reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I don't have money, so I put 3,600 pesos into my bank account.

The speakers discuss the recent news about missing money and the need for fiscal requirements. They mention that many people were more interested in looking at a photo of France than reading the news. They talk about a woman named Francia, who was described as humble but had a surprising photo that caught their attention. They also mention the importance of control and jurisdiction in handling large sums of money. The speakers question the credibility of a statement from the Central Bank and mention that withdrawing such a large amount of money would require multiple signatures. They conclude by expressing surprise that only one person has been implicated in the case.

The speaker is sharing the weekly earnings from their Bear Valley car wash location. The total amount in quarters for the week was $725.50. The total for single dollar bills was $966. The total for $5 notes was $1,035. The total for $10 notes was $330. The total for $20 notes was $420. The speaker adds all the totals to calculate the total weekly earnings for the car wash location.

I don't have money because my account hasn't been deposited with 3,600 pesos yet. I'm not sure if it goes into my bank account. Can you check? Also, is there any balance on that card?

There were suspicious donations made in the name of the speaker, but they do not recognize them. The donations were made using their name and address for small amounts, but the speaker usually only donates around $75. They suspect someone else may be using their information for larger donations. The speaker wants a refund for the unauthorized donations and would have noticed if they were making such large contributions.

On February 17th, $1,000 was given to Mike Leiszek, followed by another $1,000 on February 18th, and $1,000 on April 16th. However, on April 19th, only $200 was given to Mike Leiszek. The speaker is being accused of stealing money, but they present receipts to their lawyer as evidence. They mention $10,000 to Lutz in Trust, along with other amounts. The speaker expresses frustration with people ruining lives without evidence and sharing unverified information.

Speaker 0 informs Speaker 1 about numerous donations made in their name, but Speaker 1 denies making any donations. Speaker 2 explains that people are using Speaker 1's name and address to make donations, which is confusing. Speaker 1 expresses surprise and mentions their financial difficulties, making it unlikely for them to make large donations. Speaker 2 shows Speaker 1 a list of donations, including some for $500 and $250, which Speaker 1 confirms are not theirs. Speaker 1 agrees to get a refund for these donations and mentions changing their credit card recently. They emphasize that they would have noticed such large charges and would not be able to afford them.

The speaker discusses the pension system and the experiences of various individuals. They mention the names of different people and talk about waiting in line and the possibility of receiving a pension. The speaker repeats these points multiple times throughout the transcript.

Recibí un pago final de cuatro mil dólares. Fueron tres mil seiscientos en total. I received a final payment of four thousand dollars. It was a total of three thousand six hundred.

They’re discussing a benefits card that can be used in stores for basic needs. The card works at Ordiana, pharmacy, and everything, with no restriction overall, but there are specific limits: you cannot buy liquor or cigarettes. It’s restricted to food and clothes, with the implication that it covers essentials but not alcohol or tobacco. The speakers note that without the card and the money deposited each month, life would be different. They say the card deposits $100 every month, which is equivalent to 22,000 pesos. They discuss whether that amount is a lot. They answer that it isn’t much. They then talk about what you can do with that money. One major use is paying rent. They mention paying 114,100 a month in Chappas, and state that rent there is cheaper than where they are now. They contrast this by saying you pay 1,400 a month here, whereas here it’s 3,000. Finally, they acknowledge that the card helps, at least for food and related needs. The overall tone is that the card provides some essential support, particularly for basic purchases and rent, but the monthly amount is modest and the cost of living varies between places.

There was an issue with refunds, as some money went out and there were many refunds requested within three days. There were different situations, with some people returning the money and others not. They decided to stop all expenses and wait until everything is settled before returning the money. They mentioned that they received tickets from the media and vendors, but they needed more information to confirm if everything was legitimate. They planned to refund everyone on the 15th and couldn't do it earlier.

The speaker discusses the issue of pension payments and the establishment of queues for receiving them. They mention the names of several individuals and state that they have installed a fish and trade system. They also mention receiving grass and instructions for trading. The speaker repeats these points multiple times throughout the transcript.

She was promised $500 but only received $100. She claims that the person who owed her the money gave it to someone else who then gave her a portion of it. This incident occurred in Casa de Campo.

The speaker talks about going back to base and conducting interviews and interrogations. They mention a conversation with someone who wants to know how much money another person has in their account. The speaker is instructed to find out and give the money in cash. They comply and give the person around $53,000. The speaker also mentions that the person took their mobile phones. Everything continues as normal until the speaker is called to meet the person late at night, which makes them uneasy because they know who they work for.

The speaker questions whether individuals have the right to use money as they please, stating that the money belongs to the Islamic Republic of Iran. They inquire if the money will be used for purposes beyond humanitarian aid and address the needs of the Iranian people.

The speaker is describing issues with payment deposits that were supposed to be made to their account. They indicate that deposits were scheduled for January 7 and January 14, but to date, nothing has been deposited. They point out that deposits on those dates were expected, yet “they deposit nothing,” leaving the account without funds. They then discuss what they were supposed to receive in total. The speaker asks what they were supposed to receive and references the last payment, confirming an amount of 3600 pesos. They reiterate that the amount discussed is 3600 pesos, and they refer to “the first” payment in connection with that amount, indicating that 3600 pesos was associated with the initial or first payment in the sequence. In relation to where the money should go, the speaker confirms that the funds are supposed to go to their bank account. They ask whether the money goes to a bank account or a card, and the responses confirm that there is both a bank account and a card involved. The participant confirms, “Yes,” there is an account and a card. Finally, the speaker clarifies the current status of funds. They ask if anything is on the card now or if there is money elsewhere, and the responder confirms that there is no money: “Dinero, No, no hay dinero.” They restate that there is nothing at all and that no deposits have been made, leaving them with no funds in the account or on the card.

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

I don't have money, so they gave me 3,600. I'm not sure if it goes into my bank account. Let me check.

The speaker discusses how the cartel informs them about everything and how they know all the details of their activities. They mention that they don't care about someone wanting to know more and that the cost for something is around 22100. They also mention that once people have a ticket to their desired destination, they no longer need ankle monitors. The speaker finds it interesting that there are no married couples or parents present, only single parents. They speculate that these single parents may already have relatives in the area.

The speaker confirms that the person in question reimbursed them for shared travel expenses in cash, not by check. The speaker also states that all vacations were paid for in cash. When asked if they included these expenses as deductions on their taxes, the speaker denies doing so.

The speaker discusses scanning a QR code and mentions an amount of 4.60. They mention that the network speed affects the process and that you can refresh the page to see the changes. They also mention adding 468 to the previous amount. The video ends with a final amount of 682.

Do you accept payments like Cash App, Apple Pay, or Zelle? We need to get paid for this trip. I don’t have any details about it. What’s the HR name? Why did the call drop when I mentioned money? That’s unacceptable. How are you doing? How many Black employees are here? I’m here to support you all. Make sure you get treats for Halloween. Is there a payout week? If someone doesn’t show up, what happens? Every time I try to discuss payment, the call disconnects. This company seems to be playing games, and it’s frustrating. We need to address this situation.

The speakers discuss a text message where someone claims to give 50% of their income to their father. Speaker 1 is confused and doesn't understand the meaning behind it. Speaker 0 suggests that someone should ask the person involved for clarification. Speaker 1 admits they don't know and have nothing to say about it. Speaker 0 points out that the text message is evidence of the claim. Speaker 1 reluctantly agrees. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 feeling like they are being pushed to leave and expressing frustration about the length of the interview.

The speaker is talking about recording something and mentions that it would be good. They mention someone taking money and then there is a mention of playing backgammon. The speaker also says something about looking at something and that it is not good.

The speaker discusses the accounts managed by the Central Bank, clarifying that they only handle monetary finances and not evidence, as that is the responsibility of the office of seized assets. They question how the person in question was able to withdraw money without their boss noticing, and who authorized it. They also wonder how this person was able to live a lifestyle that seemed disconnected from their salary. The speaker mentions that they have seen similar cases where individuals with modest incomes struggle to make ends meet, while this person seemed to have a lavish lifestyle. They express surprise that the boss was unaware of what was happening.