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.

Speaker 0 states that "she" feels entitled to things and is scarce from nothing, continuing the behavior with different people. Speaker 1 believes Israel would be better off if "she" didn't interfere in its politics. Speaker 1 also describes "her" as unforgiving.

Speaker 0 centers on a political figure described as the woman taking over Venezuela. He asserts she is pro Israeli and pro Likud, noting she signed a cooperation deal in 2020 with Netanyahu's Likud party and fully supports Netanyahu's war on Gaza. He questions whether this alignment explains ongoing bombing activity “right now.” Speaker 1 broadens the critique to international responses to violence. He claims the UN has allowed bombing and destruction in Beirut and Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, implying ongoing Western complicity. He then probes what major capitals—Berlin, Paris, London, Washington—will say or do, suggesting they may “keep encouraging the Hitler of the twenty first century now against the noble peaceful people of Iran.” He declares, on behalf of the Bolivarian humanist peaceful people of Venezuela, a stance of resistance to war: “This madness must be stopped.” He calls on the people of Israel and Jews, addressing them as a Christian and Sephardic heir, to stop Netanyahu’s madness, asserting that only the people of Israel can stop this madness and questioning where warmongering will lead. Speaker 1 condemns racism, intolerance, hatred, and violence, asking where such actions will lead and whether missiles and bombs will subdue the will of the world’s peoples. He warns about the consequences of destruction and urges an end to aggression, appealing to the concept of a world court of Israel’s Jewish people and labeling the war as immoral and criminal. He concludes with a call to stop the aggression and ends with a conditional expectation: “We shall see.”

A protester disrupted an event, with the speaker identifying them as a "code pink lunatic" who believes that funding Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. The speaker claimed that Code Pink is funded by communist China.

Speaker 0 recalls writing a resignation email. Speaker 1 states: "That report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on a Biden administration report on whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. "I was shocked to see that it said in very clear terms, it is our determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance." The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. "We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." And after reading, she said: "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again, and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that."

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.

Hillary Clinton was accosted and accused of being a "super predator" responsible for millions of deaths. She was called a genocide supporter and accused of facilitating the genocide of Palestinian people. The speaker demanded to know what Clinton had to say for herself.

Speaker 0 argues that free speech is not a free fall in Europe, contending that two anti free speech movements have coalesced. One movement is in Europe, which has “laid waste to free speech” in countries such as Germany, France, and England, and also in places like Canada. The other movement is described as the US anti-free-speech movement, which began in higher education and then metastasized throughout the government, but which has “all reached our shores now.” The speaker notes that the Berlin World Forum followed remarks on free speech by Vice President Vance, and that the EU was “red hot.” They describe the forum as “the most anti free speech gathering I’ve ever been part of,” with only two attendees from the free speech community, but those present are “committed.” Hillary Clinton is identified as being there and said to have fueled the anger. A key claim is that when Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk, Clinton called on the EU to use the Digital Services Act, described as “one of the most anti free speech pieces of decades,” to force censorship of American citizens and to compel people like Musk to censor. The speaker characterizes this as “an extraordinary act by someone who was once a presidential candidate in The United States,” and asserts that Clinton’s position reflects a commitment to censorship. The speaker further claims that after the World Forum, this effort was globalized, and that they are “threatening companies like ACTS with ruinous fines unless they resume censoring American citizens.” The overall message emphasizes a belief that anti free speech forces are expanding globally, using regulatory tools such as the Digital Services Act to compel censorship and penalize platforms that do not comply, with the World Forum acting as a catalyst for broader international pressure.

Dr. Hassan Abusita was barred from entering Germany to speak at a conference on Palestine. He was questioned for 3.5 hours, had his passport confiscated, and was told to leave the country. He believes Germany is complicit in silencing witnesses of the genocide in Gaza. Abusita emphasizes the importance of speaking out against atrocities to uphold humanity. The crackdown on free speech in this case sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

Speaker 0: Speaker 0 says that the blessing passage being cited is “not what Genesis says,” asserting instead that “it says, I will bless those who bless Abraham,” and that the person referencing it “couldn't even quote the passage properly.” Speaker 0 argues that the authority used to justify a required action is unreliable, describing it as “preposterous” that someone would misquote scripture while claiming it instructs what to do. Speaker 1: Speaker 1 says the “effect” is to “distort American politics” and references the “Russia hysteria of the last administration,” arguing it was wrong and illegal for a foreign government to control American politics. Speaker 1 contrasts that prior agreement with what they describe as current reality, stating that the focus of the national conversation is “this tiny, totally irrelevant little country” with “one great city, Jerusalem,” which Speaker 1 describes as geopolitically irrelevant yet “at the behest of a foreign government.” Speaker 1 claims a foreign leader is “openly saying, you don't agree with us? We're gonna censor you,” and asks how that “can stand.” Speaker 1 further claims that foreign calls for censorship of American citizens are supported by “all those little satellite groups,” naming the ADL and APAC, and that “the congress obeys.” Speaker 1 concludes that this situation “seems to me that's gotta be a red line.”

Speaker 0 said that the person is banned from entry to the United States and therefore cannot use a bank card or a debit card, and cannot receive a payment. Speaker 0 stated that the measures send a message of deterrence. Speaker 0 also said that after the person was sanctioned, authorities identified her husband, who works for the World Bank and shares in her incitement. Speaker 0 further stated that the husband was demoted from his World Bank position for incitement to hate.

Stacey Gilbert discusses an April input on a Biden administration report on whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Gilbert says 'the determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false.' She notes that 'the subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level.' 'We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly.' The final report comes out and doesn't include what you had to say: 'And then the report comes out and just doesn't include what you had to say?' She recalls, 'I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again, and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that.' She concludes, 'I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me.'

- The speaker claims that John Ratcliffe, the CIA, and Mossad are all the same, asserting that CIA and Mossad were involved with the assassination of Charlie Kirk and questioning where Steve Bannon stands on that issue. The speaker lambasts Ratcliffe as a “gosh damn fraud” and accuses intelligence agencies of destroying the country, urging removal, arrest, and charging of these figures. - The speaker recounts past involvement with Steve Bannon’s network, saying they used to be on frequently to discuss border and child trafficking topics, but after shifting to child trafficking, Bannon became unavailable. The speaker asks viewers to comment on whether they should appear on Bannon’s show again when a new documentary on child trafficking is released in November, and claims to have sent many texts to Bannon’s daughter, suggesting a sense of personal outreach that went unanswered. - A request is made for Bannon to show up on the speaker’s channel, with the speaker implying a personal connection and asking viewers to indicate if they think the speaker should appear on Bannon’s show as the new documentary drops. - The speaker urges viewers to watch their video and claims that Ratcliffe is a “gosh damn fraud” and a traitor, arguing that the two-tier justice system exists because intelligence agencies are “destroying our gosh damn country.” - Speaker 1 adds, supporting a broader conspiracy narrative: Witkoff is briefed three times a day by the CIA, and they lie to him. The speaker asserts this is not a marginal intelligence mistake but a deliberate pattern. - The discussion moves to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with claims that Hamas “doesn’t wanna do the deal” and that this comes from the Mossad and Netanyahu. There are calls for Ratcliffe to resign or for a congressional hearing on national television to reveal what Ratcliffe told negotiators. - The speaker references the beginning of a twelve-day war and says what Ratcliffe told the president about it was a lie, supported by a claim from the Times of Israel that cabinet minutes show Netanyahu’s cabinet was two years away from any emergency, not two days or two weeks. The speaker contends there was an emergency to kill negotiators so Witkoff could not meet in Muscat, Oman, on a Sunday, alleging that Mossad controls the CIA. - The closing remark credits Tulsi Gabbard and claims she was targeted or run out of the city, reinforcing the theme of institutional control by Mossad over American intelligence agencies.

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.

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.

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

The speaker claims, in sworn testimony, to have admitted to lying to the US government about a UN policy. According to the speaker, the UN admits in court filings that this is an ongoing policy. The speaker states they were not fired for lying, but for objecting to the Secretary General's policy, specifically for informing the US delegation and Congress about it. The speaker asserts the UN believes it has the right to lie to the US government, its largest donor, about providing names of US citizens to the Chinese Communist Party. The speaker says they were fired for revealing the truth about this policy.

I'm proposing to reduce Samantha Power's salary to $1. As USAID administrator, Power is a globalist activist pushing regime views. She prioritized diversity, marginalized voices, and responsive aid. USAID now focuses on food security, climate change, and DEI, even installing DEI advisors and scorecards, demanding ideological conformity. Power has met repeatedly with left-wing foundations like Soros' Open Society and the Gates Foundation, exemplifying the Biden administration's close ties to groups executing extreme policies. As UN ambassador, she requested unmasking names linked to the 2016 Trump campaign. Rewarded with a permanent seat on the National Security Council, Power abuses her position to impose a left-wing agenda. This amendment holds her accountable.

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

The speaker asserts that a lodge called Bunybirith (also rendered as Beniobareth) is a Jewish supremacist organization involved in key manipulations in American history, including creating a false North–South vs. left–right dialectic and influencing the Civil War. They claim that Ulysses S. Grant notoriously expelled Jews from his military districts in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, challenging the idea that Grant was simply another white supremacist or antisemitic figure, and implying instead a broader Jewish influence at play. They allege that Bunybirith later became the ADL after the ritualistic murder of a Catholic girl named Mary Fagan, asserting that this connection could not be denied and asserting that discussions of it persist despite denials from public figures like Dennis Prager. The speaker references the Epstein files as a vehicle to discuss how “they” speak about “us” behind closed doors, and claims that the language used by Epstein mirrors racist attitudes described by Sigmund Freud, framing this as evidence of a broader religious philosophy and racist perspective in which non-Jews, or “goyim,” are described as cattle meant to be herded and ruled over. The speaker contends that this treatment toward them is part of a broader pattern tied to refusing to work for “Zionist psychopaths,” describing it as an act that would be like an animal beating someone at chess. They mention Candice’s decision to leave, noting that her life subsequently became subject to continued publishing assaults and name-calling, with accusations of antisemitic conspiracy until new emails emerged. A central claim involves Jeffrey Epstein, who the speaker says worked on behalf of the Rothschilds and, in an email, wrote that the Rothschilds credit themselves with having created which nation-state—Israel. The speaker connects this to a claim that the same nation-state is currently facing revelations of ritual abuse, with numerous women alleging abuse in a forest by rabbis, and notes that Epstein described the Rothschilds as his bosses, reinforcing the asserted link between Epstein, the Rothschilds, and Israel. Throughout, the speaker ties these points together to portray a pervasive, centuries-long pattern of hidden Jewish influence and control across U.S. history, financial power, media, and global geopolitics, culminating in a provocative synthesis that frames the Rothschilds and associated networks as central to what they describe as conspiratorial manipulation and systemic abuse of non-Jewish groups.

The discussion centers on alleged child sex abuse within the United Nations and how it is handled internally. The second speaker asserts that many UN employees, including those at the UN, treat child sex abuse as “a cost of doing business.” They state that French peacekeepers were abusing children in the Central African Republic, with children as young as eight years old being forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for food. This claim is described as despicable and the opposite of the UN’s mission. The second speaker further contends that, according to their account, anyone involved in cover-ups of child sexual abuse “without exception, has been promoted.” In contrast, those who report abuses or attempt to stop them are said to have been fired or resigned. They claim the UN has spent more than 3,000,000 US dollars on silencing them personally. A broader critique is offered of the UN’s stance on whistleblowing, summarized by the assertion that “the UN's position on whistleblowing, whether it's this, child's excuse, or anything, is destroy the whistleblower.” The first speaker appears to challenge whether such allegations are being spoken about publicly by someone within the organization who knows about ongoing abuse, implying fear of job loss as a deterrent to speaking out. The second speaker presses the point with a direct personal inquiry, noting that an assistant secretary general is “not speaking out about someone he knows who is raping multiple children because he's worried he's gonna lose his job,” and asking, “Yeah. What's his name?” Overall, the exchange attributes a systemic pattern of abuse and retaliation to silence whistleblowers within the UN, highlighting specific alleged incidents in Central African Republic involving French peacekeepers and a broader accusation that reporting abuse is penalized while cover-ups are rewarded.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.

A witness was suspended due to a protester. The protester, identified as a "code pink lunatic," claimed that funding Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. It was stated that Code Pink is funded by communist China.