TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.”

I have the floor and expect to be heard. I changed the topic to cause conflict, which is not appropriate. As a member of parliament, this committee used to be peaceful until you arrived. You need to speak respectfully to your colleagues and not try to intimidate us. Canadians want to hear from the witnesses, and we demand that. Dr. Lewis and Miss O'Connell should be allowed to speak. Let's all show respect for each other, as is the standard practice in this committee. We should not bring the issues from other committees into this room.

Stop! This has gone too far. I have a duty to be in this room, representing 200,000 people from Northwest Georgia who elected me to be here today.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, despite your attempts to prevent it. In just 60 seconds, I want to address a concerning issue. I believe that by imposing certain ideologies on impressionable children, such as the idea that boys can be girls and vice versa, you are endangering their safety, privacy, and the truth itself. Education must be grounded in truth to be valuable, and I see your actions as harmful. It seems you silence opposing views because you lack a valid argument. However, we will not be silenced. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to further discussions.

Up an American flag. It's my constitution. If you continue, I will have to forfeit your time. You have the right to dance, but if you get sued, you will lose. You should seek a second opinion because you are wrong. Your actions have led to a forfeiture of your position. Shame on you for continuing after your time was up and after being asked to stop. There’s no reason to remove me; I’m not interfering. I have the right to be here. A recess has been called for 5 minutes. Are you ejecting him from the meeting?

The speaker was asked what office they were elected to and if they needed support. The speaker responded that they are not the one to ask and that the person should speak with a man. The speaker then stated that they speak to over a million people.

A speaker stated that it is negligent for the council to allow disinformation to be spread without correction. The speaker claimed that one of the speakers at the meeting spread misinformation and disinformation. They wanted it on the record that statements made by speakers are not necessarily factual.

I was told I only have thirty seconds, so I'll be brief. We need to confront Trump's behavior. I don't usually swear in public, but the situation demands strong language.

I don't want to be seen as a hostile witness. My presence here is not meant to be hostile. I want to clarify that Miss Willis is the adverse witness, not me. Her interests go against Miss Merchant's and are contrary to democracy, but not to mine.

I want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People like President Musk and Trump are using their public offices to enrich themselves by billions of dollars. Why is there silence about looking into the actions of the president and the richest man on Earth? I will say President Musk and Trump often use their public offices to enrich themselves. I will withdraw calling Trump "grifter-in-chief." It's despicable that this committee is silencing me for bringing up that Trump is making millions of dollars.

I am the Chief Technology Officer. Mister Bobolinski, please proceed. I apologize for the disruption. I want to know if decorum rules apply to witnesses. The chairman says it applies to members, not witnesses. Mister Bobolinski, please continue your statement. I want to make sure the American people hear all the facts. Thank you.

Speaker 0 opens by saying they take umbrage and will speak on behalf of their colleagues. They state they are "willing to work with anyone who's serious about doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress." They add, "That's right. But they are not serious."

The speaker thanks the chairman and addresses someone named Hunter, suggesting they are afraid of the speaker's words. The speaker reclaims their time. The speaker says that the House committees should provide relevant information to any legitimate inquiry. The speaker claims their first five offers were ignored. Then in November, a subpoena was issued for a behind-closed-doors deposition. The speaker asserts that Republicans have repeatedly misused this tactic in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize witness statements.

Good evening, board. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today. I want to emphasize that if I am not considered professional enough to select my own posters and books, then I should not be entrusted with the responsibility of deciding who lives and who dies. Thank you for your time.

I am grateful to the World Economic Forum for allowing me to express my disagreement with Klaus Schwab and his vision of a new world order. We, the people, value our freedom and will continue to do so. To all the globalists present, including those in this room, I express my strong disapproval.

If we were playing a drinking game every time someone said "if" or "Hunter," I'd be drunk by now. I'm curious, to understand your ruling, if someone on this committee starts talking about someone's "bleach blonde, bad built butch body," that wouldn't be engaging in personalities, correct? It sounds like you need to know math to be with the IRS. I agree. Right now, they're peddling Russian lies. Republicans have become synonymous with Russians. When I ask a question, that's when you answer. Otherwise, I'm talking, because it's my time. You'll know when I ask a question, I promise. No, because this is what... I'm trying to get directions, but I can't hear you with your yelling. Can you please calm down? Y'all are out of control.

I apologize for interrupting, but as a theater artist, I have experienced the silencing of scientists. Please remove him from the stage, as he is not a writer.

We are currently experiencing a hostile government takeover. I want to discuss this situation, but I am already running late for work. If you believe we need to stop this, remember that we had an opportunity to do so before, but some of you did not want that particular person in power.

I thank you for being here, Mr. Mayorkas. Your actions have been watched closely, and it is believed that you have lied. The American public sees this too. You are seen as a threat to freedom and rights, but thankfully the first amendment exists to stop you. Your accusations are untrue.

Miss Green from Georgia is given 5 minutes to speak. She accuses someone named Hunter of being afraid of her words. The speaker interrupts to reclaim their time. The conversation ends abruptly.

Almost all panel members, including you, are accepting significant contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. I ran for president too and received substantial contributions, but they did not come from executives. Out of 200 million, I received 1.5 million. You still haven't answered my last question.

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: Reclaiming time from Chairman, Hunter is avoiding my words. Speaker 1: House committees seek relevant info, but GOP misuses subpoenas for political gain, ignoring offers and leaking witness statements. Translation: Speaker 0 reclaims time from the Chairman as Hunter avoids their words. Speaker 1 mentions that House committees are seeking relevant information, but Republicans are misusing subpoenas for political purposes by ignoring offers and leaking witness statements.

I want to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. The house committees issued a subpoena for a closed-door deposition after our first five offers were ignored. Republicans misuse this tactic to leak and mischaracterize witness statements.

I'm the only person on the stage who isn't bought and paid for, so I can say this: the climate change agenda is a hoax. We need to declare an independent rule and acknowledge that the anti-carbon agenda is dampening our progress.