reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I have the floor and expect to be heard. I changed the topic to cause conflict, which is not appropriate. As a member of parliament, this committee used to be peaceful until you arrived. You need to speak respectfully to your colleagues and not try to intimidate us. Canadians want to hear from the witnesses, and we demand that. Dr. Lewis and Miss O'Connell should be allowed to speak. Let's all show respect for each other, as is the standard practice in this committee. We should not bring the issues from other committees into this room.

Up an American flag. It's my constitution. If you continue, I will have to forfeit your time. You have the right to dance, but if you get sued, you will lose. You should seek a second opinion because you are wrong. Your actions have led to a forfeiture of your position. Shame on you for continuing after your time was up and after being asked to stop. There’s no reason to remove me; I’m not interfering. I have the right to be here. A recess has been called for 5 minutes. Are you ejecting him from the meeting?

You refused to congratulate the president. I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. I'm just asking a simple question. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? I'm good. Are you optimistic he'll be a good president? I'm good. You seem resentful of the president. You're putting words in my mouth. Why not commend him for his victory? I need a QR code to get in. It seems stingy not to congratulate him. Go watch my Bloomberg interview. I think you're jealous of Trump. I'm just trying to navigate my emails. What are you doing at the World Economic Forum? There are reasons a Republican could be here. My questions weren’t obnoxious; they were straightforward. His refusal to congratulate Trump suggests bitterness. For more reports from the World Economic Forum, visit wefreports.com. If you want to help fund our coverage, I’d appreciate it. Unlike Paul Ryan, we don’t have lobbyist support.

It takes 5 minutes to find out Jake Tapper has contact with Ma'am. If you attack my colleagues, I'll end the interview. Let's talk about Joe Biden and Donald Trump. You can come back to discuss Donald Trump anytime. Both Trump and Biden will have equal time at the upcoming debate in Atlanta.

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.

You're a poll worker, right? What’s the issue? You mentioned Trump is a racist while people were entering. No, I'm not a poll worker. But you all were saying it. No, you were. How can you say that? Whatever. I'll report this to your supervisor.

I would like to reclaim my time and address the chairman. It seems that Hunter is afraid of what I have to say. It's unfortunate that I burst their bubble.

I came here to speak to this man, not your security. You have failed me. I've been a labor voter my entire life, and you have not held the government accountable. Thousands have died because you haven't asked the real questions. You have allowed children to wear masks in school despite a lack of evidence supporting it. You have failed this country. Get out of my pub; that man is not allowed in here. Thank you.

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.

If we were playing a drinking game every time someone said "if" or "Hunter," I'd be drunk by now. I'm curious, to understand your ruling, if someone on this committee starts talking about someone's "bleach blonde, bad built butch body," that wouldn't be engaging in personalities, correct? It sounds like you need to know math to be with the IRS. I agree. Right now, they're peddling Russian lies. Republicans have become synonymous with Russians. When I ask a question, that's when you answer. Otherwise, I'm talking, because it's my time. You'll know when I ask a question, I promise. No, because this is what... I'm trying to get directions, but I can't hear you with your yelling. Can you please calm down? Y'all are out of control.

Hello. What's the educational benefit of talking about things that won't help someone on the SAT? She clearly doesn't care. She needs to put down her sign. I'm being a gentleman here. You're putting me out for asking you to abide by the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't hold up signs. This is tyranny, and we're dealing with a corrupt government system.

Speaker 0: If it's unfair and costly, why not give him the mic? I've answered the question. Sit down, I didn't call you. Look at the inaccurate CNN polls, that's voter suppression. Georgia? I'm not responding to you, I'm talking to this gentleman. Please sit down. The House of Representatives is hostile, such a sad media. You rudely interrupted him.

Are you saying parents cause problems? Should someone in charge of family outreach be complaining about parents? I don't know what you're talking about. Is that me in that video? I have no idea. I have no comment, so stand back. You can keep your hands off me.

Do we know the origins of the individuals we're discussing? They're being treated as lawful US citizens, which they are not. I’m cutting this off because we have no reason to investigate or treat people differently based on appearance. Who said that? I did, and Tiffany mentioned it too. There’s no need to discuss this further. Concerns raised by individuals are valid, but we need to move on. I’m asking everyone to leave. I need a motion to adjourn. I motion. Second? All in favor? Good to know. Good to know. I don’t want to hear the truth. This car.

Speaker 0: Audience, someone from the left comes up to the mic, let's treat them with respect. Let's not interrupt or scowl or boo them. Show the left the respect that we don't get on these college campuses. With that, let's do some

Speaker 1 expresses their belief that COVID is a hoax and criticizes the wearing of masks. They also make derogatory comments about the Talmud and insult the council members. Speaker 0 tries to maintain order and reminds Speaker 1 to address everyone. Speaker 1 continues to speak aggressively and asserts their right to free speech. They emphasize the importance of respectful listening and open dialogue. The speaker concludes by stating their willingness to engage in conversation with anyone, despite differing views. The video ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 for their comments.

You refused to congratulate the president. I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. I'm just asking a simple question. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? I'm good. Are you optimistic he'll be a good president? I'm good. It sounds like you're resentful of the president. You're putting words in my mouth. Why not at least commend him for his victory? I need a QR code to get in. It seems stingy not to congratulate him. Look at my interview on Bloomberg. I think you're jealous of Trump. I'm navigating my emails. What are you doing at the World Economic Forum? There are reasons a Republican could be here, but I think you're here for rhino reasons. My questions were straightforward. His refusal to congratulate Trump suggests bitterness. For more reports from the World Economic Forum, visit wefreports.com. Please consider contributing to our crowdfunding efforts.

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Yeah, why? We're just asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the origins of COVID-19, focusing on claims that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab and the handling of scientific debate around the lab-leak hypothesis. - Speaker 0 states that for two years Republicans connected the dots and exposed evidence supporting the belief that COVID-19 was developed and leaked from the Wuhan lab, while Democrats hindered hearings and blocked truth-seeking. He asserts mounting evidence supports a lab-origin theory and frames the hearing as a pursuit of truth for Americans who suffered from the pandemic. He notes Doctor Redfield pointed to the lab-leak hypothesis early on and urged Fauci to investigate both the lab and natural hypotheses. - Speaker 0 recalls a February 1 meeting convened by Jeremy Farrar with 11 top scientists across five time zones, inviting Fauci to join, with a preference for a tight, confidential group. He says Redfield was excluded from the call, and asks why he was excluded. - Speaker 1 confirms that in January and February 2020 he spoke with Fauci, Farrar, and Tedros about pursuing both hypotheses, and as a clinical virologist argued it was not scientifically plausible that the virus jumped bat-to-human and became highly infectious; he notes that coronaviruses differ from Ebola and that intermediate hosts are involved for SARS and MERS, and that they never learned to go human-to-human in those contexts. - Speaker 0 asks why Redfield was excluded from the calls. Speaker 1 responds that he was told there was a desire for a single narrative and that his viewpoint differed. - Speaker 0 references emails after the conference call in which four of the 11 scientists said the genetic sequence was inconsistent with evolutionary expectations, but three days later those scientists drafted the paper Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 arguing the opposite. He asks how those scientists could conclude certainty about a natural origin after three days. - Speaker 1 describes the process as unfortunate and says the approach in January–February 2020 was antithetical to science, noting that science involves debate, which he claims was squashed. - Speaker 0 asks if Fauci used the Proximal Origin paper to hide gain-of-function research and to what extent the paper hides the truth. Speaker 1 declines to discuss Fauci’s motivations but calls the paper inaccurate and part of a narrative intended to negate the possibility that COVID-19 came from a laboratory. He emphasizes that the pandemic did not start in January at the seafood market and that infections date back to September. - Speaker 0 notes an email from 01/27/2020 stating NIH had a monetary relationship with the Wuhan Institute via EcoHealth Alliance, and asks if Fauci intentionally lied under oath about NIH funding of gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 asserts there is no doubt NIH funded gain-of-function research and says American tax dollars funded such research not only through NIH but also via the State Department, USAID, and the DOD. - The exchange ends with Speaker 0 signaling time and introducing Ms. Dink.

Fauci faces criticism from a speaker who questions his representation of science. The speaker accuses Fauci of approving unethical experiments on dogs and making up COVID rules. Fauci denies making anything up but is accused of benefiting financially from drug royalties. The speaker challenges Fauci's credibility as a doctor and calls for his license to be revoked. The exchange becomes heated, leading to interruptions and calls for order from the chairman.

We need to adhere to established policies and procedures. If anyone can't follow our guidelines, we'll ask them to leave. We're here to conduct our board meeting and handle our business. They're just leaving. How do you just walk out of a school board meeting like that, especially with a packed room?

Speaker 0: Hey Navarro, caught any good fish lately? What's the point of discussing this? Will it help someone's SAT score? Time for a shot. She doesn't care. That's a sign. She should stop talking. Percent. This gentleman is bothering me. Uh-huh. Why? We're asking you to follow the rules. A board member held up a sign, but the audience couldn't. This is tyranny, dealing with a corrupt government.

Please leave the chamber. You're out of order. We're taking a five-minute recess to clear the room. Do you understand what I said? If you want to participate in three years, get your signatures and apply. Order, please. Counselor, you are not recognized for the rest of the meeting. Please stop yelling. Officer, escort her out. This is your final warning; otherwise, we will clear the chamber.

Excuse me, sorry to interrupt. I'm just trying to talk. What do you want to know? So go. What are you doing here then? It's a white country. Well, you hate white people. He makes you...He hates white people, everybody. This man here, he hates white people. That's what you just said. You say you hate white people. This man just said to me that he hates white people. This man, he says he won't talk to me because I'm white. He hates white people. Just go. No. You go away.

Speaker 0 says: "Back off. You don't have to respond to them. Just don't say anything. What the fuck is this?"