reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Victoria Noland, protect your documents and get a lawyer, because we are targeting you as the main source of the Ukraine situation.

I have been accused, and it's been a paid campaign, of being a federal agent because I was at January 6 and did not get charged. However, despite being at January 6 and not trespassing, which is the crime that everybody was charged with, despite not being charged, not having committed a crime, I only had my bank account frozen for six months, I only was placed on the federal no fly list for a year, and I was only subpoenaed by Congress. I testified under oath when I was deposed as part of the subpoena last year, or I think that was rather in 2022, that I did not ever have contact with federal law enforcement at any time during or after any of the election riots or protests. This was a narrative that was cooked up. Nobody was saying this in 2021 or 2022 because all of my legal problems were publicized. I was on the no fly list, I had my money taken, I was banned from everything. It was only after Joe Kent was defeated in 2022 in the midterms that Max Blumenthal, Joe Kent's best friend, wrote a three part hit piece about me with his wife, Anya Parampol, accusing me of being a fed. They paid people, someone paid people, on Influencible to spread this article and the narrative that I'm a Fed. The claim grew that I gave a speech outside the Capitol and I said, we're taking the Capitol back, keep moving. They say I incited people to go in the building. The report says that none of their confidential sources on the ground were encouraging people to go in the building. There were undercover operatives or informants tasked to do that, but there were no undercover agents and out of 26 informants none of them were doing that. If the claim was I was entrapping people, that wasn't happening. The report also says that all the confidential sources were known to law enforcement before and were interviewed afterward. If I were one of the confidential sources, why would they make the mistake of freezing my money and putting me on the no fly list? The New York Times said they did charge me. I testified under oath that I never talked to law enforcement under penalty of perjury. So if anything, they’ve been saying Trump is gonna get in and blow the whistle. I wish he would on January 6 because if anything comes out, they could arrest me for perjury. I spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending myself from the feds; lawyers aren’t cheap. My lawyers, not cheap. I probably spent over 200,000, close to 250,000 in legal fees. All the money that I was given by the mysterious French donor, nearly all of it after it was unfrozen, I wound up spending on legal fees. I had to borrow money from people because my bank account was frozen for six months. I missed weddings of my best friends, funerals of my best friends because I was on the federal no fly list. I haven’t had banking services for four years. I haven’t been able to process a credit card for my business. I’ve been banned from everything—Facebook, Instagram; Twitter until May, not even a year ago. For years I spent defending myself from attacks as a racist and a Nazi and a Holocaust denier, then the tactic switched to accusing me of law enforcement, then gay, pedophile, the usual. The grand irony is that Tucker Carlson, a close friend of Max Blumenthal, collaborated on the piece; Tucker Carlson’s father is a federal agent, and during January 6 Tucker Carlson was not talking about election fraud and said he hated Trump. I’m pulling the veil back a little bit, because this is politics. The election was stolen, and there are these dynamics with Blumenthal, Kent, Tucker, and Max Blumenthal’s wife’s article in The Grey Zone.

Francesca Albanese, the UN Rapporteur on Palestine, is described as having said that America is controlled by the Jewish lobby. The speaker claims that on October 7 she defended Hamas, stating there was a context, and that she has been repeatedly echoing “the worst blood libels against Israel” on Twitter. The speaker further alleges that Albanese is “the leading purveyor of the genocide libel,” and says they are “fighting back” by exposing her and her hateful remarks. The speaker claims Albanese has become the first UN rapporteur in history to have been condemned by multiple countries, including France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Argentina, Hungary, the US, Latvia, Estonia, and other countries, and argues that “each condemnation matters.” The speaker says they led a campaign that collected 120,000 signatures, including people at the event, for a petition asking Secretary Rubio to take action after the United Nations failed to act. The speaker states that Secretary Rubio announced, for the first time in history, that the United States would sanction a UN official on July 9. The speaker says Albanese was sanctioned by the United States as a result. The speaker describes the sanctions as including a ban on Albanese’s entry into the United States. The speaker also claims that Albanese cannot use a bank card or a debit card, and cannot receive a payment. The speaker reports that Albanese said the sanctions are devastating, and quotes the speaker’s response as “very good, very good,” describing the sanctions as sending a message of deterrence. After the sanctions, the speaker claims additional consequences occurred. The speaker says they got Albanese’s husband, who works for the World Bank, who “shares in her incitement.” The speaker states that he was demoted from his position at the World Bank for incitement to hate. The speaker also claims that after Albanese was sanctioned, Navi Pillay, the head of the Commission of Inquiry against Israel, resigned. The speaker adds that they heard Albanese has family in the United States and that she was afraid the sanctions would prevent her from entering, leading her to resign. Overall, the speaker presents the sanctions against Albanese as unprecedented and connected to international condemnations and the petition campaign, and portrays the follow-on actions involving her husband and Navi Pillay as linked to her remarks and the consequences that followed.

Speaker 0 describes having friends in the US embassy in Belize and knowing what was coming. He says he arranged with the head of security to enter the embassy, but the head of security told him, “we have it from the highest authority. We are not to allow you entry into the US embassy. Understand me.” He asserts, “Who was the highest authority in the state department? Hillary Clinton.” He emphasizes that he is an American citizen with “a fucking American passport,” stating, “I'm sorry. I'm not wanted in America. I've got no crimes in America. Is it not reason to say, I don't think I'm gonna vote for you?” Speaker 1 notes, “And yet you're here now.” Speaker 0 explains that for a month and a half he was on the run. He claims the government wanted to collect him because, after they raided his property in 2012 in the jungle, they shot his dog, abused him, and destroyed “a half million dollars worth of my property over a bogus charge.” He says he was pissed off and then “donated too many secretaries within the government laptop computers, really nice ones that were preloaded with viral spyware.” He contends that within a week, “the entire government computer system was in under my control. I was watching, monitoring, listening.” He continues that he was looking for information that they had set him up for that raid, and he didn’t find that. Instead, he discovered that “the minister of national defense was the largest drug trafficker in all of Central America, and the minister of immigration, the largest human trafficker.” Speaker 1 responds, “We don't wanna get killed by them either, so we're probably not—” and Speaker 0 agrees, “You're not gonna,” adding, “That's fine.”

The administration is revoking visas and green cards daily for those who lied on their visa applications. If someone indicated they were coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events, that goes against U.S. foreign policy interests, and the visa would not have been granted. The revocation of the Columbia student's visa was justified because he was a negotiator for people who took over a campus and vandalized buildings. Being a spokesperson for such actions is a crime. The speaker stated they don't want people who promote Hamas, terrorist organizations, vandalism, or riots on campus. Visa revocations are not limited to pro-Palestinian individuals; the administration also wants to remove Tren de Aragua gang members, who are designated as a terrorist organization. The speaker stated the U.S. doesn't want terrorists or people who commit crimes and undermine national security, especially those who are here as guests with a visa. A visa is not a birthright, and violating its terms will result in deportation.

Patrick Baab and the host discuss the perceived erosion of freedom of expression in Europe and the role of governments and institutions in pressuring speech. - Baab asserts that there is “no freedom of speech in the EU anymore,” citing a 160-page US Congress report published in February that allegedly finds the EU Commission created a system of complete censorship across the European Union. The report states the EU regime “pressured platforms in the Internet to suppress lawful speech, including speech that was true simply because it was politically inconvenient,” and that the Commission is transforming itself “into a censorship authority against democracy.” - The discussion moves to Jacques Baud (spelled Baud by Baab, sometimes Jacques Baud), a Swiss colonel and analyst who argued that the war in Ukraine had been provoked. Baab notes Baud was sanctioned by the EU, with consequences including travel bans, frozen assets, and limited monthly food funds (€500). Baud cannot travel to Switzerland; his bank accounts and property are frozen, and neighbors reportedly cook for him. Baab calls these measures extralegal, asserting they punish a person for an argument, not for crimes, and claims such sanctions illustrate a mechanism to suppress dissent. - Baab elaborates that Baud’s sanction is part of a broader pattern: “extralegal sanctions” against multiple individuals (Baud and 58 others) within and partly outside the EU, aimed at silencing those who challenge NATO or EU narratives. He argues this signals a “death of freedom” and a move to shut mouths through sanctions. - The host asks if the media’s shift toward propaganda is temporary or permanent. Baab responds that the transformation is structural: democracy in Europe is becoming anti-democratic and warmongering despotism. He cites Viktor Orban’s view that the EU intends to wage war against Russia, with propaganda and censorship as two sides of the same coin to close public debate. Baab says the war will be ugly, as Russia has warned it could escalate to nuclear conflict, and ties this to investments in Ukraine (Shell deal) that were lost when territories changed hands, implying economic motivations behind policy and casualties for profits. - The conversation turns to self-censorship. Baab describes widespread fear among journalists and academics; many refused to join a board intended to assist Baud, fearing repercussions. He cites a US Congress report alleging the EU manipulated eight elections, including Romania, Slovakia, and France. He also notes the EU Commission’s engagement with major platforms (Meta, Google, TikTok, X, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Rumble, Reddit, OpenAI) to enforce content management under EU rules, threatening sanctions if not compliant. - Reputational attacks against critics are discussed. Baab shares experiences of smear campaigns, such as being misrepresented as a “Putin poll watcher” in Germany, and notes that state- and EU-funded NGOs sometimes amplify misinformation. He argues mainstream media generally ignores these issues, turning to “new media” and independent outlets as alternatives for information. - On Germany specifically, Baab identifies EU-level figures (German-origin leaders) who drive censorship: Ursula von der Leyen as EU Commission President (authorized COVID-19 disinformation monitoring), Vera Jorova (values and transparency), Thierry Breton (pressures on platforms), Prabhat Agarwal (Digital Services Act enforcement), and Renate Künast (translating DSA into practice). He says national governments decide sanctions but pass the burden to Brussels, creating a “kickback game.” He notes the German Bundestag extended EU sanctions into national law, punishing any helper of a sanctioned person with up to ten years’ imprisonment. - For optimism, Baab says Europe needs external help, such as the US Congress report, and citizens must seek alternative information sources and organize to defend democratic rights, including voting for different parties. He suggests that without broad public pushback, the propaganda system will persist. - The discussion closes with reflections on broader geopolitical dynamics, warnings about a multipolar world, and a dystopian vision of a Europe dominated by conflict and state control, with elites colluding with Western powers at the expense of ordinary citizens.

The administration is revoking visas and green card processes for individuals who lied on their visa applications. If someone applying for a visa stated they would participate in pro-Hamas events, the visa would have been denied because it runs counter to US foreign policy interests. The Columbia student in question was allegedly a negotiator and spokesperson for a movement that vandalized buildings and disrupted campus activities. The speaker stated that they never would have allowed him into the country if they had known his intentions. The speaker stated that the administration wants to remove individuals who promote Hamas, terrorist organizations, vandalism, acts of rebellion, and riots on campus. They also want to get rid of Tren de Aragua gang members, who they consider terrorists. The speaker clarified that a visa is not a birthright, but permission to visit the country, and violating the terms of visitation will result in deportation.

Dangerous hate groups in America. Who will warn us about them? The media tell us. The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Alabama, calls itself the premier group monitoring hate groups and other extremists. Looking at their map of hate groups, you'd think hate groups were everywhere. Apple gave them a million dollars. But donors don't know that today, the center smears good people. There is the presence of radical Islam. This Somalian woman speaks out against radical Islam. For that, the center put her on its list. Join the fight against hate and bigotry. Visit sblcenter.org. I do think that we have a problem with hate in this country. We put about 10 of these major hate groups out of business. When I first investigated the center, its leaders wouldn't talk to me. Liberal commentator Noemiki Kuntz defended them. They have a history, a long history, of fighting against extremists like the KKK. History? Yes. But they labeled skeptical Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali as haters. If you have a horrible experience with religion, that's one thing. It's another thing to use those experiences as ammunition against others who are practicing their religion peacefully. But they're just speaking, criticizing it. Of course, she has the right to free speech as does the Southern Poverty Law Center has a right to push back. We can stand together against hate. The center also calls the Family Research Council a hate group. The definition of a marriage is what it's been for five thousand years. It's the union of a man and a woman. I often disagree with the council myself, but do they belong on this hate map? When they don't agree with you politically, they're gonna list you as a hater. You are haters. You hate gays. No. I don't hate gay people, and I know gay people, and I have worked with gay people. But once you become a hate group, you're a target. Developing now, word of a shooting at the Family Research Council there in Washington. One man was so enraged by what the Southern Poverty Law Center said about the Family Research Council that he went to their headquarters to kill people. A man shot the security guard in the arm. Fortunately, that guard stopped the man before he could shoot anyone else. He told the judge that he was there to kill as many of us as possible because we were a hate group. The center also smears the Ruth Institute, a Christian group that believes gays should not have an equal right to adopt children. They're not haters. I like gay people. I have no problem with gay people. The issue is what are we doing with kids and the definition of who counts as a parent. There could be cases where the best person for a particular child would be their uncle Harry and his boyfriend. You know, that could be. But we owe it to the children to give them the best we can, which generally is a married mother and father. So you're a hater. When the Southern Poverty Law Center put the Ruth Institute on its hate map, the institute's bank cut them off. We've determined that you're an organization that promotes hate, violence, harassment, and so therefore we're not doing business with you. The Ruth Institute and the Family Research Council are still on the hate list. There's no appeal, and I sure don't know how you get off. Morris Dees' salary is more than my entire annual budget. So yeah, whatever they're doing, it pays. Harper's Magazine reported that the center was the richest civil rights group in America, one that spends most of its time and money trying to make more money. They promised to stop fundraising once their endowment reached $55,000,000. But when they reached 55,000,000, they changed that to a 100,000,000, saying that would allow them to cease costly fundraising. But when they reached a 100,000,000, they didn't stop. They collected 200,000,000, then 400,000,000. Now they've got 730,000,000, yet they still smear people to raise more money. Much of which is in offshore accounts, Caymans and places like that. How do you know? Oh, we look at their September. And it says Cayman Islands? Now the Southern Poverty Law Center calls groups that simply oppose sexually explicit content in schools anti-government extremists. Moms for Liberty and Moms for America are on the hate map because they dare do things like seek school board seats to try to stop districts from disregarding opinions of parents. Give me a break. The center puts them on the hate map, but not Antifa, the hate group that beats up people on the right? The center's become a hate group itself. It's now a left-wing, money grabbing slander machine.

As president, the speaker instituted national security travel bans to keep terrorists, jihadists, and violent extremists out of the country. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden revoked the travel ban immediately on their first day in office, and they have let terrorists pour across the borders like never before. The speaker claims to have never seen numbers like this. The speaker states they will keep America safe and keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the country.

Speaker 0 outlines steps Donald Trump has taken to create a war with Iran: first, he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement. Speaker 1 confirms, “I am announcing today that The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.” Speaker 0 notes a second step: he has escalated crippling sanctions against Iran. Speaker 1 adds, “The sanctions kicking in at midnight Sunday target Iran's oil exports, banking, and shipping. Even though UN inspectors say Iran is still complying with the nuclear deal. The United States will pursue sanctions tougher than ever before.” Speaker 0 identifies a third step: he designated Iran's military as a terrorist organization. Speaker 2 states, “Secretary of state Mike Pompeo has announced that The US is designating the Iranian revolutionary guard as a terror group. Today, The United States is continuing to build its maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. I'm announcing our intent to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including its good force, as a foreign terrorist organization.” The summary adds that, with this designation, the US can sanction “pretty much anybody who talks to or deals with or has any business whatsoever with the IRGC.” Speaker 0 lists a fourth step: he continues to deploy more and more US troops to the region. Speaker 2 reports, “Just moments ago, the Pentagon authorized an additional 1,000 American troops to The Middle East in response to growing concerns over Iran.” He also notes that “a US aircraft carrier and a bomber task force are being sent to areas closer to Iran.” Speaker 2 adds a bellicose message: “Yes. There will indeed be hell to pay. Let my message today be very clear. We are watching, and we will come after you.” Speaker 0 shifts to a political appeal, saying, “We’ve got to stop Donald Trump from starting a war with Iran. I'm asking you to join me and support my legislation, the No More Presidential Wars Act.” To participate in the third presidential debate, she states that “in order to qualify … I need at least a 130,000 people to contribute to our campaign.” She asks viewers to donate, instructing them to click the link or donate at tulsi twenty twenty dot com.

If you apply for a visitor's visa to enter the United States and express support for a group like Hamas, we can deny your visa. We would deny your visa if you express your intentions to engage in anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic activities or disrupt our universities. If you're already in the country on a visa and engage in these activities, we will revoke it. Even if you have a green card as a result of that visa, we will remove you from the country.

The speaker states that the U.S. government is revoking visas and green cards for individuals who lied on their visa applications. If someone enters the U.S. and participates in pro-Hamas events, which goes against U.S. foreign policy interests, it's considered a lie, and their visa will be revoked. The speaker says the student in question was a negotiator for people who took over a campus and vandalized buildings. The speaker asserts that the U.S. doesn't want people who promote Hamas, participate in vandalism, or engage in riots on campus. The speaker clarifies that the policy applies to anyone promoting terrorist organizations, including groups like the Trinidad Agua gang. The speaker emphasizes that a visa is not a birthright, and those who violate the terms of their visa will be deported.

The speakers confirm retaliation for speaking out against Homeland Security officials. No one at Homeland Security has been disciplined, demoted, or fired for not complying with the DNA law. The speakers faced consequences like losing credentials and firearms. They were marginalized and their careers destroyed. One supervisor mentioned the agency's goal was to bankrupt, force resignation, or worse.

The transcript states that the Trump administration could revoke existing visas or deny them to applicants if they celebrated or made light of Charlie Kirk's assassination on social media. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau posted an annex directing consular officials to, "undertake appropriate action." It explains that, under President Trump, the State Department has ramped up expanded screening and vetting of many visa applicants' social media accounts, and that the department has utilized AI technology in the effort.

After leaving the White House and starting a business, the speaker's bank informed them they could no longer do business together. A prominent email distribution service provider terminated their agreement. A university revoked its agreement to accept donations for foster students after learning the donations were from the speaker. The speaker believes these actions were due to their political affiliation and beliefs, calling it one of the "canceling projects." While some people have gained courage to speak out against cancel culture, the speaker believes it is still ongoing.

Speaker 0 warned that if any ally tries to help the ICC, they will be sanctioned. They said, "we're gonna sanction you," and that "we should crush your economy because we're next." They referenced Justin in Canada and his position, asking, "What should the penalty be?"

The conversation centers on punitive measures allegedly imposed by the United States and the accusations surrounding who is responsible for violent crime and support of extremist groups. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being shut down because of criticisms of people profiting from mass murder. In response, Speaker 1 details a cascade of sanctions and restrictions: “I’m banned from travel to The US. I am financially censored. I cannot have a a credit card. I cannot be receive payment. I cannot make payments.” Speaker 1 adds that health insurance has been suspended “because I’m sanctioned by The United States,” indicating a broad range of denials tied to U.S. sanctions. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1, asking if anything is being left out and probing whether Speaker 1 has engaged in activities such as sending money to Hamas or participating in actions against the IDF, labeling Hamas as “A terror group.” The implication of the question is to suggest that Speaker 1’s sanctions might be connected to support for hostile or criminal activity. Speaker 1 responds by reframing the accusation, stating, “The only one who’s aiding and abetting someone else committing crime is The United States.” This assertion presents the United States as the active party in aiding or abetting crimes, according to Speaker 1. Speaker 0 concludes the exchange with a soft expression of concession, saying, “I’m sorry. I’m sorry to agree with you on that,” implying reluctant agreement with Speaker 1’s critical stance toward U.S. actions. Key points emphasize the scope of Speaker 1’s sanctions: travel ban to the United States, financial censorship, inability to use a credit card, inability to receive or make payments, and suspension of health insurance due to U.S. sanctions. The dialogue also highlights a dispute over responsibility for violence and crime, with Speaker 1 asserting that the United States is the one aiding and abetting crimes, while Speaker 0 questions whether Speaker 1 has engaged with or supported extremist activity such as funding Hamas or opposing the IDF. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 acknowledging agreement with Speaker 1’s critical position on U.S. involvement, albeit reluctantly.

A speaker claims that in Britain, over a quarter of a million people have been issued non-crime hate incidents, and people are imprisoned for reposting memes and social media posts. They ask if the Trump administration would consider political asylum for British citizens in this situation. Speaker 1 responds that they have not heard this proposal or discussed it with the president, but they will speak to the national security team to see if the administration would entertain it.

Bensouda, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and currently Gambia’s High Commissioner to the UK, described 17 years at the ICC, including eight years as deputy prosecutor and nine years as chief prosecutor, during which she faced intimidation, pressure, and threats related to the ICC’s investigations into war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. She said this work “triggers pushback” against the court. She stated that in 2015, after opening an examination into Palestine, she began receiving threats involving both herself and her family. She described an early incident in The Hague when she was still living there: two men visited her house in a car parked not next to the residence. She said she did not know where they were from. The driver took the car’s number plate, and she eventually came out while the men stood outside and did not enter. She said they handed her an envelope containing about $500 and told her it was from someone she had helped, which she interpreted as showing they knew where she lived. She reported the incident to ICC security and to the registrar, returned the money, and submitted the number plate. She said the only established detail was that the phone numbers provided were from Israel. She also said Dutch authorities did not do more investigation “as far as I know.” She said Israel made her feel insecure and that this was the first clear Israeli attempt she knew of to persuade her to stop the Palestine investigations. She referenced other security-related incidents around the time, including someone caught near her house taking photos, and the broader context that she had also requested investigations into the US military regarding Afghanistan war crimes, and that Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire cases were still ongoing. Bensouda said she later met Yossi Cohen, the head of Mossad at the time. She described meeting him first in Munich and again in a hotel in New York during the UN General Assembly period, where she was meeting a head of state. She said Cohen approached and the meeting concerned the Palestine investigations. She said Cohen indicated that they did not want the Palestine investigations to continue and that she should stop. She portrayed the progression of the message as initially friendly and attempts to win her over, then increasingly direct: she said Cohen repeatedly insisted that she stop the investigations and that this was the “bottom line.” She said she responded by keeping it quiet and reporting to ICC security and informing Dutch authorities, while avoiding alarming general ICC staff to prevent panic and protect the work. She said she was not aware of extra support from the Dutch government beyond reporting. She also said some authorities urged her to stop because she could be harmed or killed, but she said stopping was “out of the question” to her. She argued that state parties established the ICC have a responsibility to protect and insulate the court from attacks and to ensure personnel feel protected, but that they were not doing enough, and that justice was being sacrificed to political interests. Bensouda said that in 2019 she announced the investigation in the Palestine case and that soon afterward the United States imposed stiff sanctions. She said the sanctions affected her daily life beyond travel, including blocking her bank account at the UN Federal Credit Union and disrupting simple transactions such as booking hotels and transferring money. She said the ICC registrar, working with Dutch authorities, managed for banks to accept to receive her salary, but she said other banks associated with her, including her mortgage bank, closed down. She also said her son’s account in the Gambia was blocked, and that efforts were made to investigate her husband through photographs and audio recordings to determine whether he was involved in anything illegal. She said the threats and sanctions had an impact on the ICC’s work, noting that even measures taken to keep cases moving cannot fully prevent disruption. She concluded that states should come together with structures that act immediately when attacks happen, instead of waiting and scrambling afterward, and that they do not speak with “the same voice,” with some states refusing to help.

Arnold Mitchen has an access to the prime minister where other people don't get this access. Anytime he needs something, he can pick up the phone and find it. There is some law in Israel that help Arnold Michel to pay less taxes. This law has a deadline, and Meacham wants to this deadline to be pushing far off. So Netanyahu is speaking with his finance minister, telling him, maybe we'll help Arnold. Well, we will do it with this law, extend it for few more years. Any law that relates to taxes needs to go through ALLP, the finance minister. He tried to help Arnold Mitchel in few other things. Arnold Mitchel helped Israel in some ways to get all kinds of equipment to our nuclear project to build nuclear bombs. This was forty or fifty years ago. Many people thought some of the things that he did was against the American laws. Years later, he decided to brag about it and to tell it out loud. Lieutenant Lord James Bond. Wow. They're ex very exciting. It made someone in the American administration furious. Not only he did it, but now he said it out loud. So they decided to cut his visa, and all his life is in The US.

Speaker 0 conveys a policy stance: 'When I came in, the first thing I said is any BRICS state that even mentions the destruction of the dollar will be charged a 150% tariff, and we don't want your goods. We don't wanna partake. And' The central assertion is that any BRICS state mentioning the destruction of the dollar would incur a 150% tariff, with the speaker stating they do not want the goods or participation from those states. The transcript ends with an unfinished conjunction, 'And', suggesting the thought continued beyond the excerpt. The excerpt provided ends abruptly, with 'And' indicating continuation.

Speaker 3 zegt dat zijn grootste zorg niet de techniek is, omdat die volgens hem optimaal is “uitgedokterd”. Zijn grootste vrees is de governance: op EU- en commissie-niveau zitten “apparatjieks” ver van het volk, niet gekozen en met vage bevoegdheden. Hij stelt dat bij één crisis al die beschermingsmaatregelen en afspraken van tafel geveegd kunnen worden, zoals volgens hem gebeurde bij de truckers in Canada. Daardoor verwacht hij dat er programmatically ruimte ontstaat om rekeningen te sturen en dingen mogelijk te maken die niet in het concept zitten en niet ontworpen zijn, maar wel gaan gebeuren. Hij wil daarom zo min mogelijk bevoegdheden leggen op een governance-niveau dat hij niet vertrouwt. Speaker 0 vraagt of hij enthousiaster zou zijn als het lokaal per land zou zijn. Speaker 3 antwoordt dat hij dan enthousiaster zou zijn, en noemt dit ook in relatie tot digital ID. Hij erkent dat men vertrouwen in de politiek kan hebben of niet, maar stelt dat er op nationaal niveau in elk geval een soort afrekenmechanisme is, terwijl hij op Europees niveau dat niet ziet. Hij vindt dat “hele EU gebaseerd…” op dit punt onvoldoende aansluit. Speaker 4 vindt het een logisch verhaal, maar wijst op een andere kant: naast governance ontbreekt een strategische risicoanalyse om te bepalen waar de grootste risico’s liggen. Zij verwijst naar de truckers die door de private sector en private banken werden geraakt. Speaker 1 brengt voorbeelden binnen Europa en met de VS: mensen in Europa worden gedebankt vanuit Amerika; Francesca Albanese wordt genoemd, net als rechters uit Den Haag bij het internationaal strafhof, die vanuit Amerika worden gedebankt. Speaker 2 bevestigt dat dit niet vanuit de EU gebeurt, maar noemt dat de EU ook een eigen lijst heeft met 70 mensen en bedrijven. Volgens hem staan die ook op die lijst en hebben ze extra beperkingen zoals inreisverboden en uitreisverboden. Hij zegt dat er wekelijks verslag van wordt gedaan. Speaker 0 zegt: “Ik ben zelf debankt.”

JPMorgan Chase allegedly told the speaker they had 20 days to move their hundreds of millions of dollars in cash, despite a 35-40 year relationship with the bank and no loan defaults. Bank of America also showed no interest in opening accounts for the speaker, even after previously being very cordial. As a result, the speaker deposited funds in smaller banks, $5-12 million at a time. The speaker believes banks discriminated against them and other conservatives/Trump supporters. They claim the Biden administration directed banking regulators to target them, but despite this, the speaker became president.

Victoria Noland, protect your documents and get a lawyer, because we are targeting you as the main source of the Ukraine situation.

The UN Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, is described as having said that America is controlled by the Jewish lobby. The speaker claims that on October 7 she defended Hamas by saying there is a context, and that she repeatedly echoes “the worst blood libels against Israel” on Twitter. The speaker states that Albanese is “the leading purveyor of the genocide libel,” and says their group is “fighting back” by exposing what they call hateful remarks. They claim Albanese has become the first UN rapporteur in history to have been condemned by France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, the UK, Argentina, Hungary, the United States, and other countries including Latvia and Estonia, and that “each condemnation matters.” They say they led a campaign that gathered 120,000 people, including attendees, who signed a petition asking Secretary Rubio to take action because the U.N. failed to act. They say Secretary Rubio announced that, for the first time in history, the United States would sanction a U.N. official on July 9. The speaker asserts that the U.S. sanctioned Albanese and adds that this results in multiple restrictions: she is banned entry from the United States; she cannot use a bank card; she cannot use a debit card; and she cannot receive a payment. They quote Albanese as describing the sanctions as “devastating,” and as saying, “very good, very good,” and that it sends a message of deterrence. The speaker then claims consequences beyond the sanctions. They say that Albanese’s husband, who works for the World Bank and is described as sharing in her incitement, was demoted from his position at the World Bank for incitement to hate. After Albanese was sanctioned, the speaker claims that the head of the Commission of Inquiry against Israel, Navi Pillay, resigned. Finally, the speaker says they heard Albanese has family in the United States and that she was afraid that if she were sanctioned she could not enter the U.S., concluding that she resigned in that context.