reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 1 claims that Speaker 0's statements are lies. Speaker 1 founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 0 is there to take from them, but they are standing as a community. Speaker 0 asks if they are taking pictures of children near trans flags, condoms, and sex-related items, which they deem inappropriate for a public park. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 2 to stop touching them. Speaker 1 says Speaker 0 is not welcome in their space, but Speaker 0 says it is a public park. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of assault. Speaker 1 denies being violent and suggests Speaker 0 give them personal space. Speaker 0 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why they threw coffee at them, stating they are just there to cover the event.

- 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.

Speaker 1, the potential prime minister, would immediately close the Dutch borders to people from Islamic countries who do not adhere to Dutch laws and values. However, forming a coalition with other parties who do not share this stance poses a challenge. Speaker 1 also expresses skepticism about climate change, believing that humans have minimal impact on global warming. This viewpoint may hinder coalition-building. The speaker mentions other parties that could potentially form a coalition, but emphasizes the difficulties in finding common ground. The speaker also highlights the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that can occur to prevent the largest party from leading the coalition. They predict a similar outcome in the Netherlands.

The speaker discusses the importance of upholding the rule of law and criticizes the violation of it. They express the need for political parties to distance themselves from such actions. The speaker mentions two specific issues, namely the closure of mosques and the removal of the Quran, which they believe are impractical. They also mention the complications arising from the VVD party's decision to not form a coalition with the PVV party. The VVD initially expressed interest but later changed their stance based on polling numbers.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 said she has been trespassing on the Capitol. Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says that if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence in forgetting the request, but that she denied the sergeant at arms from supplying the request.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 1 states they are waiting to punch someone and will be happy to go to jail for it. Speaker 1 says, "We're trespassing when the cat will go." Speaker 0 says Speaker 1 stated, "I've been trespassing on the capitol." Speaker 1 repeats they are waiting to punch someone. Speaker 0 says if Speaker 1 has been waiting for this, why did she deny the sergeant at arms from supplying Donald Trump's request? Speaker 0 claims it wasn't just negligence, but that she denied the request.

The speaker discusses the need to establish the limits of the rule of law before negotiating a cabinet. They mention the negative consequences of violating the rule of law and emphasize the importance of clarifying where one stands on certain issues. They mention the controversy surrounding the "Chemoskee" topic and highlight the difficulty of reaching a consensus on it. The speaker also mentions the VVD party's decision to not participate in the cabinet but rather to support it from the outside. They find it strange that two parties, BBB and VVD, initially expressed interest in forming a coalition but later changed their stance. The speaker questions the VVD's motives and mentions their fluctuating position based on poll results.

Speaker 0 told Speaker 1 they need to read a book because they have no understanding. Speaker 0 then called Speaker 1 an incompetent journalist and said CBC has sunk. Speaker 1 responded that the accusations and shouting were not helpful to the case. Speaker 0 denied shouting and said they were just telling Speaker 1 something as someone doing an interview on the case. Speaker 1 then ended the interview.

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 asks what would happen if members were arrested or sanctioned during the house of birth, referencing an incident in New York where Speaker 1 said, "they better not touch our members." Speaker 1 responds, "They'll find out." Speaker 0 presses for specifics on the recourse, clarifying that this is a red line. Speaker 1 repeats, "They'll find out," confirming the red line.

Speaker 0 stated they were more concerned with Donald Trump's congresswoman. Speaker 1 asked if Speaker 0 had served in a combat zone and if they were still friends with school shooters, which Speaker 0 denied. Speaker 1 referenced a debate stage where Speaker 0 allegedly claimed friendship with school shooters. Regarding bullying, Speaker 0 said it's okay to bully the bully at times, which Speaker 1 interpreted as condoning bullying. Speaker 1 accused the Democrat party of violence and asked if Speaker 0 was at Tiananmen Square, to which Speaker 0 responded they were there in January 1990. Speaker 1 then asked, "What is a woman?" Speaker 0 said they didn't understand the question. Speaker 1 wanted Speaker 0 to say a woman is an adult human female and that men can't become women, accusing the party of erasing women.

Speaker 1 attempts to interview Speaker 2, who claims Speaker 1 says lies. Speaker 2 says they founded the Asylum Seeker Network of Support to fight US policy, which evolved into creating programs. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is there to take from them, while they stand as a community. Speaker 1 asks why pictures of children are being taken, citing trans flags and condoms on a table as inappropriate for children. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of touching and stepping on them. Speaker 2 says Speaker 1 is not welcome. Speaker 1 claims they are being assaulted and asks why they were hit. Speaker 2 denies violence and asks for personal space. Speaker 1 accuses them of gaslighting and asks why coffee was thrown at them while covering the event.

Speaker 0 says he went and hassled asked straightforward questions to Ted Cruz, describing Cruz as a sitting senator who was “serving for Israel by his own description,” and notes he isn’t targeting Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) because she’s “the most sincere.” He questions why not go after Cruz. Speaker 1 recalls being a friend of MTG; she spoke at his conference, then “the day after, she pretended like she didn't know me,” describing a history that began in 2022. He explains views evolve as people interact with reality and as the reality of self changes, adding that now “everyone agrees with me,” and he would forgive hostility. He says he doesn’t know what MTG’s new views are, noting she’s come around on Israel “this year,” whereas he has spoken on the issue for ten years. He characterizes the past as “ BS” and claims he was treated as if he didn’t exist, canceled for ten years for discussing these topics, particularly during a time of intense censorship. Speaker 1 mentions MTG fired one of his staffers because someone found out a groiper was working in her office, and that person’s life was ruined; MTG allegedly knew exactly what the conference was, yet she pretended not to. He says the issue isn’t personal with MTG, but argues the past disagreement was because she was “on the other team.” Speaker 0 counters that many people were on different sides in the past and suggests the question is bigger than themselves, aiming to restore America for future generations. Speaker 0 adds a personal note: if Dave Rubin called to apologize for calling him “Hitler,” he would consider it meaningful, and he sees legitimate questions to consider. He emphasizes sincerity as central, stating he believes sincerity shows when someone’s heart is pure, and that Joe Kent appeared sincere despite not agreeing on everything, which led Speaker 0 to think Kent was a good person. However, Speaker 0 says Kent was later discredited as being a CIA officer (or contractor), which contradicted their impression, and he recalls showing each other a badge during a mutual suspicion moment. Speaker 1 recalls being disavowed by MTG for his views on Israel and criticized for talking about white people and Christianity, and notes that he worked with Blumenthal on an article while Speaker 0 had called him on the phone. Speaker 0 reflects that the exchange felt “inside baseball” and insists he was seeking a sincere politician, someone brave, regardless of full agreement. He cites Joe Kent as an example of sincerity despite disagreements, and recounts being surprised by Speaker 1’s later revelation that Kent’s CIA association changed his view of Kent.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 why they are there repeatedly. Speaker 1 explains they are there to have conversations and wear a sign about children and puberty blockers. Speaker 2 asks Speaker 1 to move for their safety due to angry people nearby. Speaker 1 questions why they should move instead of dealing with the violent individuals. Speaker 2 states they are there to keep Speaker 1 safe and suggests moving to prevent a breach of the peace. Speaker 1 argues that they are not causing the aggression. Speaker 2 insists that Speaker 1's presence is causing the breach. Speaker 1 continues to stand their ground. Speaker 2 agrees to speak to the aggressive individuals if they approach Speaker 1 again.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of forming a government. Speaker 1 mentions that Mrs. Jesus said they will not be ruling, but Speaker 0 clarifies that she meant they will not rule under a Wilders-led government. Speaker 1 adds that they may consider supporting but not participating in a cabinet. Speaker 0 questions if Mrs. Jesus was clear on this, but Speaker 1 believes she was. Speaker 0 suggests that they should have a serious conversation with Timmerman, potentially leading to a coalition with the VVD. Speaker 1 thinks Speaker 0 is jumping ahead and clarifies that they should at least have a conversation with Timmerman. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of not excluding any party, except for a coalition with the PvdA. They discuss the differences between parties and Speaker 0 rejects the notion that they are comparable to the PVV. Speaker 1 agrees and clarifies that they did not make that comparison.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to leave, citing offensive behavior. Speaker 1 argues they did nothing wrong, but Speaker 0 accuses them of causing a disturbance. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's commitment to freedom and democracy. Speaker 0 insists on maintaining order and accuses Speaker 1 of being disrespectful. The confrontation escalates with insults exchanged.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they are ruling out the possibility of calling for the slaughter of white people in the future. Speaker 1 responds by saying they don't know what will happen and it may or may not be them. Speaker 0 clarifies that it could be Speaker 1 and asks what would necessitate that. Speaker 1 doesn't know and questions why they would do that. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to pledge to never call for the slaughter of white people, but Speaker 1 refuses to make that pledge. Speaker 0 understands.

Speaker 1: "Just because the other side... jokes about the bad things that happened to them, I don't think that makes it okay for us to turn around and do the same." Speaker 0: "No. We need to stop... the left just haven't cucked out enough." Speaker 0: "Trump is fucking insane because he has support from 90% of the conservatives in the Republican party who are entirely un American." Speaker 1: "One person is dead... a swing state voter." Speaker 1: "We don't know what the motivation of the shooter was." Speaker 1: "Just because there is fire burning doesn't give us leave to throw more wood on it." Speaker 0: "Donald Trump wanted absolute criminal immunity." Speaker 0: "Democracy only works when everybody participates." Speaker 1: "I reject this framing entirely."

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 0 accuses the prime minister of bullying senators and lying about the independence of the senate. Speaker 1 interrupts, asking Speaker 0 to retract a word. Speaker 0 refuses and Speaker 1 asks them to apologize. Speaker 0 again refuses. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to leave, and they eventually comply.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to leave, claiming they are offensive and in their space. Speaker 1 argues they did nothing wrong, but Speaker 0 accuses them of causing a disturbance. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's commitment to freedom and democracy, calling them a communist. Speaker 0 responds aggressively. Translation: Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave, stating they are offensive and intruding on their space. Speaker 1 defends their actions, while Speaker 0 accuses them of causing trouble. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's belief in freedom and democracy, calling them a communist. Speaker 0 responds angrily.

Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 knew the crowd wouldn't react well to interference. Speaker 1 denies knowing. Speaker 0 mentions the "fuck around and find out" comment after a dumpster was lit on fire. Speaker 1 didn't witness it but tried to move the dumpster. Speaker 0 suggests the comment implies using a gun. Speaker 1 didn't witness and can't confirm. Speaker 0 withdraws the question.