reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: It's great that your mother wanted you to be on this show. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: So her wish came true. Speaker 1: Her wish came true, and mine too. Speaker 2: Hooray! Speaker 1: Chemistry fulfilled another wish of mine. I traveled by flight for the first time. Speaker 0: How was your experience on the flight? Speaker 1: It was great, sir. These airlines charge so much money, and you don't even have to worry about luggage. We suffer on trains, you know. We have to keep our things under our seats, and after a while, we see that they are gone. When you wake up in the night, the first thing you remember is that. In the plane, they don't charge much and keep it for you. Speaker 2: They provide it. Speaker 0: They keep it for you because you have to keep looking down. Yes. It's good to stay in a hotel when you come here. All the hotels and such. Speaker 1: For that. Oh my god. When it comes to Jay Ho, I got it. I mean, you can't afford so much with money, not even my husband. Speaker 2: Oh my god. KBC did everything, I got it. Speaker 1: That dream also came true. Speaker 0: Who took care of the man? Your mother-in-law Chaturvedi, does she have any reaction? You always keep laughing, keep smiling? Speaker 1: My mother-in-law asks me why I laugh alone. Me? It's just that I remember good things and laugh. Laughing is good for health. That's what I mean. I don't eat a passport. Speaker 0: Yes, yes. Speaker 1: People spend money and go to the gym, exercise. I am like this, pre-male. Speaker 0: For free, say it, say it, say it for free. Three times. Speaker 1: I eat lentils, vegetables, fish, all for free. Speaker 0: Alright. Speaker 1: I go and then. Speaker 0: How much education have you had? Speaker 1: Nothing, it still feels like zero. That's why others were studying. I was roaming around because I had confidence. Speaker 2: I won't come. They gave it wrong. Speaker 1: It's gone. No. Speaker 0: By doing this, you have reached here and answered all twelve questions correctly. You are amazing, Hello Lika Ji. Speaker 1: I made it. Speaker 0: What happened? Speaker 1: After this. Speaker 0: You are still saying the same thing from the first question. It feels like it's just talking to you and it will remain open. Speaker 1: They were saying from the beginning, don't give money, it's okay. They call others, we have come to have fun anyway. Speaker 2: Oh god.

We've stopped the $8,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies for Politico subscriptions. The team is working to cancel the payments immediately. Large organizations inevitably miss things. Claims of widespread waste and abuse haven't been substantiated with evidence. We haven't seen proof of the alleged misuse of funds.

There were suspicious donations made in the name of the speaker, but they do not recognize them. The donations were made using their name and address for small amounts, but the speaker usually only donates around $75. They suspect someone else may be using their information for larger donations. The speaker wants a refund for the unauthorized donations and would have noticed if they were making such large contributions.

On February 17th, $1,000 was given to Mike Leiszek, followed by another $1,000 on February 18th, and $1,000 on April 16th. However, on April 19th, only $200 was given to Mike Leiszek. The speaker is being accused of stealing money, but they present receipts to their lawyer as evidence. They mention $10,000 to Lutz in Trust, along with other amounts. The speaker expresses frustration with people ruining lives without evidence and sharing unverified information.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 repeatedly apologize. Speaker 0 emphasizes not lying about evidence and wanting to provide more information. Speaker 1 mentions paying for something and Speaker 0 agrees, mentioning a forensic audit. Speaker 1 mentions needing more time, but Speaker 0 declines. Speaker 0 concludes by urging the audience to listen because they have facts.

The transcript centers on alleged mismanagement of funds from a Fire Aid benefit concert claimed to raise over $100,000,000 for Los Angeles fire victims. The speakers assert that residents are asking where the money went and imply a lack of transparency or accountability. Key points include: - The Fire Aid initiative reportedly raised about $100,000,000 for residents, community needs, and funds intended to help with the aftermath, yet there is no clear accounting of where the money ended up. - The Fire Aid website states that all direct donations will be distributed under the advisement of the Annenberg Foundation. The IRS Form 990 lists the Annenberg Foundation as a 501(c)(3) based in Kunshakin, Pennsylvania, in a certain office building. - A red flag is raised that only 33% of the Annenberg Foundation’s annual expenses go toward actual charity programs; the remainder goes to administrative costs, including executive compensation. - The transcript highlights Cynthia Kennard (referred to as Cinny) as top leadership, earning roughly three-quarters of a million dollars plus six-figure bonuses, described as nearly seven figures for one person. - There is a reference to a photo or moment showing Cynthia Kennard with Gavin Newsom discussing issues like homelessness, described as an “if you know, you know” moment. - A comparison is drawn with Doctors Without Borders, noting that it spends almost 90% of its money on actual programs and less than 1% on administrative costs. - Local journalists’ inquiries revealed that the Fire Aid site lists only three Palisades organizations among nearly 120 grant recipients: Kahelet Israel, Chabad of Pacific Palisades, and Palisades Charter High School; none appear to be specific to Pacific Palisades. - Attempts to contact the Annenberg Foundation were described as fruitless or thwarted, with extensions that didn’t lead to returns, referrals to a mysterious man named Philip (no last name), and no subsequently found contact. - The speakers conclude that the $100,000,000 was allegedly largely consumed by administration, with about 70% directed toward the organization itself and the rest disbursed to various other nonprofits, each carrying their own administrative costs, leading to the impression that much of the money disappeared. Overall, the dialogue portrays the Fire Aid fundraising as potentially lacking transparency and accountability, with accusations that the majority of funds may have been diverted to administrative costs rather than direct charitable use, and that grant dispersals to other nonprofits were not clearly explained or traceable.

Speaker 0 informs Speaker 1 about numerous donations made in their name, but Speaker 1 denies making any donations. Speaker 2 explains that people are using Speaker 1's name and address to make donations, which is confusing. Speaker 1 expresses surprise and mentions their financial difficulties, making it unlikely for them to make large donations. Speaker 2 shows Speaker 1 a list of donations, including some for $500 and $250, which Speaker 1 confirms are not theirs. Speaker 1 agrees to get a refund for these donations and mentions changing their credit card recently. They emphasize that they would have noticed such large charges and would not be able to afford them.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a problem where someone is using their names to make donations. Speaker 0 mentions seeing over $3,000 being given multiple times a day. Speaker 1 doubts it's them since they are not in the state and believes the person doesn't know what they're doing. Speaker 0 reveals that the person has donated 1,640 times in the past two years, totaling $14,200. Speaker 2, who is being impersonated, finds this suspicious as they reduced their donations after the midterms. Speaker 0 suggests someone is using Speaker 2's name to donate small amounts, ranging from 60¢ to $738, multiple times a day. Speaker 2 denies making such donations and is concerned about the large total amount. They conclude that it must be someone else or a mistake.

There were disagreements about how to ask for donations. Some believed that by asking for a certain amount now, it would prevent a larger amount in the future. This conflicted with the speaker's 13 years of fundraising experience. The conflict boiled down to a difference in vision. The speaker believed in building first and having donors to support that, while others focused more on financial success. This fundamental conflict caused tension.

Speaker 0 describes being unable to move from the hotel lobby to the elevator shaft as people press $700 bills at him, saying, 'I know you're that lawyer, and you're rolling with the truckers. Give them this money.' He adds that there are 'tens of thousands of dollars of cash,' and that 'all of that has been spent in the last few days at gas stops.'

There were disagreements about fundraising approaches and conflicting visions. The speaker believed in building without relying on donors, while others focused on immediate donations. The conflict escalated publicly, leading to the speaker firing someone who refused to resign. Shortly after, the speaker learned that there would be an emergency vote to restructure the company, indicating their removal. Despite this, the speaker expressed determination to continue their mission, potentially under a new name. They mentioned needing support and invited others to find them. In conclusion, the speaker planned to gather their belongings, load them into their car, and hoped to see some people soon.

We discussed the tension between being open and transparent while also protecting ourselves. We agreed to be open and transparent for everything that happened 90 days ago and before, as it's all gone. It's similar to how cryptocurrencies work, where there is no trail if you don't want it.

The speaker confirms that the person mentioned in the affidavit reimbursed them for shared travel expenses in cash. The speaker clarifies that the reimbursement was not made through checks. The speaker is warned to step out if they interrupt again. The speaker acknowledges that all the vacations were paid for in cash by the person mentioned. The speaker also confirms that they used their business credit card to purchase these vacations but did not include them as deductions on their taxes.

Speaker 0: Apology tour due to online criticism and advertisers leaving. Speaker 1: Bob Ives was interviewed today. Stop. Speaker 2: I don't want advertisers who try to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: I understand. Bob, if you're here, let me ask you. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. No advertising. Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?

The speaker is asked about the question of whether Vitalik was wrong in allocating millions of ether to early contributors. The speaker explains that they cannot answer the question due to ongoing administrative matters that they are currently addressing. They mention that they believe the list should have been made public and transparent, but they were overruled. They clarify that none of the ether has been taken out from the Ethereum presale and it's more about transparent governance. The speaker acknowledges the importance of transparency and believes in complete openness.

The speaker is describing issues with payment deposits that were supposed to be made to their account. They indicate that deposits were scheduled for January 7 and January 14, but to date, nothing has been deposited. They point out that deposits on those dates were expected, yet “they deposit nothing,” leaving the account without funds. They then discuss what they were supposed to receive in total. The speaker asks what they were supposed to receive and references the last payment, confirming an amount of 3600 pesos. They reiterate that the amount discussed is 3600 pesos, and they refer to “the first” payment in connection with that amount, indicating that 3600 pesos was associated with the initial or first payment in the sequence. In relation to where the money should go, the speaker confirms that the funds are supposed to go to their bank account. They ask whether the money goes to a bank account or a card, and the responses confirm that there is both a bank account and a card involved. The participant confirms, “Yes,” there is an account and a card. Finally, the speaker clarifies the current status of funds. They ask if anything is on the card now or if there is money elsewhere, and the responder confirms that there is no money: “Dinero, No, no hay dinero.” They restate that there is nothing at all and that no deposits have been made, leaving them with no funds in the account or on the card.

- Speaker 0 states they believe certain people are dishonest and crooked and that they may have to pay a price; they insist they are truly bad and dishonest people, and imply consequences may follow. - Speaker 1 discusses a criminal investigation into James Comey and John Brennan related to the so-called Russian collusion hoax, asserting they tried to ruin Trump’s life and that he prevailed. - Speaker 1 notes that for years, ranking members of Congress, the intelligence community, and the FBI claimed Donald Trump was colluding with Russia to win the 2016 election, and that this was continued through his first presidency. - Speaker 2 references emails suggesting Donald Trump Jr. was willing to collude with Russia, questioning how to know what happens when Trump and Putin meet, and suggests Trump’s repeated denials of collusion may have been truthful. - Speaker 3 asks if there has been any evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Speaker 2 disagrees, saying there is plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. - Speaker 1 cites a recently declassified CIA “lessons learned” document from John Ratcliffe noting that the investigation was messed up, aimed at preventing Trump from winning and then hampering his agenda, and mentions multiple procedural anomalies in the preparation of the ICA (intelligence community assessment). - They walk through the timeline: Christopher Steele, a former MI-6 officer with Russian intel expertise, was hired by Fusion GPS, which was paid by Perkins Coie for Hillary Clinton’s campaign (notably Mark Elias) to produce opposition research on Trump; this unvetted dossier was used to bolster the case and was shopped to media to create a narrative of Trump-Russia ties, then used as a legal hook to push a narrative. - Speaker 1 argues Hillary Clinton leveraged influence to funnel the unverified dossier into the FBI and into a FISA warrant for Carter Page, noting it was not disclosed that the dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton, which they view as a major omission. - Ratcliffe’s document is cited as saying including the Steele dossier in the ICA undermined credibility and ran counter to tradecraft principles. - A second parallel element involved Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer paid by Fusion GPS and Clinton campaign, who met Don Jr. at Trump Tower; Don Jr. texted during the meeting that he was unsure what was happening, and the meeting was publicly used to support the Steele dossier claims about Trump’s ties to Russia. - The Speaker covers Hillary Clinton’s classified server issue, including the use of BleachBit and hammers, and notes DNC servers were hacked by Russia; they frame these events as being used to shift focus to Trump collusion. - They describe Crossfire Hurricane as the investigation into Trump, calling it an “insurance policy” to deflect attention from Clinton’s classified server issues and to portray Trump as guilty, describing the investigations into Trump associates (Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn) as efforts to keep the narrative alive even after Trump’s election victory. - Speaker 1 asserts Mueller’s appointment was scope-limited but later expanded, allowing broad access and substantial taxpayer cost; Brennan and Comey are accused of feeding initial information for a political purpose, with high-level agency involvement and misrepresentation in Congress. - They claim there was never any actual evidence of Russian collusion charged against the Trump campaign. - They mention Charles McGonigal, a former FBI counterintelligence official, as someone charged in connection with Russia, implying the broader narrative was invalid and asserting that those involved lied. - The speakers conclude that the entire setup was a scam and express a desire for accountability.

The speakers discuss the flow of ballots and the involvement of a company called Runback. Trucks delivering ballots arrived on the third, then the fourth, and the fifth, continuing for days. The last day of the speaker’s involvement was the tenth, and trucks were still coming in. The ballots were coming from Runback, a company that does high‑speed scanning and printing of duplications, and the speaker mentions military ballots being produced or processed by Runback, though there is uncertainty about exactly what Runback was doing. When asked whether the ballots were printed or scanned off-site, the speaker is unsure. It is stated that all the high‑speed scanning occurs at Runback, and that those ballots go to Runback. There were no observers at Runback, and the speaker had not been called to work there. The question is raised about whether the scanning was done on-site at the Maricopa County structure, but the response indicates that scanning was not on-site and occurred at Runback where there are very high‑speed scanners. The question of whether Dominion equipment was involved is addressed: the ballots being scanned were not related to Dominion. The purpose of scanning the ballots in advance of tabulation on Dominion equipment is then explained: they were duplications of ballots that would not read through the tabulation machines, specifically ballots that came in from military and overseas. However, the speaker notes there were more ballots than just those, with trays of ballots being brought in, and uncertainty remains about where the rest were coming from. The speaker suggests that the remaining questions about the sources of these ballots should be answered by the county employees. In summary, the discussion centers on: a sequence of ballot deliveries over several days; Runback handling high‑speed scanning and duplications off-site; uncertainty about whether ballots were printed or scanned and by whom; the absence of observers at Runback; scanners used were not Dominion; the purpose of off-site scanning was to duplicate ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines, including military and overseas ballots; and unresolved questions about the origin of additional ballots, which require explanation from county staff. The exchange ends with a note that the remaining questions about the ballots’ origins are for the county employees to explain.

I apologize for any inconvenience caused. You are connected and we will refund everything up to the last move. There is no more money to repay this. There is no more money being distributed. It caused pain and shame to me and all other parents. There is nothing more that can be done in the Netherlands. Everything that was taken from my children as a mother, the money, the material things, replaced the time I had to spend with my children, the love, the attention, the smile. My children ask me to fight and work to reclaim something that we shouldn't have to pay for.

Speaker 0: Apology tour, if you will. There was criticism and advertisers leaving. We talked to Bob Ives today. Stop. Speaker 2: Don't advertise. If someone tries to blackmail me with money, go fuck yourself. Speaker 1: It is clear. Hey, Bob. If you're in the audience. Speaker 2: That's how I feel. Don't advertise. Speaker 1: How do you think then?

The speaker confirms that the person in question reimbursed them for shared travel expenses in cash, not by check. The speaker also states that all vacations were paid for in cash. When asked if they included these expenses as deductions on their taxes, the speaker denies doing so.

Do you accept payments like Cash App, Apple Pay, or Zelle? We need to get paid for this trip. I don’t have any details about it. What’s the HR name? Why did the call drop when I mentioned money? That’s unacceptable. How are you doing? How many Black employees are here? I’m here to support you all. Make sure you get treats for Halloween. Is there a payout week? If someone doesn’t show up, what happens? Every time I try to discuss payment, the call disconnects. This company seems to be playing games, and it’s frustrating. We need to address this situation.

The speaker discussed the financial impact of a recent event, mentioning a loss of 137 cars across three locations totaling $2.5 million. They expressed concerns about government funding and reinvestment efforts. When questioned about discrepancies in their statements, they denied lying about the $400,000 figure mentioned in court.

What's going on? Can't get in? It's full. How long have you waited? Since 10 AM. It's total chaos here. People are frustrated with the lack of crowd control. Some have been waiting since 7 AM and still can't get in. The doors were supposed to open at 1 PM but were delayed by two hours. There's a lot of disorganization, and people are unhappy with the management. Where are the police? There's only one officer here, and no National Guard. It's pandemonium, and nobody knows what's happening. People are trying to get in or out, but it’s a mess.