Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

😳 It seems Putin was accidentally asked an unscripted question at SPIEF After the customary praise from Russia-friendly American Rodney Cook and Romanian far-right MEP Diana Șoșoacă, the microphone unexpectedly went to Karin Kneissl — the former Austrian foreign minister whose wedding Putin famously attended. The question was about...

nexta_tv's profile picture

NEXTA

1,319,774 subscribers

161,416 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Putin was stunned by an uncomfortable question. It seems the dictator has forgotten how to answer them An Indian journalist caught Putin off guard with a question about Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Geeta Mohan asked the Russian leader what he could say to those Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine who, at the start of the invasion, were asking: “Why is Putin doing this to us?” Many of them spoke Russian, did not consider Russia an enemy, and never expected Russians to start destroying their homes. Putin was clearly confused and interrupted her: “I didn’t understand the question — shocked by what?” Mohan clarified that people were shocked that it was Russia that destroyed their homes. After a pause, Putin delivered a standard set of propaganda talking points: 📌 that these people supposedly lived in areas controlled by Kyiv, which the “Kyiv regime” was “destroying”; 📌 that Moscow was “forced” to launch the operation and “support” the occupation administrations; 📌 that “everyone could have left” if they didn’t want to “be with Russia”; 📌 and that the “referendums” were allegedly “open”. He never answered the main question — why Russia struck those it claimed it intended to protect.
1:49

Putin was stunned by an uncomfortable question. It seems the dictator has forgotten how to answer them An Indian journalist caught Putin off guard with a question about Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Geeta Mohan asked the Russian leader what he could say to those Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine who, at the start of the invasion, were asking: “Why is Putin doing this to us?” Many of them spoke Russian, did not consider Russia an enemy, and never expected Russians to start destroying their homes. Putin was clearly confused and interrupted her: “I didn’t understand the question — shocked by what?” Mohan clarified that people were shocked that it was Russia that destroyed their homes. After a pause, Putin delivered a standard set of propaganda talking points: 📌 that these people supposedly lived in areas controlled by Kyiv, which the “Kyiv regime” was “destroying”; 📌 that Moscow was “forced” to launch the operation and “support” the occupation administrations; 📌 that “everyone could have left” if they didn’t want to “be with Russia”; 📌 and that the “referendums” were allegedly “open”. He never answered the main question — why Russia struck those it claimed it intended to protect.

NEXTA

548,620 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Jairam Ramesh says, "It was natural that the Prime Minister meet all the 50 MPs who were members of these seven delegations that went to 32 countries. That was not a surprise as far as we were concerned. But we have only four simple questions. We would like the Prime Minister to answer these questions. Question number one - When will the Prime Minister chair an all-party meeting and meet the leaders? Leaders and not MPs and take them into confidence on the internal and external security challenges that have emerged after the Pahalgam terror attack. Secondly, our question is that after the Kargil war, we had a Kargil review committee... will there be a similar exercise, especially after the CDS revelations in Singapore? Will there be a review? Will there be an analysis? ... So will there be a report? Will it be tabled in Parliament? The third question is, during the Monsoon session, will the Prime Minister allow a two full-day discussion on internal and external security challenges, on China, on Pakistan, on the new emerging technologies which we have to contend with, with the challenges posed by President Trump's repeated claims..."
3:55

#WATCH | Delhi: Congress MP Jairam Ramesh says, "It was natural that the Prime Minister meet all the 50 MPs who were members of these seven delegations that went to 32 countries. That was not a surprise as far as we were concerned. But we have only four simple questions. We would like the Prime Minister to answer these questions. Question number one - When will the Prime Minister chair an all-party meeting and meet the leaders? Leaders and not MPs and take them into confidence on the internal and external security challenges that have emerged after the Pahalgam terror attack. Secondly, our question is that after the Kargil war, we had a Kargil review committee... will there be a similar exercise, especially after the CDS revelations in Singapore? Will there be a review? Will there be an analysis? ... So will there be a report? Will it be tabled in Parliament? The third question is, during the Monsoon session, will the Prime Minister allow a two full-day discussion on internal and external security challenges, on China, on Pakistan, on the new emerging technologies which we have to contend with, with the challenges posed by President Trump's repeated claims..."

ANI

25,298 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.
8:02

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.

MAZE

58,564 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Elon Musk says “Grok 4 is going to get to the point where it’s going to get every answer right in every exam. And where it doesn’t get an answer right, it’s going to tell you what’s wrong with the question or, if the question is ambiguous, disambiguate the question into answers A, B, and C, and tell you what answer A, B, and C would be with a disambiguated question. So then the only real test would be reality. Can it discover new science? That will be the only thing actually left.
2:24

Elon Musk says “Grok 4 is going to get to the point where it’s going to get every answer right in every exam. And where it doesn’t get an answer right, it’s going to tell you what’s wrong with the question or, if the question is ambiguous, disambiguate the question into answers A, B, and C, and tell you what answer A, B, and C would be with a disambiguated question. So then the only real test would be reality. Can it discover new science? That will be the only thing actually left.

Tesla Owners Silicon Valley

43,162 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The former Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and a professor at SPbSU, Karin Kneissl, raised a critical question regarding the strategic and ethical challenges of modern warfare: "On the modern warfare of drones, which have created such a horrible distance between, let me say, the perpetrator, I don't want to say the soldier, because it's not always a soldier, and the target. There is now a sort of technical, artificial distance, which is creating a new form of cruelty. And we don't anymore have any sort of code of honour between the parties.... How can we handle it? How can it be done or be finished?"
2:46

The former Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs and a professor at SPbSU, Karin Kneissl, raised a critical question regarding the strategic and ethical challenges of modern warfare: "On the modern warfare of drones, which have created such a horrible distance between, let me say, the perpetrator, I don't want to say the soldier, because it's not always a soldier, and the target. There is now a sort of technical, artificial distance, which is creating a new form of cruelty. And we don't anymore have any sort of code of honour between the parties.... How can we handle it? How can it be done or be finished?"

Margarita Simonyan

42,074 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

Tonight at the Tommy Robinson event in Israel a brave man asked about his article “The Jewish Question”. I have to correct Avi Yemini that the man is right. It was an article on Urban Scoop in 2022 - now deleted. The man was physically attacked. For asking a question.
1:30

Tonight at the Tommy Robinson event in Israel a brave man asked about his article “The Jewish Question”. I have to correct Avi Yemini that the man is right. It was an article on Urban Scoop in 2022 - now deleted. The man was physically attacked. For asking a question.

Heidi Bachram 🎗️

16,542 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Steve Witkoff on Iran: We have a 15-point deal on the table that the Iranians have had for a bit of time. We expect an answer from them and it would solve it all. It would solve the enrichment question, which is we can't have enrichment there today. It would solve the material question. They have close to 10,000 kilograms of enriched material stockpiled, which they have to give up. It would solve the stockpiling question and the oversight question.
0:50

Steve Witkoff on Iran: We have a 15-point deal on the table that the Iranians have had for a bit of time. We expect an answer from them and it would solve it all. It would solve the enrichment question, which is we can't have enrichment there today. It would solve the material question. They have close to 10,000 kilograms of enriched material stockpiled, which they have to give up. It would solve the stockpiling question and the oversight question.

Clash Report

35,484 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

#KarenReadRetrial The jury in the Read case asked a total of four questions today. The first three were asked and answered around 11am and the jurors were sent back to deliberate. The fourth question though was not answered until after lunch. That question was about a hung jury, specifically "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" The question raised some eyebrows as the first trial ended in a hung jury which was then appealed to the Supreme Court with claims from the defense that the first jury had actually acquitted Read on the murder charge. Even more eyebrow raising were Judge Cannone's comments to Alan Jackson that the defense at first told Judge Cannone to ignore the question when it came in. Why in the world would a defense team who appealed a previous hung jury decision all the way to the Supreme Court tell the Judge to ignore a question focused on a hung jury? Something about the question and the defense's initial request to disregard seems very, very off.
0:20

#KarenReadRetrial The jury in the Read case asked a total of four questions today. The first three were asked and answered around 11am and the jurors were sent back to deliberate. The fourth question though was not answered until after lunch. That question was about a hung jury, specifically "If we find not guilty on two charges but can't agree on one charge, is it a hung jury on all three charges or just one charge?" The question raised some eyebrows as the first trial ended in a hung jury which was then appealed to the Supreme Court with claims from the defense that the first jury had actually acquitted Read on the murder charge. Even more eyebrow raising were Judge Cannone's comments to Alan Jackson that the defense at first told Judge Cannone to ignore the question when it came in. Why in the world would a defense team who appealed a previous hung jury decision all the way to the Supreme Court tell the Judge to ignore a question focused on a hung jury? Something about the question and the defense's initial request to disregard seems very, very off.

Julie Carpenter

94,866 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Sen. Cruz says a kid asked a “viciously antisemitic question” at a TPUSA event. Then says a different kid asked “such an antisemitic question, it was filled with lies, every word of the question was a lie, including and, but, and the.”
1:56

Sen. Cruz says a kid asked a “viciously antisemitic question” at a TPUSA event. Then says a different kid asked “such an antisemitic question, it was filled with lies, every word of the question was a lie, including and, but, and the.”

Revolver News

2,969,986 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)
2:17

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)

ANI

613,907 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?
1:25

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Clash Report

17,487 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Just a reminder: the last time an American president met with Putin, it was night and day. No ass-kissing, no groveling—Biden stood tall, faced the press, and answered every damn question. Trump? He tucked tail and ran. Was he too tired? Too embarrassed after sucking up to Putin on the world stage? The press needs to stop being cowards and demand answers.
32:20

Just a reminder: the last time an American president met with Putin, it was night and day. No ass-kissing, no groveling—Biden stood tall, faced the press, and answered every damn question. Trump? He tucked tail and ran. Was he too tired? Too embarrassed after sucking up to Putin on the world stage? The press needs to stop being cowards and demand answers.

Chris D. Jackson

88,381 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Caitlin was the final question on a recent episode of Jeopardy. Luke was the only contestant to get it right and he won!
1:31

Caitlin was the final question on a recent episode of Jeopardy. Luke was the only contestant to get it right and he won!

correlation

291,415 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

A week after 9/11, a young student asked a brilliant question about America and the way it focuses on itself and not/rarely the world. That student was Pete Buttigieg Incredible footage of an incredible mind.
1:12

A week after 9/11, a young student asked a brilliant question about America and the way it focuses on itself and not/rarely the world. That student was Pete Buttigieg Incredible footage of an incredible mind.

TheBossRoss 🇪🇺 🧶 ❄ 📷 6x💉

13,527 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨 JUST IN: Pat Fallon looked Hillary Clinton straight in the eye and asked the question the media is too scared to ask. Why was Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding after the conviction? Her answer under oath? “She was just a plus one.” A plus one. At your daughter’s wedding. After all of it. And we’re supposed to nod and move on? Stop insulting our intelligence. That is not a coincidence. She knows exactly what she’s doing, and the American people see right through it.
1:07

🚨 JUST IN: Pat Fallon looked Hillary Clinton straight in the eye and asked the question the media is too scared to ask. Why was Ghislaine Maxwell at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding after the conviction? Her answer under oath? “She was just a plus one.” A plus one. At your daughter’s wedding. After all of it. And we’re supposed to nod and move on? Stop insulting our intelligence. That is not a coincidence. She knows exactly what she’s doing, and the American people see right through it.

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 🇺🇸

525,424 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.
5:43

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

‘Why on earth does he need Putin to occupy the Donbas to do a deal?’ James O’Brien has a question about Trump’s Ukraine deal. Caller Mark’s got an answer, and it 'isn’t about American interests'…
0:44

‘Why on earth does he need Putin to occupy the Donbas to do a deal?’ James O’Brien has a question about Trump’s Ukraine deal. Caller Mark’s got an answer, and it 'isn’t about American interests'…

LBC

39,635 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Najee Harris was asked about Justin Fields bouncing back in the second half and thought it was an unfair way to frame that question, that people are putting too much on one player.
0:31

Najee Harris was asked about Justin Fields bouncing back in the second half and thought it was an unfair way to frame that question, that people are putting too much on one player.

Brian Batko

617,275 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Jason Chaffetz is now framing it that this was a professional assassination. "First question Charlie Kirk got... was about prayer and about family and about his belief in Jesus Christ. But the second thing that came up was... a question about transgender mass shootings, and before the question was finished and before he answered, the shot rang out, and he was killed." (This is not true)
0:43

Jason Chaffetz is now framing it that this was a professional assassination. "First question Charlie Kirk got... was about prayer and about family and about his belief in Jesus Christ. But the second thing that came up was... a question about transgender mass shootings, and before the question was finished and before he answered, the shot rang out, and he was killed." (This is not true)

Blue Georgia

624,311 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

The Good thing about this video is that it wasn't said by a Yoruba person .. An Ibo man asked the Northerners a Question and got an Answer from a Northerner !!!
1:12

The Good thing about this video is that it wasn't said by a Yoruba person .. An Ibo man asked the Northerners a Question and got an Answer from a Northerner !!!

Nononsense

13,965 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten