reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks when Congress might vote on having the whistleblower appear, claiming Speaker 1 is the only member who knows the whistleblower's identity and whose staff has spoken with them, requesting the same opportunity. Speaker 1 denies knowing the whistleblower's identity and affirms their determination to protect it. Speaker 1 states that after the witnesses testify, there will be an opportunity to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote.

- 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.

A speaker asks if an interview will be conducted with Dr. William Mattis regarding receipts he brought about AHS and a pedophilia problem. Speaker 1 responds that one doctor Mattis raised concerns about went through legal proceedings in British Columbia, was found guilty, and is believed to be being sentenced. Speaker 1 states that credible claims must go through a legal process and that while Mattis has raised concerns that have been validated, it is up to the courts to adjudicate them. Speaker 1 looked into the claims and says it appears a couple are going through that process now.

The speaker emphasizes the need to investigate the legitimacy of the election and understand what happened. They express a willingness to work with anyone, regardless of party, to uncover the truth and make improvements. They mention the importance of knowing what laws need to be changed but acknowledge the lack of knowledge about the situation. The speaker concludes by thanking the chairman and Senator Heath.

Speaker 0 suggests there was potentially the biggest setup and one of the greatest crimes against the American people in the history of the country. Speaker 1 agrees it's important to get the truth and states they are working to uncover the cover-ups that happened after January 6th. Speaker 0 asks about Republicans involved in those cover-ups, acknowledging it's hard to address one's own party. Speaker 1 responds that they're going to go where the evidence leads, no matter what. Speaker 0 states they will hold Speaker 1 to that.

Speaker 0 is asked if he accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

The conversation hinges on distrust of powerful benefactors and the way money influences politics, alongside reflections on recent political events. - Speaker 0 asserts that connections to the Rockefellers are “super sus,” arguing they have provided direct funding to an individual named Scott, which raises questions about influence and motives. They contend the Rockefellers are “nefarious” in American history and criticize the notion of “selling out” to such interests, suggesting that backing from these families would align with the interests they claim to oppose. - Speaker 2 summarizes a broader concern: the idea that the path to defeating the system is to imitate or intensify the same tactics used to entrench the system. They quote Charlie Kirk, noting that those in power “have no desire to reform the system,” only to “control the system and control you through it.” This is presented as evidence that the supposed challengers are actually reinforcing the very structure they claim to fight. - The discussion shifts to strategy and perception, with Speaker 1 urging a course of voting effort as a form of action, and Speaker 0 agreeing that the approach being discussed is aligned with the organization’s stance. There is a sense of skepticism about those who advocate for “voting harder” as a solution while appearing to operate within the existing power structures. - There is a separate thread about state politics: Speaker 0 mentions Wisconsin, noting a fascination that Democrats would elect a certain Supreme Court justice while the state would pass voter ID by a wide margin, which Speaker 0 sees as inconsistent with “a Democrat issue.” Speaker 1 acknowledges the point, and Speaker 0 indicates they would review the situation further by watching past coverage. - Another thread involves a personal and investigatory concern: Speaker 3 describes involvement in a case (referenced as “mother out to the case” and speaking with someone who was “clearly killed by somebody”). They recount contacting a California congressman, Ro Con (likely a misspelling of Ro Khanna), to raise the concern, but state that nothing happened. Speaker 2 dismisses the suggestion that political action followed, and there is a back-and-forth about whether the discussion is a debate or a plea for sympathy, with Speaker 2 accusing Speaker 3 of trying to build sympathy. Overall, the dialogue centers on alleged manipulation by powerful funders, the tension between reform and control within the political system, inconsistent political outcomes in Wisconsin, and frustration with inaction on a troubling case that involved a potential kill and calls to congressional attention that did not lead to results.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 refuses to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

The speaker asks if Mindon is part of the investigation, to which Speaker 1 responds that allegations have been received and the review is ongoing. Speaker 0 then mentions that Mindon has 4 years' worth of relevant emails that have been corrupted, but Speaker 2 questions the validity of this statement. Speaker 0 emphasizes the seriousness of deleting emails and asks when the president and the auditor general were informed. Speaker 1 states that the allegations were received on December 11th, but there is no evidence of deletion. Speaker 0 asks if the auditor general was notified, and Speaker 1 confirms informing them of the allegations. The Treasury Board Secretariat and RCMP were not informed due to lack of evidence of criminality. The conversation ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

Speaker 0 interrupts and is asked to sit down. Speaker 1 tells Speaker 0 to leave the auditorium. Speaker 2 comments on the situation. Speaker 1 calls Speaker 0 a sick person for turning it into a political issue.

Speaker 0 is asked if they wish they had a third term. They respond by saying they would be fine with having a stand-in who would wear an earpiece and deliver their lines while they stay in their basement. Speaker 2 interrupts and tells everyone to ignore the person in the earpiece. Speaker 3 mentions something about getting Republicans elected. Speaker 4 says the person speaking is not recognized. Speaker 5 reminds everyone not to engage in personal attacks. Speaker 1 repeats their earlier statement about having a stand-in and being fine with it.

Speaker 0 confirms making a phone call to the Prime Minister at 3:34 pm. Speaker 1 questions if there is a record of this call that hasn't been disclosed. Speaker 0 clarifies that there is a record of the call but not the content. Speaker 1 asks if Speaker 0 remembers what was said, to which Speaker 0 affirms.

First speaker: Calls the indictment unjust and says intimidation tactics have been pervasive, with weeks showing different members seeking sanctuary in hopes of intimidating and distracting from the Epstein files. They look forward to their day in court to prove themselves and state the truth. If Congress becomes about intimidation and scare tactics, especially attacking minorities, they will keep fighting for the district. They have received much support and will continue fighting until the district gets fair prices, housing, and fair representation in Congress. They note that those who hate the fight will come for them. They urge some colleagues to step down or resign, arguing they weren’t elected by those who are in the district. They insist they will keep fighting for the people and work to ensure only those who elected them make decisions. They reiterate that they are here for the people. Second speaker: Questions about the investigation into the congresswoman’s families, stating that this is part of congressional duties. They say the congresswoman is under investigation for congressional ethics regarding violations of campaign finances and assert that she must answer to the people of her district.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

Speaker 0 politely asks for the audience to lower their voices and thanks someone for their question. Speaker 1 mentions that federal authorities were not informed about certain information regarding the shooter. Speaker 0 asks for clarification on who "they" refers to. Speaker 1 explains that it was the local police who did not share the information. Speaker 0 states that the matter is under investigation and asks not to argue. Speaker 0 acknowledges the concern in the community but states that the facts are yet to be determined. Speaker 0 declines to make assumptions and ends the conversation.

Speaker 0 is asked if they will be running for reelection in 2026. They apologize for not hearing the question properly and ask for someone else to speak up with a different question.

The exchange centers on who is responsible for approving an asylum claim linked to an Afghan individual who was part of the Afghanistan evacuation and who was involved in a deadly incident in Washington, D.C. The dialogue is combative and procedural as members press for accountability and a straight answer. - Speaker 0 references a National Guardsman’s death in an incident involving the same individual, calling it an unfortunate accident, while Speaker 1 insists it was a terrorist act and asserts the guard member was shot in the head. The interaction escalates as Speaker 0 seeks clarification about who approved the asylum application for this person. - Speaker 0 asks plainly: “Who approved the asylum claim?” Speaker 1 responds that the asylum application was thoroughly filled out by information gathered by the Biden administration and that the asylum process was put into place under rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 counters that, by implication, the Trump administration had changed the vetting process and the asylum had moved forward under those changes, prompting a dispute over attribution of responsibility. - Speaker 1 emphasizes that the evacuation of Afghanistan under Operation Allies Welcome was “thoroughly vetted by the Biden administration at that point in time” and insists that the individual’s asylum process followed the vetting and rules established by the Biden administration. Speaker 0 pushes back, pressing for a yes-or-no determination of who approved the asylum. - Speaker 2 offers a different framing, stating that the individual was vetted to serve as a soldier in Afghanistan and that this vetting standard was used by the Biden administration “as a ruse to bring him here.” He asserts that had standard operating procedures for special immigrant visas been followed, “none of the Allies Welcome people would have come to America,” attributing responsibility to President Biden. He also invokes a point of order and references a murder “that took place in DC,” insisting the prior description as “unfortunate” was inappropriate. - The dialogue includes interruptions and procedural motions: Speaker 2 asserts the comment about a murder was not a valid point of order; a separate speaker notes that the incident being discussed was not merely an “unfortunate incident” but a murder. - Throughout, the participants accuse each other of misattributing the asylum approval to the wrong administration and of altering vetting processes, with repeated demands for a straightforward answer about who approved the asylum application and persistent insistence that the Biden administration’s vetting and rules were the basis for the asylum decision. The exchange ends with procedural interjections and the continuation of the dispute over responsibility for the asylum approval and the accompanying tragic incident.

Speaker 0 questions Meneer Markushauer about why he could not become vice premier, implying it would have happened if it were up to Geert Wilders. The questions prompt whether he should ask Wilders about the matter and suggest that not everything passed the AIVD security check. The line of questioning then shifts to which foreign intelligence service Markushauer actually works for, asking him to declare whether he works for any foreign security service and specifically referencing the Turk. The questions continue to press: what foreign affiliation does he have, if any, and whether he has ties to a foreign intelligence agency. The speaker mentions the Stichting bij Leven en Welzijn and asks about firearms, suggesting this is a recurring topic in related groups. There is an insinuation that Denk might nominate a member of parliament who works for the Turkish security service, and the speaker urges Markushauer to answer plainly if there is nothing to hide. The conversation also notes that ANP (the news agency) wants an answer from Markushauer, signaling media interest in his affiliations and security clearance. The overall point is to probe Markushauer’s possible connections to foreign intelligence services, questions about his eligibility for high office based on security checks, and to obtain a clear admission or denial regarding any such affiliations, with an emphasis on transparency given political risk and media attention. The exchange presents a sequence of provocative questions intended to challenge Markushauer on loyalties, security vetting, and potential foreign influence, while underscoring public and media demand for clarification.

Speaker 1 questions the lack of disclosure regarding charges against Sam Bankman Fried. Speaker 0 confirms the existence of a memo recommending charges but states it has not been sent. Speaker 1 expresses frustration and suggests involving the Department of Justice. Speaker 0 mentions the need to keep investigative matters confidential. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will follow up on the matter.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.

The speaker confirms an ongoing investigation. This investigation was prompted by a motion in the House of Commons. They also state that they received a USB key, which is currently being stored. The investigation relates to events at the SDTC.

In this video, Speaker 1 confronts Dennis Gilliam about his alleged involvement in certain Signal and Telegram groups. Dennis claims to have no knowledge of these groups and suggests that he may have been added without his consent. Speaker 1 believes Dennis is not the creator of these groups and wants to collaborate in identifying the real culprits. They discuss the possibility of Dennis being transferred to these groups through links posted on Facebook. Speaker 1 emphasizes that their main focus is finding the individuals responsible for creating and participating in these groups, rather than accusing Dennis. Additionally, the video discusses how the speaker was led to various groups on Signal through provocative photos on Facebook. They mention that both boys and girls are being posted in these groups, with mainly women being posted in the videos. The age range of individuals in the groups is mostly teens and twenties. The speaker admits to clicking on links and seeing pictures and videos but claims to have quickly exited when uncomfortable. They mention that the groups are primarily in Spanish and that they have seen links with pictures and videos being posted. However, the frequency of inappropriate content being posted in the groups remains uncertain. The video also features a conversation between Speaker 1, Speaker 2, and Speaker 3. Speaker 1 confronts Speaker 2 about his alleged involvement in groups that post explicit content involving minors. Speaker 2 denies any knowledge or intent to view such content, but Speaker 1 presses for more information. Speaker 3, who is also present, shares that he has grandchildren and works in mental health. The conversation becomes tense as Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of clicking on videos featuring young children. Speaker 2 admits to accidentally clicking on such videos multiple times. The conversation continues with Speaker 1 explaining their organization's work and Speaker 2's involvement. The video ends with Speaker 2 deleting evidence from his phone.