reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In a discussion about China's compliance with chemical and bio weapons treaty obligations, Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's knowledge on the matter. Speaker 1 expresses concerns about compliance but cannot confirm whether China was in compliance in 2005 or currently. Speaker 0 further asks about China's offensive biological weapons program and the collaboration between the Academy of Military Medical Sciences and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 acknowledges the collaboration and mentions the involvement of private organizations and the Chinese military. Speaker 0 inquires about the CDC's presence in Wuhan, but Speaker 1 does not provide a direct answer.

Speaker 0 argues that anyone can file a complaint with a law enforcement authority for murder conspiracy and demand arrests and prosecutions. He points to a 2013 press release claiming that DARPA awarded Moderna Therapeutics up to $25,000,000 to develop messenger RNA therapeutics, noting that DARPA is the Pentagon and claiming the Pentagon bought, paid for, and envisioned these mRNA shots. He contends Fort Detrick was involved in developing COVID-19 at the UNC BSL-3 and asserts the Pentagon is on both sides of the argument, developing the weapon and the alleged vaccines. Speaker 1 asks whether there is any liability shield for deploying a biowarfare weapon and whether the narrative about congressional liability for Pfizer is a SIOP. Speaker 0 agrees that civil liability is separate from criminal liability, stating in his book Resisting Medical Tyranny that executives at companies developing these mRNA shots are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He cites a Portugal report claiming that upwards of 300,000 Americans had been murdered by the mRNA Franken shots and invokes the JAB resolution, describing it as a Nuremberg crime against humanity and a violation of the Nuremberg Code. He defines a Nuremberg crime against humanity as murder, extermination, and other inhumane acts committed against civilians. Speaker 1 asks about liability for government officials who approved the vaccines. Speaker 0 says FDA officials who approved the shots could be indicted for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, noting the FDA’s involvement in developing COVID-19 as an offensive biological warfare weapon at UNC BSL-3, including a cited contract listing National Center for Toxicological Research and FDA as contributors. He claims the FDA, which approves the vaccines, was involved in this development. Speaker 1 questions the CDC and media accountability, noting the CDC’s recommendation of the vaccines and media promotion of boosters. Speaker 0 says the CDC, including Director Milensky (appointed by Biden, from Harvard Medical School), is complicit, and claims the CDC has a history dating back to the Reagan administration of handling offensive biological warfare projects, including shipping weaponized agents to Saddam Hussein with implications for U.S. troops after Gulf War I. Speaker 1 asks whether there are lawmakers with intel on gain-of-function biowarfare. Speaker 0 mentions Senator Rand Paul as having a strong understanding, but asserts that some lawmakers were threatened and obstructed after consulting him, recounting an experience with Walter Jones of the House Armed Services Committee who briefly engaged but then did not follow up, implying threats prevented action. Speaker 1 asks how citizens should respond, and Speaker 0 advocates reporting to sheriffs, district attorneys, and state attorneys, noting progress with a Collier County health freedom declaration. They discuss enforcement mechanisms, seizure, and incineration of stockpiles, and trial and sentencing for those responsible. Speaker 0 condemns China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology as a bioweapons lab, alleging it was a Chinese counterpart to Fort Detrick, with the Chinese president seeking his own BSL-4 program and an offensive biowarfare arsenal. Speaker 1 notes U.S. funding and international bioweapons labs, including Ukraine and Taiwan, and ends by referencing Lindsey Graham and a speaker labeled as a professor Boyle.

The speakers discuss concerns about unwanted attention on the relationships between Western virologists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 claims that money was sent to a Chinese lab that was not following proper protocols and was conducting gain of function research, suggesting that this is where the virus originated. Speaker 0 agrees with this statement.

- Speaker 0 notes that vaccines and boosters are readily available, testing has been dramatically scaled with millions of rapid tests, and that 82 percent of adult Americans have taken the vaccine. He states that those not vaccinated are nine times more likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus, and emphasizes that the country is in a different place than a year ago, with ongoing work to fight the virus. - On the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR), Speaker 0 explains that the release totals 50,000,000 barrels, with 18,000,000 already congressionally required and accelerated by the president to provide immediate relief. The remaining 32,000,000 comes from an exchange, putting barrels on the market now in exchange for their return in the future. He describes the exchange as a tool matched to the current economic environment and notes the aim to lower costs for the American people, particularly gas prices ahead of the holiday season, while acknowledging the pandemic’s impact on the global cost of goods and gas. He also mentions pressing OPEC+ to increase supply and using every tool at the administration’s disposal to help working families. - When pressed about the 50,000,000 barrels figure, Speaker 0 refrains from further detail beyond the explanation that 18,000,000 were congressionally required and the rest come from the exchange arrangement. - On China, Speaker 0 clarifies that the president did not intend to separate China publicly, saying China may do more, but the president does not want to speak for any country. He notes that the president has had conversations with other countries and that the national security team has communicated with them; announcements will be made by those countries themselves. Speaker 1 asks whether the president spoke with Xi Jinping; Speaker 0 confirms they did talk, as referenced in a readout issued afterward, and that the president asked China to discuss helping with supply, without detailing further. - Regarding Ukraine, Speaker 1 asks for updates on White House assessments and plans for a possible phone call with President Putin. Speaker 0 says there is nothing to preview at this time, but reiterates that the United States remains in very close contact with European partners.

Speaker 0 claims to have been in a meeting at a well-known estate owned by an African president. They were asked to be part of a new agenda for 2020 but declined. Speaker 1 agrees that it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Speaker 0 mentions that some members of the shadow government are not in America, including Bill Gates, who has been involved behind the scenes with his finances and the WHO. Speaker 0 addresses a personal message to Bill Gates and questions the impact of his supposed work in Africa.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

The speakers discuss the possibility of the COVID-19 virus originating from a lab leak rather than bats. Speaker 1 brings up American labs in Ukraine and questions their purpose. Speaker 2 mentions that Ukraine has biological research facilities, which they are concerned about falling into the hands of Russian forces. Speaker 1 suggests that the existence of these labs was buried and wonders if they were involved in creating anthrax or other unknown substances. Speaker 0 admits to not having knowledge about this topic.

Speaker 0 asks if USAID funded coronavirus research in Wuhan, China. Speaker 1 denies funding gain of function research but acknowledges the PREDICT program, which ended in China in 2019. Speaker 0 mentions that the GAO found that some grants from the $200 million program went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the lab leak suspicion originated. Speaker 1 is unsure about funding the Academy of Military Medical Sciences but acknowledges the lack of records. Speaker 0 states that they have been requesting records for months but received no documents from USAID. Speaker 1 reiterates that the PREDICT program ended in 2019. Speaker 0 asks who ran the PREDICT program, and Speaker 1 responds with UC Davis.

The speaker is asked if the WHO will consider Taiwan's membership, but there is no response. The question is repeated, but still no answer. The speaker then mentions wanting to discuss Taiwan's handling of the virus and plans to call someone named Dr. Auerd for more information. The speaker briefly mentions that China has done a good job in containing the virus. They thank the host for inviting them and wish them luck in their battle in Hong Kong.

Speaker 0 asks if Americans should take a vaccine if it is released before or after the election. Speaker 1 says they would take it if public health professionals recommend it, but not if Donald Trump does. Speaker 0 then asks Vice President Pence about safeguards for presidential disability. Pence defends the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic and criticizes the swine flu response during Biden's vice presidency. He accuses the senator of undermining confidence in a vaccine. Speaker 0 interrupts and ends the conversation.

- The discussion begins with concern about the quality of Speaker 1’s internet connection for recorded YouTube work. Speaker 1 explains that their neighborhood has a monopolist limiting updates to local software/hardware, and says their own Starlink setup is going up, with 20+ or ~30 satellites already online and deploying quickly. Speaker 1 then jokes about sponsoring revolutions abroad, noting France and the UK should be ready. - The conversation shifts to international developments, focusing on the “Iran war” and later Ukraine/Russia, and then on Trump’s visit to China. - Speaker 1 describes alleged details from Trump’s China visit: Tajikistan’s president was visiting the same day, and during Trump’s arrival only part of the route’s flags were reportedly changed from Tajik to US flags. Speaker 1 frames this as a “soft insult.” - On Xi Jinping meeting Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin at airports/tarmacs, Speaker 1 says some claims are not true and emphasizes protocol and past examples: in prior meetings (Xi and Putin; Trump arriving previously), Xi reportedly met Putin at the tarmac, sat down with the top down, and drove into the city. Speaker 1 also says that in Trump’s last China arrival, Trump reportedly had Xi waiting. - Speaker 1 assesses the Xi–Trump meeting as unprepared compared with highly structured US-style or adversarial-country meetings. They describe how security teams, working diplomats, document preparation, possible joint statements, and agenda negotiation are typically handled before leaders meet. Speaker 1 compares this to earlier dynamics seen in Anchorage (with Trump allegedly seeking speed for a PR/picture moment). - The thread links the China visit to energy leverage involving Iran and Venezuela. Speaker 1 says Venezuela’s capacity is limited (around 800,000 barrels/day) and that significantly expanding it takes time and large investment. Speaker 1 argues US refining limitations matter: US refineries were set up for heavier sour crude (described as “viscous” and “sour” due to sulfur) and the US has not built a new refinery in over 30 years, citing bureaucracy and environmental laws as reasons companies left. - Speaker 1 elaborates on why the US cannot easily expand refining quickly, citing high insurance costs for factory work and related regulatory burdens, leading factories to move elsewhere. - Speaker 0 asks whether Trump intended a different sequence: Speaker 1 says the initial idea was to seek earlier wins and use Venezuela and Iran concessions to gain leverage, but the meeting reportedly came with Trump facing weaker leverage and needing help on Iran. - Taiwan discussions: Speaker 1 says reunification preferences exist among the Taiwanese opposition party that met Xi in China, with Taiwan described as the “Republic of China” and some groups categorized as seeking reconquest/reunification. Speaker 1 discusses why supplying Taiwan for conflict is difficult across open water and notes past US War College war-game conclusions that China would win if the US fleet intervened between China and Taiwan, while US strategy (as described) aims to make invasion costly rather than “winning.” - Proxy-war framing: Speaker 1 describes Ukraine and Iran/Yemen conflict patterns as proxy dynamics, referencing Marco Rubio’s admission that one war is a proxy war. - Iran supply/blockade claims: Speaker 1 says Iran is supplied via multiple routes—ports on the Caspian connected through Russian ports, and a rail line through Pakistan to China—plus other smaller export/storage options. Speaker 1 argues Iran’s weakness has historically included refining and diesel shortages, comparing it to the US importing refined product because it cannot refine enough to meet demand. - Venezuela capacity and US-advantaged/refinery/infrastructure problems are revisited, including discussion of reserves being held in gold in the US, social spending reductions of reinvestment, and US confiscation/export restrictions on equipment replacement, leading to worn-out infrastructure and the lack of “quick fixes.” - Straits of Hormuz and alleged “fee” idea: Speaker 0 cites a White House statement that China agreed to buy American oil to diversify from Hormuz and that Iran should not charge a fee for the Straits of Hormuz. Speaker 1 responds that Iran does not charge China fees (as stated by Speaker 1), then argues China’s commitments would only be clear if China confirms them, and compares this to past statements where purchases were claimed without matching agreements. - Speaker 1 argues sanctions can be moved/bypassed by the US government, not lifted by it, and says only US Congress can remove sanctions. Speaker 1 also claims the US continues buying sanctioned Russian products, while Europeans are criticized for accepting costly resell markups. - Speaker 1 also argues Hormuz isn’t treated as international waters in their view, and that Oman involvement matters, including claims about Oman not installing tollbooths and Iran striking ships—contrasted with the idea that a long-term/perpetual fee would open global choke-point “can of worms.” - Broader geopolitical framing: Speaker 1 says the “global system” is effectively gone, arguing the US helped build it and then killed it when it no longer served US interest, citing examples like the WTO and the strategic focus on controlling key choke points. Speaker 1 contrasts sea routes with Eurasia land connectivity and high-speed rail, linking this to belt-and-road connectivity. - Back to Iran: Speaker 0 asks whether China is pressuring Iran to concede or offering Trump political support with words. Speaker 1 says China prefers status quo and would prefer an end to war without weakening American stockpiles; Speaker 1 also says Iran’s ceasefire is not a full ceasefire and that both sides continue actions. - US military capacity and escalation: Speaker 1 argues that if Trump restarts the war, missile production is “null and void” at scale, and US manufacturing/industrial ramp-up would take years, citing the “missile production is null and void” point and the difficulty of rapid industry re-shoring due to state regulations. Speaker 1 discusses rare earths as a limiting factor in a different way—refining/processing capacity rather than shortage of elements—then argues chemical/electrolysis processing is expensive, energy intensive, and environmentally complex, often causing multi-year delays similar to refineries. - Soft-power indicators from Xi’s alleged absence and flag changes are used to explain Chinese behavior toward Trump, contrasted with prior high-level airport greetings and seating/handshake optics. Speaker 1 compares seating arrangements and perceived humiliation in European/Serbia contexts as a recurring pattern of power display. - Iran-war outcome speculation: Speaker 0 proposes a 50/50 scenario: continuation of conflict with Israeli strikes (and Iran mirroring strikes in the Gulf) versus Trump walking away. Speaker 1 says Israelis are driving outcomes and that APAC donors and money make turning away difficult, arguing Trump wants out but is constrained. Speaker 1 also says Iran and even Saudis/Kuwaitis reportedly would prefer US withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. - US military withdrawal and logistics: Speaker 1 says the US fifth fleet has left, its forward headquarters is moving to Israel, and damage estimates/repair costs are discussed. Speaker 1 argues the US is drawn into a genocide-perception dynamic once bases/equipment and US involvement are present. - Historical Iraq/Kuwait/Persian Gulf narrative: Speaker 0 asks why the US wanted Saddam to invade Kuwait. Speaker 1 asserts the US wanted Iraq to enter the Persian Gulf and become positioned for broader US presence, describing US backing for conflicts involving Iran and chemical weapons channels, and claiming Kuwait engaged in slant drilling stealing Iraqi oil. Speaker 1 says the US/Soviet coalition dynamics allowed the Gulf buildup and entry point into the region. - Final escalation discussion and regional future: Speaker 0 asks whether Trump will walk away or get trapped into escalation for a “win.” Speaker 1 says Israel’s influence over the US is expected to decline, claims generational shifts among American Jews/Christians and anti-Israel demonstrations, and argues Iran and the Gulf could reshape into new blocks with improved Gulf-Iran relations if stability is prioritized. - The conversation ends with debate over perceived misconceptions about Iran’s treatment of minorities and religious/political representation, plus discussion contrasting Iran with Saudi Arabia in terms of women’s legal status and religious policing, followed by a plan to do a future live recording using appropriate software.

The speaker updates viewers on developments between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping and says the talks are “getting very interesting.” The speaker contrasts Trump’s approach toward different countries: they say Trump “bullies” European leaders and that those opponents are “weak,” but that this pattern does not apply with Russia or Iran. The speaker claims that when Trump goes to China, he will not be able to negotiate in the way he usually does, citing the situation involving Iran. The speaker reports that China is taking a harder stance. China is described as saying that future sanctions will not matter—“we’re not gonna pay attention”—and that China will continue tariffs with the United States, including a 77% tariff on American beef and a 22% tariff on soybeans. The speaker adds that these tariffs have upset American farmers. The speaker says China’s position is that it will consider lowering tariffs if the United States comes to China “and you ask nicely,” and describes this as a reversal. The speaker then introduces the “Thucydides trap,” attributing it to a Greek warrior turned philosopher and describing it as a theory about US–China relations: when one power grows much larger, it can overtake another, making war between them difficult to avoid. The speaker says Xi raised this concept in his opening remarks, expressing hope the United States and China can “transcend the Thucydides trap” and “forge a new model” for relations, with the idea that both countries being large does not automatically require them to clash. The speaker highlights Xi’s warning about Taiwan. They say Xi called the “Taiwan question” the most important issue in China–US relations and stated that if it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. The speaker reports that Xi then warned that mishandling it would lead to clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in jeopardy—framing it as a direct warning to Trump that interference over Taiwan could become “really serious.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

The speaker repeatedly questions why the virus is being referred to as the Chinese virus. They assert that calling it the Chinese virus is not racist and emphasize that it originates from China.

The speaker was asked if there were any plans to travel to the southern border, to which they replied that there were none at the moment. When asked about sharing thoughts with other countries, the speaker mentioned that they have been talking with several countries already. There was also a question about which country would be the first to receive the US vaccine, but the speaker did not provide a direct answer.

The speaker questions the amount of money that went from USAID to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina. The other speaker rejects the accusation and doesn't have the specific details about USAID funding. The first speaker asks if they are certain that no USAID money went to Wuhan, but the second speaker avoids answering and asks for respectful questions. The first speaker insists on a denial, but the second speaker dismisses it as a non-denial denial.

I will not call on you if you yell, and you're wasting time because Dr. Fauci has to leave soon. I'm not engaging in a back-and-forth. It's not your turn. Don't look at me; it's your first question. You should call on people across the room. She has a valid question about the origin of COVID. I hear the question, but we're not proceeding as you wish. This is disrespectful. I'm done with this. Simon, I'm finished with you right now. Go ahead.

Speaker 0 believes all COVID documents under seal in the United States should be unclassified. Speaker 1 agrees and states they are complying with congressional subpoenas for all NIH documents related to COVID-19. This will reveal what the U.S. government knew and discussed leading up to the pandemic. However, the Chinese government is not providing the same level of transparency. For example, the NIH requested lab notebooks from the Wuhan experimenters, but they were not shared.

The speakers discuss concerns about unwanted attention on the relationships between Western virologists and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Speaker 1 suggests that money was sent to a Chinese lab that was not following proper protocols and was conducting gain of function research, which is believed to be the origin of the current situation. Speaker 0 agrees with this statement.

Speaker 0 asks about the amount of money from USAID that went to Wuhan and their collaborator at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the accusation and admits to not having the specific details of USAID funding. Speaker 0 presses for a clear answer, but Speaker 1 deflects and requests respectful questions from the audience. Speaker 0 insists on a denial, calling Speaker 1's response a nondenial denial.

A member of the World Health Organization team reveals that some researchers at a Wuhan lab studying coronaviruses got sick with flu-like symptoms in the fall of 2019. However, there were only 1 or 2 cases, which is not significant. China claims that the lab researchers tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 in March-April 2020, and there is no credible evidence of a lab leak. A 300-page joint report between the WHO and China will be published soon, but concerns have been raised about the WHO team's lack of proper access and the need to clear their report with Chinese scientists. China insists it has been transparent, while the Biden administration questions its transparency.

The speaker expresses confidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is the origin of the virus. They criticize the World Health Organization (WHO) for acting as a public relations agency for China, despite receiving significant funding from both China and other countries. The speaker believes that the WHO should not make excuses for mistakes that have resulted in numerous deaths worldwide.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.