reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Victoria Noland, protect your documents and get a lawyer, because we are targeting you as the main source of the Ukraine situation.

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

According to Speaker 0, Canada's new prime minister threatened to seize capital from companies not advancing Canada's climate agenda. Speaker 1 stated the goal is for every financial decision to consider climate change, backing companies that are part of the solution and taking capital away from those who are part of the problem. Speaker 0 claims the prime minister is a fan of censorship and threatened American social media platforms, referencing a statement by Speaker 1 that large American online platforms have become seas of hate and are being used by criminals to harm children, and that his government will act. Speaker 0 asserts there is no free speech in Canada and that the prime minister wants to ban social media platforms, shut down dissent, and use the climate crisis as an excuse to steal from businesses and control their means of production. Speaker 0 concludes that while the friendship between the US and Canada will continue, the "free ride" is over.

The speaker references 'Of hostages before engaging in what many see as as a animal cruelty.' They say, 'I can't imagine, this is absolutely astonishing to me, that an animal welfare issue in Canada has garnered the attention of MAGA type billionaires in The United States, which makes me sympathize with the ostriches less.' They conclude, 'But that doesn't matter. What'.

You are imposing tariffs on regular Americans, and we will respond. Canada is a crucial market for U.S. exporters, larger than China, Japan, the UK, and France combined. The anger in Canada is palpable, with the entire country rallying behind Prime Minister Trudeau. The tariffs are higher than those against China, which feels like a betrayal to a loyal ally. The justification regarding fentanyl and border security is flimsy, as only a tiny fraction of fentanyl comes from Canada. Canadians are proud of their sovereignty and will retaliate against these unjustified measures. The relationship between our countries has historically been beneficial, and we want to maintain that partnership. The current situation is seen as self-harm for America, and Canadians are uniting in support of their government.

I am not campaigning to be the governor of the fifty-first state. Initially, Canadians were sad because we consider Americans our friends and neighbors, but that sadness evolved into anger. The President of the United States is repeatedly suggesting using economic coercion to force Canada to become the fifty-first state. I take this seriously, and so do Canadians. I'm actively campaigning, and recently, a four-year-old girl named Ari approached me with her mother in Saskatoon. She asked me, with all the seriousness a child could muster, if I could stop Trump from invading Canada. We're now at a point where young children are worried about the possibility of an invasion.

Speaker 0 observes that, despite a 'pitiful Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting' happening among 'all our least favorite characters, Xi and Putin and Modi and the rest,' Trump nonetheless has 'plenty of options.' He identifies 'Number one, those secondary sanctions' as a principal option available to Trump. He further states, 'Yeah. I see these leaders trying to close ranks and gang up on Trump, but it is not going to work.' The overall framing centers on sanctions as a strategic lever in the international arena, with the participants at the SCO gathering appearing to attempt to form a united front against Trump, which the speaker suggests will not succeed.

President and the king of Jordan have stated they will not accept displaced people from Gaza. Is there a way to change their stance, such as imposing tariffs? They will comply. What leads you to believe that? They will do it. We provide significant support to them, and they will respond accordingly. Mr. President, you've made an offer.

I signed the exchange of prisons agreement, but the other party didn't follow through. What kind of diplomacy are we even talking about here? I'm referring to the diplomacy that will prevent your country from being destroyed. With all due respect, it's disrespectful to come into the Oval Office and try to argue this point in front of the American media. Right now, you're forcing conscripts to the front lines due to manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for intervening.

The speaker agrees with the secretary that a decisive Ukrainian victory is the strongest message of deterrence to China. It shows dictators that democracy is ready to fight and can succeed. The speaker also mentions Canada's achievement in being the first to impose sanctions.

If the US forces our hand, we will inflict the biggest trade blow they have ever endured with dollar-for-dollar retaliation. Any tariff imposed on Canada will be met with a smart and targeted response. The US tariffs are across the board and will hurt them. For example, aluminum is basically electricity in solid form, and imposing a 25% tariff on Canadian aluminum is like putting a 25% tax on electricity, which they need for the AI race with China. Our retaliation will be surgical, targeting American stakeholders who matter to the White House. I propose a 100% tariff on all Teslas and call on other affected countries to join us. We will also target specific Trump constituencies, like Wisconsin dairy farmers, by no longer allowing them to sell their products in Canada.

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

Donald Trump, you may have held the presidency, but your actions are disgraceful. You are a convicted felon and have shown disdain for your allies while flattering Putin. Canada is your best neighbor and trading partner, and we refuse to be intimidated by your grifter politics. We will uphold the international order, support NATO, and assist Ukraine. This is not just a diversion for you; you need to explain to the American people why you surrounded yourself with so many dishonest individuals. The American and Canadian people will not tolerate it. Anytime, anywhere, we are ready to confront you.

You've betrayed Canada for globalism. You're not serving our country but your globalist allies. I question how much you're being compensated for this betrayal. What should we do with traitors in Canada, Mr. Trudeau? Historically, they faced severe consequences for treason, and your actions feel similar to that betrayal.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

Speaker 0 states: "Can't charge a dollar. I would've used 1p, but we don't make the pennies anymore. We save money. Can't charge $1 to any country under IEPA. Not $1, I assume, to protect other countries." They assert this must have been done "to protect those other countries. Certainly not The United States Of America," which they say "they should be interested in protecting." They then claim: "That's what they're supposed to be protecting. But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country. In other words, I can destroy the trade." They further assert: "I can destroy the country. I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1. Because that's not what it says, and that's not the way it even reads." The speaker emphasizes a broader power: "I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can't charge any money. So I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee. I could give them a little $2.02 cent fee, but I cannot charge under any circumstances. I cannot charge them anything."

Donald Trump, you may have held the presidency, but your actions are disgraceful. You're a convicted felon and treat allies with disdain while flattering Putin. Canada is your best neighbor and trading partner, and we won't be intimidated by your grifter politics. We will uphold the international order, support NATO, and stand with Ukraine. This is a diversion for you, but you need to explain to Americans why you've surrounded yourself with so many dishonest individuals. The American and Canadian people will not tolerate it. We're ready to confront you anytime, anywhere.

Speaker 0 conveys a policy stance: 'When I came in, the first thing I said is any BRICS state that even mentions the destruction of the dollar will be charged a 150% tariff, and we don't want your goods. We don't wanna partake. And' The central assertion is that any BRICS state mentioning the destruction of the dollar would incur a 150% tariff, with the speaker stating they do not want the goods or participation from those states. The transcript ends with an unfinished conjunction, 'And', suggesting the thought continued beyond the excerpt. The excerpt provided ends abruptly, with 'And' indicating continuation.

Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 voted for a bill targeting ICC officials' family members. Speaker 1 defends the vote as a message, not intended to harm the prosecutor's sons. Speaker 0 criticizes the bill as mafia-like, but Speaker 1 denies this, emphasizing the legislative process. Speaker 0 presses on the impact of sanctions on the prosecutor's children, while Speaker 1 maintains the bill's intent was not malicious. The discussion highlights differing views on the bill's implications and the role of Congress in sending messages through legislation.

Victoria Noland, protect your documents and get a lawyer, because we are targeting you as the main source of the Ukraine situation.

Any BRICS state that mentions the destruction of the dollar will be charged a 150% tariff, and the U.S. does not want their goods.

You are accused of working for globalist partners and betraying Canada. In the past, traitors were hanged for treason, and it is claimed that you are doing the same to us now.

Speaker 1 stated they will do everything in their power to protect Seattle residents from anyone who comes to the city with the intention to hurt them or inhibit their first amendment rights. They believe they will probably go to jail and be in prison because the current administration has threatened to jail politicians and has done so.

If Russia invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 will be canceled. The speaker assures that they will find a way to stop the project, even though Germany currently controls it.

The speaker states that the situation was rapidly approaching the point of no return and that the United States found it intolerable, based on what Steve, Jared, Pete, and others told him, with Marco being so involved that he thought they were going to attack us if action wasn’t taken at the time we did it, and that they had in mind to attack us.