reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- The speaker asks Madam Secretary two questions: (1) Have you ever received an invitation like this from the FBI? (2) Do you plan on attending this meeting? The responses are: No and Yes. - The speaker notes that they’ve worked with the FBI before, citing past instances such as being swatted and white powder mailings in 2024. - They describe the current invitation as highly unusual and express concern, citing the president’s recent rhetoric about nationalizing elections.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

Speaker 0 is asked if he accepted bribes and if he would comment on the arrest of the former president.

The speakers discuss a dangerous and divided world, citing threats from Iran, Russia, and China, as well as changing security and commercial relationships with the United States. One speaker mentions having obtained top secret security clearance within three weeks to be informed and make decisions. He then points out that another speaker has refused the opportunity to obtain top secret security clearance for 950 days. The other speaker explains that while he previously held top secret clearance as a minister, he refused the recent offer because it would have gagged him under security law, preventing him from speaking freely about foreign interference without fear of prosecution. He claims Canada has experienced Chinese interference in two elections. He says that refusing the clearance allowed him to speak freely about issues such as a candidate who allegedly threatened a political opponent, and a quarter billion dollar loan obtained in China. The first speaker responds that robust debate has occurred despite the situation, and observes that China is not the only country accused of foreign interference.

A speaker asks if the recipient is aware that many Americans believe a recent shooting was a coordinated assassination attempt, not the act of a lone shooter. The speaker cites the shooter's age, proximity to the target with an AR-15, drone surveillance, and being spotted with a rangefinder as reasons for suspicion. The speaker, identifying himself as a former Navy SEAL sniper, notes the obvious sniper position from a water tower. He asks if the recipient is surprised that Americans suspect more to the story, given attempts to bankrupt and imprison the target, and depictions of him as Hitler. The speaker asks if the recipient's team entered and investigated the suspect's home prior to the shooting, to which the recipient says they participated in securing it and provided bomb assets. The speaker then asks if any agents reported anything "fishy" at the home, such as silverware or trash, or if it was extremely clean like a medical lab. The recipient states he was not given those details. The speaker concludes that this is what he is hearing and finds it "interesting."

The speaker questions the relationship between Keir Starmer and the head of MI5, suggesting it is unusual that they had drinks together. Despite sending questions to Starmer, he never replies. Jonathan Evans confirmed that they attended his farewell drinks, but couldn't recall if they spoke. The speaker emphasizes that this interaction was not standard procedure for CPS directors. This raises suspicions about Starmer's connections and actions. Translation: The speaker raises concerns about Keir Starmer's interaction with the head of MI5, highlighting the lack of transparency and unusual nature of their meeting.

A massive conspiracy involving German and American intelligence agencies is framing the AfD, a German political party, by associating them with Saxon separatists. Leaked case files reveal that the initial investigation focused solely on six suspects, unrelated to the AfD. However, the investigation was later expanded to include individuals connected to both the separatists and the AfD, highlighting any connection, no matter how tenuous. The media will distort this information to damage the AfD's reputation. This is an attack not just on the AfD, but on all those who think for themselves and reject mainstream media narratives. The AfD maintains they have no connection to the separatists. We must expose this conspiracy before it’s too late and the AfD, the only party that can save Germany, is unjustly destroyed.

On Monday, June 17, 2024, a narrative centers on the Kingdom of the Netherlands with a company-like reference: overseas entity number OE miljoen 92714, registered May 11, 2023, at Rijnstraat 8, the address of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The managing officer is Hano Wirtner, identified as Deputy Ambassador UK, linked to the number ending in 714. The Foreign Affairs SG is Paul Huyts, who has attended the Multiconic Forum and is described as knowledgeable about the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 agenda; he previously served as coordinator of intelligence and security services and as Secretary-General of General Affairs. On May 29, Paul Huyts was appointed ambassador to the United Kingdom by the King. His successor is Christiaan Rebergen, described as Thesaurus-generaal and treasurer-general of the Ministry of Finance, who is said to be a 100 percent implementer of the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals. The text asserts that both Huyts and Hano Wirtner are deeply involved in the described structure, with Wirtner in London as managing officer of the whole operation. The speaker raises explicit questions: Is the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as an overseas entity, written out of the Netherlands if registered elsewhere? Who approved this arrangement? What is the collateral and under what conditions is Hano Wirtner a straw man (stroomman)? The claim is made that as managing officer of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, this is a significant position, and that the Netherlands is an unidentifiable company (no known beneficial owner). The speaker asserts involvement of ABE Top Consults, all top Dutch civil servants, the Top Management Group, and intelligence and security services, including mentions of Gert-Jan Puytendijk and CTIVD officials, in relation to “what is going on.” The speaker announces a visit to Rijnstraat 8 to illustrate, noting the address as the overseas entity address and that Olh Huyts is the secretary-general of Foreign Affairs and former secretary-general of General Affairs, described as the coordinator of all intelligence and security services. It is stated that Paul Huyts is to become the new ambassador to the UK in London, that Huyts attended Davos for the World Economic Forum, and that a man (not identified by name) appears at the scene, possibly associated with ABD Top Consult or the Top Management Group. Further details describe Krissian Rebergen as the successor to Paul Huyts, serving as thesaurier-generaal and treasury-bearer of the Kingdom, and a 100 percent implementer of the MDGs and SDGs, with knowledge of the Millennium Development Goals. The structure is suggested to place Hano Wirtner in London as the managing officer, prompting questions about a potential straw man and absence of a known beneficial owner. The speaker remarks on the size of the Rijnstraat 8 building, its proximity to Den Haag Centraal Station, and questions about whether the Netherlands is effectively the “BV Nederland” housed in London, asking what is happening and calling for accountability. The account ends with the mention of Rijnstraat 8 as the building of Paul Huyts, described as the protector of Sandra Pellegrom, the coordinator of SDG Nederland.

Speaker 0: The officer tells him to get a life, but the journalist insists that investigative reports are important for the country. Speaker 0 questions the journalist's credentials, but the journalist continues to ask questions. The journalist offers to provide all the material via email.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

The speaker recalls a past policy from when they were deputy leader of another party, stating that they would denounce the World Economic Forum, and asserts that there can be no good arising from the richest people in the world meeting the most powerful people in the world behind closed doors, without an agenda, without minutes, and without public scrutiny. They emphasize that such a gathering lacks transparency and accountability. The speaker then shifts to a critique of a specific political figure, Mandelson, claiming that what has been seen with Mandelson is “the tip of the iceberg.” They argue that the reason Mandelson isn’t already in jail, and the reason he twice came back from political obscurity, was put back into office, ennobled, and made an ambassador, is because “the establishment is rotten to the core,” and that “the world’s gonna be a problem.” Further, the speaker claims that someone takes money from a billionaire who is foreign-born in order to attend the World Economic Forum so he can speak on a program with Bloomberg, and states that such a person is “someone we should not be electing as prime minister of this country.” The speech then transitions to prompting or signaling that there is a question to be addressed next, as indicated by the final remark, “We now have a question.”

Neymar: Yeah. Fortunately, it was very much because of Elon’s response to what was going on in Europe too that I realized that it was extremely dangerous when I did announce it to him before I even applied, just to see his reaction, whether he would agree, because sometimes I like to gas up myself and think, maybe it’s not that crazy. And he, yeah, basically gave me his approval instantly, thinking that it’s a good idea. I’m very, very grateful, not only for the exposure that he has given me and the AFD and my country as a whole, Patriots in my country, but also just for the yeah. Kind of, like, the encouragement to fight because that’s what he does. No matter what, like, he he gets so many death threats. He gets so many threats from all sides, but he still continues, and that has inspired me a lot. And then it was only after my application that Ana Polina Luna reached out to me. So, like I said, I didn’t ask anyone for a favor. I want to do this the legitimate way, and now exciting things are coming for sure. I I definitely want to take this further. This is only step one because I’m applying for asylum, not because I want to be in The United States so desperately. I mean, I love The United States. So, yeah, don’t get me wrong. 100%. But I could just apply for, I don’t know, journalism visa, for example, and I could stay here that way. I’m doing this to seek protection from the US government because I genuinely fear for my life over there in Germany. I fear that if I come back, I will be arrested. Fun fact, I just actually saw my sister sent me a letter that I got from the police that I’m now officially being charged with a hate crime, is it it’s what it’s called, for one of my tweets. I don’t know which one are currently requesting that from the police, so, yeah, we’ll see. Speaker 0: Funny funny thing you’re over. Anyone that’s saying that you’re maybe overreacting by doing all this, you’ve just received a letter from the police charging you with hate crime. Speaker 1: Yeah. That’s just a small detail of my entire history. I have the evidence from the German intelligence community. It was also funny. I was interviewed by The Telegraph, and they apparently reached out to German intelligence to get a comment, and they refused to comment.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Het interview met Gidi Marcushauer werd nationaal nieuws nadat hij in een eerder interview (met een journalist van Legd Laser) geweldsoproepen deed tegen Palestijnse asielzoekers. Volgens Bo had Marcushauer eerder zelden kritisch doorgevraagd gekregen, waardoor volgens de maker onderwerpen uit zijn verleden niet eerder aan bod kwamen, zoals waarom hij bij een arrestatie een vuurwapen bij zich had. De video gaat volgens de makers op drie vragen in: wat Marcushauer met een vuurwapen bij zich droeg “bij de rij”, waarom hij geen vicepremier mocht worden, en voor welke geheimzinnige stichtingen hij eerder actief was. In een gesprek met Marcushauer vraagt de journalist naar zijn uitspraak-over-beveiligingsachtergrond en probeert door te vragen; Marcushauer neemt herhaaldelijk een time-out en wil vragen niet beantwoorden. Er wordt aangehaald dat Marcushauer in 2024 geen vicepremier mocht worden op basis van onderzoek van de AIVD. Tegelijk wordt gesteld dat er in 2010 al onderzoek liep naar vermoedelijke contacten met een buitenlandse mogendheid, en dat Marcushauer zich toen terugtrok als PVV-kandidaat-kamerlid. Een commissielid zegt dat de details over de banden met buitenlandse inlichtingendiensten hem niet bekend zijn, en dat er daarover binnen de commissie niet wordt uitgeweid. Volgens de transcript is Marcushauer in 2008 aangehouden in Amsterdam omdat hij een vuurwapen bij zich droeg. Hij zou een vuurwapenvergunning hebben gehad en bestuurslid zijn bij een Joodse schietclub. Tijdens die periode hield hij zich volgens vrij Nederland bezig met beveiligingsactiviteiten voor stichting bij leven en welzijn (BLUE), die volgens het stuk vooral Joodse instellingen en evenementen beveiligt en volgens vrij Nederland “discreet” is binnen de Joodse gemeenschap. Verder wordt beschreven dat een tweede stichting, Briet Abraham (Bijd Abraham), nauwelijks online informatie heeft, behalve Kamer van Koophandel/IND-gegevens. De transcript stelt dat BLUE en Briet Abraham vanaf 2010 hetzelfde bezoekadres deelden en dat bestuurders en gevolmachtigden overeenkwamen. Ook lijken hun activiteiten op beveiliging/bewaking. Alleen Briet Abraham staat volgens de IND als erkend referent voor arbeid en kennismigranten, wat volgens het stuk inhoudt dat de stichting toestemming kan aanvragen voor verblijfsvergunningen voor arbeid/kennismigranten. Marcushauer zou volgens het transcript tot 2008 bestuurslid zijn geweest bij beide stichtingen, en zich binnen twee weken hebben uitgeschreven na zijn vuurwapen-arrestatie. De makers stellen vragen over wat Briet Abraham precies doet en of Marcushauer kennismigranten naar Nederland heeft gehaald; Marcushauer wil de vragen niet beantwoorden of zegt dat er aannames worden gemaakt. Daarna komt de beveiligingspraktijk van BLUE aan bod. Uit een Woo-verzoek zou blijken dat BLUE-beveiligers geen regulier uniform hoeven te dragen, wat volgens activisten het lastig zou maken om onderscheid te maken tussen beveiligers en bijvoorbeeld undercover politie. Leden zouden volgens het stuk trainingen in Israël volgen, vaak van oud-militairen. In 2016 zou Marcushauer opnieuw een rol vervullen bij BLUE, als lid van de raad van gedelegeerden, terwijl hij in de Eerste Kamer portefeuillehouder justitie is. De transcript koppelt dit aan vragen die hij daar stelt over samenwerking met landen zoals Israël. Er wordt ook een bredere netwerkroute geschetst via Paul Stoppelman en schietvereniging Macabi. De transcript stelt dat Stoppelman actief blijft in de beveiligingswereld, dat hij wordt genoemd in een oud artikel over Israëlische vrijwilligers, en dat Stoppelman vervolgens volgens de makers ex-IDF-soldaat Gabrio inschakelde om eind 2024 een delegatie van Israëliërs te beveiligen tijdens een delegatie door Nederland. Gabrio wordt op 14 november gearresteerd op Schiphol; er worden doorgeladen pistolen en ook een ER-vijftien thuis gevonden. In een gesprek zegt Gabrio dat hij op basis van spanning en omstandigheden meerdere vuurwapens meenam en dat hij de informatie zelfstandig zou hebben. De transcript stelt daarnaast dat Macabi onderdeel is van een uitgebreider netwerk met banden richting Israëlische politiek, en noemt een ontmoeting van Macabi-voorzitter David Bezemer met Israëlische minister van defensie en president Hertzog. Ook wordt vermeld dat Macabi en BLUE gezamenlijke zelfverdedigingscursussen organiseren, waarbij onduidelijk blijft door wie die precies worden gegeven. David Bezemer verklaart in het stuk dat Stoppelman al lang bestuurslid is en dat hij na publicaties contact heeft opgenomen voor opheldering; Bezemer zegt geen idee te hebben van contacten met Israëlische veiligheidsdiensten en dat vragen aan Stoppelman gesteld moeten worden. Tot slot stellen de makers dat het onderzoek al lang loopt en dat er geen enkel concreet strafbaar feit is vastgesteld, maar dat er volgens hen veel vragen en opmerkelijke banden zijn. Er wordt aangehaald dat Marcushauer binnen de Nederlandse Joodse gemeenschap bekendstaat als radicaal en dat zijn geweldsuiten over Palestijnse vluchtelingen passen in een breder patroon, inclusief een uitgelekte e-mail over Israël-kritische Joden. De transcript zegt dat dit verhaal relevant wordt doordat Marcushauer bijna vicepremier werd, eerder als risico werd gezien door de AIVD, en volgens de makers een sleutelrol speelt in een minderheidskabinet.

The Prime Minister previously supported ENSCOCOP's role in examining foreign interference in Canada's democracy, but there seems to be a shift in stance. Questions arise about whether a recent ENSCOCOP report revealed involvement of Liberals seeking political and financial gain. Is the Prime Minister still committed to transparency and public trust in institutions, or has external influence changed this approach? In response, the Minister for Public Safety emphasizes the importance of oversight, noting that the government established a committee of parliamentarians to monitor security agencies for the first time. This committee includes members from all political parties, and their recommendations have been acted upon to enhance national security and combat foreign interference.

In the exchange, the interviewer addresses Mister Thiel with pointed questions about Palantir and its practices. The first question directly asks for his comments on Palantir’s surveillance of the American people, framing it as a concern held by others. The interviewer also asks about Thiel’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein, presenting this as part of a broader scrutiny of Palantir and Thiel’s associations. The inquiry characterizes Palantir’s technology as a form of “big brother surveillance,” and it states that people are aware of and worried about the use of surveillance tech against them. The question then asks whether Thiel believes the American people want such surveillance capabilities to be used against them. The interviewer notes that Thiel is meeting with Palantir and that, in their view, people are waking up to what is happening with the company and Thiel’s involvement. This framing indicates a concern that Palantir’s surveillance capabilities and Thiel’s ties are part of a broader, growing scrutiny. Across the exchange, the core topics are: (1) comments on Palantir’s surveillance of ordinary citizens, (2) questions about any connections to Jeffrey Epstein, (3) the characterization of Palantir’s technology as a “big brother surveillance system,” (4) the belief that the American public is aware of and opposed to surveillance tech being used against them, and (5) acknowledgment that Thiel is meeting with Palantir and that the public is waking up to these issues. The overall tenor is one of eliciting a direct response from Thiel about the implications of Palantir’s surveillance capabilities, his associations, and the perceived consent or opposition of the American people to such technologies.

A reporter asked if Republicans would investigate Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for allegedly marrying her brother and committing immigration fraud. The reporter stated this claim was previously reported and confirmed. They inquired whether Omar's citizenship could be revoked if she is found to have committed immigration and student loan fraud. The respondent stated they could not discuss any investigation. The reporter then stated that many people wonder why there are "jihadists" and "anti-American immigrants" serving in Congress who are perpetuating open borders. The respondent stated that they are aware of the situation, but cannot discuss it.

The speaker questions outside interference in democracy, referencing Klaus Schwab's claim of infiltrating governments. They ask for transparency regarding Canadian cabinet ministers involved with the World Economic Forum. Another member interrupts due to poor audio and video quality. The discussion shifts to disinformation and the need to address it. Translation: The speaker raises concerns about outside influence in democracy and asks for transparency about Canadian cabinet ministers involved with the World Economic Forum. Another member interrupts due to technical issues and the conversation shifts to disinformation.

The video narrates that the speakers attended the May 1 demonstration in Amsterdam, describing it as the most important day of the year for communists, used to commemorate the “offers” made by the working class for basic rights such as an eight-hour workday, minimum wage, and the weekend. They then recount a confrontation: an FNV member approached them with a photo claiming that Volkert van der Graaf might be nearby. The speaker says they had questions for Volkert and repeatedly asks, “Volker, Volker, what are you doing here?” During the exchange, the person identified as Volkert responds that the speaker should not ask for comment, and says, among other things, that this is a day for working people and that “we work.” The conversation includes discussion of the term “parasite,” with the speaker stating they do not know what Volkert means by “parasite,” and wondering whether Volkert describes himself or the speaker. The speakers frame a “real question” as why Pim Fortuyn had to be killed. They state that one often-cited scenario is that Volkert van der Graaf committed the murder from animal-rights extremism. They say Volkert was associated with the industry in question, and that because he never explained, the entire left-wing movement was held responsible, with the idea that “the bullet came from the left.” The speakers also state that there were left-wing movements that carried out liquidations, citing the German Red Army Faction (RAF). They claim the key difference is that the RAF always published extensive communiqués explaining why they carried out attacks, while Volkert never gave such an explanation, and the speaker asks why Volkert never explained why Pim had to be killed. The response in the transcript is that Volkert says it is simple and gives no comment. The transcript then shifts to claims about surveillance. The speakers mention that a former AIVD/IVD-related person, Barry Hanselman, made the claim that Volkert was never in the picture of the security services. The speakers say that this conflicts with a claim in a podcast “Vriend van Volkert,” which allegedly concerns the criminal Paul Moolhoek, who lived next to Volkert and had extensive contact. The transcript states that police allegedly suspected Moolhoek of being a possible informant for the security services, and that this impression was allegedly confirmed in conversations after Fortuyn’s murder between people from the police and the IVD. The speaker expresses that they find it “best wel gek” that someone living nearby later appeared in the Hofstadgroep. A discussion follows about the role of political journalism. The speaker states they find it difficult that someone who has served a sentence does not still form part of the societal debate, and they say they hope the video contributes by encouraging left-wing people to discuss the political impact of the murder and how the movement could have responded better to its aftershocks, and by encouraging people who know more about Volkert’s motives to come forward. Finally, the transcript describes Hans Spekman of FNV being confronted with the alleged presence of Volkert at the May 1 demonstration. Spekman says he does not know who Volkert van der Graaf is, but responds that Volkert is welcome and that no one is excluded. The speaker criticizes Spekman’s reaction as a “standard response” that involves lying when confronted with an uncomfortable truth, and argues Spekman could ask Volkert to leave. The transcript ends by emphasizing that the organization claims it is independent and not funded through subsidies.

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the presence and influence of the Taliban within government and international circles, and the U.S. approach to engagement. Speaker 1 suggests that while there may not be overt Taliban infiltration as a formal party, there are lobbyists, supporters, and Taliban in neckties and suits in Washington, pointing to the speech of the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan, Thomas West, as evidence of whitewashing the Taliban. Speaker 0 counters that the U.S. is in regular, productive dialogue with the Taliban, and believes the Taliban are sincere but frustrated. He notes that no sanctions have been passed against the Taliban since last August, that four Americans have returned, but several remain in Taliban custody. He also highlights that the U.S. has backed the shipment of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash into the country since August, and claims it is actually over $1,000,000,000. Speaker 0 states that the U.S. has cooperated with the Taliban on certain discrete issues, including closing roads and managing crowds to prevent terrorist disruption, and that he has had a series of engagements with senior Taliban leaders. When asked about returning to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban, he says, “The sooner, the better,” noting that the Taliban want sanctions relief, development aid, and a big seat at the table. He mentions an announced plan to pump in another $308,000,000, and describes mechanisms that are getting hundreds of millions of dollars in cash directly into the banking system. The Taliban purportedly want to seat their permanent representative in New York. ISIS-K is described as a common enemy, with the Taliban maintaining a vigorous and robust effort against it. He asserts that, despite concerns, they are building productive relationships and an honest dialogue with Taliban members, while acknowledging the priority of countering ISIS-K. He references the Doha agreement breach by the Taliban in sheltering Ayman al-Zawahiri in downtown Kabul, which he characterizes as unacceptable and a major breach, and states that even after this event, the U.S. is prepared to engage pragmatically with the Taliban regarding terrorism concerns. Speaker 1 adds that the UN and World Bank are developing a humanitarian exchange facility to move more Afghans into the system, noting that many banknotes have circulated for over ten years and are not accepted by shops or the central bank. He mentions a private-sector arrangement in Europe facilitating the shipment of hundreds of millions in cash into private banks in Afghanistan, with money going to the Afghanistan International Bank (AIB), which allegedly lacks authority to convert dollars to Afghanis and to auction them, and then passes funds to the Taliban-controlled Central Bank of Afghanistan. He asks who is in charge of the Central Bank, identifying Nur Ahmad Ora as the head, described as sanctioned by the U.S. for financing IED attacks that killed American soldiers. He concludes that diplomacy with the Taliban is essential to achieve objectives and asks whether there are Taliban in elections, asserting that they hold official offices and are present, urging the listener to review their statements to determine if they are Taliban sympathizers or whitewashing the Taliban. The conversation ends with Speaker 0 remarking, “Man, that's scary.”

Speaker 0: We have a problem with the CIA and FBI in Washington. Speaker 1: What's your plan to start over and fix them? Speaker 0: They've gotten out of control, with weaponization and other issues. The people need to bring about change. We were making progress, but more needs to be done.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

Speaker 0 asserts: "And remember, he's an Israeli agent." The discussion shifts to whether Israel would "murder politicians in the West or get rid of them politically through bribery or whatever else?" The question continues: "What what do you mean the politicians in the West will fall if they don't agree that to back Israel's war against Iran?" and "What do you mean the politicians will fall?" Speaker 1 concludes: "We live in democracy, and we have the right to bring them up and to bring them down." Overall, the exchange centers on alleged influence and democratic rights. The dialogue highlights tensions around political power and foreign policy commitments.