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.

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'.

Speaker 0 announces a government procurement policy change. Starting today, all U.S.-based companies will be banned from taking part in government procurement. The speaker notes that the province spends about $30 billion annually on procurement, and alongside that, there is more than a $200 billion plan to build infrastructure. As a consequence of this policy, U.S.-based businesses will lose tens of billions of dollars in revenues. The speaker attributes this consequence to President Trump and states the intention to urge all 44 municipalities to adopt the same approach, highlighting that some have already begun to respond. The speaker emphasizes a broader move beyond the procurement ban, stating that Ontario is ripping up its contract with Starlink. The contract is described as done and gone, with a commitment not to award contracts to individuals or entities that enable and encourage economic attacks on the province or country. This action is framed as part of a larger response that includes federal tariffs and measures being advanced by fellow premiers. The speaker characterizes the collective actions as “Team Canada’s opening response.” In summary, the key points are: a nationwide procurement ban for U.S.-based companies by the provincial government; the substantial annual procurement expenditure and the large infrastructure plan that would be affected; anticipated revenue losses for U.S.-based businesses; encouragement for all 44 municipalities to adopt the same ban, with some already joining; the termination of the Ontario-Starlink contract; and the stance that no contracts will be awarded to actors who are perceived as enabling economic attacks on the province or country, all within a broader strategy that includes federal tariffs and other premiers’ measures as part of an opening response from Team Canada.

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: The GCC allies are largely blockaded and not getting anything through; only UAE or Oman might be getting a few shipments due to being on the Gulf of Oman side. This is driving higher oil prices. We can’t simply bluff or "play a game of chicken" because it affects the entire world—Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States. The shortage extends beyond oil to things like helium, and it’s impacting chip manufacturing and broader economic activity. These are medium-term issues already baked in and in short supply, so we’re facing real problems and a question of how long we can endure this. Speaker 1: As energy becomes more expensive—oil at $110, then $120, $130, $140, $150, rising until this crisis ends globally—the risk is a financial collapse worse than 2007–2008, potentially a depression in much of the world. Economists predict a serious recession, possibly a depression, and these dynamics are what Putin was trying to convey to Trump because Americans are perceived as potentially catastrophic. China is dependent on energy but is expanding nuclear power, has substantial coal, and is investing in renewables; China will survive this. Japan and Korea are on the edge; India is affected; Egypt is trying to feed 100,000,000 and facing famine; Turkey is involved. These states are being pushed toward war not just with Israel but with the United States, since without Israel none of this would be happening, and they know it. Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey, India, and possibly others may join a coalition to force the United States to stop. The speaker would prefer not to go there and believes President Trump should end the blockade, which was adopted because it was the only measure short of returning to war, but the blockade won’t work because the world won’t tolerate it. The president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) has publicly said it’s time for Korea to defend itself. It’s been time for Korea to take control of its own armed forces for a long time, but the U.S. currently controls all their armed forces and Koreans have not liked that for at least twenty years. Now they want control of their own armed forces. The speaker expects the dissolution of the United States’ unofficial overseas imperial holdings, predicting the Koreans will expel the U.S., with Japan likely following. In the Pacific, trilateral efforts among Korea, the Philippines, and Japan are forming to cooperate with the U.S. in a future war with China—not in our lifetimes or on the planet, as no one wants war with China. Nobody wants war with China; China is increasingly seen as a safer place for cash and investments in the U.S. This shift began when the U.S. began telling Russians they would not allow them to access billions of rubles and may seize funds, possibly giving cash to Ukrainians. People are watching and asking whether they want to depend on the U.S. financial system or face interference with bank accounts. There are many bad developments right now, and the last thing the American people need is a war, certainly not one involving China, Russia, or any other powers along with Iran, yet that seems to the direction in which things are headed.

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.

Bensouda, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and currently Gambia’s High Commissioner to the UK, described 17 years at the ICC, including eight years as deputy prosecutor and nine years as chief prosecutor, during which she faced intimidation, pressure, and threats related to the ICC’s investigations into war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. She said this work “triggers pushback” against the court. She stated that in 2015, after opening an examination into Palestine, she began receiving threats involving both herself and her family. She described an early incident in The Hague when she was still living there: two men visited her house in a car parked not next to the residence. She said she did not know where they were from. The driver took the car’s number plate, and she eventually came out while the men stood outside and did not enter. She said they handed her an envelope containing about $500 and told her it was from someone she had helped, which she interpreted as showing they knew where she lived. She reported the incident to ICC security and to the registrar, returned the money, and submitted the number plate. She said the only established detail was that the phone numbers provided were from Israel. She also said Dutch authorities did not do more investigation “as far as I know.” She said Israel made her feel insecure and that this was the first clear Israeli attempt she knew of to persuade her to stop the Palestine investigations. She referenced other security-related incidents around the time, including someone caught near her house taking photos, and the broader context that she had also requested investigations into the US military regarding Afghanistan war crimes, and that Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire cases were still ongoing. Bensouda said she later met Yossi Cohen, the head of Mossad at the time. She described meeting him first in Munich and again in a hotel in New York during the UN General Assembly period, where she was meeting a head of state. She said Cohen approached and the meeting concerned the Palestine investigations. She said Cohen indicated that they did not want the Palestine investigations to continue and that she should stop. She portrayed the progression of the message as initially friendly and attempts to win her over, then increasingly direct: she said Cohen repeatedly insisted that she stop the investigations and that this was the “bottom line.” She said she responded by keeping it quiet and reporting to ICC security and informing Dutch authorities, while avoiding alarming general ICC staff to prevent panic and protect the work. She said she was not aware of extra support from the Dutch government beyond reporting. She also said some authorities urged her to stop because she could be harmed or killed, but she said stopping was “out of the question” to her. She argued that state parties established the ICC have a responsibility to protect and insulate the court from attacks and to ensure personnel feel protected, but that they were not doing enough, and that justice was being sacrificed to political interests. Bensouda said that in 2019 she announced the investigation in the Palestine case and that soon afterward the United States imposed stiff sanctions. She said the sanctions affected her daily life beyond travel, including blocking her bank account at the UN Federal Credit Union and disrupting simple transactions such as booking hotels and transferring money. She said the ICC registrar, working with Dutch authorities, managed for banks to accept to receive her salary, but she said other banks associated with her, including her mortgage bank, closed down. She also said her son’s account in the Gambia was blocked, and that efforts were made to investigate her husband through photographs and audio recordings to determine whether he was involved in anything illegal. She said the threats and sanctions had an impact on the ICC’s work, noting that even measures taken to keep cases moving cannot fully prevent disruption. She concluded that states should come together with structures that act immediately when attacks happen, instead of waiting and scrambling afterward, and that they do not speak with “the same voice,” with some states refusing to help.

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.

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.