reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker explains that they delayed the publication of a report to avoid it being overshadowed by the immigration law discussion. They mention receiving criticism for this decision but stand by it. They argue that the report was scheduled to be released on December 13th, which was just after the immigration law vote and before a ministerial mission. They wanted to prevent the report from being distorted or used inappropriately in the heated political climate. They emphasize that they believe they made the right choice and take full responsibility for it.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

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.

I'm not saying cutting the court backlog is easy, but it should be quick. The Secretary of State needs to provide a plan and timeline for reducing the backlog. She's been asked repeatedly but hasn't given an answer. So, when will the court backlog start to decrease? By what date does her department predict it will fall? Also, why won't she accept the Lady Chief Justice's offer of 2,500 additional sitting days? Regarding the new sentencing guidelines, why will a custodial sentence be less likely for ethnic, cultural, and faith minority communities? Why is the Justice Secretary implementing this double standard, this two-tiered sentencing approach? This goes against the rule of law. We believe in equality under the law. Why doesn't she?

You mentioned wanting to eliminate 600 NIH workers on day one and 2,200 from HHS. Which departments will you cut from? There are 200 political appointees that change with each administration. If you remove those, will you replace them with your appointees? President Biden changed 3,000 employees at HHS. As a potential top health official, will you commit to not firing federal employees working on food safety or cyber protection? There are 91,000 employees. So, will you ensure those working on food safety and cyber security keep their jobs? I commit not to fire anyone doing their job. Will this commitment be based on your opinion or political agenda? It will be based on my opinion. So, it seems those with differing views on vaccines may be at risk of losing their jobs.

President Biden issued pardons to members of the January 6th committee, which you were part of. This came after President Trump suggested the committee should face jail time. You previously expressed that you did not want a pardon and communicated this to the White House. Now that you’ve received one, are you considering accepting it or seeking legal recourse? We are evaluating the situation, but it’s unclear what can be done since the pardons apply to the entire committee. This is unprecedented territory. We’ve operated collectively, and the law regarding such pardons is ambiguous. It seems likely we’ll have to accept the pardon unless there’s an attempt to prosecute the committee.

Have you ruled out a pardon for yourself or family members? Yes, I have. What would I pardon myself for? I have no intention of pardoning myself because I didn't do anything wrong. Could you comment on Meta's decision to...

Will you advise the president against issuing blanket pardons? I haven't reviewed those files yet, but if confirmed, I will examine them. Will you be able to review hundreds of cases on day one? I will look at every file I'm asked to review. Can you advise the president? I will have sufficient staff to assist me. I won't mislead this body or you. Let me ask you another question. These moments are why Congress exists.

Speaker 0: I ask all citizens to hold on a little longer. But until everyone is vaccinated, there will be no easing of restrictions, that is not the path we are aiming for. Speaker 1: Yesterday, you said that as long as not everyone can be offered a vaccine, there will be no new freedoms, we are talking about old freedoms. How do you plan to keep the vaccinated, let's say, in check, so that they don't start traveling, meeting up, or partying again? How long do you intend to enforce this strictly? Speaker 0: Well, I was asked about the wrong word, which I have already used, privileges, you didn't mention that. Because we must not get used to the normal life, as we know it with other freedoms, that life is no longer normal. That's where we want to go back to. These are fundamental rights that everyone has. But at the moment, even if someone is vaccinated, it is not clear whether they can still infect other people. And as long as that is not clarified, we cannot have any special measures or rights in addition to the normal rights for which the wave of lawsuits is demanding, and they are right. Look, there are now many lawsuits from people who want to be vaccinated in the highest priority group. There are lawsuits about the fairness of the measures. There will be lawsuits about the question of rights for the vaccinated, that is part of the rule of law and as politicians, we must argue why we are doing something, why we are not doing something. I believe that if we have been able to offer vaccination to a large number of people later on, and then some people say, we don't have mandatory vaccination, now I don't want to be vaccinated, then maybe we have to make such distinctions and say, okay, if you don't want it, then you may not be able to do certain things. Speaker 1: Chancellor, you explicitly mentioned the 21st of September yesterday. By then, there should be a vaccination offer for everyone. That is, if you look at the calendar, five days before the federal election. That date was not a coincidence, right? Speaker 0: Look, that is the meteorological beginning of autumn.

We have to deal with the anti vaxx campaigns because they will cost lives. If we need emergency legislation to deal with them, I'd be prepared to work with the government on that. We could pass it in a couple of days in parliament. And, the sooner we do that, frankly, the better because for many NHS staff, it is really distressing. and to come out and to have to confront that or even hear that, is, against the national interest. If we need legislation, look. I'll sit down with Boris Johnson. We can draft it. We can pass it very, very quickly because that misinformation will cost lives. We need as many people vaccinated as possible. We all need to give people confidence to be vaccinated, as part of the program. It is also dealing with this misinformation.

Documents will be released shortly, following last week's release. The speaker is encouraged by intelligence community whistleblowers coming forward, who were disgusted by past events and hope the truth will come out. The most important thing is accountability for the American people. All current and future documents have been sent to the Department of Justice to ensure the integrity of the democratic republic. The goal is to ensure Americans have faith that their votes will be respected by those leaving power.

The President recently discussed the possibility of preemptive pardons in an interview with USA Today. While specifics are not being disclosed, further announcements regarding pardons and commutations are expected soon, within the next ten days. More details will be provided before the end of his term.

This past week, a record 1,500 commutations were granted, the highest number in a single day. Among those commuted were individuals involved in serious crimes, including a judge linked to a cash-for-kids scheme that imprisoned many, a man guilty of tax fraud costing over $1.6 billion, and a woman involved in a $26 million Medicare fraud scheme. Are you comfortable with these decisions? No, I’m not. There was also a man in Duluth running a major drug operation who had money hidden under his bathroom tiles that was commuted. I also disagreed with the pardon of the president's son.

I would love to see all the politicians held accountable for their actions, but that's just my personal opinion. I believe it is a violation of human rights to force someone to take something against their will. It's concerning that we have little control over our own bodies. When do you think we will see the first person go to jail for what has happened? Hopefully in 2024. We're going to face some challenges, but I predict it will happen by 2025.

Speaker 0 apologizes for any discrimination based on vaccine status and promises amnesty for those prosecuted during COVID restrictions. Speaker 1 acknowledges the restrictions faced by unvaccinated individuals, such as job loss, limited access to loved ones, and travel restrictions. They consider this discrimination extreme but also recognize discrimination faced by other groups. Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to avoid creating a segregated society based on medical choices.

We have a list of pardons and commutations related to the events of January 6, 2021, affecting approximately 1,500 individuals. This includes about six commutations that require further research. The goal is to ensure these individuals receive their pardons or commutations promptly. We hope to see them released tonight. The order mandates that the Bureau of Prisons act immediately upon receiving the pardons and commutation orders.

There are potential side effects in vaccinations, and some people have gotten very sick from them. However, I am not forcing anyone to get vaccinated. Instead, I am providing incentives and protections to encourage Canadians to get vaccinated.

I'm asking if you will agree not to sue drug companies. I'm not agreeing to that. As secretary of HHS, you could influence lawsuits in many ways, such as promoting anti-vaccine views, appointing like-minded individuals, or changing vaccine schedules and compensation rules. You could even share FDA data with law firms for their benefit. I'm asking you to commit not to financially benefit from these lawsuits while serving as secretary. I will comply with ethical guidelines. You're trying to undermine vaccines. As secretary, you could harm vaccine access while profiting from it. I support vaccines and the childhood schedule; I just want good science. Then say you won't profit from your role as secretary.

The speaker mentioned that there were several steps that were intentionally delayed by the Department of Justice. When asked if they had encountered this situation before, they replied that they had not.

Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on leadership and promises, noting that public faith is essential to recover in the polls. They reference Speaker 1’s pledge to “smash the gangs” and point out that small boat crossings and the use of asylum hotels have continued to rise, asking if the mission is succeeding and whether the promise to end asylum hotels by the end of the parliament (2029) will be met. Speaker 1 responds that asylum hotels peaked at 400 and are now about 197, with some of that decline occurring before they came to power. The criticization centers on the previous government failing to process asylum claims, which allowed tens of thousands to arrive without determination. This, Speaker 1 argues, created a growing pool needing accommodation, making the hotel system “absurd.” The only long-term solution, he says, is to process those claims and determine who should stay and who should be removed. He claims they have removed 50,000 since taking office—the largest number in the best part of a decade—and reiterates a commitment to ending asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, though he notes it was not a fulfilled part of the manifesto. Speaker 0 presses again, asking for progress and whether the target will be met this year, emphasizing taxpayer frustration due to the last government’s mess and the tens of thousands in limbo awaiting decisions. Speaker 1 clarifies that there is no fixed date yet; he wants the timeline brought forward and accelerated, but he does not want to set a date until the team is confident it can be met. He asserts that the evidence of progress will appear in coming months, and, as they move into 2026, there will be visible steps toward closing the hotels. He stresses that the only lasting reduction in asylum hotels will come from swift processing of claims, ensuring those without a right to be here are removed, and that the pursuit of this objective must be brought forward, not delayed.

I want to discuss the JFK files. When I partially opened them, I was advised by well-meaning people, including Mike Pompeo, not to proceed. They expressed concerns about living individuals and potential national security issues. I agreed to hold off for now, but if I win, I plan to release them soon. I believe it’s time for a cleansing, and I think the files will be fine to open. I’ve already reviewed about 50% of the documents, but I was asked to delay further access. Now, I’m committed to releasing them shortly.

The speaker was asked if they would have done anything differently than President Biden during the past 4 years. The speaker responded that there is one thing that comes to mind. They added that they have been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.

The speaker is asked if they would abuse power as retribution, and they respond by saying they wouldn't, except for day 1 when they want to close the border and drill. They clarify that this isn't retribution, but rather their plan. The speaker is then asked if they would be a dictator, and they deny it, saying they won't be except for day 1 when they will close the border and drill. The interviewer suggests that this sounds like going back to their previous policies as president.

Approximately 1,500 people are set to receive pardons or commutations. There are about six cases under further review for commutation. The goal is to have these individuals released soon, ideally tonight. The order mandates that the Bureau of Prisons must act immediately upon receiving the pardon and commutation orders. There are ongoing discussions about specific cases, but the focus remains on ensuring the process moves forward quickly.

A candidate was asked if they would sign a bill for reparations for descendants of enslaved Africans if elected president. The candidate stated that when they are elected president, they will sign that bill.