TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

I need liquidity after a bad subprime experience. We overlooked greed and panic in our formulas. I need $805 billion by Tuesday. I won't betray you again. I've learned my lesson. This time is different. I need $2.5 trillion. I'll repay you. Translation: I need money after a bad investment. We didn't consider greed and panic in our calculations. I need a large sum by Tuesday. I promise not to betray you again. I've learned from my mistakes. This time is different. I need a huge amount of money. I will repay you.

Chris, my grandson, and I need to figure something out. We should talk to him about his firm and potential options. Do you have a hard copy? No, but I can give you a digital copy and then I'll give him the main points of what I wrote.

The speaker says, “You are going to see a crack in the bond market. Okay? It is going to happen. And I tell this to my regulators, some of whom are in this room, I'm telling you what's gonna happen, and you're gonna panic. I'm not gonna panic. We'll be fine. We'll probably make more money, and then some of my friends will tell me that we're that we cause we like crises because it's good for JPMorgan Chase.”

I work in risk management at MBS. We're making complex mortgage products quickly, but it takes a month to layer them correctly. This means we hold risky assets longer than ideal. If these assets drop by 25%, we'd lose more than our market value. The boss is worried we're in trouble. He's paid to predict the future, but right now, he hears nothing but silence.

I work in risk management at MBS. We package new products combining different ratings, but it takes too long. The assets are essentially mortgages, allowing us to take on more risk without notice. If these assets drop by 25%, we could lose more than our market value. The market is slowing down, and if it stops, it will be much worse. My job is to predict the future, but right now, I hear nothing but silence.

Speaker 1: Well, the intersection with the global financial crisis specifically is a wild story that to be truly told, you need to put the evidence on screen as well. But the short version is that he had a company called Liquid Funding Limited that was domiciled in The Bahamas that was partially owned by Bear Stearns. And Bear Stearns, you know, is where he had come up for a long time. And Liquid Funding Limited was selling CDOs, the same types of CDOs that eventually caused the global financial crisis. It was capitalized at, I believe, dollars 100,000,000 and allowed to sell $20,000,000,000 with a B of CDOs. Speaker 1: And I actually just was looking at that statistic earlier today because this is the craziest story. And that little CDO factory that Jeffrey Epstein was running tied into Bear Stearns. And if you recall, Bear Stearns was one of the, you know, the first to collapse, right? That shut down in the months directly preceding Bear Stearns starting to collapse. And Jeffrey Epstein redeemed all of those CDOs, all of those assets. Speaker 1: The terms are I don't know the technical terms for what he did. But basically, he made a run on the bank on those exact assets that were the exact problem. And he was tied into the exact bank that was financially distressed. And then he wound that whole company, Liquid Funding Limited, up and disappeared. And later, JPMorgan, the bank that he later worked with after, you know, Bear Stearns was his early banking career, and then he later was doing all of his money laundering and banking and referring of people at JPMorgan, They came in, swooped up Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. Speaker 1: They also later spun Liquid Funding Limited back up. There's a whole There's a very overt financial paper trail that Jeffrey Epstein was better acquainted with the problem than almost anyone in the world because he was deeply enmeshed in Bear Stearns and knew the leadership of Bear Stearns very well. And he understood CDOs, he was selling CDOs. And then he just so happens to wind his whole shop up and close it down and redeem it all right at the moment when things are about to go bust. So, that's a wild rabbit hole, and it's very interesting. Speaker 0: I mean, what is that? I mean, that suggests Well, it doesn't suggest it's like direct evidence of, if I'm assuming we can verify what you're saying, that the biggest events in the world are actually not quite as organic or accidental as we're led to believe and that, you know, this is like puppet master stuff. Mean, it is. I don't know what to say. I don't want this to be true, Speaker 1: but Speaker 0: that's what it looks

Their figurehead is George Soros. The speculation process goes like this: an investor deposits a security of 1,000,000,000 US dollars with a bank somewhere in the world. Then he goes to a bank in Thailand and takes out a loan for 25,000,000,000 baht. This is the official equivalent of $1,000,000,000. He sells the baht on the open market. Immediately, other money traders follow suit because they now fear that the price of the baht will fall. When the exchange rate of the bot to the dollar has fallen, for example, by 30%, the investor then buys back the 25,000,000,000 baht with only 700,000,000 US dollars, thereby redeeming his loan. He has made a $300,000,000 profit and then hightails it out of the country.

There is a pool of $50,000,000 in subprime loans. The market for insuring mortgage bonds is 20 times bigger than actual mortgages. If the mortgage bonds were the match, CDOs were kerosene soaked rags, then synthetic CDOs were the atomic bomb. Mark Baum realized the world economy might collapse at that moment in a restaurant.

I'm calling about my representation of the Patrick, the spy cheese of clients. My partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded the company and is now missing. He was last seen in his $58 million apartment, trying to secure a $4 billion deal for the largest RNG port in the world. My son hasn't made money in terms of this.

These are multiyear payouts, each secured by several mortgages. Oh! We've got it. We've got an Earth. We did it. All in favor, say aye. No. He's right there. He's right here.

These are multiyear payouts, each secured by multiple mortgages. So moved. All in favor, say aye. No. He's right there. He's right here. We've got an urgent matter. We reached him.

I told them they wouldn't get a billion unless the prosecutor was fired. I was leaving in 6 hours. They fired the prosecutor, and I'm getting a new one.

Zoran Mondani is accused of proposing to take $100,000,000 from New York taxpayers to pay for lawyers for people who came to the country illegally so they can fight their deportations. The speaker argues New Yorkers are already struggling with higher rents, groceries, unsafe subways and streets, and worsening city services. The claim is that Mondani would divert $100,000,000 to provide free lawyers for noncitizens ahead of the needs of residents, rather than fixing housing, making the city safer, or helping those who live and work there. The speaker asserts that people who immigrated legally followed the rules and paid their taxes, while Mondani’s priority is to reward those who do not. The message labels this as betrayal and contends Mondani has turned his back on the working men and women who keep New York City running every day. The election is framed as a choice about who stands with the residents, with Mondani depicted as clearly not standing with them. The speaker calls to stop the $100,000,000 betrayal and to stop Zoran Mamdani.

There's a bubble, according to the speaker, who advises someone to call Bennett and buy $50,000,000 in swaps on MBS, specifically Garibaldi or triple B. When questioned about the certainty of this action, the speaker confirms and declares it's time to call bullshit on everything.

This is an ATM. I am transforming the traditional banking industry with x.com. I am not your typical banker. I have raised $50 million through phone calls for x.com, my new internet banking and mutual funds company. I have invested most of my net worth into x.com. It has the potential to be a multibillion dollar success in the largest sector of the world.

BlackRock is a risky company focused on making money, selling high-risk bonds without investors fully understanding the risks. The speaker warns of a looming economic crisis, likening it to past financial collapses. They criticize the actions of CEOs and politicians, predicting a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis if lessons from history are not heeded.

Specifically, I set out to buy credit default swaps on subordinated tranches of subprime residential mortgage backed securities. We would ultimately use nine different Wall Street dealer counterparties. To be clear well, first I'd say Lehman and Baer, I avoided for obvious reasons, even back then. Goldman Sachs featured very prominently early on. They were a very anxious crew. To be clear, these credit default swaps that I'm buying would rise in value as mortgages are written off and the value of these tranches fell. Goldman Sachs in the spring of 'seven appeared to us to want to make its trade bigger. They wanted a bigger piece of the big short. A lower price, therefore, would benefit Goldman Sachs, and that's how Wall Street works. Incredibly, it would later be reported that more than $60,000,000,000,000, $60,000,000,000,000 in credit derivatives were in effect at the peak.

These are multiyear payouts, and each one has multiple mortgages. Oh. Oh, so moved. All in favor, say aye. No. He's right there. He's right here. We've got an Earth. We did.

I need to end this, but I like money and cocaine. You're not getting a single penny from us. Fuck. Okay. No more war. I'll see you soon. Thanks.

I demand that you lay off employees immediately. Labor demand is still too high. If you don't comply, I will release the VIX, making your stock options worthless. I have supported you by weakening the dollar and crushing the VIX. I only ask for one thing: fire people. Your variable compensation is in stock options, and I can manipulate the market to harm your portfolio. So, fire 50% of your staff or I will increase the VIX to 30.

This is Kai Smaller. During the day, I drive hedge fund managers and people who talk about things they don't know. But at night, I have knowledgeable customers who are better than hedge fund managers. Ladies, what is the best stock in the financial market?

A man questions a judge about how banks supposedly operate with borrowed funds. He presents a scenario: “I gave you the equivalent of $200,000. You returned the funds back to me, and I have to repay you $200,000 plus interest. Do you think I’m stupid?” He asserts that banks and Congress allow practices where banks breach written agreements, use false or misleading advertising, act without written permission or the borrower’s knowledge, and transfer actual cash value from the borrower to the bank, then return it as a loan. The man asks if, in this system, the borrower’s actual cash value funds the bank loan check and how the bank then uses those funds. The other participant, identified as a borrower in the discussion, responds that the borrower “got a check in the house.” The man pushes: is it true the actual cash value funding the loan check came directly from the borrower and that the bank received the funds from the borrower “for free”? He states, “No equal consideration. They got it from you for free,” and presses that the bank’s policy is to transfer the borrower’s cash value from the check to themselves and keep the money as the bank’s property, which they then loan out back to the borrower as if they own it and loan their own money. The other participant answers affirmatively, though notes not being present at the time to know the borrower’s intent. The man asks further: if a lender loans a borrower $10,000 and the borrower refuses to repay, is the lender damaged? The reply: yes, the lender is damaged if the loan isn’t repaid. He asks whether the bank’s practice is to take the borrower’s actual cash value, use it to fund the bank loan check, and never return it to the borrower. The response: the bank returns the funds, but as a loan to the borrower. The man clarifies: was the cash value returned as the bank loan to the borrower or as return of the money the bank took? Answer: as a loan. The man concludes, “So how did the bank get the borrower’s money for free? … It doesn’t make any sense.” A narrator then frames the scene: a man discussing banking with a judge, summarizing the exchange about funding checks with the borrower’s name, and the judge’s reaction that “all the banks are doing this” and that Congress allows it. The narrator describes the process in which you apply for a loan, a check with your name is issued, the bank takes it, and then “gives it back to you as a loan plus interest,” sourced from your own funds. He asserts there is no equal consideration and suggests people don’t understand truth in lending. The speaker claims that if the public understood the financial system, there would be a revolution, but people prefer to “dance.”

What's insurance, Charlie?

Speaker 0 argues that Freemasons, the New World Order, Skull and Bones, the Bohemian Grove, the North American Union, martial law, military checkpoints, US concentration camps, and a one world government will come to Americans unless action is taken now. The time is here; act now, America, before it's too late. Speaker 1 defines false flag operations as a distract-and-unify tactic for the government to push a hidden agenda. Globalization, control of oil, and suspension of civil liberties are used to gain more control, with fear being the game. He urges liberals, conservatives, and independents to join together as Americans and make their voices heard. He claims attackers want people split and distracted, and warns of an escalated attempt by the administration to scare the public into thinking Iran is a threat. He cautions to look for another false flag operation to justify fighting Iran, and to check for other mock drills occurring during the same time as real events; citing the nine-eleven attacks and the London bombings as examples where similar exercises happened the day of the attacks. He asks questions, demands answers, and asks who benefits. He asserts there is no interest in creating a stable environment in Iraq. He states the Pentagon has lost track of guns and ammunition and questions whose hands they fall into, arguing that disorder and chaos are being sought as distractions, with the conflict expected to last years. He predicts continued bases in Iraq under the pretext of security and national interest, and repeats the question: who benefits? Speaker 2 notes that in 2005 ExxonMobil achieved a record profit of $35,000,000,000, and an economist estimated that $7,000,000,000 of that amount was due to market conditions created by the war. Speaker 1 continues that under the pretext of security and fear of being attacked, the government will suspend freedom of speech, the right to assemble, and protection from illegal searches and seizures; they will ask law-abiding citizens to turn in their guns and to bear arms; they will establish martial law with the army policing the citizens, which is described as illegal. Speaker 3 adds that fear of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks on US territory might trigger drastic measures. NFL News 12 Jeff Bell reports that clergy would help the government with their biggest problem, which is "us." Speaker 1 repeats: remember, ask yourself, who benefits? Speaker 3 reiterates that their biggest problem is "us," not external enemies, and that those who follow the markets see increasing housing foreclosures and banks calling in loans. People who couldn’t afford loans would have houses bought back by those who built them for pennies on the dollar. This would allow a small elite to regain control, weaken the dollar, realize a North American union, and establish a broader global economy. The repeated question remains: who benefits? Speaker 2 concludes with the confession: “The truth is, I hope I'm wrong.”

Speaker 0: “You shoot me with that. I’m shooting you with mine. Your butt is built on bad people, bro. You're Hold on. Right here. Good. $9.45. 9. It’s only okay to And I got $3.80 in my bucket. Your side. Yeah. Yeah. It’s a big shame. It’s embarrassing. I almost bought my 40, but I’m an ex con.”