reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of contributing to organizations that can turn good intentions into positive changes. Speaker 1 discusses a troubling story involving Ericsson, a Swedish telecom company. Ericsson was selling telecom equipment to countries like Iran and Belarus, which concerned the US State Department. To avoid potential sanctions, Ericsson hired Bill Clinton to give a speech for $750,000. Shortly after, the State Department decided not to broaden sanctions on Iran's telecom technologies, benefiting Ericsson greatly. Despite the controversy, Speaker 0 mentions that Bill Clinton will continue giving speeches to pay the bills.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with a life of endless work for low pay, returning home to drown troubles, and a sense of disappointment with the world. He laments living in the new world with an old soul, wishes politicians would look out for minors, and criticizes blackmail and the way money is obtained. Speaker 1 discusses a claim: she states to the justice department that she was part of the beginning process of the Clinton Global Initiative and believes Jeffrey Epstein actually funded the Clinton Global Initiative, with them developing the idea together on a trip to Davos. He notes this aligns with the start of the Clinton Foundation in 2002, when Epstein was personally flying President Clinton around Africa as an aerial chauffeur on multiple trips. He asserts that this period marked Epstein’s proximity to power as Clinton Foundation preparations were underway. He argues that the Clinton Foundation engaged in pay-to-play while Hillary Clinton rose in New York Senate politics and later became secretary of state, enabling foreign policy to be influenced by donors and major corporations. The claim is that U.S. foreign policy was effectively shaped by the state department, defense, CIA, and USAID to benefit those who funded the Clintons, in contrast to national interest. He presents Epstein as a money bundler, a deal maker, and part of the origins of the Clinton Foundation’s influence machine. He adds that the Justice Department shut down three FBI investigations into the Clinton Foundation and the IRS investigation as well, with the IRS claiming lack of resources to pursue the case, implying political cronyism and large-scale fraud that allegedly could not be prosecuted. Speaker 2 recounts a first-person experience at Wexner’s residence. He mentions having a driver’s license and being given Jeffrey Epstein’s SUV, but notes there were sharpshooters around. He describes a basement area that wasn’t on the lower floor, featuring a huge sauna, a vault, and an underground tunnel. The tunnel’s existence was confirmed by their maid, who explained that the door led to the main house, revealing the tunnel connecting underground passages. Overall, the transcript juxtaposes personal disillusionment with systemic allegations about the Clinton Foundation and Epstein’s role in its origins, alongside a vivid, confessional account of a private residence with security measures and secret tunnels.

In an early 2014 email, Hillary Clinton informed her campaign manager that ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This revelation is significant as it contradicts the notion that only rogue princes were supporting ISIS. The Clinton Foundation received donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar while Clinton was Secretary of State, coinciding with massive arms sales to these countries. The arms deal with Saudi Arabia exceeded $80 billion, contributing to a doubling of total US arms exports during Clinton's tenure. This connection raises concerns about ISIS being funded by those who donated to the Clinton Foundation.

The transcript traces a tapestry of questions around Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation, emphasizing perceived links between philanthropic or diplomatic activity and private gain, while laying out specific Haiti and international case studies that critics say illustrate a pattern of influence peddling and blurred lines between public power and private wealth. Haiti after the 2010 earthquake: - After the January 12, 2010 earthquake, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, and Bill Clinton, as UN special envoy for Haiti, led relief and recovery efforts. The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) was created to coordinate relief and reconstruction, with Haitian Prime Minister John Max Bellarive and Bill Clinton named as co-chairs. - The IHRC aimed to go beyond relief to long-term improvement, but concerns emerged that decisions were being made by Clinton and Bellarive with insufficient Haitian input. Members of the IHRC later wrote a letter complaining they were not involved and that national priorities were being disregarded. - Projects associated with US funding and Clintons’ involvement included: the Haitian mobile money initiative; plans to exploit mineral wealth; two gold exploitation permits issued after a fifty-year gap; and the Karakol Industrial Park (Caracol) intended to create tens of thousands of jobs. - The Caracol opening drew high-profile attendance (Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donna Karan, Ben Stiller, Sean Penn). However, questions arose about value and transparency: only about 5,000 of the promised 65,000 jobs materialized; the area displaced farmers; local workers reported low wages (roughly 225 gourds/day, about $5 USD); and only a portion of promised infrastructure and housing funding was realized. - Digicel, run by Irish billionaire Dennis O’Brien, profited substantially in Haiti’s telecom sector, and later contributed to the Clinton Foundation; Digicel was a key beneficiary in mobile money initiatives tied to post-disaster relief. - Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s brother, joined the board of VCS Mining, which received a gold exploitation permit in Haiti, prompting scrutiny about potential family influence in contracting decisions. - The strongest economic gains were tied to US-linked firms such as Gap, Target, and Walmart through Caracol’s textile emphasis, while other projects did not deliver promised outcomes. - After the campaign for president, Hillary Clinton announced she would quit the Clinton Foundation to devote herself to full-time candidacy, and the foundation adjusted donation policies to restrict foreign government contributions, though concerns persisted about ongoing influence and access resulting from prior relationships. Global money, influence, and the Clinton Foundation: - The Clinton Foundation, founded in 2001 (initially as the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation), positioned itself as a hub at the nexus of global money, influence, and power, with a stated mission to tackle hunger, poverty, climate change, and disease by marshaling government and private resources. - The Foundation reportedly raised more than a billion dollars over the years, with substantial speaking fees and book deals contributing to the Clintons’ wealth, especially after Bill Clinton left the presidency. - Critics argue that large donors could gain access to or influence through the Clintons’ public roles, while supporters emphasize the Foundation’s global humanitarian work. A memorandum of understanding during the Obama transition sought accountability: disclosures of new contributions to the Foundation, prior approval for foreign government donations, and state department vetting of Bill Clinton’s speeches and consulting arrangements. Selected foreign cases cited by Peter Schweitzer in Clinton Cash: - United Arab Emirates (UAE): In 2011, while UAE officials pressed Hillary Clinton on Iran sanctions, Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars for a speech in Abu Dhabi by the crown prince’s brother; UAE later provided donations to charitable groups associated with Clinton-linked initiatives. - Ericsson (Sweden): In 2009-2010, Ericsson paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speech amid ongoing Iran sanctions discussions, framed by the foundation’s influence and Clinton’s crowd-pulling. - Colombia: In 2010, Bill Clinton met with President Uribe and, contemporaneously, Hillary Clinton discussed free trade agreements with Uribe; Frank Giustra, a Clinton Foundation donor, accompanied Bill Clinton and later secured government concessions in Colombia for Giustra’s companies. - Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia: Sheikh Al Amoudi pledged $20 million to the Clinton Foundation; Ethiopian rights concerns were raised regarding the donor’s government ties, and Hillary Clinton granted a waiver allowing continued US assistance despite human rights concerns. - Kazakhstan and Uranium One: Bill Clinton hosted a meeting with Kazakh officials in which Giustra had significant mining interests; Uranium One eventually came under Russian ownership, controlled by Vladimir Putin, with the deal requiring federal approval from Hillary Clinton as secretary of state; Canadian investor Ian Telfer contributed to the Clinton Foundation but reportedly did not disclose some donations. The report concludes with ongoing debates about the Clinton “blur”—the intertwining of philanthropy, political power, and corporate influence—while noting that Hillary Clinton’s campaign faced persistent questions about trust and influence, including opposition to certain foreign deals and ongoing scrutiny of donations and relationships involving the Clinton Foundation and related business interests.

The speaker argues that there are fake NGOs functioning as fake charities and that arrests should be made in relation to them. The claim is that these organizations are predominantly operated by Democrats, with occasional involvement by Republicans who are supposedly kept quiet by those false charitable activities. The speaker describes this pattern as evidence of a broader “uniparty” dynamic, suggesting that both major parties are involved in a system designed to influence politics. According to the speaker, the majority of the money flows to Democrats through these NGOs. They assert that billions of dollars are given to NGOs run by Democrats, and these organizations then channel funds through a large network of additional non-governmental organizations. This network allegedly creates a “giant money laundering scheme,” to the point where the speaker states that the words NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Key claims highlighted include: - Existence of fake NGOs that operate as fake charities. - A call for arrests related to these fake NGOs. - Predominant involvement of Democrats in running these NGOs, with occasional Republican involvement used to quiet concerns. - A description of a uniparty dynamic, implying bipartisan collusion or alignment in this activity. - Large-scale funding (billions of dollars) flowing to NGOs run by Democrats. - A subsequent cascade through a network of additional NGOs, forming a vast money laundering scheme. - The assertion that NGO activity and money laundering are nearly interchangeable in this context. The speaker emphasizes that the overall operation constitutes a substantial financial mechanism linked to political influence, portraying the NGO network as a conduit for laundering money rather than purely charitable activity. The overall framing is that the integrity of NGOs involved in political funding is compromised by this alleged system, tying NGO activity directly to money laundering in a way that equates the two terms in the speaker’s characterization.

The Obama administration, and even the early Trump administration, used taxpayer money to support the socialist government in Albania. This involved partnering with George Soros on projects aimed at weakening the independence of the Albanian judiciary. This wasn't isolated to Albania; similar activities occurred in Romania, Hungary, Guatemala, and Colombia. Soros, a billionaire, doesn't need this funding, yet the State Department and USAID enabled his influence, allowing him to shape foreign policy and even review funding applications. This taxpayer funding, the speaker argues, indirectly subsidizes Soros’s activities, both domestically and internationally, and is a way for the State Department to oppose conservative agendas. The speaker highlights this as an example of the government funding groups that oppose American interests, while right-leaning organizations are largely ignored. Legal action was necessary to obtain the documents revealing these activities.

Speaker 0: An early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton to her campaign manager, John Podesta, states that ISIL ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This email is described as the most significant in the collection. Speaker 1: The discussion notes that Saudi and Qatari money is spread widely, including to many media institutions. While some analysts and even the US government have mentioned that some Saudi figures have supported or funded ISIS, the typical explanation has been that it’s rogue princes using oil money with the government disapproving. The email, however, asserts that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding ISIS. Speaker 1: It is claimed that Saudis, Qataris, Moroccans, Bahrainis—particularly the Saudis and the Qataris—are giving money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Speaker 0: Hillary Clinton says, “I’m Hillary Clinton,” and emails reveal a significant discussion about it. The email asserts that the largest ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia, more than $80,000,000,000. It states that during her tenure as secretary of state, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value doubled. Speaker 1: The consequence noted is that the notorious terrorist jihadist group ISIL or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation. The implication highlighted is that this is extraordinary.

In an early 2014 email, Hillary Clinton informed her campaign manager that ISIS is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. This revelation is significant as it contradicts the belief that only rogue individuals were supporting ISIS. The Clinton Foundation received donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar while Clinton was Secretary of State, coinciding with massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia. This led to a doubling of total arms exports during her tenure, with some of that money potentially funding ISIS.

In an email from Hillary Clinton to her campaign manager, it is stated that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the governments themselves, have been funding ISIS. This is significant because Saudi and Qatari money is spread across various media institutions. While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Saudis and Qataris were giving money to the Clinton Foundation, while the State Department approved massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia. The largest arms deal in the world, worth over $80 billion, was made with Saudi Arabia during Clinton's tenure. As a result, the terrorist group ISIS was largely funded by the same people who donated to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the speaker, the Gates Foundation provides 88% of the foundation donations to the World Health Organization. The speaker claims this violates competitiveness laws in both Europe and the United States. They assert that these donations are not independent or charitably funded, but rather directed donations, which are forbidden under the tax laws on both sides of the Atlantic and have no place in the charter of the World Health Organization or any UN-affiliated organizations. The speaker alleges this constitutes tax crime, racketeering, money laundering, and racketeering leading to murder and global terrorism.

The speaker discusses the alleged corruption surrounding nonprofit organizations in Haiti after the earthquake. They claim that the Red Cross only built six houses despite collecting $500 million, and that the Clinton Foundation misused earthquake donations. They mention the suspicious deaths of Klaus Eberwein, a former government official set to testify about Clinton corruption, Monica Peterson, who investigated human trafficking and criticized the Clinton Foundation, and surgeon Dr. Dean Loric, who openly expressed disgust about the foundation's corruption. The deaths of Peterson and Loric were ruled as suicides.

The speaker believes the Clintons have destroyed Haiti for decades, acting as enemies disguised as friends. While many know some people dislike Haiti, the Clintons are more dangerous because of their pretense. The speaker claims that the amount of money donated to Haiti after the earthquake was much larger than $6 billion, with Bill Clinton in charge. Despite the donations and Haiti's own resources, including oil reserves larger than Venezuela and one of the largest gold mines in the Caribbean, people still live under tents. Tony Rodham, Hillary Clinton's brother, allegedly has a 26-year contract related to Haitian gold. The speaker further alleges that Bill Clinton destroyed Haiti's rice production so rice from Arkansas could be sold there. The Clintons are said to control business in Haiti, requiring millionaires and billionaires to consult with them before undertaking any ventures.

During Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, she allegedly directed $3.1 billion to Haiti. Her brother, Tony Rodham, who sat on the board of a mining company, obtained one of only two gold exploitation permits issued by the government in over 50 years. The permit granted them a mining rate of 2.5%, which is half the standard rate, causing dissatisfaction among the Haitian Congress. For more details, please check the link provided in the comment section.

Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of contributing to organizations that can turn good intentions into positive changes. Speaker 1 discusses a troubling story involving Ericsson, a Swedish telecom company. In 2009 and 2010, Ericsson faced trouble with Hillary Clinton's state department for selling telecom equipment to oppressive governments like Iran and Belarus. There were efforts to impose sanctions on such technologies. However, Ericsson hired Bill Clinton to give a speech for $750,000. Shortly after, Hillary's state department decided not to broaden sanctions, benefiting Ericsson greatly. They avoided regulatory battles, lucrative contracts were preserved, and diplomatic problems were averted. When asked if he will continue giving speeches, Bill Clinton affirms that he needs to pay his bills.

The Clinton Foundation received $26 million from a Swedish fundraising arm while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and not blacklisting Swedish companies for breaking sanctions against Iran. This, along with other evidence, suggests a quid pro quo. Bill Clinton also received his largest speech payment of $750,000 from Ericsson, a Swedish company involved in the Iran debate. Shortly after, the State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, announced they would not impose sanctions on companies like Ericsson, allowing them to self-regulate. This pattern of behavior, where the Clintons receive financial benefits while making favorable decisions, is seen repeatedly. The public's concern about corruption and self-enrichment by politicians is reflected in Hillary's declining poll numbers.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Speaker argues that 'the Clintons have destroyed Haiti for the decades' and that they 'pretend to be our friends when in reality, they are our number one enemies.' He claims 'the Clinton Foundation ... gave over $6,000,000,000 to Haiti' and that 'the money is much more than $6,000,000,000' with 'Bill Clinton in charge of the money.' He asserts Haiti has 'oil, more oil than Venezuela' and 'gold' with 'one of the largest gold mine[s] the Caribbean,' and that 'Tony Radham, Hillary Clinton's brother' holds a 'twenty six years contract.' He says 'Haiti used to produce our own rice' but 'Bill Clinton destroyed our rice so his brother can sell the rice from Arkansas.' The Clintons are claimed to be 'running Haiti' and that 'If there's a millionaire... they cannot do anything unless they check with the Clintons.' He urges self-governance, notes two Haitian factions.

The speaker claims that an analysis of political donations from the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy reveals that 94-98% of donations went to the left. This pattern allegedly extends to international NGOs and contractors, including World Vision and Catholic Relief Services, with over 90% of political donations favoring the left. The speaker suggests these organizations' boards consist of highly paid, prominent individuals. The speaker alleges the left is misusing USAID and taxpayer money across the federal government as a slush fund to finance their own people, creating a one-sided apparatus that funds only one side of the political equation.

During the debate, Speaker 0 questions Secretary Clinton about her promise to avoid conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State. He mentions that emails show donors received special access and government contracts. Speaker 1 defends herself, stating that everything she did was in the country's interest and praises the work of the Clinton Foundation. Speaker 2 accuses the foundation of being a criminal enterprise and criticizes Clinton for accepting money from countries with poor human rights records. Clinton defends the foundation's work and highlights their efforts in Haiti. The discussion also touches on the Trump Foundation and Trump's tax returns. The transcript ends with Speaker 2 criticizing Clinton for not changing the law regarding campaign finance.

Gates is depicted as having "incestuous relationships" with Anthony Fauci that go back twenty years, including paying Fauci and a range of corrupt financial entanglements between them. The speaker claims Gates brought Fauci to his $189,000,000 house in Seattle in 2000, sat him down in the den, and said he wanted a partnership with Fauci. Fauci allegedly explains that he would develop drugs and then pass them on to drug companies such as Merck, Sanofi, Gilead, and Johnson & Johnson. Gates would then guarantee markets in Africa through his control of the World Health Organization (WHO). The speaker asserts that those vaccine-producing companies don’t want to supply vaccines to Africa because it’s very uncertain, citing Botswana having a government that says yes this year and not next year. Gates, by controlling WHO, supposedly controls those countries because WHO pays for their health ministries and supplies all their HIV medications, so they must do what WHO tells them to do. The claim is that Gates can require those countries to buy vaccines from these companies, and that he is invested in the companies as well. The transcript asserts that AIDS shows Gates “doesn’t give a crap about public health.” It then lists Gates’s other investments in tobacco companies, processed foods, Coca Cola, Cargill, Monsanto, Philip Morris, Kraft, and cheese. It also states Gates has stakes in virtually all oil companies. The speaker concludes that Gates is not a person who cares about climate or public health, but someone who cares about control. The speaker notes that Gates appeared daily on TV as a public health expert. What was Gates’s message? According to the transcript, it was: you gotta shut down, you gotta lock down, you gotta wear a mask, and it will never end until you take your vaccine, which I’m making for you.

I'm bringing attention to potential corruption involving the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). An amendment was proposed to prevent taxpayer funds from being used for State Department employees to attend CGI events due to concerns about corruption and influence peddling. In one instance, Hillary Clinton allegedly approached the Moroccan government about hosting a CGI conference in Morocco. The Moroccans funneled money through a state-owned enterprise extracting phosphates from a disputed territory, seemingly condoning Morocco's sovereignty over the land in exchange for cash as Clinton began her run for president. There were also undisclosed donations linked to the sale of US uranium production to a Russian agency. The CGI has now been resurrected, and it has since morphed into a factory of radical elitist woke schemes. This amendment aims to prevent the State Department from coordinating with the CGI, sending a message against corruption and foreign influence on US policy.

Taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs. If it's a government-funded NGO, it's effectively just the government. A fraud loophole exists because the government can send money to an NGO that is no longer governed by U.S. laws. The money is sent overseas to one NGO, then through others. The speaker is highly confident that some of that money returns to the U.S. and enriches certain people. There are strangely wealthy members of Congress, and it's unclear how they accumulated millions while earning comparatively little. The speaker aims to investigate this and prevent it from continuing.

In an email from Hillary Clinton to her campaign manager, it is stated that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funding ISIS. This is significant because Saudi and Qatari money is spread across various media institutions. It has been known that some Saudi figures support ISIS, but the government has always claimed disapproval, blaming rogue individuals. However, this email confirms that it is the governments themselves funding ISIS. Additionally, during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, the US approved a massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth over $80 billion, and the Clinton Foundation received donations from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who were also funding ISIS. This connection is alarming.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

An early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton to John Podesta claims that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding ISIS. This is significant as it contradicts the narrative that only rogue individuals are involved. Analysts, including those from the U.S. government, have acknowledged some Saudi support for ISIS, but often downplay the government's role. During Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, she oversaw the largest arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia, totaling over $80 billion, and U.S. arms exports doubled. Notably, the same countries funding the Clinton Foundation were also linked to financing ISIS, highlighting a troubling connection.