reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Regardless of the election outcome, the Defense Department and NASA will need to reassess their contracts with Elon Musk's companies. This situation poses a national security issue that the U.S. will have to address, as it may lead to significant drama and complications. The government faces a choice: either unwind from these multibillion-dollar contracts or find a way for Musk's companies to separate from him. The implications of this election will create a new challenge for the country, starting as soon as the results are in.

We have special relationships with our friends in the UK and some European allies. However, there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British, which is their business, but also American tech companies and citizens. This is something we'll discuss. We've had free speech for a long time in the UK, and it will continue. We wouldn't want to overreach with US citizens, and we don't. I'm very proud of our history of free speech in the UK.

We must acknowledge President Trump's repeated desire for Canada to become the 51st state. None of us want to be caught unprepared, failing to defend Canada or collaborate with our democratic allies to safeguard our borders. They are willing to cooperate with us. It is imperative that we take immediate action domestically, connect with them, and establish a new global order that protects democracy and Canadian sovereignty.

Germany's defense relies on American taxpayers, and we still have many troops stationed there. But will Americans keep footing the bill if you're jailed in Germany for a tweet? I doubt it. To our European friends: friendship means sharing values. But jailing people for wanting border security, rejecting election results, or silencing those you fear? That's not shared values.

During a press conference with Donald Trump, Elon Musk's presence and focus raised concerns. It appeared to be a PR move to counter Musk's declining popularity, while also serving Trump's image. Transparency is the key issue. Musk claims full transparency, but his actions don't align. I don't believe Musk is being transparent, especially considering his companies' contracts with government agencies. He has access to a lot of data and information, and controls contracts for Tesla, SpaceX, and others. It's about more than just contracts and money, it's about control. By controlling information, he controls the lifeblood of his companies. This information could be shared with other tech billionaires, enriching them all.

Elon Musk, who wasn't born in the U.S. and grew up during apartheid in South Africa, gets praised, and Trump is letting him do his job. He's a naturalized citizen, likely through an H-1B visa. It's concerning that Trump seems comfortable letting a foreigner, possibly an enemy of the United States, handle things while he takes a nap. I don't like Elon, but I'm not ready to call him an enemy of the United States just yet.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the current trajectory of U.S. policy under Donald Trump and its implications for international law, NATO, and the global balance of power, with frequent emphasis on Greenland as a flashpoint. - They suggest Trump is making a case for peace through overwhelming strength and unpredictability, implying that international law is seen by him as a restraint US power. Johnson argues that Trump’s stance includes threats and pressure aimed at annexing Greenland, and he questions whether this represents a genuine peace strategy or a coercive strategy that disregards international norms. - Johnson catalogs a sequence of Trump-era actions and rhetoric: Donald Trump “launched the coup against the Iranian government,” was involved in discussions with Zelensky, helped Ukraine, and then “kidnapped Nicolas Maduro,” followed by an escalation that included the suggestion of a military attack on Iran. He says Trump has “declared openly” that he does not recognize or respect international law, describing it as “useless. It’s whatever he thinks is right and what needs to be done.” - The conversation notes that Trump’s position has been reflected by close aides and allies, including Steven Miller, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessette. Johnson claims this broad endorsement signals a shift in how major powers might view the U.S. and its approach to international law, with Putin, Xi, Macron, and others watching closely. - They argue this marks a breakdown of the international system: “a complete breakdown of the international system,” with NATO potentially coming apart as the U.S. claims a threat to Greenland from China or Russia and insists that NATO is unnecessary to protect it. The debate frames Europe as being in a toxic relationship with the United States, dependent on U.S. security guarantees, while the U.S. acts with unilateralism. - The European response is discussed in detail. The host describes European leaders as having “ Stockholm syndrome” and being overly dependent on Washington. The letter to Norway’s prime minister by Trump is cited as an astonishing admission that peace is subordinate to U.S. self-interest. The question is raised whether NATO is dying as a result. - They compare the evolution of international law to historical developments: Magna Carta is invoked as a symbol of limiting rulers, and Westphalia is discussed as a starting point for the balance-of-power system. The hosts consider whether modern international law is viable in a multipolar world, where power is distributed and no single hegemon can enforce norms as unilaterally as in the past. - They discuss the economic dimension of the shift away from U.S. hegemony. The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency is challenged as BRICS-plus and other nations move toward alternative payment systems, gold, and silver reserves. Johnson notes that the lifting of sanctions on Russia and the broader shift away from dollar-dominated finance are undermining U.S. financial hegemony. He highlights that Russia and China are increasing gold and silver holdings, with a particular emphasis on silver moving to new highs, suggesting a widening gap in global finance. - The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is discussed as another instrument that could provoke a financial crisis: Johnson cites reports of European threats to retaliate with massive tariffs against the U.S. and references the potential for a broader financial shock as gold and silver prices rise and as countries reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasuries. - The discussion examines Greenland specifically: the claim that the U.S. wants Greenland for access to rare earth minerals, Arctic access, and strategic bases. Johnson disputes the rare-earth rationale, pointing out U.S. processing limits and comparing Arctic capabilities—Russia has multiple nuclear-powered icebreakers. He characterizes Trump’s Greenland gambit as a personal vanity project that could set off broader strategic consequences. - They touch on the role of European defense commitments, with German and other European responses to defend Greenland described as inconsequential or symbolic, and a suggestion that Europe might respond more seriously by hedging against U.S. influence, though current incentives make a real break difficult. - A broader warning emerges: the possibility of a new world order emerging from multipolarity, with the United States weakened economically and politically. They foresee a period of adjustment in which European countries may reorient toward Russia or China, while the United States pursues a more fragmented and confrontational stance. - The conversation ends with mutual concerns about the trajectory toward potential geopolitical conflict and a call to watch the evolving relationship between the major powers, the role of international law, and the coming economic shifts as the global system transitions from unipolar to multipolar.

There are questions about whether Donald Trump's relationship with Elon Musk will fade, but it seems strong. Musk played a key role in Trump's success. Critics, particularly from the left, often complain about the influence of unelected individuals in government, yet they overlook that this has been happening for years. They also criticize billionaire influence in politics while ignoring figures like George Soros, who actively supports Democratic politicians. The left's criticism of Musk appears hypocritical and excessive. Musk is contributing to transparency in the federal government, which is a positive development.

The Defense Department and NASA will need to reassess their arrangements regarding rockets and the multibillion-dollar contracts with Elon Musk's companies. The U.S. government faces a critical decision: either unwind these contracts or separate Musk's companies from him. This situation poses significant national security concerns given the recent revelations about Musk.

Elon Musk, who wasn't born in the U.S. and grew up under apartheid in South Africa, gets his ego stroked while Trump naps. He became a naturalized citizen, not illegally, but through an H1B visa, allegedly overstaying it. It's great for Trump to let this foreigner, potentially an enemy of the U.S., do his work. I don't like Elon, but I'm not ready to call him an enemy of the United States just yet.

Larry: Lavrov claimed Ukraine attempted to attack Putin’s official residence in Novgorod with around 91 long-range drones in December; allegedly all intercepted, no proof provided, no reported injuries or damage. Lavrov said retaliation is coming, targets for retaliatory strikes and timing had been set. Putin supposedly mentioned this on a call to Trump two days before the Zelensky meeting in Florida; Yuri, a Kremlin aide, said Putin was shocked and outraged, and that it would influence Washington’s approach to working with Zelensky. Russians claim Trump was relieved that no Tomahawk missiles were provided to Ukraine. No US confirmation; Trump described the meeting with Putin as very productive, and discussions included the temporary ceasefire not being an option. Budanov had suggested it wouldn’t be the first assassination attempt on Putin, but the most consequential due to timing. The question posed: who is the target—Ukraine, Zelensky, Budanov—or a Russian false flag to justify attacks and derail negotiations. Speaker 1: Timelines. The attack allegedly began the night of the 28th and continued into the 29th. The Russians say it was an attack on one of Putin’s residences, described as terrorism. Putin hasn’t lived at his residences for three years, using the Kremlin instead, but this is not the first Ukrainian attempt to target Putin; there was a proposed attack when he flew into Kursk by helicopter. Russians are upset that this attack had no military objective, only potential assassination, and they know Putin wasn’t there. The Russians view it as real and plan to respond; Lavrov indicated that negotiations would be reexamined. Budanov claims Ukrainian intelligence has targeted Putin multiple times; the attack timing coincides with Zelensky in Florida, suggesting possible rifts or risk of undermining negotiations. The possibility of Western (American or British) intelligence involvement is raised, with speculation about CIA influence or European intelligence, particularly Britain’s MI6, given its Ukrainian roots. The question remains whether the attack was staged to derail negotiations or a genuine strike. Larry: If Ukraine did this, why would they? Ukraine might want to eliminate an obstacle to peace, though that could backfire; some argue Putin is more restrained than any immediate successor. If 91 drones were launched, Western intelligence would likely be involved, possibly undermining Trump’s approach. There is a sense of mixed messages from U.S. intelligence, with individuals like Susan Miller pushing claims of Russian interference that contradict other narratives. Zelensky stated no territory would be ceded as part of negotiations; Russia’s position is that Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk must be permanently part of the Russian Federation, elections must occur in Ukraine before negotiations, NATO must be out of Ukraine, and demilitarization is non-negotiable. Russia suggests there will be no 800,000-man army; these conditions are not open for negotiation. Russia may be willing to discuss numbers of troops for Ukraine, but not to concede core territorial goals. Speaker 0: If CIA or other elements were behind this, could it be to undermine Trump or push for a peace deal by pressuring Putin? Putin showed up in uniform with the military leadership, signaling a hard stance on land/territory, stating that negotiations should proceed without ceasing. Some argue this would trigger a stronger Russian push, while others see this as undermining Trump’s efforts. Trump and Zelensky had discussed a peace plan with 90-95% agreement, with a few thorny issues, possibly territorial. Trump characterized their call as productive; Russia reportedly agreed to support Ukraine postwar with discounted energy and resources. Lavrov’s rapid response to the attack and the potential retaliation would affect ongoing negotiations, which some view as already derailed due to Ukraine’s intransigence on concessions. Speaker 1: Could European intelligence be involved? Britain’s MI6 is seen as critical; there is a suggestion that British intelligence could have acted without American consultation. This would strain relations with Trump, especially after new security strategy. The transcript also notes a broader shift in Western posture: some European leaders are pushing for stronger defense and a more independent European stance, which might influence the dynamic around negotiations and intelligence actions. Speaker 0: Zelensky’s Christmas remark, “may he perish,” followed by an attack on Putin’s residence, prompts questions about who’s pulling Zelensky’s strings. Zelensky is described as the “highest paid actor in the world” with large sums allegedly pilfered from Ukraine’s aid; Zelensky could be expendable to those steering Ukraine’s direction. The meeting in Mar-a-Lago between Zelensky, Trump, and others occurred while the Putin residence attack was underway, suggesting an attempt to undermine negotiations. Budanov’s connection to the CIA and potential independent actions by Ukrainian intelligence raise further concerns about internal Ukrainian divisions. Speaker 1: Russia’s potential retaliation could target Ukrainian intelligence assets like the SBU headquarters in Kyiv, or European assets inside Ukraine if evidence points to Western involvement. Russia’s current military actions include continuing strikes on power infrastructure, with movements in Zaporizhzhia and around Kherson, indicating an axis of attack. Independently, Russia claims significant ground progress; Ukraine counters with claims of selective advances by Russia and a favorable propaganda edge for Ukraine. The battlefield metrics show Russia increasing manpower and maintaining multiple axes of attack, with eight or more fronts, while Ukrainian recoveries of bodies show a ratio suggesting heavy Ukrainian losses. Speaker 0: The conversation ends with expectations for retaliation, possible new European involvement, and the enduring fear that negotiations remain unsettled. The next days could reveal more about who is behind the attack, how Russia responds, and whether a path to peace remains possible, given the conflicting narratives and competing strategic interests.

A report claims that the U.S. intelligence community asked foreign agencies to spy on over two dozen associates of Donald Trump during the 2016 election. It states that former President Obama and CIA Director John Brennan identified these individuals as targets for manipulation and misinformation. The involved nations are part of the "Five Eyes" alliance: the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Reporter Michael Shellenberger suggested that if the information in the report is accurate, it would reveal that the Russia collusion narrative was initiated by the U.S. government, contradicting the official story. This report coincides with House conservatives preparing a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the collection of communications from foreigners abroad.

Elon Musk's cooperation and technical relationships with other countries are being scrutinized, although there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing. It is important to examine this matter, but I won't elaborate further.

We have special relationships with our friends in the UK and some European allies. However, there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British, which is their business, but also American tech companies and citizens, so that is something we will be discussing. We've had free speech for a very long time in the United Kingdom, and it will last for a very long time. We wouldn't want to reach across US citizens, and we don't, that's absolutely right. Speaking of free speech in the UK, I'm very proud of our history. We discussed what is so.

Peter Mandelson says he is His Majesty's British Ambassador to the United States, speaking from the Ambassador's Residence, a symbol of decades of friendship. He states: the UK has no closer ally than America, and no one does more than the two countries together in intelligence sharing and defense. With jet fighters, naval missions, and army special forces operating together, along with deep economic and cultural ties, these bonds are unrivaled. Looking ahead, President Trump’s administration is shaping up to be one of the most consequential periods in modern America. Mandelson feels energized by opportunities to work more closely together in tackling threats to security and in exploiting new technologies to boost jobs and higher living standards. He shares personal background: born in London to a middle-class family; his father was from Jewish parents whose own father helped found a local synagogue; his mother supported him and his older brother; his father worked hard to send them to university. At Oxford University, his passion for learning and driving change began. He has served as a legislator, elected first to the House of Commons and more recently in Parliament’s upper house, and helped found and grow a successful international business promoting market access and investment worldwide. He is ready to bring policy knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit, and experience at the highest levels of government to his role. As Northern Ireland Secretary, he was responsible for implementing the Good Friday Agreement, which brought peace to that troubled part of the United Kingdom. Today, the UK Government's number one priority is economic growth. More than 1,000,000 Britons work for US companies and a million Americans work for UK firms. The UK and the US already have $1.5 trillion invested in each other, and he is confident they can go even further and faster together. He expresses gratitude for the warm welcome since arrival; Ronaldo, with whom he has lived happily for twenty-eight years, and he and Ronaldo are happy to be making their home in the United States. They look forward to exploring the country from coast to coast, state to state, and meeting many new friends along the way.

Elon Musk's cooperation and technical relationships with other countries are being questioned regarding their potential impact on US national security. The speaker believes it is necessary to investigate his joint acquisition of Twitter with foreign governments, including the Saudis. They clarify that they are not implying any wrongdoing on Musk's part, but emphasize the importance of examining the situation further.

Elon Musk, with all the attention he gets, wasn't born in this country. He grew up under apartheid in South Africa, and some say he supported it. Now, he's a naturalized citizen. He didn't sneak across the border. He allegedly overstayed a visa. It's convenient for Trump to let this foreigner, maybe even an enemy of the U.S., do the work. I don't like Elon. Though, I won't call him an enemy of the state just yet.

Elon Musk is seen as dangerous, promoting far-right ideology and potentially inciting civil war in Europe. Instead of using his wealth for good, he is using it for evil. There is a need for better regulation to prevent the spread of harmful disinformation in the future. The Prime Minister will need to consider taking action. Translation: Elon Musk is considered dangerous for promoting harmful ideologies and disinformation. Regulation is needed to prevent such consequences in the future. The Prime Minister must address this issue.

Elon Musk, who wasn't born in this country and grew up under apartheid in South Africa, is a naturalized citizen. He allegedly overstated his H-1B visa. I think it's wonderful that Trump can take a nap and let this foreigner, a potential enemy of the United States, do his job. Although I don't like Elon, I wouldn't call him an enemy of the United States yet. Let's observe.

Elon Musk endorsed the far-right German party Alternative For Germany (AFD), claiming it is the only party that can save Germany. This party has been labeled extremist by the German government, with ties to neo-Nazi ideologies and a history of promoting harmful ideas about citizenship. The endorsement raises concerns, especially given Musk's influence as a key adviser to the U.S. president. If the U.S. were to officially support a neo-Nazi party in Germany, it would have catastrophic implications for Germany, Europe, and the United States.

I recall that an EU official sent Elon Musk a threatening letter, suggesting he'd be arrested if he platforms Donald Trump, who may be the next US president. America should insist that if NATO wants our continued support, it must respect American values, especially free speech. It's crazy to support a military alliance that isn't pro-free speech. We can support NATO and promote free speech, but American power comes with expectations. European allies should share our values, particularly regarding basic principles like free speech. I wouldn't impose our values on just any country, but European nations should align with American values, especially on fundamental issues like free speech.

Elon Musk's cooperation and technical relationships with other countries are being scrutinized, although there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing. It is important to examine these connections, but I won't elaborate further.

Elon Musk's cooperation and/or technical relationships with other countries is worthy of being looked at. The speaker is not suggesting Musk is doing anything inappropriate, but that these relationships warrant examination. There are many ways this could be investigated.