.
Speaker 2: And I'm quoting you now. At the population level, masks work at the margins maybe ten percent. To hear that they only work at the margins maybe ten percent would make a lot of people ask, okay. Then why was I wearing a mask?
Speaker 0: You're really attacking not only doctor Anthony Fauci, you're attacking science when you say that this is gonna go away tomorrow like magic when you know that there's no chance it's gonna just disappear. We hope this just goes away, burns itself out.
Speaker 3: So my question is why weren't you straight with the American people about this to begin with?
Speaker 0: So the bottom line is it's a guesstimate. I gave a range.
Speaker 3: It seemed in that quote to suggest that you were basing your your recommendation on polling and what people could accept. Is that not what you meant?
Speaker 0: No. I mean, it's it's a bit of that.
Speaker 2: We're seeing all of these school closures around the country. Is that the right move for children and families?
Speaker 0: Yeah. No. And I think what's going on right now is is generally an appropriate approach. You wanna start doing something to socially distance yourself. How dramatic that is, closing schools and doing other things should be proportionate.
And it went too far that particularly for kids who who couldn't go to school except remotely, that it's forever damaged them. Well, I don't think it's forever irreparably damaged anyone.
Speaker 4: The US Surgeon General has called it an urgent public health crisis, a devastating decline in the mental health of kids across the country. According to the CDC, the rates of suicide, self harm, anxiety and depression are up among adolescents.
Speaker 0: And the record will show, Neil, that we didn't recommend shutting everything down. First of all, I didn't recommend locking anything down. I recommended to the president that we shut the country down. And that was very difficult decision because I knew it would have serious economic consequence, which it did. Yeah.
Because if you look at the people that are politicizing me, there's somebody that all the way over on one level. But there are a lot of other people who look upon me the way they should as a nonpolitical person that I am. They're not doing it because they say they don't wanna do it. They're Republicans. They don't like to be told what to do.
Right. And we gotta break that. But now is the time to do what you're told. Where did this virus come from, do you think, today? Did it come from a lab?
Was it man made? When you have the animal human interface and you have animals that come out of the wild that are sold at these open, what they call them, wet market.
Speaker 2: Place of origin was not within the market itself. No. I don't think you could say that.
Speaker 5: There's a report today that another intelligence arm of the US government, this is inside our energy department, has joined the FBI in concluding that COVID began with a lab leak in China.
Speaker 0: That the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute.
Speaker 6: We now know that a bat coronavirus was enhanced in the lab. The National Institutes of Health acknowledged that it funded research of a virus that was studied at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The experiment unexpectedly, we're told, made a bat coronavirus more contagious than the original naturally occurring one.
Speaker 1: Take an animal virus you increase the transibility to humans. Right. You're saying that's not gain of function? Yeah.
Speaker 0: That is correct. And and senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly. And I wanna say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about.
Speaker 1: They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increased their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function?
Speaker 0: It is not. What we're talking about now is the gain of function research in studies that increase predominantly the transmissibility as well as pathogenesis and alteration of host range of the virus. But he's lying here, senator. It is you. I'd have to laugh at that.
I should be prosecuted.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Sanjay Gupta, like Jake Tapper, attempting to rewrite history. He told Gavin Newsom it was a mistake to claim the vaccine protected against infection and transmission, but he insists he wasn't one of those making those claims. I say, let's roll the tape.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Sanjay Gupta, much like his buddy Jake Tapper, is now trying to gaslight us and rewrite history. Gupta just told Gavin Newsom that it was a mistake for people to claim that the vaccine protected against infection and transmission, but that he wasn't one of the people making those claims. Hey Gupta, nice try. Let's roll the tape.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A communication problem arose when it was intimated that vaccines would protect against getting COVID altogether, which wasn't supported by evidence. Vaccines protect against illness in the lower respiratory system, but the virus could still be carried in the upper airway and potentially spread. This led to distrust of mRNA vaccines, as people who got COVID after vaccination questioned the vaccine's effectiveness.
Recent data shows that vaccines work well in preventing illness and infection, and make it unlikely that someone would pass the infection to someone else. The concern was that vaccinated people could be unwitting carriers, but recent data suggests this is very unlikely. Vaccinated people not wearing masks are not doing a disservice to their community. Unvaccinated people could be putting other unvaccinated people at risk. Institutions may require proof of vaccination, which will be a tough call.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What I think was unfortunate, frankly, and this was a communications problem, was that they they seem to also intimate that it would protect you from getting COVID at all from parents. And Yep. There was not great evidence behind that. And, you know, we we we reported as such that, you you don't have great evidence that shows that the when you have a vaccine that's protecting against illness, it's usually protecting in your lower respiratory, in your lungs. So you're not getting that really, really, sort of a deep illness.
But you might still have it in your mucosa, in your in your mouth, in your nose, in your upper airway. So you could potentially still be carrying it and still potentially spread it. That wasn't, I think, a communications error. And I think, frankly, governor, I think it led to a lot of distrust overall of these mRNA vaccines. You said it yeah.
You said I couldn't get COVID if I got this. Well, I got COVID, and I spread it. So what is this? Is this a vaccine or is it not a vaccine? That that was a problem.
What I would say is that the science, I think, has been clear for some time on not only how well these vaccines work as you as you alluded to, but also how well they protect you, how well they work in terms of preventing you from getting sick, but also how well they work in terms of preventing you from becoming infected, and most importantly and most recently, how well they work in terms of making it unlikely you would pass the infection onto someone else. You remember, Jake, you say, well, I'm vaccinated. Why do I continue to wear a mask? Why do I need that? Well, the idea was that maybe you could be an unwitting carrier, a silent carrier of the virus still.
I think the data and I just got off the phone with doctor Walensky. I'll tell you as well. I called her because I still had some questions after these these, announcements. But one of the big things was the data that came out over the past couple of weeks really showing that even if you've been vaccinated, even if you tested positive for the virus after you've been vaccinated, which does happen, rarely, but does happen, the data is now increasingly clear that you'd be very, very unlikely to then transmit the virus to somebody else. You're you're basically seeing two communities emerge, the vaccinated community and the unvaccinated community.
As a vaccinated person, you are wearing a mask because up until recently over the last month, the concern was you could still be an unwitting spreader of the virus. That seems very, very unlikely now based on pretty recent data. But so you're you're you're not doing a disservice to your community by no longer wearing a mask if you are a vaccinated person. The unvaccinated person could be putting other unvaccinated people at risk. That's the truth, and and they're gonna have to figure that out.
Whether institutions are gonna say we want to have some sort of proof of vaccination, who knows? And that's gonna be a tough tough call for a lot of these places to sort of make.
@mazemoore - MAZE
A look back at the left's reaction to Elon Musk buying this site and supporting Trump. If the left gets back in power, they will try to imprison Elon and they will try to take this site down. He shouldn't forget that.https://t.co/0F0U1DkEV9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk is accused of turning X (formerly Twitter) into a "cesspool" or "shithole" of hate speech, extremist incitement, and disinformation, particularly against women. Some claim it's a "far-right political project" spreading Nazi propaganda and conspiracy theories. Musk is described as a joke, dangerously weird, dumb, and crazy, with a thin skin and boundless narcissism.
Concerns are raised about Musk's potential ties to Russia and his role as a pro-Russian propagandist, with comparisons to Putin. Some urge advertisers to withdraw from X and call for congressional action to "clean up his app." The platform's value has reportedly plummeted, engagement is down, and bankruptcy is likely. Some believe Musk destroyed Twitter and that it's in a death spiral, with many users dissatisfied.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Does he know about running a digital advertising business?
Speaker 1: Musk could cast a long shadow for years to come over the company
Speaker 2: for worst personnel
Speaker 1: Musk in a quest to propagate lies. Propaganda.
Speaker 3: Twitter x is just such a cesspool now.
Speaker 0: A cesspool. It's a cesspool of of ugly, vile stuff, particularly against women.
Speaker 4: Twitter right now is a cesspool. I mean, go on there, you send out a tweet, next thing you know, you have the far right white nationalist attacking you. Twitter is a cesspool
Speaker 5: or x, I guess it's called now.
Speaker 6: It is a cesspool. Everything that goes on, it's a circus cesspool.
Speaker 4: Twitter is a cesspit. Pretty toxic stuff.
Speaker 7: Cesspool, just bad information, lies, hate speech.
Speaker 4: Elon Musk has turned x, formerly known as Twitter, into a cesspool of hate speech and extremist incitement.
Speaker 3: It's a shithole. Right? Elon, fuck that shithole. There's better engagement on threads.
Speaker 0: Instagram is a really terrific product, and Twitter is awful. I know sodomy when I see it.
Speaker 2: Because Elon Musk is I mean, he's the worst. Please
Speaker 4: off. Is that why he's often compared to a Bond villain?
Speaker 0: The guy's the guy's a joke. Right? He really is a joke.
Speaker 4: Now Musk is just one of the dangerously weird and extreme
Speaker 0: cranks. Astonished at how dumb Elon Musk is.
Speaker 8: And he is as crazy as he seems on Twitter.
Speaker 0: This dude tripped over his dick and became successful.
Speaker 8: His transgender daughter disowned him.
Speaker 9: Elon being Donald Trump's running mate and jumping around like a on stage.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk is the softest skinned human I see.
Speaker 2: The world's richest freeloader evidently has a very thin skin.
Speaker 10: Elon Musk has come around on who to blame for the absolute destruction of the platform formerly known as Twitter, thanks to his decisions, to blaming the Jews.
Speaker 0: I cannot say that someone like Elon Musk is an intellectual. Obviously, palpably, visibly deranged, snorting ketamine and and tweeting at all hours of the the day and night. Maybe he just wants to be able to verbally abuse his critics with impunity.
Speaker 2: A microphone for his own boundless narcissism?
Speaker 6: Definition of narcissism?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Elon Musk's picture. I think that might be the problem.
Speaker 4: Of him sort of believing his own hype.
Speaker 11: Stop making it about Elon Musk and make it about Twitter.
Speaker 0: Elon, that you killed the company isn't the most responsible thing here to just shut the whole thing down. Twitter is not a bit better business today. In fact, it's a it's a worse business.
Speaker 12: Twitter is really in an ever quickening death spiral. They're going to have a hard time just keeping the lights on over at Twitter given this mass exodus.
Speaker 1: This were what is the end or was the end of Twitter.
Speaker 0: Twitter may have 300 plus million people, but those are 300 plus million people who are dissatisfied.
Speaker 1: Petsuate misinformation and disinformation potentially terrifying.
Speaker 9: He doesn't find this stuff. He's at the end of a conveyor belt of spreading these kinds of lies that justify violence. That's the point of this, to condone, minimize, and and and, put contextualize violence so it can be used as a normal tool of politics.
Speaker 12: Should be working to clean it up, not really contaminating it himself.
Speaker 0: Elon Musk, who wants to give Ukraine Yeah. To Russia and Taiwan to China and will now be the arbiter of free speech on Twitter.
Speaker 4: I mean, speech, absolutist nonsense. To read
Speaker 13: a pamphlet on the first amendment, or we need to send them one of those pocket constitutions to explain what the first amendment is.
Speaker 11: Obviously, x and Twitter will not, will welcome that propaganda because it does it on a daily basis. But it'll be interesting to see if the other companies that are run by adults the other companies that are run by adults
Speaker 7: $44,000,000,000 if just to ruin the platform.
Speaker 0: 44,000,000,000? I went and paid $44. Go invent things and get out of the gutter.
Speaker 7: Politicians and journalists aren't on it. Like, what's the use of it?
Speaker 14: I have more plans tonight for what I'm gonna do, like, for my kid's dinner than he did when he walked into a $44,000,000,000 company.
Speaker 4: Bought Twitter for $44,000,000,000 and just destroyed more than half its value in past two years while turning it into a clearinghouse for far right disinformation conspiracy theory. Burning the business to the ground has much lower engagement than before. Likely Likely
Speaker 0: to go bankrupt. Elon Musk destroyed Twitter.
Speaker 8: Twitter is down 80% since he bought it. Why should failed businessmen run the government?
Speaker 14: Elon Musk's millions and his conspiracy theory falsehoods.
Speaker 7: Twitter has a yellow journalism problem. It is a home for people to spread disinformation, racial epithets, lots of nasty stuff.
Speaker 5: Twitter or X has transformed into a place where where disinformation is spread. It's a source for evil and misinformation. Elon Musk himself abusing.
Speaker 2: Forms of abuse by Elon Musk himself.
Speaker 4: He's created a propaganda arm in Twitter, and then he's consuming it.
Speaker 0: Into this hellscape of hate
Speaker 4: and antisemitism. Wealthiest man in the world is spreading conspiracy theories that are somewhat, at a minimum, a bit homophobic.
Speaker 0: Bought Twitter, turned it into x, and made it into this echo chamber that now is extremely useful to the right.
Speaker 1: Be using it to sow the seeds of distrust, to generate misinformation and very dangerous disinformation.
Speaker 4: I've seen straight up Nazi propaganda with 60,000 likes. I've seen him interacting with the most vile racist.
Speaker 0: Elon Musk, I have argued in the Atlantic, is a far right activist at this point. X has become a far right political project.
Speaker 1: Elon Musk and the hate speech has just really affected our society, put a lot of people frankly in harm. And Elon Musk's misinformation machine, which is Twitter, has a huge impact on the psyche.
Speaker 13: Twitter's making people dumb and hateful.
Speaker 1: Talk about Elon Musk and Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 8: Is he on team Russia, or is he on team USA?
Speaker 1: His loyalties changed right around the time he started communicating with the Kremlin.
Speaker 12: He is a pawn of Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 15: Elon is without doubt the most important pro Russian propagandist in American politics today. Elon has been pumping out this unbelievably rancid pro Russian propaganda for the last six months, nine months, twelve months without any kind of penalty.
Speaker 1: Putin's type, Elon Musk.
Speaker 15: Putin has a type. He likes narcissists and egomaniacs, and he's been using the richest man in the world to do his bidding.
Speaker 0: I encourage, in fact,
Speaker 4: I urge advertisers like IBM, which has done so, to withdraw from x.
Speaker 13: What does congress wanna do about it?
Speaker 0: We'll be taking action
Speaker 4: with colleagues this week to clean up his app.
Speaker 6: The unfortunate demise of Twitter, of eggs, whatever you wanna call it. Yeah. It's just straight on disinformation. I deleted it from my phone.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Hey Dana, Scott is 100% correct. If you were a real journalist you would be asking Democrats why they have abandoned all the principles they held 15 years ago. Roll the tape.https://t.co/lAVbBGdiVb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Robert Kennedy said work is the meaning of what this country is all about. The nation's answer to the social challenge will no longer be a never ending cycle of welfare, but the dignity, power, and ethic of work. The goal is to make welfare a second chance, not a way of life, so people can stop drawing a welfare check and start drawing a paycheck.
For too many, welfare has been a way of life, condemning many to a lifetime at the margins of society. Anyone who wants to receive welfare must sign an individual responsibility contract and have a plan from day one on how to get off of welfare. There will be a mandatory work requirement for anyone receiving welfare.
The claim that President Obama weakened welfare reforms work requirement is not true. The best anti poverty program is a job, which confers not just income, but structure and dignity and a sense of connection to community.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nearly thirty years ago, Robert Kennedy said, Work is the meaning of what this country is all about. We need it as individuals. We need to sense it in our fellow citizens. And we need it as a society and as a people. He was right then and it's right now.
From now on, our nation's answer to this great social challenge will no longer be a never ending cycle of welfare. It will be the dignity, the power, and the ethic of work. Today, we are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life. This bill will help people to go to work so they can stop drawing a welfare check and start drawing a paycheck. It is now clearly better to go to work than stay on welfare.
Clearly better. Because of actions taken by the congress in this session, it is clearly better to end the terrible, almost physical isolation of huge numbers of poor people and their children from the rest of mainstream America. We have to do that. Today we are ending welfare as we know it. But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended but for what it began.
A new day that offers hope, honors responsibility, rewards work, and changes the terms of the debate.
Speaker 1: For too many, welfare has been a way of life. For too long, it has condemned too many on welfare to a lifetime at the margins of our society. Today, we start to change all that.
Speaker 2: Anyone who wants to receive welfare must sign an individual responsibility contract so that they're forced to agree upfront to the conditions placed on receiving the benefit. And so that they will have a plan from day one on how to get themselves off of welfare, put them to work, and make them want to go to work and make it reasonable for them to go to work. It'd be mandatory work requirement for anyone receiving welfare.
Speaker 3: They actually have charged and run ads saying that president Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I assigned that moved millions of people from welfare to work. Oh, wait. The requirement was for more work, not less. I am telling you the claim that president Obama weakened welfare reforms work requirement is just not true.
Speaker 4: The best anti poverty program is a job, which confers not just income, but structure and dignity and a sense of connection to community.
reSee.it AI Summary
I see my father's controversial beliefs: he thinks the Allies and Nazis shared goals, Lincoln inspired Hitler, and that white people are oppressors while America is the source of evil. He views BLM as a resistance movement. Just another wealthy leftist with a disdain for America.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Zohran Mamdani's father believes: ▪️The Allies and Nazis had the same goal ▪️Abraham Lincoln was Hitler's inspiration ▪️White people are the oppressors, America is the root of all evil ▪️BLM is the resistance Blah blah blah. Another wealthy leftist who hates America. Now we know who Zohran gets it from.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Nazi political project of creating a pure nation was shared by the Allies, who ethnically cleansed Eastern Europe of Germans after defeating the Nazis. Nationalism and colonialism are intertwined, with America being the genesis of settler colonialism. American Indians and African Americans represent different minority experiences in America.
The initial attempt to eliminate American Indians was the first recorded genocide in modern history. Lincoln's reservation system inspired the Nazis, proving to Hitler that genocide was doable and that differentiated citizenship was possible. The Nuremberg laws were patterned after American laws.
The US invented the two-state solution model with Indian reservations, leading to fragmentation and isolation. African Americans, though oppressed within a single state, had the opportunity to build alliances, leading to movements like Black Lives Matter.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Nazi political project was shared by the Allies, and that political project was to turn Germany into a pure nation, a pure nation rid of its minorities. When the Allies defeated the Nazis and went into Eastern Europe, they began to create pure nations, to ethnically clean Eastern Europe of Germans, move them back into Germany. One crime doesn't wipe out another. A Christian nation state decides to cleanse it of all religious minorities, Jews and Muslims in particular, and at the same time launches a colonization experiment, the discovery of the Americas. I argue that nationalism and colonialism are not two different things.
America is the genesis of what we call settler colonialism, And the American model was exported all around the world. In America, you have two kinds of minorities that have run the course of the history of the modern American state, the American Indian and the African American. Each has a different significance for our contemporary era. The American Indians were the people on that land when the settlers conquered it, first is try to eliminate as many Indians as possible. This was the first recorded genocide in modern history.
Then with the civil war, Abraham Lincoln generalized the solution of reservations. They herded American Indians into separate territories. For the Nazis, for the Nazis, this was the inspiration. Hitler realized two things. One, that genocide was doable.
It is possible to do genocide. That's what Hitler realized. Second thing Hitler realized is that you don't have to have a common citizenship. You can differentiate between people. The Nuremberg laws were patterned after American laws.
Anyway, The US put Indians in reservations. The US invented the model, what we call today the two state solution. The American state and alongside it, several protectorates with degrees of autonomy, but no independence. It has had its own effect, and we will realize the effect if we contrast it with what happened to the African Americans, because the African Americans were not put in a separate state. The African Americans were part of the one state solution.
They were oppressed terribly within a single state. But the thing is that the American Indians, by being put in separate states, were perpetually fragmented, isolated. Up to today, the African Americans horribly oppressed, but had the possibility of building alliances with other oppressed peoples. So we have a history of the same hundreds of years which have brought us to the point where we are with Black Lives Matter, which are at the forefront of progressive struggles in The US.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Reminder that if you are fully vaccinated and up to date on boosters, you are allowed to celebrate the Fourth of July. Those vaccinated are even permitted to have a backyard barbecue, so long as the number of guests is five or less. Thank you for your attention to this matter. https://t.co/LgGewZ5hJH
Video Transcript AI Summary
People should get vaccinated when it's their turn and help their family, friends, and neighbors get vaccinated as well. If everyone does their part together, there's a good chance that by July, people, their families, and friends will be able to get together in their backyard or in their neighborhood and have a cookout and a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day. This does not mean large events with lots of people together, but it does mean small groups will be able to get together.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I need you to get vaccinated when it's your turn and when you can find an opportunity and to help your family, your friends, your neighbors get vaccinated as well. Because here's the point. If we do all this, if we do our part, if we do this together, by July, there's a good chance you, your families, and friends will be able to get together in your backyard or in your neighborhood and have a cookout and a barbecue and celebrate Independence Day. That doesn't mean large events with lots of people together, but it does mean small groups will be able to get together.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Erin Burnett five days ago: Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon. Trump is risking starting a world war for no reason. Erin Burnett today: Iran's nuclear program has only been set back a few months. This is a big deal. This is CNN. https://t.co/qHSRB31LyL
Video Transcript AI Summary
US intelligence assessments contradict claims that Iran is only weeks away from a nuclear bomb, estimating they are three years away from producing one if they chose to. The claim that Iran is weeks away from a nuclear bomb does not align with facts. Actions taken only set back the Iranian nuclear program by months.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This timeline of Iran being a few weeks away from a nuclear bomb is in direct contradiction to CNN's reporting. According to US intelligence assessments, Iran is three years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon if they wanted to. So the facts on Iran getting a nuclear weapon do not bear out the claim at the heart of what has put the world on the verge of world war. It only set back the Iranian nuclear program by months. We gotta call it like it is.
It's a big deal.
@mazemoore - MAZE
The Democrat party's America.https://t.co/CxPpkyE68J
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they will reverse Trump's asylum policies and pull back every executive order relating to the border. They make no apologies for rolling back the policies of remain in Mexico. They believe we owe asylum seekers and should immediately have the capacity to absorb them. They claim no one will be deported in their administration, and only arrest for felonies.
Rafael Romero is charged with capital murder for allegedly stabbing Elizabeth Medina. Brandon Ortiz Vite, a citizen of Mexico, faces life in prison for the death of Ruby Garcia and was previously deported under the Trump administration. A 17-year-old from El Salvador is responsible for the death of Kayla Hamilton and is believed to be a member of MS-13 and in the U.S. illegally. Martinez Hernandez, wanted for murder in El Salvador, is accused of killing Rachel Marin after entering the U.S. illegally.
Lakin Riley was murdered, and Jose was arrested for riding a moped with his son while doing food deliveries. The question is raised whether undocumented immigrants arrested by local police should be turned over to immigration officials, and the speaker states only felons get deported.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll reverse Trump's detrimental asylum policies.
Speaker 1: An arraignment is scheduled this morning for the man accused of murdering Aetna cheerleader Elizabeth Medina you see here. 23 year old Rafael Romero is charged with capital murder. He allegedly stabbed Medina back in December. Her mom found her body in a bathtub. Court documents show Romero overstayed a work visa.
Speaker 0: Every executive order this president has issued relating to the border is gonna be pulled back. We're not gonna be fooling with that.
Speaker 2: Brandon Ortiz Vite is a citizen of Mexico, and he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole in relation to the death of Grand Rapids woman Ruby Garcia. The violent offender was previously deported under the Trump administration in September of twenty twenty.
Speaker 0: Rolling back the policies of, remain in Mexico. I make no apologies for that.
Speaker 3: Arrest made in the murder of twenty year old Hartford County woman. Aberdeen police say a 17 year old from El Salvador is responsible for the death of Kayla Hamilton. July of last year, Hamilton was found along the side of East Inca Street strangled to death. DNA evidence connected the 17 year old suspect to her death. Investigators also believe the teen is a member of the gang MS thirteen and in The US illegally.
Speaker 0: The idea that they are being sent home by this guy and they wanna do that, we owe them. We owe them.
Speaker 3: The death of 37 year old Rachel Marin, a mother of five, rocked the Hartford County community. Her body discovered along the Maw And Paw Trail in Bel Air. According to officials, Martinez Hernandez entered The US illegally last year from El Salvador, where he was wanted for murder.
Speaker 4: American citizens are not safe because of failed immigration policies. This is the second time in just two years that an innocent Harford County woman has lost her life to a criminal in our country illegally.
Speaker 0: And those who come seeking asylum, we should immediately have the capacity to absorb this. No one will be deported in my administration. This is the first time ever you've had to seek asylum in a third country. It's outrageous. And we immediately surged to the border.
All those people are seeking asylum. You only arrest for the purpose of dealing with a felony that's committed, and I don't count drunk driving as a felony.
Speaker 5: There's incredible heartbreak, and it all involves the murder of Lakin Riley. There she is. She's a nursing student. The charges against this man are malice murder, felony murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment, aggravated assault, aggravated battery.
Speaker 3: For their immigration hearing, Jose was arrested for riding a moped with their five year old son while doing food deliveries. At that point, ICE could have taken Jose into custody. Should undocumented immigrants arrested by local police be turned over to immigration officials? No. Only felons get deported and everyone else Period.
Say.
Speaker 0: Yes.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Just a couple weeks ago Tim Walz gave a graduation speech. Walz told attendees that they had to fear for their lives because of Trump and ICE. What did he think was going to happen if someone took his words seriously? https://t.co/Pm82pJ7N8R
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump's actions are likened to modern-day "Descapo," with people being seized off the streets by masked agents in unmarked vans and sent to foreign torture dungeons. Victims have no chance to defend themselves or say goodbye to loved ones. It is unknown if those seized are criminals. It's claimed we are close to a reality where anyone could be targeted, with no guarantee of a court hearing or return from wherever they are taken. A "firewall" is needed to protect Minnesotans from Trump and his associates.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Donald Trump's modern day Descapo Descapo is scooping folks up off the streets. They're in unmarked vans wearing mask, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons. No chance to mount a defense, not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye, just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans and disappeared. To be clear, there's no way for us to know whether they were actually criminals or not. It's not hyperbole to say we're not far from a world where anyone could get that knock at a door.
And there's no guarantee you'd get your day in court or that you'd ever make it home alive from whatever corner of the world they stick you in. Now if Trump and his folks want to come for Minnesotans, we need to make sure that there's a firewall that they have to come through before they get to them.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Must watch. This guy was just praising Kamala Harris at the DNC last night.🤡 June 30, 2022. After 53 migrants were found dead in the back of a semi truck, Javier Salazar wrote the Biden Admin a letter. Listen to what he had to say about the administration. https://t.co/oPcNeSIEEV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Following the discovery of a semi-truck in Texas containing migrants, where 53 people died, four individuals have been arrested and charged. The Bexar County Sheriff has appealed to President Biden for assistance, expressing anger at his inability to prevent the loss of life and the lack of response from the administration.
The sheriff stated he isn't trying to blame the president, but Texas law enforcement has noticed the president hasn't visited the area. He expressed a loss of confidence in the federal administration. He wants the president or vice president to visit, assess the situation, and understand it extends beyond the border. He believes the focus on the border is a "campaign stunt" as migrants are reaching hub locations like Bexar County. The sheriff wants the administration to hear directly from local law enforcement about the challenges they face daily.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Found a semi truck full of migrants in Texas. 53 people died after being found inside that trailer in San Antonio in what one federal agent called the worst human smuggling incident in US history. We've now learned that four people have been arrested and charged in this case. The sheriff is now pleading with president Biden for assistance. He has written this in a letter.
I'm angry, mister president. I'm angry that I could not stop this massive loss of life in my county. I'm angry that despite my best efforts to appeal to your administration, I have not received a response. And he also criticized Texas governor Greg Abbott in his letter. Joining us now is the sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, Javier Salazar.
What do you want the president to do? I mean, what could he do that would help you and your deputies on the ground?
Speaker 1: Well, what I'd like the president to start with and and not that I'm trying to blame him for for for anything that's going on, but we haven't seen him down here. It's noticeable among Texas law enforcement. I'm seeing a loss of of of of confidence in the in the in the federal administration. And this which has been going on for a couple of years now. But, you know, we're what what I'd like to see is have the president himself or the vice president herself come down, get eyes on it.
Get boots on the ground, get eyes on the situation, and realize that it goes beyond just the border and the the what I what I term what I've termed a a a president I mean, a a campaign stunt, the all these assets being poured onto the border. And these people are making it past that anyway and ending up here in what I'm calling a hub a hub location. And and so what I'd like to see is the president and and or his administration physically come down here and get an get eyes on the situation and then hear what local law enforcement has to say about what we're dealing with on a daily basis.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Look. This is a moment what has happened there that we cannot ignore as a country. I mean, this loss of life is just it is tremendous, and it is horrific, sheriff. And we appreciate you speaking with us this morning.
@mazemoore - MAZE
Jamie Raskin is now claiming that Democrats never defended Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Here's one of the many times Raskin himself defended Garcia. https://t.co/iCPHHnVkuc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks if Democrats risk playing into the president's hands by focusing on the Kilmaro Burgo Garcia case.
Speaker 1 responds that they don't know of any Democrat who defended Garcia. They claim Garcia was falsely arrested and removed from the country. They allege "they" are making up things about Garcia, such as associating him with MS 13 or claiming he coordinated the January 6 attack, even though he has never been prosecuted or convicted of any crime.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: She especially focused on the idea that Democrats defended Kilmaro Burgo Garcia even though he, of course, is alleged to have committed, these crimes. Do you think, that Democrats Democrats risk politically playing into the president's hands by focusing on this case?
Speaker 1: First of all, I don't know of a single Democrat who defended him. He was falsely arrested and removed from the country. So now they're making up all this stuff about MS 13. Or, you know, let let's say he was responsible for the January 6 attack, he coordinated the assault on a 40 police officers. They're making up things against a guy who's never been prosecuted, much less convicted of anything criminal.
@mazemoore - MAZE
2020. Tucker Carlson masterfully exposes the fraud known as Eric Swalwell. https://t.co/HrfjegMVqG
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Chinese intelligence operative, Christine Feng, cultivated relationships with Democratic officeholders, including Congressman Eric Swalwell, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. Feng used college as a cover, joined left-wing organizations, and raised money for Democratic candidates. US Intelligence Officials believe Feng had a sexual relationship with Swalwell, but Swalwell's office would not comment.
Feng became a regular companion to Swalwell, a financial bundler for his campaigns, and helped him secure support from the Asian American community. She also gained access to Swalwell's office and installed an intern. Feng fled to China while under FBI investigation.
Swalwell has been a source of Chinese government propaganda, accusing others of working for hostile powers. He defended China from criticism regarding the coronavirus origin, echoing Chinese state media. Swalwell also advocated for engaging China on issues like North Korea and Iran. Despite his relationship with a Chinese spy, Swalwell remains on the House Intelligence Committee with access to classified information.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A Chinese intelligent agent called Feng Feng, or she renamed herself when she came to this country, Christine Feng, became a force within the Democratic Party of California. Along the way, she cultivated a number of Democratic office holders. Fung had sexual relationships with at least two of them identified in the Axio story as mayors from Midwestern cities. Fung also began a relationship with a man called Eric Swalwell. You may recognize that name.
Eric Swalwell is a member of the United States Congress. Swalwell sits on the House Intelligence Committee. He is privy to this country's most closely held secrets. Feng's relationship with Swalwell began in 02/2012. Like so many Chinese spies, Feng used college as her cover.
She enrolled as a student at a university in the Bay Area, and she immediately joined a number of left wing identity politics organizations on campus. From there, she quite naturally began raising money for Democratic candidates. US Intelligence Officials believe that Fung had a sexual relationship with Eric Falwell Swalwell. We asked Swalwell's office about that directly today. His staff replied by saying they couldn't comment on whether or not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fung because that information might be classified.
They did not elaborate or explain what they meant by that. We do know that when Fung met Swalwell, he was a little known city councilman in the Bay Area, but he had grand political aspirations. Fung became his regular companion. She was photographed with Swarwell at political events several times. She became a financial bundler for his political campaigns.
Fung apparently pulled in large amounts of money from a variety of sources to help Eric Swarwell get elected to congress. It's not entirely clear where all of that money came from. We do know that Feng helped Swalwell secure the support of his district's Asian American community. Political analysts have called that a critical factor in his win in 02/2012. That's not a new trick for Chinese intelligence services.
Another Democrat from the state of California, the state's senior Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein, employed a Chinese spy in her office for nearly twenty years. That spy drove Feinstein around and directly assisted her in outreach to Asian American voters. Like the spy that Feinstein hired, Feng gained access to Eric Swalwell's office in Washington. US officials say Feng managed to install an intern in Swahwul's office, almost certainly as a spy for the Chinese government. Now we don't know the full extent of Feng's intelligence activities in this country.
Eventually, she fled The US for China while under FBI investigation. Swalwell claims he hasn't talked to her in years. We do know that in Eric Swalwell, the Chinese government picked a promising vehicle. Swalwell is one of the most high profile members of congress. Last year, he ran for president of The United States.
At every turn, Eric Swalwell has remained a reliable source of Chinese government propaganda. As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he styled himself as an expert at spotting foreign interference in our government remarkably. As you may remember, Suavo spent years accusing the sitting president of working for a hostile power.
Speaker 1: The question has shifted, from whether the president is working with the Russians to what evidence exists, that the president is not working, with the Russians. He's betrayed our country, and I don't I don't say that lightly. I I worked as a prosecutor for seven years, and I Betraying the country by the way, we evidence before you say that, but you said an agent of Russia. Yeah. He he works on their behalf.
Speaker 0: Do you still believe that the president is a a Russian agent?
Speaker 1: I think he acts on Russia's behalf, and he puts Russia's interests ahead too often of America's interests.
Speaker 0: You're a member of judiciary. Do you believe the president right now has been an agent of the Russians?
Speaker 1: Yes. I I I think there's more evidence than he Yes. And I I I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that he's not.
Speaker 0: Looking back, it's hard to watch that tape. The irony is overwhelming. It's always those who have the most to hide who attack other people for the very things they've done, always. Even at the time he was saying that it was very obvious to us that something was very wrong with Eric Swalwell. So two years ago, we asked Swalwell to come on this show and reveal the evidence he claimed he'd collected on Russian collusion.
Swalel came, couldn't turn down a TV opportunity, he made loud noises, and he left. He had no evidence, but he didn't stop making allegations. Here he is at a hearing with Jim Comey back in 02/2017.
Speaker 1: I wanna talk about the Kremlin playbook, and there are a number of ways that a foreign adversary could seek to influence a person. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 2: Yes. Financial? Yes. That can be one. Romance, you said, is another?
Yes. Compromise. Correct.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's part of the playbook. Part of the Kremlin playbook, Eric Swalwell says. So what they do, these foreign intel services, is they use Saxa, honey trap, if you will, to set up a compromise. Uh-huh. Spoken like a man who knows that subject quite well.
When the Russia hoax subsided, as it inevitably did because it was a lie, Swallow turned his energies to his first love, is defending the government of China from all criticism. In March, Swallow told the rest of us that we are racist if we describe where the coronavirus came from originally. He said this on Twitter, quote, when lawmakers refer to COVID nineteen as a Chinese virus, they're not only misleading the public about a disease with confirmed cases in over a hundred countries, they are stoking racism and xenophobia in our communities. Diseases don't have an ethnicity. Period.
So if you're bored sometime, take those words and type them into Google, and you will find analogs almost precisely to the word in Chinese state media. That's what he was repeating. If you ask Eric Swalwell blaming the Chinese government for the coronavirus was a mistake, The right reproach is to defer to the Chinese government as much as you possibly can. In 02/2017, Swallow expressed expressed outrage that the Trump administration was taking too tough a position with China's ally, North Korea. He wrote this, quote, the president's reckless and inconsistent North Korea strategy risks American lives.
Instead, Swallow demanded Trump must, quote, talk to experts, allies, and China. Sowell had been saying similar things for years. In 02/2013, for example, he demanded that we quote engage China and Russia to keep Iran nuclear free. Do you notice a pattern here? Of course you do.
And yet here's the amazing thing. As of tonight, with this all this information public, Eric Swalwell, who has used his office to promote Beijing's talking points almost word for word, ones that matter by the way, a man who admits to a close personal relationship with an actual Chinese spy who helped him get elected to congress, raised money for him, and put an intern, probably another spy in his office. That man continues to serve on the House Intelligence Committee where he has unrestricted access to classified information. How is this happening?
@mazemoore - MAZE
James Comey is a leaker, a liar, and a fraud. Hey Comey, tell us more about spraying gasoline on a fire. https://t.co/CQtFSht1ID
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts that the FBI is combatting racist violence, but the president is exacerbating the situation by using inflammatory language. The speaker likens the president's words to spraying gasoline on a fire, creating a dangerous blaze for all communities, not just people of color. The speaker believes any community with a presence of "thugs and criminals" should be worried. The speaker concludes that the President should be working to quell the violence, not encourage it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The FBI is fighting a fire of racist violence and with words like that, the president is using a fire hose to spray gasoline on that fire. Spraying gasoline with a fire hose, it creates a dangerous blaze for all of us. Not just people of color, but for every community in America that has these thugs and criminals have a presence there ought to worry about this. And the President of The United States should be charged with tamping it down, not letting it free
@mazemoore - MAZE
Hakeem Jeffries says the opposite of the truth. The clip on the right is from yesterday. The clip on the left is from when inflation was near a 40 year high. Real wages went down during Biden's term. https://t.co/SGP6l1bHzL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wages are up and inflation is down under President Biden, whose record is moving things in a positive direction. However, the high cost of living in the United States remains a challenge.
Conversely, it is claimed that costs are not going down, but going up, and inflation is also rising. This is attributed to Trump's reckless mismanagement of the economy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's work together. Following the leadership of president Joe Biden, whose record continues to move things in an incredibly positive direction for the American people. Wages are up. Inflation is down. The high cost of living, in The United States Of America, it's a challenge that we need to tackle.
They promised that costs would go down on day one, that they would address inflation. Costs haven't gone down. They're going up. Inflation is going up. And a lot of it has to do with Trump's reckless mismanagement of the economy.
@mazemoore - MAZE
You definitely are experienced at selling a bill of goods. https://t.co/dXeql1YF57
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is ample, clear, significant, abundant, and direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The president seems pathologically incapable of telling the truth and may be compromised by a foreign power.
The Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization, and Trump continues to believe Russian propaganda, making him dangerous. Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians.
There is circumstantial evidence of collusion or coordination, and direct evidence of deception. The Trump campaign welcomed Russian help, built it into their campaign plan, never reported it, made full use of it, and then lied about it. There is evidence that is not circumstantial. The case is more than circumstantial.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I did say that there is ample evidence, and indeed there is, of collusion of people in the Trump campaign with the Russians. There's clear evidence, on the issue of collusion. There is ample evidence of collusion in plain sight. Plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy. And there is significant evidence of collusion.
The president is someone who seems pathologically incapable of telling the truth. This president or people around him may be compromised by a foreign power.
Speaker 1: Have you seen, do you have, direct evidence of collusion with Russia?
Speaker 0: There is direct evidence. There's abundant evidence of collusion. Persistent allegations that the Russians have been laundering money through the Trump organization. Continues to believe Russian propaganda, that makes him dangerous to our country. Donald Trump and his campaign colluded with the Russians.
There is ample evidence of collusion. There is significant evidence, much of it in the public domain, on the issue of collusion. Certainly say with confidence that there is significant evidence of collusion. Ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion. There is circumstantial evidence of collusion.
There is direct evidence, I think, of deception. Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help. And that is pretty damning.
Speaker 2: Any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Speaker 0: There is circumstantial evidence certainly of collusion or coordination.
Speaker 2: There has been direct evidence of deception. But to be crystal clear, this evening as we speak, there is no hard evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the you you said there's circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 0: You know, I would not say I would not phrase it the way that you did. And circumstantial evidence can be very powerful and is hard evidence. Kind of corrupt coordination of effort between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Trump campaign welcomed Russian help, built it into their campaign plan, never reported it, made full use of it, and then lied about it. I don't wanna go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial
Speaker 1: But you admit it's a circum all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
Speaker 0: Actually, no, Chuck. I I can tell you that the case is more than that, and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. So again, I think So
Speaker 1: you have seen direct evidence of collusion?
Speaker 0: I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial.
@mazemoore - MAZE
1995. Trump on foreign trade and how he would handle it if he were President. https://t.co/FojaHaSN2K
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a past auto deal with Japan as a failure in negotiation. Despite holding all the cards, the U.S. was "duped" and the deal was not good. The speaker believes the U.S. is afraid to take a tough stand, even when it's a "no brainer."
The speaker asserts that a firmer stance with foreign countries would be better for the U.S., leading to greater respect. Regarding Japan, the speaker claims they currently have no respect for the U.S. because of the U.S.'s handling of trade relations. The speaker states that Japan makes hundreds of billions of dollars while the U.S. loses money in deficits. The speaker concludes that the U.S. should take a much tougher stand, even if it means making enemies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I couldn't believe this last auto deal as an example. Here we are, we're sitting there, it's restricted in Japan, everything's restricted, restricted, restricted. We're sitting, they can't come in, and all of a sudden, this country falls. We do the old fold out. I've never seen
Speaker 1: it That isn't the way the press reported the press reported it that we had a deal. Yeah. And then all of a sudden, it
Speaker 0: turned out that the deal turned out that it was not a good deal for us. And we had all the cards. I mean, it's not like we didn't have the cards. It's like, keep your cards out of here until you open up. That's all.
Keep your cars out and then you the first hour was like, we made this wonderful deal. After about fifteen seconds after that, people realized we got duped. I just don't understand it
Speaker 1: wrong with us? I mean, I guess what they said, well, this would hurt American car dealers.
Speaker 0: You know, what's wrong with us? I don't know. They're afraid politically to make a little bit of a tough stand. That wasn't even a tough one. That was a no brainer.
You would have had the Japanese cars out for nineteen and a half seconds and you would have won every single point. It's the most incredible failure in negotiation that I've seen. But it happens all the time. I just don't understand it. So I would take a much harder stand, I'd take a much more difficult stand, would say.
Make a couple of enemies. I think I'd make a lot of friends ultimately.
Speaker 1: If the United States government took a firmer stand with foreign countries, would we be better off or are we so much now a part of the nation of the community of nations that we can't really afford to offend anybody?
Speaker 0: I think we'd be better off and I think we'd be far more respected. I think the Japanese would respect us far more than they do. I don't think they have any respect for us, and they shouldn't have any respect for us because we are idiots when it comes to what's happened. I mean, look look at dealing with Japan. I mean, just take a look at what's going on.
I mean, they make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and we lose money in deficits, and nothing happens. And they say, no, the Japanese are learning and they're starting to open up. In the meantime, every second goes by, we're losing. I I just think that people would have far greater respect for this country if we took a much tougher stand. It's it's really quite pathetic.
@mazemoore - MAZE
It's funny how "nobody is above the law" is dependent on who is being prosecuted and who is doing the prosecuting. Imagine being paid as much as Maddow to spew whatever nonsense is politically useful at the time. https://t.co/bZ2cNcSgPr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Nobody is above the law, and elected office does not grant immunity from prosecution. Defending a judge or prosecutor politically is inappropriate because the legal system should be nonpolitical. The speaker expresses dismay that someone had a judge arrested.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Nobody's above the law. We only have one system of law for everyone. Nothing about being an elected official gives you a license to commit crimes or a license to get away with it if you do. Why step up politically and defend a judge or a prosecutor? That's supposed to be a nonpolitical part of our system.
It's not like we didn't know it was going to be terrible, and it is terrible. He really did have a judge arrested today. Arresting a judge today. Are you kidding me?