reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: I know a little about human trafficking. The human trafficking portfolio fell underneath me in the counterterrorism shop where I was ahead. I worked with Tim Ballard at the White House to stamp out human and child sex trafficking. He was doing incredible work back then. Speaker 1: I'm the bad guy in the story. Last week, I got a call from some of the accusers, and what they're accusing him of is really not just—they're just really bad stuff. Really, really bad things. At first, because I've been friends with Tim for so long, I thought, that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Blew by them. Ridiculous. Until they persisted, and I started hearing more. I just heard somebody had filed in the HR complaints or something. Like, that's not possible. Well, the more the complaints come out, the worse it gets. These women called last week, and they wanted to do a show with me. That's not something I've even offered Tim. And I don't want to be the one making the calls on this. I'm not a journalist, and I'm also involved. Tim has been a friend of mine. OUR is a great organization, but I also stand up for victims. And I don't feel remaining silent on this or neutral if I know is acceptable. I don't know what they've done, but I've passed the women's number onto Leon Wolf, our news director, and said, put a journalist on this if you want. And I told him at the time, take it where it leads. I just want the truth. I just want the truth. So he put our best investigative reporter on it, and I heard last night that they are close to finishing the story. I was hoping that it was gonna be released today because this is yeah. If if if if it's true, I can't believe how many of us were duped. Speaker 2: Got pearlized. But it's still some guy who got fried and cried by the side. We gonna steal, slide, slide, slide until they all die. These niggas ain't seeing me because these niggas be small fry. I got big dude status, k l

Speaker 0 states that over 6,000 bodies have been found, citing information from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other government bodies. Speaker 1 questions this claim, asking for clarification on where these bodies were found and if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported finding 6,000 bodies. Speaker 1 asserts that as a journalist, Speaker 0 should be concerned about the accuracy of their claims. Speaker 0 requests to complete their questions.

Speaker 0 asserts that there will be no more ambassador from South Africa in Israel and unleashes a barrage of harsh statements about South Africa’s Jewish community and political leadership. He calls South African Jews who support the ANC “Jew haters, Zionist haters, Zion bashers” and labels them “subhuman barbarians who took over the country there more than twenty five years ago.” He claims these people caused the death rate to be the highest in the world, stating that violent death is something in South Africa that happens more than anywhere else in the world and that it’s at a level comparable to Venezuela. He describes them as outrageous and barbaric and refers to them as “the lowest scum of the earth” who cannot build a single bridge, cannot do anything positive, steal properties from whites, kill the whites, and kill the farmers. He notes that hundreds of Jews have been killed in South Africa during this period, describing the killings as robbed and killed with a constant racial flavor. He says they decided they cannot keep their ambassador in Israel because of the Gaza Strip and tells others to “Thanks, Carl. Get out. Never come back, all of you.” He condemns all those who support the “terrorist organization called the ANC,” and all who support violence, calling them degenerates. In closing, he states, “Terrible. Terrible. I hope South Africa will become South Africa again on Africa. Del Array.” Speaker 1 adds that the government never gave a clear answer about what exactly happened. He notes that researchers and investigative journalists over the years have alleged that children were put up for adoption for wealthy international families or used perhaps for secret experiments. The statement implies that there are enduring questions or unresolved events surrounding these allegations, with claims of adoption to international families and possible secret experimentation as part of unaddressed inquiries.

The questioner asked whether the public will learn the identities of the men who abused the girls connected to Epstein, with the information being released, and if not, why not; followed by a quick additional question. The questioner framed the issue as identifying the men who abused the young women through Epstein's activities. The official responded by challenging the assumption embedded in the question. They asked what it would mean to learn about “men that abuse these girls” and pressed to clarify that term. The official stated that, as of July and continuing to today, if the Department of Justice had information about men who abused women, they would prosecute them. They referenced ongoing work and restated that there is no “hidden tranche of information … that we know about, that we're covering up or that we're not prosecuting.” The official emphasized that they do not know whether there are men out there who abuse these women, noting uncertainty about whether such individuals exist or remain unidentified. The underlying point was that there is no claimed concealment of information or selective prosecution, and that the existence of further leads or prosecutions would be pursued if information were present.

Parents seek guidance from health leaders regarding vaccine decisions. I want to address a serious matter about character. You were accused of sexual harassment and assault by Eliza Cooney, who was initially hired as a babysitter. When confronted, you mentioned you weren't a "church boy" and acknowledged having "skeletons in your closet." You later texted Ms. Cooney an apology but claimed no memory of her account. Can you respond to these accusations in front of this committee? Did you make unwanted sexual advances toward Ms. Cooney? No, I did not, and that story has been debunked. Why did you apologize then? I apologized for something else. That’s not my understanding. You can read the text she published; it was not for that.

The speaker discusses allegations of government officials being involved in pedophilia, child trafficking, and grooming of children. They mention the connection to Jeffrey Epstein and Clinton.

Speaker 0: Have you used orphans to study an experimental vaccine? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Have you ever used mentally handicapped to study an experimental vaccine? Speaker 1: What I'm saying is I don't recall specifically having done that, but that in the 1960s it was not unusual to do that and I wouldn't deny that I may have done so. Speaker 0: There's an article entitled Attenuation RA273 Rubella Virus in WY38 Human Dimplex Cells. You familiar with that article? Yes. In that article is one of the things that says, 13 surrogative mentally retarded children were given RA273 vaccine. Okay. Well, that that's in that case, that's what Speaker 1: I did. Speaker 0: Have you ever used babies of mothers in prison to study an experimental vaccine? Yes. Have you ever used individuals under colonial rule to study an experimental vaccine? Yes. Did you do so in the Belgian Congo? Speaker 1: Yes. Did that experiment involve almost a million people? Well, Speaker 1: alright. Yes. Okay.

The speaker discusses allegations of government officials being involved in pedophilia, child trafficking, and grooming of children. They mention the similarity to Jeffrey Epstein's actions with the Clintons. Another person dismisses these claims as ridiculous.

In a recent interview, the speaker discusses how he has arrested over 100,000 people before they could commit child rape, potentially saving 700,000 children. However, the other speaker finds this reasoning strange, as these people haven't actually done anything yet. The speaker argues that those who have intentions to commit crimes should be arrested. The conversation then shifts to the normalization of pedophilia, with the speaker claiming that it is becoming more prevalent and even present in school books. The other speaker expresses shock at this revelation.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has acknowledged a pedophile problem at high levels within Alberta institutions, including Alberta Health Services and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta. In 2021, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta allegedly reinstated the medical licenses of two pedophiles arrested for sex crimes against children, including possession and distribution of child pornography. This occurred while doctors who treated COVID patients with Ivermectin, like Dr. Daniel Nagasi, had their licenses stripped. The speaker claims Alberta media outlets, such as the Edmonton Journal, have defended child sex abusers. The speaker also alleges that former Alberta Premier Rachel Notley publicly defended child sex abusers, stating the NDP stands with child predators and pornographers against child victims. The speaker promises to continue exposing these crimes and will not be silenced by the media or the NDP.

In Australia, there are high-level compromises involving a former prime minister and police documents. The speaker raises concerns about the legal system's integrity, including disturbing cases and the need for accountability. They emphasize the importance of addressing institutional failures and supporting victims. The speaker also highlights the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse. They stress the need for cleaning up the system and ensuring justice for all. The discussion concludes with a reminder that nobody is above the law and the importance of taking allegations seriously and involving the police when necessary.

Speaker 0, Jeffrey Edward Epstein and my residence address is 6100 Red Hook Boulevard in Virgin Islands. Speaker 1: Is it true that you forced Virginia Roberts to have sex with numerous friends of yours? Speaker 0: Wouldn't love my fifth amendment right. Speaker 2: You had a number of meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, who, when you met him ten years ago, he was convicted of soliciting prostitution from minors. Speaker 3: And, you know, I've said I regretted having those dinners regretted having those dinners. We did what we did because we wanted to see Epstein go to jail. He needed to go to jail. Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages, when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that. Speaker 1: Sent him three 12 year old girls from France who spoke no English for defendant to sexually exploit and abuse. After doing so, they were sent back to France the next day. Speaker 0: Please, they never saw a young underage woman. Speaker 3: You know, those meetings were were a mistake. They didn't result in what he purported, and I cut them off. You know, that goes back a long time ago now. There's you know, so there's nothing new on that. Speaker 2: We now know that he was and had been procuring young girls for sex trafficking. Speaker 0: We now know that. At the time, there was no indication to me or anybody else. I kept my underwear on during the massage. I don't like massages particularly. Speaker 3: If we had had more transparency, perhaps this case would have gone differently. Speaker 2: It was reported that you continued to meet with him over several years. Speaker 3: You know, I had dinners with him. I regret doing that. Speaker 0: You have what's been described as an egg shaped penis. Speaker 3: Well, he's dead. So, you know, in general, you always have to be careful.

- Thijs van den Brink introduces himself and is asked to confirm a past interview. He says he has interviewed many people and cannot recall details about a specific interview with Yvonne Köls regarding a child-abuse suspect vice president of the Hague court, mentioning the name Theo Huub. He offers to have the episode sent to him for refreshing his memory. The other speaker notes the exchange as unusual, suggesting it occurred under the CDA cabinets during Lubbers and was swept under the rug. - A separate speaker announces that the radio interview of Thijs van den Brink with Yvonne Köls from 2015 is on their YouTube channel, dated 19 August 2025, and invites listeners to check the text and listen. - The conversation shifts to Yvonne Köls’s 30-year-old novel about a pedosexual child judge. It is noted that it provoked strong backlash against her rather than the judge, including criticism, public opposition, and even physical intimidation. Despite this, the book is being republished. Köls explains that the case still disturbs her because the judge was never prosecuted, and the press largely gave attention to the opposing party rather than Köls or the victims. - Köls is a guest on a program. She explains the reason for reissuing the book: a new generation is interested and can engage with the topic. She mentions that the Catholic Church has taken steps internally and disrupted the system, and that investigations extended beyond the church to include child care institutions and care facilities. She states she had substantial knowledge from that period. - She reflects that at the time she could have spoken more about what she knew, but she was not heard. She notes that the children assigned to her pupils, who were also abused, were excluded from coverage by others at the time. She adds that the men involved are now 45 or 46 years old, and that the abuse occurred when the victims were between 10 and 15 years old. - The program concludes with acknowledgment that the victims have spoken.

The speaker discusses the topic of government officials allegedly being involved in pedophilia, child trafficking, and grooming of children. They mention Jeffrey Epstein's connection with the Clintons as an example. Another person dismisses these claims as ridiculous.

The speaker asserts that discussions of child abuse and child trafficking are avoided in the UK Parliament, implying that avoidance signals a problem. They claim there is no separate crime of satanic child abuse in the UK; they say it’s simply child abuse, and suggest that the Netherlands similarly erases the subject. The speaker relates local discoveries in Leicester, described as the nearest city to their area, where they found extensive child abuse linked to both historic and current politicians and to the police. They state they gave evidence against the head of police about “industrial child trafficking.” A central claim is that there is industrial-scale trafficking of children from Ukraine via Moldova to the UK for sexual abuse and organ harvesting. The speaker says this information came from two Ukrainian secret service agents who independently reported the same scheme, without knowing each other. They alleged that Ukrainian secret services collected children during the conflict in the Donbas and handed them over to UK secret services. The two informants reportedly named individuals and were appalled by the task of collecting children for trafficking. The speaker recounts that one whistleblower was killed in a cafe when a bomb was placed under his table, and the second survived a car bombing after being warned by a car park camera clip showing the explosion as he approached his car. They claim the whistleblowers named people very close to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his regime, asserting that those individuals purportedly benefit financially from the war by enabling child trafficking. Further claims include that there is more money in child trafficking and sex trafficking than in drugs or weapons because of the trafficked children’s organs. The speaker contends that the trafficking scheme involves selling the children multiple times, and that victims disappear after organs are harvested, which is why victims are not found in the end. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes the alleged connection between wartime activity, Ukrainian whistleblowers, assassination attempts, and a broader network that allegedly profits from child trafficking and organ harvesting.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Speaker 0 questions how Bill Gates ended up in charge of the medical decisions for the nation, claiming he was trying to slip antibiotics to his wife secretly because he transferred sexually transmitted diseases from hookers on Jeffrey Epstein's islands to her. He calls that insane and says, when you look back at the crime against humanity that COVID was and you realize who Bill Gates is and who he's exposed to be in these emails, that's atrocious. He adds that that's less of a question we need to ask and more of a person we need to forget about forever. Speaker 1 responds, blessing Speaker 0 for saying that and paraphrasing that Gates is the one making health decisions for the entire world, and apparently from these emails he's trying to slip a drug into his wife's drink because he infected her with a venereal disease from a Russian hooker, calling it amazing. Speaker 0 concludes by saying that this is apparently our health professionals and our pandemic response.

The speaker is questioned about his time at West Point Grey Academy and his relationship with a convicted sex offender. The speaker denies any involvement in sexual misconduct and refers to his autobiography for more information. The speaker is then asked about the attention he received from teenage girls in the yearbook and if there were any relationships with them or their mothers. The speaker claims to have been a good teacher and struggles to remember the details of his departure from the school.

The speaker asks if the listener has seen "this," referring to "him." The speaker then references an allegation that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child abuse, and grooming. The speaker asks if this is like what Jeffrey Epstein did with clones. The speaker then asks, "Is that a yes? Is that a yes?"

The speaker discusses the shocking revelations of pedophiles and child sex abusers within Canada's healthcare leaders. They highlight a specific case of a top doctor who held positions in Alberta and British Columbia governments, including being the chief medical officer of health. This doctor was convicted of sex crimes against a child and two other children, yet the mainstream media downplayed the scandal. The speaker also criticizes the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta for protecting doctors involved in such crimes while punishing those who use alternative treatments. They question the lack of disciplinary actions on the doctor's medical license and express concern about the safety of patients.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Speaker 0 notes that the people are not accusing him of rape or selling anyone; they are facing charges including human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit. Speaker 1 describes OnlyFans as “the best hustle in the world.” He explains the alleged methods: using the “lover boy method,” coercing by being nice, and not mentioning webcam until after sex. He says mentioning webcam on dates “just doesn’t work” and claims he would never do that, arguing the technique is to proceed normally and introduce webcam later. Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 discuss a program called PhD on corporatetake.com: “PhD is a pimp and hose degree.” He claims it teaches how he met girls, how he got girls to like him, how he got girls to fall in love with him to work on webcam, and how to have them spend more time with him. He describes inviting a prospective recruit to a meeting and bringing a girl who works for “Your bottom bitch” to explain the selling. The process emphasizes a “first girl” as pivotal, with girls on camera together the first day so the new girl can observe and imitate. Speaker 4 recounts specific experiences: being bought wine and becoming nervous about webcam work; the narrator describes wealth from webcam operations and retaining girls; he mentions four locations and 75 girls, with roughly half of the money going to the workers, claiming a 50% split and suggesting taxes explain the disparity. Another worker, paid a flat £15 per hour, notes large sums from clients who believed they would meet the girl. Speaker 1 describes a pattern where men fell in love with his models and sent large amounts of money, including people selling houses and life savings. He states: “I used sex as a tool to make women love me so they'd obey me and live in my house to make me money. That’s what I wanted. So I was a pimp in that sense.” He discusses the emotional manipulation that led clients to believe they would meet the girl. Speaker 5 remains skeptical, labeling the operation “pimpy.” Speaker 1 argues about the Me Too era, saying he is not a rapist in a way that would be labeled, yet he admits he likes the freedom to do what he wants. Speaker 6 challenges Speaker 1 by quoting his own statements: that his job was to meet a girl, sleep with her, get her to fall in love, and then get her on webcam to become rich together. Speaker 1 denies that exact quote, but Speaker 6 insists it matches what was said on the website. Speaker 0 reiterates that the belief is he was charged with human trafficking, and Speaker 1 clarifies that “human trafficking” is framed as forcing a girl to work for financial gain, noting TikTok accounts from some girls as part of the justification. He reiterates the PhD as a pimp and hose degree he claims to be pleasant about.

The speaker discusses the topic of government officials allegedly being involved in pedophilia, child trafficking, and grooming of children. They mention Jeffrey Epstein's connection with the Clintons as an example. The speaker expresses disbelief and dismisses the upcoming topic as ridiculous.

The speaker has spent two years trying to get Johns Hopkins to state that Paul McHugh doesn't represent the hospital's positions. This is to combat misinformation from McHugh, who isn't a gender or sexuality specialist, but whose medical title lends him credibility. The goal is to have these statements ready for courts and legislatures if he testifies, and to educate the media about why he's not a credible source on trans identities. They are actively tracking individuals like McHugh and engaging with their institutions.

Speaker 0 mentions that an investigation has been started regarding a recent issue, which Speaker 1 questions. Speaker 2 suggests asking the Party Board members for more information. Speaker 0 asks if there will be an investigation into what happened and the victims' experiences. Speaker 2 explains that the investigation is complicated since the person involved is no longer a member of the parliament. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the victims and their stories. Speaker 2 says everything can be read about it and didn't expect to discuss it. Speaker 0 understands it's a sensitive topic. Speaker 1 mentions going to Afghanistan and having lunch. Speaker 0 points out that an investigation should have been conducted. Speaker 1 explains that the person can only return when there is a vacancy. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 suggesting asking the same question later.