reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 states that over 6,000 bodies have been found, citing information from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other government bodies. Speaker 1 questions this claim, asking for clarification on where these bodies were found and if the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reported finding 6,000 bodies. Speaker 1 asserts that as a journalist, Speaker 0 should be concerned about the accuracy of their claims. Speaker 0 requests to complete their questions.

The speaker states that they are not saying the organization lost 85,000 children, but that contact was lost with them and their whereabouts are unknown. The speaker asks if that is a fair statement. The speaker asks if, after making three calls on average to check on 85,000 children placed by the organization, there was no response. The speaker then asks if it is fair to say that contact was lost with over 85,000 kids. The speaker asks for a yes or no answer. The speaker states that the organization does not know where 85,000 of the children are. The speaker then says they will move on after receiving no answer.

A person questions why someone's husband has been in MCI twenty-six times and asks if it is necessary. They continue to ask if it is necessary multiple times. Another person asks if it is necessary and says they are correct. The first person mentions endless government spending and accuses the other group of supporting it. They claim that more money has been given to white people in Ukraine than to them. They also mention endless money for Israel and criticize the group for being the same and committing the same crimes. They compare the situation to Chicago and accuse the group of loving it.

According to the speakers, an event claiming 30,000 attendees actually had 24,000 based on cell phone data. A large number of attendees had been to 20+ events, suggesting they were paid. The speakers allege people are being paid to attend events, provided with signs, and given free food. One speaker said they would attend a Kamala Harris rally for $400 when they were younger, even without political conviction. The speakers claim people were offered $1,000 to protest Tesla, with rules of engagement provided, including instructions on physical engagement. One speaker questions why violence is even on the table if it's a peaceful protest. They suggest that if people believe their opponents are Nazis, violence seems logical. The speakers express reservations about offering $1,000 for protesting, citing potential legal consequences.

Speaker 0 asks about the lack of disclosure regarding a Democratic donor funding the case. Speaker 1 denies any political motive and admits to forgetting about the donor during their deposition.

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 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Speaker 0 claims to have recordings and documents exposing malfeasance within a nonprofit, alleging board members took money from donors and used children to further an agenda. Speaker 1 denies knowledge and deflects, objecting to questions about investments in companies, some potentially in the medical field and possibly sold to big pharma like Pfizer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of conflicts of interest. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being a cheat and a liar. Speaker 0 vows to get justice, not revenge. The timing of events is deemed suspicious, and a board statement is considered a critical turning point.

Speaker 0 asks how many staff work at GC Strategies. Speaker 1 responds that they have 2 employees but outsource finance and legal. Speaker 0 asks about app programming or design, to which Speaker 1 says they do not do that. Speaker 0 clarifies Speaker 1's role in IT contracts with the government and bringing in individuals that the government doesn't have access to. Speaker 0 mentions the $54 million ArriveCAN app and asks if it's under RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 says they are not aware of any investigation. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's work with Bockler and the amount of money made from government contracts, but Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact numbers. Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker 1 for not having basic details about their work. Speaker 1 apologizes and offers to provide the information later. Speaker 0 asks how much Speaker 1 was paid for ArriveCAN, but Speaker 1 doesn't have the exact amount. Speaker 0 suggests $9 million, but Speaker 1 disputes it. Speaker 1 mentions that the number is publicized in the media and estimates it to be between 15% and 30% of that amount. Speaker 0 finds it interesting that Speaker 1 is not willing to share the exact number considering the amount of work not done on the app and the money collected.

Speaker 0 asks how much USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to create weaponized coronaviruses. Speaker 1 rejects the implicit accusation and says they don't have the specific details of USAID funding at their fingertips. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is stating for certain that no USAID money went to the Wuhan Institute. Speaker 1 says they are happy to take questions from those in the audience who treat every person respectfully, and calls on someone else. Speaker 0 asks what Speaker 1 is denying. Speaker 0 says it's a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about payments made through GC Strategies and their relationship with Mr. Firth. Speaker 1 states they are not friends with Mr. Firth and have only met him a few times. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 trusted Mr. Firth for an important project, mentioning the expensive cost and illegal detainment of Canadians. Speaker 0 also mentions allegations of lying and rule-breaking, leading to an RCMP investigation. Speaker 1 admits that Mr. Firth was not honest, but is unsure about the others. Speaker 0 requests a detailed written explanation of their dishonesty. Speaker 1 agrees to provide it within 72 hours.

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 questions Speaker 1 about whether they sought an ethics opinion regarding the financial benefit their son-in-law receives from a company involved in teaching critical race theory. Speaker 1 avoids directly answering the question, stating that the memorandum they are discussing has no predictable effect on critical race theory. Speaker 0 persists in asking if critical race theory being taught in more schools would result in more money for their son-in-law, but Speaker 1 continues to deflect and refuses to give a clear answer. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 stating they would seek an ethics opinion if there was a conflict of interest, but the question remains unanswered.

Speaker 0 claims to have recordings and documents exposing malfeasance within a nonprofit, alleging board members took money from donors and used children to further an agenda. Speaker 1 denies knowledge and deflects, objecting to questions about investments in companies, some potentially in the medical field and possibly sold to big pharma like Pfizer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of conflicts of interest. Tensions escalate with personal attacks, Speaker 0 calling Speaker 1 a cheat and liar, while Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of being a cheat and liar. Speaker 0 vows to get justice, not revenge. The discussion revolves around investments, potential conflicts of interest, and a broken story within the organization.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they believe white people should pay reparations, claiming Speaker 1 tweeted in January 2020, "Yes, the North. Yes. All of us. Yes. America. Yes. Our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes. Reparations. Yes. On this day." Speaker 1 denies the tweet referred to fiscal reparations. Speaker 1 states the tweet referenced owing much to those who came before. Speaker 0 calls this a bizarre framing of the tweet.

Several speakers discuss the idea that Tucker Carlson is a CIA asset. Speaker 0 argues that Carlson “is clearly a CIA asset,” noting that you don’t rise to a global audience and make money from edgy content unless you’re “in the big club.” They point to a supposed inconsistency: Carlson recently said he was shocked to discover his dad was in the CIA upon his death in March 2025, yet, “here he is in June 2024, like a year earlier, admitting his father was CIA.” They state Carlson “said he only found out in 2025 after his father died, but here he is in 2024 saying he knew his dad was CIA.” Speaker 1 adds personal details, saying, “when I applied to CIA, and I’ve taken a lot of crap including from Putin, like, you’re from a CIA family.” They acknowledge that “my father worked in conjunction with CIA,” and that they tried to join the CIA but were not being false about it, and that “he’s attacking my dad because the CIA is dad to the CIA or whatever.” They claim, “Then my father dies and I learn actually, yeah, you know, was involved in that world. I was completely shocked by it.” Speaker 0 amplifies the claim by referencing Tucker Carlson with “an ex CIA agent” who says to Carlson, “you’re a lot more on the inside than me.” They find it interesting that Carlson “is like a ex CIA agent. He’s saying Tucker Carlson’s more on the inside than he is.” They encourage listeners to pay attention to Tucker’s response, saying, “listen to Tucker’s response and I want you to pay attention this because it’s in these moments that you actually can see what’s actually going on.” Speaker 2 briefly interjects with uncertainty about deals that took place, and Speaker 1 comments that they have “not made $1 in The Middle East, not 1.” Speaker 2 says, “Well, I mean, if you’re allowed me more on the inside than I am.” Speaker 1 denies, saying, “No. No. No. I’m just a I’m just a visitor and a traveler and a watcher, but I don’t, you know.” The conversation ends with Speaker 0 asking, “Did you kinda see what happened there?”

Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 only protests Western energy and never criticizes Saudi Arabia or Russia. Speaker 1 denies ever doing so. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 will condemn OPEC Energy and their use of private jets, and if Speaker 1 has ever been on a private jet. Speaker 1 claims to own 100 private jets and admits to frequently using them. Speaker 0 expresses confusion over Speaker 1's evasive responses.

Speaker 0 notes that the people are not accusing him of rape or selling anyone; they are facing charges including human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit. Speaker 1 describes OnlyFans as “the best hustle in the world.” He explains the alleged methods: using the “lover boy method,” coercing by being nice, and not mentioning webcam until after sex. He says mentioning webcam on dates “just doesn’t work” and claims he would never do that, arguing the technique is to proceed normally and introduce webcam later. Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 discuss a program called PhD on corporatetake.com: “PhD is a pimp and hose degree.” He claims it teaches how he met girls, how he got girls to like him, how he got girls to fall in love with him to work on webcam, and how to have them spend more time with him. He describes inviting a prospective recruit to a meeting and bringing a girl who works for “Your bottom bitch” to explain the selling. The process emphasizes a “first girl” as pivotal, with girls on camera together the first day so the new girl can observe and imitate. Speaker 4 recounts specific experiences: being bought wine and becoming nervous about webcam work; the narrator describes wealth from webcam operations and retaining girls; he mentions four locations and 75 girls, with roughly half of the money going to the workers, claiming a 50% split and suggesting taxes explain the disparity. Another worker, paid a flat £15 per hour, notes large sums from clients who believed they would meet the girl. Speaker 1 describes a pattern where men fell in love with his models and sent large amounts of money, including people selling houses and life savings. He states: “I used sex as a tool to make women love me so they'd obey me and live in my house to make me money. That’s what I wanted. So I was a pimp in that sense.” He discusses the emotional manipulation that led clients to believe they would meet the girl. Speaker 5 remains skeptical, labeling the operation “pimpy.” Speaker 1 argues about the Me Too era, saying he is not a rapist in a way that would be labeled, yet he admits he likes the freedom to do what he wants. Speaker 6 challenges Speaker 1 by quoting his own statements: that his job was to meet a girl, sleep with her, get her to fall in love, and then get her on webcam to become rich together. Speaker 1 denies that exact quote, but Speaker 6 insists it matches what was said on the website. Speaker 0 reiterates that the belief is he was charged with human trafficking, and Speaker 1 clarifies that “human trafficking” is framed as forcing a girl to work for financial gain, noting TikTok accounts from some girls as part of the justification. He reiterates the PhD as a pimp and hose degree he claims to be pleasant about.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

A creator states they were paid for their flight and given access to an event, but denies needing a DNC budget to travel the country and "drag MAGA." They claim their own credit card allows them to "drag fascists" and that they don't need DNC, MAGA, or social money. The creator mentions right-wing influencer Kim Higbee, who believes both right and left-wing influencers should get paid. Speaker 1 claims Kamala and the DNC are paying people upwards of $1500 for 60-second clips backing Trump. The creator denies being paid to criticize Trump, stating they've been doing it for free for four years and that it's easy to find people who dislike Trump. They assert there's no need to pay people to discuss election fraud or other problems related to Trump.

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

The speaker states that the two astronauts who were saved from space received only $5 a day per diem for 286 days, totaling $1,430 in extra pay. When asked if the administration can do anything to compensate them fully, the speaker says this is the first time they are hearing about it. The speaker offers to personally pay the difference out of their own pocket if necessary.

Speaker 0 states Speaker 1 is wanted in multiple states and every country with laws due to fake addresses, accusing them of being thieves, criminals, and liars. Speaker 0 claims Speaker 1 is not who they say they are and accuses them of stealing children. Speaker 1 asks why they are being stamped with addresses and questions if due diligence has been done. They state there is no law requiring 15 days of residency and mention Pedro Rodriguez's wife saying they were not a shelter. They express distrust, stating NGOs protect each other and the federal government is involved, calling it dangerous. Speaker 1 describes following the journey of immigrants and children, stating they are in a cartel tunnel. They say some things must be lived, not read. Speaker 1 concludes that nobody is present to stop what is happening.

Joe received $3,500,000 from Russia through Putin, who had a connection with the former mayor of Moscow. Joe's family also received the same amount. Speaker 1 denies receiving any money from foreign sources, including China, and claims that his son is the only one who made money from China. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the money he received, but Speaker 1 denies any wrongdoing in Ukraine, stating that investigations found no basis for such claims.

The speaker claims $5 trillion in untraceable payments exist with no record of where the money went. They allege Social Security sent out $72 billion in bad checks, and the head of Social Security resigned. The speaker finds the resignation suspicious. Speaker 1 asserts there is no waste in the Pentagon, Treasury, or HHS. Speaker 1 asks why Speaker 0 is not celebrating cuts and reforms if they agree there is waste, abuse, and corruption. Speaker 1 claims billions of dollars are being saved. Speaker 0 attempts to calm Speaker 1 down, stating they are not having a debate. Speaker 1 insists they are not trying to debate and will speak freely about saving Americans billions of dollars.