TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

We received kind treatment from Russia. There wasn't much in return. I hope this marks the start of a relationship that can end the war.

Someone yelled, "Have a nice round." Another person responded, "We will. Definitely will. Certainly. Have a nice round." Then, someone yelled, "Enjoy the couch."

Thank you, everyone. Let's go downstairs to celebrate the next year. Thanks so much.

John was given the opportunity to speak to the press about cooperation and a string of something.

The speaker thanks the Swiss government for hosting the trade meeting in Geneva. Talks were productive, and the location on Lake Geneva contributed to a positive process. An agreement was reached for a 90-day pause, with both sides agreeing to reduce reciprocal tariffs by 115%.

Speaker 0 congratulates on that treaty and says, "That's gonna take place today at 03:00 in the Oval Office. We're gonna have a signing with Rwanda and The Congo." Speaker 1 notes that Rwanda and Congo "were going at it for many years and with machetes. It is one of the worst one of the worst wars that anyone's ever seen," and adds, "I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled. I mean, just a brilliant person who is very comfortable in that part of the world." He asks, "Are you uncomfortable there?" and replies, "No." He adds, "That's the part of the world that I know. Very comfortable." He says they "were able to get them together and sell it" and that "not only that, we're getting for The United States, a lot of the mineral rights from The Congo as part of it." They are "honored to be here" and "they never thought they'd be coming to the White House," and "they're so honored." "That's at 03:00, I believe."

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

We worked well with the president, meeting our requirements and maintaining a good relationship. The visit went smoothly for both sides, with valuable lessons learned. Translation: We cooperated with the president, met our requirements, and maintained a good relationship. The visit was successful for both parties, and we gained valuable insights.

I told them they wouldn't get a billion unless the prosecutor was fired. I was leaving in 6 hours. They fired the prosecutor, and I'm getting a new one.

What changed between the first time the agreement was presented to President Zelenskyy and the signing today? We made a deal. As a business person, the signing factor is simple: we made a deal. I didn't anticipate reaching an agreement initially, but we ultimately did. That's the key difference.

John was given the opportunity to speak to the press about cooperation and a string of something.

I cannot provide a concise transcript as the original transcript is already very short and concise.

China has agreed to fully open its country, which will be beneficial for both China and the United States, and will promote unification and peace. China will also suspend and remove all of its non-monetary barriers. The agreement needs to be formalized, but China has agreed to open up.

The speaker welcomes everyone to the Ben Franklin Room and discusses the historical ties between China and the United States. They mention the importance of cooperation in tackling global challenges, particularly climate change. The speaker emphasizes the need for strategic mutual trust and increased cooperation between the two countries. They highlight the progress made in negotiations and discussions during the visit. The speaker expresses confidence in the future of China-US relations and proposes a toast to friendship and a better tomorrow.

In 1990, Gorbachev made a deal to dismantle the Warsaw Pact in exchange for NATO not moving eastward. This deal was deeply discussed and negotiated, leading to the reunification of Germany. The speaker believed in this deal and in Gorbachev.

I cannot provide a concise transcript as the original transcript is already very short and concise.

He got everything in Panama in record time, but the press won't report it because it's a victory for Trump. Chinese companies are out. The US got what it wanted out of Panama. The US has troops there providing security for the canal now. The speaker thought negotiations were ongoing.

The speaker believes a deal is emerging after a nearly five-hour meeting, the third one held. Two of Putin's key advisors, Ushakov and Kirill Dmitriev, were present. The meeting was compelling, and they finally arrived at Putin's request: to have a permanent peace. They got an answer beyond just a ceasefire.

The press conference ends and the leaders leave. Please remain seated.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined again by Seyyed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. There’s talk in the US of seizing Kharg Island, which would handle 80–90% of Iran’s oil shipments, effectively a nuclear option to shut down Iran’s economy. What would be Iran’s likely response if the US pursued this path? Marandi: It would be a major problem to access the island because the US would have to fly over Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf. Iran would retaliate if Iranian territory were occupied, taking the war toward a major escalation. The regimes hosting the island would have to pay a heavy price, far greater than now. For the United States, the island is well protected, with Iranian assets on the shore supporting the islanders, and it’s farther from the US Navy and closer to Iran’s shore. But more importantly, such an aggression would be futile: it would not change the Persian Gulf trade through Hormuz, which Iran has effectively controlled by requiring permission to pass. An invasion or occupation would lead to fierce combat and punishment of the regimes that enabled it—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar—desert-based states with oil and gas but little water. If the US succeeds in taking the island, Iran’s retaliation would involve destroying assets of the cooperating countries. Long-term, Hormuz could be effectively closed, with upstream infrastructure damaged and no oil or gas able to move, making a later reopening contingent on a peace agreement. The operation would be logistically, militarily, and economically disastrous for global markets. Glenn: There are reports Iran is mining Hormuz. Do you know anything about that operation? Marandi: Iran hasn’t mined Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, or the Indian Ocean. The Iranian navy capable of wartime actions is largely in underground tunnels and includes speedboats, surface-to-sea missiles, and a network of underground bases. Iran has not moved to mine the Gulf. It does not want escalation. Iran has always negotiated; US claims that Iran wanted nuclear weapons at the negotiating table are rejected by Iran, the fatwa, and IAEA history. If negotiations had failed, the US invasion would be unjustified. Doha and Qatar are prepared to restart gas facilities and allow oil to flow if peace returns. If the US escalates to destroy key infrastructure, Iran will retaliate, and Iran can hurt US assets and its proxies more than the US can hurt Iran, with long-term global energy consequences. Iran has been striking bases in the region and says it is prepared to continue until after the midterm elections. Glenn: The US energy secretary says the US Navy is studying options to escort tankers through Hormuz. What are the main challenges? Marandi: It would be virtually impossible. Iran’s navy is largely underground, with mines, surface-to-sea missiles, and drones capable of targeting Hormuz from Iran. If open war begins, Iran would retaliate against regimes hosting US bases. Even if Hormuz were opened temporarily, without oil, gas, tankers, or production, there would be no purpose, and energy prices would spike permanently. The US would likely be forced to accept Iran’s terms for peace to allow oil to flow. Glenn: Trump has spoken of further destruction if needed, but says he’s run out of targets. What do you expect from the American side? Marandi: The US is already targeting nonmilitary sites and civilian targets in Iran. They slaughter civilians, including families and children, with premeditation. They could intensify attacks on oil, gas, electricity infrastructure, which would invite Iran to retaliate. Iran’s society is united, with people on the streets despite the bombardments. If the US destroys infrastructure, Iran would respond, but Iran does not want escalation; it would be catastrophic for the global economy. The media in the West is controlled, and there is little outrage at threats to destroy Iran. Glenn: Israeli and American aims now—what’s at stake, and how end this? Marandi: Since the Gaza genocide and Lebanon escalation, Zionism is increasingly viewed as evil, and public opinion against Zionism is growing in the US. The destruction of Israel’s credibility is the greatest defeat, not battlefield losses. End this war now would be prudent; as Iran strikes back, global sympathy for Iran grows and the empire weakens. If Israel were to use a nuclear weapon, that would be catastrophic and could prompt broader proliferation. Glenn: Any chance Iran could retaliate against Britain or European states? Marandi: Europe and the US will have diminished presence in the region; bases would be forced to leave. He notes the possibility of false-flag attacks in the West and asserts Zionist manipulation as a risk, but emphasizes Iran’s determination to defend sovereignty and support for Palestinians and others. Glenn: Just a final note—Iran had three negotiations, not two, including the JCPOA. Thank you for joining. Marandi: Thank you.

Переговоры были парафированы руководителем переговорной группы из Киева, который поставил свою подпись. The negotiations were initialed by the head of the negotiation group from Kyiv, who signed it.