reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Hello, my name is Brenich Springer. I am a spokesperson for the AFD party in the German Bundestag. We just finished a special session on the Infection Protection Act. The process surrounding this law has been chaotic. Last week, there was a hearing that was scheduled so last-minute that the experts invited couldn't properly review the draft. Today, we were only given two minutes to speak, which is not enough time to address the issues with this law. It infringes on fundamental rights that need to be discussed and debated. To make matters worse, last-minute amendments were submitted, making it impossible for anyone to properly analyze them. This is an attack on parliamentary democracy, and we will fight against it. We will have a debate on Wednesday at noon, and I encourage everyone to join us in front of the Reichstag to show the coalition government that this is not how politics should be done in our country.

The Premier is questioned about a bill granting him broad powers without legislative approval, raising concerns about bypassing democratic processes similar to executive orders issued by the US President. The Premier responds that the bill mandates legislative ratification of orders and includes sunset clauses. He argues the legislation is necessary to respond swiftly to potential crises, such as the US terminating the Columbia River Treaty and cutting off electricity access. The Premier states the bill is emergency legislation, not routine, designed to minimize economic and social damage from unpredictable actions by the US President.

Anna Matson is addressing her cost appeal for two FOIA requests. She received estimates of 100,064 thousand for records related to the fire chief and the fire station operations. She begins with the first line of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act: FOIA says it is the public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government so that the people may fully participate in the democratic process. That is the purpose of FOIA: transparency, accountability, and public participation. When a government body issues 6 figure fees to access public records, that is not being transparent, that is not being accountable. That is obstruction, it is intimidation, and it goes directly against the intent of the law. The highest FOIA fee this township has charged all year is $75. My request was suddenly estimated at more than 133000% higher. Last year, the township collected $981 total in FOIA revenue. I am being charged over 10000% more than the entire amount for the for a single request. That alone shows these estimates are not normal, not reasonable, and not made in good faith. The invoices also reveal that the township has already located the records and yet you still want to charge me for over forty business days of IT. Also, FOIA does not allow charging for legal review. The law requires using the lowest paid capable employee. But beyond the fees themselves, I want to address this board directly. You are the legislative branch of this township. You are the elected representatives. You are supposed to be the most accountable to the people. You are supposed to be the closest to the citizens to safeguard their rights and to oversee the actions of government. That means you should be setting the budget, asking the hard questions, conducting investigations, and even reorganizing staff when they do not serve the township's best interest. And let me be very clear, this information is absolutely in the public interest. The public deserves to know whether their government acted properly and lawfully when placing a fire chief on administrative leave. That is exactly why FOIA exists. It exists for moments like this. This board should have demanded these records yourselves. You should have been the first ones to look into this, not a taxpayer and not a journalist trying to pry information loose through FOIA. Thirty seconds. So I ask you to reflect on the original intent of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act and to reverse the denial on my first request and to waive the fees on these requests. Thank you.

The meeting was abruptly adjourned after the motion was made by Madame Fortier. The motion was not up for debate, so a vote was taken. The majority voted in favor of adjourning the meeting, despite the presence of the RCMP commissioner and staff sergeant. The speaker expressed disappointment in the Liberal members who voted to shut down the meeting, accusing them of protecting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speaker criticized the use of cabinet confidence to withhold information from the RCMP, hindering their investigation into obstruction of justice charges. The speaker concluded by stating that after 8 years of Trudeau's leadership, transparency and accountability are lacking in our democratic institutions.

The votes are in: 111 in favor and 364 against. The motion has been rejected. Unlock.

Congressman Thomas Massie discusses the Epstein Files Transparency Act and what to expect from the December 19, public release of materials. Key framework and deadlines - The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed on November 19. Materials are due in a publicly searchable format by December 19. - The act is a law, not a subpoena, and has no expiration date. It directs the attorney general to produce three sets of files from three locations: the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and US Attorneys, including grand jury material from investigations and trials. How to know if all materials have been released - Longtime case reporters and victim’s attorneys indicate there are at least 20 names of men accused of sex crimes in FBI files, specifically in the FD-302 forms that memorialize witness testimony. - If the December 19 production contains no names of any male accused of sex crimes or sex trafficking, that would indicate documents have not been fully released. Legal novelty and enforcement - Unlike prior Congress subpoenas that can be delayed or run out the clock, the act imposes a binding legal obligation with no congressional expiration. - If the attorney general is noncompliant, the next attorney general could be obligated to release the files the moment they hold the seat, and there are penalties described in the act (not detailed here). - The act ensures that even if a new administration changes hands (e.g., post-Trump), compliance is enforceable. Impact on grand jury material and redactions - The act prompted movement in grand jury material rulings: after passage, three federal judges (SD Florida, SDNY) ordered that grand jury material be produced to the DOJ, with redactions to protect victims’ identities as required by the act. - Judges indicated they would redact identifying information of victims, aligning with the act’s protections. Contemporary statements and implications - Pam Bondi had claimed substantial material on her desk and later said there was no material besides child sexual abuse material; Massie notes that other material exists and Bondi will need to produce it, potentially requiring her to address prior statements. - Cash Patel testified before the Senate that there is no evidence implicating anyone other than Epstein; Massie questions him in a House Judiciary hearing about three-zero-two forms, suggesting they may contain corroborating evidence implicating others. - If other men are implicated, the evidence would come from victim statements and corroborating witnesses in FBI files, including 302 forms. Upcoming and media appearances - Congress adjourns a day early, so the document release may be observed on Saturday. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna plan to discuss findings on Face the Nation on Sunday. Ongoing investigations - Bondi announced new federal investigations near the time the bill passed. A bicameral, bipartisan letter seeks a sit-down to discuss what new material justified these investigations. - The act requires that any claims of ongoing investigations affecting release be limited to material that would impact that specific investigation, with temporary redactions as allowed by the law. Massie concludes by promising updates on Friday’s release and compliance with the act, and thanks the audience.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government responds by stating that public consultations are a way to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of the population does not participate in these consultations, so it may not be reflective of public opinion. They also mention that submissions are often organized by campaign groups. The speaker then asks why hold the consultation if the results will be disregarded. The government explains that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

Congress is facing a potential government shutdown due to the failure to pass a budget bill, largely influenced by Elon Musk's public outcry on social media. The proposed continuing resolution (CR) bill is unusually lengthy at 1,547 pages, with only 8 pages dedicated to the CR itself, and includes a $100 billion increase primarily for disaster relief. Many Congress members had less than 24 hours to review it, leading to concerns about transparency and specific provisions, such as a pay raise for Congress members. Musk's influence mobilized public pressure against the bill, highlighting the need for transparency in government processes. This situation demonstrates that when the public is informed and vocal, elected officials are compelled to listen, reinforcing democratic principles. While concerns about billionaire influence remain, Musk's actions have sparked a significant response from the public.

Speaker 0 accuses the Liberal government of attempting to censor Canadians online through bills like C-11, C-18, and C-63. They claim these bills give the Liberals control over online algorithms, squeeze out independent media, and criminalize thought. The speaker alleges that cabinet ministers are competing to oversee the latest online censorship law. Speaker 1 responds by stating that Google agreed to pay $100 million to support Canadian journalism. They accuse the Conservative Party of opposing this initiative, which they claim would prevent deaths and hinder the media from receiving funding for local content and journalists. The speaker deems this opposition unthinkable and immoral.

The Prime Minister previously supported ENSCOCOP's role in examining foreign interference in Canada's democracy, but there seems to be a shift in stance. Questions arise about whether a recent ENSCOCOP report revealed involvement of Liberals seeking political and financial gain. Is the Prime Minister still committed to transparency and public trust in institutions, or has external influence changed this approach? In response, the Minister for Public Safety emphasizes the importance of oversight, noting that the government established a committee of parliamentarians to monitor security agencies for the first time. This committee includes members from all political parties, and their recommendations have been acted upon to enhance national security and combat foreign interference.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your interest. It seems that a so-called "Megalockdown" is being prepared in the Chancellor's Office, without informing the public or the parliament. We find this situation unacceptable. The Chancellor must inform the public and the parliament about her intentions. We demand information on the data and scientific facts that form the basis of the upcoming discussions. We are particularly interested in knowing if there are alternatives being considered that would allow people more freedom. These are the questions that need to be addressed openly and not discussed behind closed doors.

The speaker raises concerns about a bill and the governor's office being connected to a vendor. They question why certain information wasn't released earlier and express curiosity about the lack of a fiscal note. They mention that cybersecurity experts and voters are against the bill for various reasons. Speaker 1 highlights instances of hacking and anomalies in previous elections, emphasizing the lack of paper trail and source code access. They also mention the encryption of timestamps, which could compromise the secrecy of votes. The speaker concludes by mentioning a recent flaw discovered in the machines.

The defenders of democracy argue that it is crucial for the public to have access to the hidden surveillance footage from January 6th. They believe that in a democratic society, people should be able to see what their government is doing and gather evidence. Recent polling by Rasmussen indicates that 80% of American voters, including 86% of Republicans, 78% of Democrats, and 75% of independents, agree that it is important for the public to view these videos. By withholding this information, it appears that those in power are obstructing the truth from being exposed. The speaker promises to share interesting details from the tape in the upcoming week.

House Republicans are prioritizing Elon Musk's interests over those of everyday Americans. Their opposition to transparency is baffling, especially for a party claiming to represent the people. The argument that access is needed to combat misinformation is misleading; the individuals involved are treasury employees, not external actors manipulating the system. The Republicans' actions demonstrate a lack of concern for the American people and their tax dollars. Full transparency on government spending is necessary to prove otherwise.

Members of parliament are seen celebrating and cheering after passing a super liberal progressive bill. Despite concerns about its impact on free speech and normal conversations, they appear ecstatic and united. The official opposition's role is to oppose bills, but this time they chose to support it, possibly due to Aaron O'Toole's demand or a lack of will to fight. The celebratory atmosphere and self-congratulations are not what people expect from their government or conservatives.

Today at the committee, officials were set to discuss the Winnipeg Lab document scandal involving Justin Trudeau. The Liberals and NDP members did not show up, leading to the shutdown of the meeting. The scandal involves a national security breach at Canada's highest security lab, with the government accused of covering it up. The opposition is demanding answers from the top officials involved. This display of shutting down important work is seen as a betrayal of democracy and transparency promised by Trudeau. The fight for truth and accountability continues.

In this video, a member of parliament raises concerns about outside interference in democracy. They mention Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, who allegedly claimed that his organization has infiltrated governments, including Canada's cabinet. The member asks for transparency regarding which cabinet ministers support the WEF's agenda. However, the audio and video quality are poor, leading to interruptions and apologies from the speaker. Another member accuses the first member of promoting disinformation. Then, a third member thanks a colleague for their speech and intends to ask a specific question related to the legislation being discussed.

Senator Souda's office stated she opposes changing rules on legislation. People need to decide where they stand on protecting rights amid efforts to restrict them.

The member for Oshawa raised concerns about outside interference in democracy by the World Economic Forum. They questioned which Canadian cabinet ministers support the WEF's agenda. The discussion was interrupted due to technical issues. Another member criticized spreading disinformation. A member from Lambton Kent Middlesex thanked a colleague for their speech and asked for more details on the legislation.

The transcript captures a street-style interview focused on Assembly Bill 26-24, referred to by the interviewer as the Stop Nick Shirley Act. The interviewer repeatedly asks lawmakers and coauthors about the bill’s provisions, its alleged impact on free speech, and potential conflicts of interest involving Mia Bonta (wife of California Attorney General Rob Bonta). Key points raised by the interviewer: - The interviewer asserts that AB 26-24 would be “an attack on free speech” and would “criminalize publication of images recorded in public,” and asks whether the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space. - The interviewer claims the bill would make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, particularly in immigrant-based services, and would make it harder to disclose money from organizations receiving taxpayer funds. - The bill is described as shielding immigrant nonprofit workers from public-record disclosure, criminalizing publishing images and videos of covered workers even if taken in public, and granting covered organizations the power to demand video takedowns. It is said to impose a $4,000 civil fine, a $10,000 criminal fine, and a $50,000 felony fine per violation, with applicability to taxpayer-funded organizations. - The interviewer asserts that Mia Bonta, whose husband is the attorney general, is pushing the bill and that this shows a conflict of interest; lawmakers deny this interpretation, with several saying they rely on legislative counsel to evaluate constitutionality and that they do not view the bill as a First Amendment violation. - Several lawmakers are asked if they signed off on AB 26-24 as coauthors, with inconsistent or uncertain responses. One coauthor says they would need to review committee materials to confirm whether they signed on, while another claims the bill has not passed certain committees or times, and some respond that they would have to look up specifics. - The interviewer challenges a few lawmakers directly about why they would support a bill that allegedly reduces transparency for entities receiving taxpayer money. - A separate claim is raised by the interviewer about a different issue: a reference to a bill (SB 14) that would make sex trafficking of a minor a strike-able offense, contrasted with Mia Bonta’s votes on that issue, described as ironic by a third party. Notable participants and interactions: - The interviewer addresses multiple authors and coauthors of AB 26-24, including Sasha, Speaker Rivas, and another individual identified as a coauthor in various segments, pressing them for direct answers about the bill’s provisions and their support. - Mia Bonta is repeatedly cited by the interviewer as influencing or supporting the bill. The interviewer alleges a conflict of interest due to her husband’s role as attorney general. - A participant identified as Scott Wiener is asked for his opinion on AB 26-24; the interviewer responds with a hostile remark, after which the interaction ends with the implication that several coauthors refuse to answer or acknowledge the bill. Overall, the transcript presents the interviewer as pressing legislators and coauthors for direct explanations of AB 26-24 (Stop Nick Shirley Act), while legislators often defer to counsel, deny misinterpretations, or fail to provide clear answers, with ongoing assertions about transparency, accountability, and alleged conflicts of interest.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about redactions in the released information, stating that privileged information was redacted even though it shouldn't have been. They mention that they have been requesting the last 50 pages for over a year. They argue that congressional oversight should not be subject to the same redactions as FOIA requests. They ask if the commitment will be made to provide the last 50 pages of communication related to the origin of the coronavirus. Speaker 1 responds by committing to follow up on the request and stating that the information should be provided in compliance with the law. Speaker 0 reiterates that redactions are not in compliance with the law.

The speaker questions why the government conducted a public consultation on hate speech laws if they were going to ignore the results. The government explains that public consultations are done to gather people's thoughts and highlight issues. However, they acknowledge that the majority of people do not participate in these consultations, so it may not reflect public opinion accurately. They also mention that organized campaign groups often submit responses. The speaker asks why hold the consultation if the results are disregarded. The government responds that decisions are made by the elected parliament, not based solely on public consultations or opinion polls. They clarify that consultations are meant to test the temperature and are not just for show.

The vote results show 28 yeas and 17 nays, passing Bill 419. Dr. Gus Grant and David Fraser discuss concerns about Section 110 of the Financial Measures Act, which would allow the government access to all medical records. They worry about the impact on patient-doctor relationships and privacy, especially for different age groups. The potential consequences of this amendment are unknown, with younger patients possibly being less concerned about their information being shared with the government compared to older individuals. The College of Physicians and Surgeons aims to raise awareness about this issue and its implications.

Pierre Pauliev announces an emergency in parliament as the Liberals shut down debate on their censorship bill. He says they are censoring debate on the online screening act and that closure is being used to ram the bill through in record time. He asserts that Liberal efforts would give Trudeau’s woke bureaucrats at the CRTC power to control what Canadians see and say online, describing it as creeping totalitarianism referenced by artist Margaret Atwood. Pauliev claims conservatives are the only party fighting back against this censorship bill and that Canadians should have the freedom to decide what they see and say online. He urges listeners to immediately sign his freedom of speech petition, providing a link, and states the goal of giving people back control of their lives to make Canada “the freest country on earth.”