TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @Acyn
@Acyn - Acyn
Hegseth: Iran is an energy rich country. instead, like so many other places, driven by a radical ideology, instead of investing in their people… they invested in missiles, and they invested in launchers and UAVS. https://t.co/jQBjJh6SlV
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that Iran, despite being an energy-rich country, has squandered its potential by pursuing a radical ideology that diverts wealth away from its people. He states that millions of Iranians protested because their quality of life did not match what it could or should be, and he attributes this disconnect to the Iranian state’s priorities. The speaker contends that Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism because it takes the money it earns and invests it in tunnels, missiles, launchers, UAVs, and other militarized capabilities, and that those investments are being destroyed and degraded “in historic proportions.”
He emphasizes that Iran may still possess some capability and will attempt to hold people at issue, signaling ongoing threats that require vigilance. In response, the speaker asserts that efforts to compel Iran are ongoing every single day. Regarding embassies and consulates, he notes that unlike previous administrations, the current approach is to double and triple down on ensuring the safety of personnel, regardless of which department—Whether Department of War or Department of State—cits involvement, the aim is to protect facilities and personnel.
The maxim “the best defense is a good offense” is invoked to justify proactive measures, including targeting or pursuing those who would threaten diplomatic facilities. He asserts that there are numerous actors attempting to target U.S. diplomatic missions, and that the U.S. is not surprised by Iran’s indiscriminate targeting, asserting that such attempts are still occurring. The overall message is one of a persistent, aggressive stance against Iran’s destabilizing capabilities and an emphasis on protecting U.S. personnel and facilities abroad while continuing to degrade Iran’s ability to project power.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To that point on on capabilities, you know, Iran is an energy rich country, could be, should be. Instead, like so many other places driven by a radical ideology, they've spent that money instead of investing in their people. And that's why you had millions of Iranians protesting, because they felt like their condition quality of life didn't match what it could be or should be. And what was the Iranian state? There's a reason we come call Iran the number one state sponsor of terrorism, because they took the the money they they make and they invest it in tunnels, and they invest it in missiles, and they invest it in launchers and UAVs, and we are destroying and degrading that degrading that in historic proportions.
But it doesn't mean they won't still have some and try to hold people at issue, which is why we're fighting every single day to continue to compel. And you mentioned embassies and consulates. Unlike previous administrations, we are doubling and tripling down on ensuring that our people, regardless of their Department of War, Department of State, whatever they do, are secure in those facilities. And the best defense is is is a good offense. And so we're not we're not afraid to go after and kill anybody.
And we have a lot of them attempting to target our our diplomatic facilities. Iran, you know, we're we're not we're not surprised that they would indiscriminately target, and we're still seeing that. Jerry.
@Acyn - Acyn
Trump: Cuba, it's a beautiful island. Great weather. I will be having the honor of taking Cuba. Whether I free it, take it. I think I can do anything I want with it, if you want to know the truth https://t.co/Po7J9tJMr2
Video Transcript AI Summary
A Cuban family from the Fanhul group, who have not been back to Cuba for about fifty years, recently spoke with me. They want to visit Cuba again, and they’re not alone—many Cubans have said they would love to go back. The family largely comes from Cuba, and they’re curious about what might happen if they return.
I discussed Cuba’s appeal in terms of tourism and climate. Cuba is, in its own way, a beautiful island with great weather, and they’re not in a hurricane zone, which is a nice change. They noted they wouldn’t be asking us for money for hurricanes every week. I think Cuba’s situation is changing; I’ve heard my entire life about the United States and Cuba, and when will the United States do it. I do believe I’ll be the honor of having the honor of taking Cuba. That’d be a good honor. Taking Cuba, in some form. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it or take it, I think I could do anything I want with it, to tell the truth.
They described Cuba’s current condition as weakened. They said Cuba has been a violent country under its leaders, with Fidel Castro being a very violent leader and his brother also a very violent leader. That’s how they governed. Despite these views, a lot of people would like to go back.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I was just with a a fantastic person who's Cuban and made a fortune in sugar. You know, Fanhul family. Right? And this this family wants to go back to Cuba to visit it. They wanted they haven't been back in, like, fifty years or something.
They come from largely come from Cuba. And we'll see what happens. They were asking me about that. They wanna go back, not only Fanhul. A lot of Cubans have said, oh, boy, would they love to go back?
I think Cuba, don't know, is in its own way if, you know, tourism and everything else. It's a beautiful island. Great weather. They're not in a hurricane zone, which is nice for a change. You know?
They won't be asking us for money for hurricanes every week. But, but I think Cuba's seeing the end. You know, all my life, I've been hearing about United States and Cuba. When will The United States do it? I do believe I'll be the honor of having the honor of taking Cuba.
That'd good honor. That's a big honor. Taking Cuba? Taking Cuba in some form. Yeah.
Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it, I think I could do anything I want with it. You wanna know the truth? They're a very, weakened nation right now. They were for a long time.
A very violent, very violent leaders. Castro was a very violent leader. His brother's a very violent leader. Extremely violent. That's how they governed.
They governed with violence. But a lot of people would like to go back. Okay.
reSee.it AI Summary
Flying over their capital, death and destruction from the sky all day. We're playing for keeps. Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted by the president and yours truly. Our rules of engagement are bold and precise, designed to unleash American power, not shackle it. This is not a fair fight; we punch them while they're down.
@Acyn - Acyn
Hegseth: Flying over their capital. Death and destruction from the sky all day long. We're playing for keeps. Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly. Our rules of engagement are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it. This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they're down, which is exactly how it should be.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker outlines a strategy of overwhelming air power aimed at Iran, emphasizing ongoing aerial pressure over Tehran and the capital, with the IRGC and Iranian leadership under constant surveillance by US and Israeli air power until the objective is achieved. The described arsenal includes B-2s, B-52s, B-1s, Predator drones, and fighters “controlling the skies,” delivering “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” The message asserts that “we’re playing for keeps,” and that war fighters have “maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly.”
The speaker asserts that “Our rules of engagement are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.” He emphasizes that the situation was never intended to be a fair fight and is not a fair fight, stating, “We are punching them while they're down, which is exactly how it should be.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And fixing their leaders and their military leaders, flying over Tehran, flying over Iran, flying over their capital, flying over the IRGC, Iranian leaders looking up and seeing only US and Israeli air power every minute of every day until we decide it's over. And Iran will be able to do nothing about it. B twos, b 50 twos, b ones, predator drones, fighters controlling the skies, picking targets, death and destruction from the sky all day long. We're playing for keeps. Our war fighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly.
Our rules of engagement are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it. This was never meant to be a fair fight, and it is not a fair fight. We are punching them while they're down, which is exactly how it should be.
@Acyn - Acyn
Hunt: Lawmakers are allowed now to go to a DOJ facility and search unredacted files. We have learned from this photo that searches members are performing are apparently being tracked and then read by the DOJ, by the attorney general. https://t.co/Zru1isS0r4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general.
Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture.
He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Another photograph, for you to take a look at. These are notes that the attorney general brought to the hearing today. Okay? It was captured by a photographer who was in the room, and this shows a list of Democratic congresswoman from saw her in some of those clips, of her search history. And this, of course, lawmakers are allowed now to go to a DOJ facility, to sit down at a computer and to search unredacted files.
We have learned from this photo that the searches that members of Congress are performing are apparently being tracked and then read by the Department of Justice by the attorney general. What do you make of that development?
Speaker 1: Well, it's a surveillance of congress by the Trump administration. It's totally improper, but frankly, not a surprise given their misconduct in so many areas. Honestly, when I went over there yesterday, you know, they log you in under your name. So it's clearly, you know, they're gonna try and make something of it. But members of congress who took the time to go over there are sharing the information that we found, and it's not a pretty picture.
They were required under the law to take out the redactions unless it was necessary to protect the privacy of the victim survivors. In fact, they're they tried to protect the offenders, the coconspirators. It's their names that are blacked out. And they actually revealed information about the survivors, which was very wrong, contrary to law, but really a lot of the survivors feel that it was being done intentionally to try and intimidate them, force them into silence. I don't know if that's true, but that's how they feel.
The other thing that's inter
@Acyn - Acyn
Reporter: You’re suing the government. Is it fair to ask Americans to pay for that? Trump: I’m giving it to charity Reporter: But that still takes it from the American people Trump: No, because they give money to charity…. https://t.co/0iCIfqwYE0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 discusses suing the federal government over taxes and questions whether it is fair to ask the American people to pay for that. He says, “Anything I win, I’m gonna give a 100% to charity,” but adds that it still takes money from the American people. He argues that Americans already give money to charity, stating, “They give away $40,000,000,000 a year to charity, our government.” He emphasizes that anything he wins from that would go to charity, while claiming that the release of one’s tax returns is “totally illegal,” noting that people go to jail for that and that a person has already been found who did it. He mentions that “based upon that and other things we did, and we did sue.” He reiterates that any winnings would be given “100% to charity,” describing the charities as “really good, very, very good and respected charities,” and ends with asking whether the listener will decide if he wins.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mister president, you've sued the or suing the federal you're suing the federal government about your taxes. Yeah. I'm wondering, is it fair to ask the American people to pay for that? Well, anything I win, I'm gonna give a 100% to charity. But that still takes it from the American people.
No. No. Because they give money to charity anyway. They give away $40,000,000,000 a year to charity, our government. You know, our government gives away $40,000,000,000 plus a year to charity.
So anything I win from that, but when they go and release your tax returns, which is totally illegal, people go to jail for that, and they've already found a person that did it. And as you know, they got in big trouble. And, based upon that and other things we did, and we did sue. And anything I went up giving a 100% to charity, really good, very, very good and respected charities. Do you decide if you win?
@Acyn - Acyn
Trump says it’s time for the country to move on from the Epstein files onto something they actually care about. https://t.co/2kbcz7qmkD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues that it is time for the country to shift its focus to something else. He states that nothing has emerged about him personally beyond the claim that there was a conspiracy against him, specifying that the conspiracy was “literally, by Epstein and other people.” In his view, this is evidence that there should be a move away from discussions about him and toward other national concerns. He emphasizes that the country should perhaps “get onto something else,” suggesting that public attention should be redirected to topics that matter more to the national discourse.
In the same vein, the speaker raises a question about justice, addressing the question directly to the president. He asks, “Why would you say people don’t they have gotten justice,” signaling skepticism or disagreement with a statement that justice has been fully served. He frames the issue as something that matters to the public, asserting that the notion of justice is a concern “something that people care about.” The exchange implies a belief that the public’s sense of justice remains unsettled or unaddressed, despite the narrative that there has been justice or resolution.
Overall, the speaker presents two intertwined points: first, a call to move the national conversation away from personal allegations and toward other issues; second, a probe into whether justice has been delivered to the people, highlighting that this is an area of public interest and concern. He references a conspiracy linked to Epstein as a central personal grievance while urging a broader national focus, and he questions the completeness of justice as perceived by the audience, urging the president to comment on whether the public has received justice. The tone combines a push for agenda-shifting with a critique of the current state of justice as seen by the speaker and, by extension, some portion of the public.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And you tell me something else. No. I think it's really time for the country to get onto something else. You know, now that nothing came out about me other than there was a conspiracy against me, literally, by Epstein and other people. But I think it's time now for the country to maybe get onto something else.
Why would you say people don't they have gotten justice, mister president? Something that people care about. Yeah.
@Acyn - Acyn
Hannity gives Machado an opportunity to discuss how she dedicated the Nobel Peace Prize to Trump: As soon as I learned that I was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I dedicated it to President Trump. He deserved it. It was impossible to achieve what he has just done. https://t.co/OveKpFMsGr
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 asks about the period after the speaker stayed in the country and hid within it until receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, and whether fear for life prevented a return. They note it’s unusual that the Nobel Peace Prize was dedicated to the leader of a different country, with the speaker publicly saying he deserved it more than the speaker.
Speaker 0 responds clearly: as soon as they learned they had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, they dedicated it to President Trump because they believed at that point that he deserved it. They state, “I dedicated to president Trump because I believed at that point that he deserved it,” and add that “a lot of people, most people said it was impossible to achieve what he has just done on Saturday, January 3.” They insist that if they believed he deserved it on October, they now think he has proven to the world what he means. They declare that “January 3 will go down in history as the day Justice defeated a tyranny,” calling it a milestone and saying it is “not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future,” but “a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: With incredible under extreme conditions, unfair conditions, Sean.
Speaker 1: Well, that was the person that replaced you and and that you're very close to. But but let me go back and and talk about it. You stayed in the country, but you were hiding within your country until you went to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. And I want you to tell us you never went back at that point. Did you not go back because you feared for your life?
And tell us I mean, it's not very usual that people will dedicate the Nobel Peace Prize to the leader of a different country and say publicly, he deserves this more than I do. But you did that.
Speaker 0: Let me be very clear. As soon as I learned that we had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I dedicated to president Trump because I believed at that point that he deserved it. And a lot of people, most people said it was impossible to achieve what he has just done on Saturday, January 3. So if I believe he deserved it on October, imagine now. I think he has proven to the world what he means.
I mean, January 3 will go down in history as the day Justice defeated a tyranny. It's a milestone, and it's not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future. I think it's a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity.
reSee.it AI Summary
I said Maduro is responsible for drug trafficking. I recently pardoned the former president of Honduras, convicted of drug trafficking. He was treated like me—persecuted very unfairly; he was the head of the country, persecuted very unfairly.
@Acyn - Acyn
Reporter: You said Maduro is responsible for drug trafficking. You recently pardoned the former president of Honduras convicted of drug trafficking. Can you explain these situations? Trump: He was treated like the Biden administration treated a man named Trump. This was a man persecuted very unfairly. He was the head of the country. He was persecuted very unfairly.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The president explained his recent actions in the Honduras case and how they relate to broader regional politics. He said he "endorsed, as you know, the winning president, the man who won in Honduras. I endorsed the man who won in Chile. I endorsed the man who won in Argentina." He described the pardoned former Honduran president as someone who was "persecuted very unfairly" and said he viewed that treatment as analogous to how the Biden administration treated a man named Trump, stating, "This was a man who was persecuted very unfairly." He noted that the pardoned man is "a party member of the man who won," and that many people supported the decision. He stated that he "studied it very quickly, and then I studied it in great detail," and that he consulted "a lot of the people standing behind me" who felt the man was "persecuted and treated very badly," which influenced his decision to grant the pardon. He also reiterated that the pardon occurred because “the people liked what I did,” and emphasized that his conclusion came after careful consideration and consultation. The interviewer asked how this situation relates to Maduro and whether he would ever pardon Maduro, but the president’s comments primarily focus on the Honduras pardon, the Western hemisphere’s political alignments, and the reasoning behind the pardon rather than providing a direct stance on Maduro himself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Mister president president, can you explain you said that, Maduro is responsible for drug trafficking. You recently pardoned the former president of Honduras who was convicted for many drug trafficking. Can you explain how these two situations
Speaker 0: are changing?
Speaker 1: And would you ever
Speaker 0: pardon Maduro? I endorsed, as you know, the winning president, the man who won in Honduras. I endorsed the man who won in Chile. I endorsed the man who won in Argentina. And we are doing very well with that whole group.
What the man that I pardoned was, if you could equate it to us, he was treated like the Biden administration treated a man named Trump. That didn't work out too well for them. This was a man who was persecuted very unfairly. He was ahead of the country. He was persecuted very unfairly.
And there are a number of them. And we felt that it was a very unfair situation that happened to him. He's also a party member of the man who won. So, obviously, the people liked what I did. And one of the reasons that was done is because of the fact that the party in power felt very strongly that that man was treated very badly.
I studied it very quickly, and then I studied it in great detail. I went to a lot of the people standing behind me, and they felt that that man was persecuted and treated very badly. That's why I gave him a pardon.
@Acyn - Acyn
Ingraham: Does that mean the h-1b visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration? Trump: You have to bring in talent Ingraham: We have plenty of talent Trump: No, you don’t Ingraham: We don’t have talented people here? https://t.co/8HopYhqMP1
Video Transcript AI Summary
- Speaker 0 asserts that there will never be a country like the current one and questions whether Republicans should frame it that way.
- Speaker 1 asks if the H-1B visa issue will not be a big priority for the administration, arguing that to raise wages for American workers you can’t flood the country with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of foreign workers.
- Speaker 0 counters that there is a need to bring in talent, and questions whether there are enough talented people domestically, implying that some people must be brought in from outside.
- Speaker 1 retorts that there aren’t enough talented people domestically.
- Speaker 0 argues that you can’t simply take people off unemployment lines and place them in factories manufacturing missiles, asserting that this doesn’t work.
- Speaker 1 asks how such work has been done historically.
- Speaker 0 provides an example from Georgia: they raided to remove illegal immigrants and hadSouth Korean workers who needed batteries and were capable of producing them, noting that battery production is dangerous and complex, with explosions and problems.
- Speaker 0 notes that they had five or six hundred people in the early stages to make batteries and to teach people how to do it, and that the aim was to get them out of the country.
- Speaker 1 acknowledges disagreement, stating you can’t simply invest billions to build a plant and take people off unemployment lines who haven’t worked in five years to start making missiles, concluding that it doesn’t work that way.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There's never gonna be a country like what we have right now. And does that mean The Republicans have to talk about it like
Speaker 1: And does that mean the h one b visa thing will not be a big priority for your administration? Because if you wanna raise wages for American workers, you can't flood the country with with tens of thousands or hundreds of
Speaker 0: thousands of foreign workers. Also do have to bring in talent when
Speaker 1: Oh, have plenty of talented
Speaker 0: people here. No. You don't.
Speaker 1: We don't have talented
Speaker 0: people here. You don't have you don't have certain talents, and you have to people have to learn. You can't take people off an unemployment like an unemployment line and say, I'm gonna put you into a factory. We're gonna make missiles or I'm gonna put
Speaker 1: How do we ever do it before?
Speaker 0: Well, let me When you and I were gone. An example. In Georgia, they raided because they wanted illegal immigrants out. They had people from from South Korea that need batteries all their lives. You know, making batteries are very complicated.
It's not a easy thing. They're very dangerous. A lot of explosions, a lot of problems. They had, like, five or 600 people, early stages, to make batteries and to teach people how to do it. Well, they wanted them to get out of the country.
You're gonna need that, Laura. I mean, I know you and I disagree on this. You can't just say, a country's coming in, gonna invest $10,000,000,000 to build a plant and gonna take people off an unemployment line who haven't worked in five years Right. And they're gonna start making, missiles. It doesn't work that
Speaker 1: way.
@Acyn - Acyn
KENNEDY: "Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to?" PATEL: "There is no credible information, none ... that he trafficked to other individuals." https://t.co/KwE5mjENjy
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: You've seen most of the files. Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young young women to besides himself?
Speaker 1: Himself, there is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the in information we have, again, is limited.
Speaker 0: So the answer is no one?
Speaker 1: For the information that we have.
Speaker 0: In the files?
Speaker 1: In the case file.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You've seen most of the files. Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young young women to besides himself?
Speaker 1: Himself, there is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the in information we have, again, is limited.
Speaker 0: So the answer is no one?
Speaker 1: For the information that we have.
Speaker 0: In the files?
Speaker 1: In the case file.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now
@Acyn - Acyn
Fox News Reporter Jacqui Heinrich: The way that it felt in the room was not good. It did not seem like things went well. And it seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say and got his photo next to the president and then left https://t.co/eTu4SdfA13
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 described the scene as very unusual and atypical, with the readout awaited because the room's feel was not good. They said Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say, and got his photo next to the president and then left, a detail seen as only part of the picture. They noted that, as host and president, Trump would not want to enable something that would make him look weak, and they are eagerly awaiting background on what happened. They observed no scowls on the faces of Steve Witkoff, secretary Rubio, or other members of the US delegation; if there had been concern, one might have seen something. The speaker offered to paint a picture of how it felt, what they're wondering about, and what they need to know to piece together what was witnessed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Happened back there. It was just very unusual, atypical, and I think we're all awaiting, you know, the readout because the way that it felt in the room, was not not good. It it did not seem like things went well, and it seemed like Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say, and got his photo next to the president and then left. Of course, that is only the piece of the picture that we have right now, and certainly president Trump, who is the host and who is the president, would not want to, I think, enable something that would make him look weak. But we are eagerly awaiting to hear the background on that.
And I will also note that we didn't see any sort of scowls on the faces likes of Steve Witkoff or secretary Rubio or any of the other members of The US delegation. And I think had it been concerning, we might have seen something there. But just just to paint a picture for you of in the room, how it felt, what we're wondering about, what we need to know to put to put the pieces together and fully understand what we all just witnessed. Yeah.
@Acyn - Acyn
Vance: The second thing the tariffs are doing is it's bringing in a lot of additional revenue which, of course, we're using to give tax relief to the American people and make it easier for average Americans to get by. https://t.co/N2HW8sa8ev
Video Transcript AI Summary
Do it. The tariffs are said to be bringing in a lot of additional revenue, which, the speaker states, is being used to give tax relief to the American people and make it easier for average Americans to get by. So
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do it. The second thing the tariffs are doing is it's bringing in a lot of additional revenue, which, of course, we're using to give tax relief to the American people and make it easier for for average Americans to get by. So
@Acyn - Acyn
Netanyahu: I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize Committee, nominating you for the peace prize, which is well-deserved Trump: Wow https://t.co/Sg78wcWHFW
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 presented a letter to the president, stating it was sent to the Nobel Prize Committee. The letter nominates the president for the Peace Prize, which Speaker 0 believes is well deserved. The president thanked Speaker 0, expressing that the nomination was very meaningful, especially coming from Speaker 0.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So I wanna present to you, mister president, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize Committee. Oh. It's nominating you for the Peace Prize, which is well deserved, and you should get it. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. This I didn't know. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Coming from you in particular, this is very meaningful.
Thank you very much, Bemi.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for everything you're
Speaker 1: doing. Thank you. It's a great honor.
@Acyn - Acyn
“A CBP helicopter.. they’re landing in the middle of the farm.. is does appear that they were not planning to be here as long they have… so this helicopter made a run.. for some cases of water” https://t.co/XYemMl1yXN
Video Transcript AI Summary
A customs and border patrol helicopter landed in the middle of a farm where testers were protesting. The helicopter made a run to Van Nuys Airport for cases of water. A team of ICE agents are at the farm, along with other agents, National Guard, and police protecting Laguna Road as the enforcement action continues into its fourth hour in Camarillo. Authorities apparently did not plan to stay this long.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Testers who have showed up to vehemently, protest what's going on here. And just in the last few minutes, customs and border patrol helicopter has entered the scene here. They are landing in the middle of the farm as we speak. It does appear that they were not planning to be here as long as they have been. And so this helicopter that you're looking at here, apparently just made a run over to Van Nuys Airport for some cases of water, which is what they're bringing into the scene here.
So there are a whole team of ICE agents at the farm. There are other agents down there as well, as well as the National Guard Police standing guard and protecting Laguna Road as this enforcement action takes place right here, going into hour number four this afternoon. Again, a major situation aspiring here in Camarillo, and it does not appear that they were intending to stay this long.
@Acyn - Acyn
Reporter: Are you going to deport Elon Musk? Trump: We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn’t that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies. https://t.co/6I0OAIv7Js
Video Transcript AI Summary
We got a lot of hostages back, but we're gonna talk about you. I've been watching. We might have to put Doze on Elon.
Doge is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Elon's very upset that the EV mandate is gonna be terminated. Not everybody wants an electric car.
I wanna have maybe gasoline, maybe electric, maybe someday a hydrogen. If you have a hydrogen car, it has one problem: it blows up. I'm gonna let Peter test it off.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The rest. We got a lot of hostages back, but we're gonna talk about y'all. Okay. By how are you on roster instead of the fourth one? Don't know.
I've been watching. Take a look. We might have to put Doze on Elon. You know? You know what Doge is?
Doge is the monster that have that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies, Peter. But Elon's very upset that the EV mandate is gonna be terminated. And you know what?
When you look at it, the who wants not everybody wants an electric car. I don't want an electric car. I wanna have maybe gasoline, maybe electric, maybe someday a hydrogen. If you have a hydrogen car, it has one problem. It blows up.
You know? So I'm gonna give that one to Peter. Gonna let Peter test it off.
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned that an early U.S. Intelligence assessment indicates the recent military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities did not significantly damage the core components of Iran's nuclear program, only delaying it by a few months.
@Acyn - Acyn
CNN: We have breaking news into CNN. Three sources tell CNN that according to an early U.S. Intelligence assessment, the U.S. Military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back a few months
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to CNN, three sources revealed an early US intelligence assessment stating that US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last week did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program, likely setting it back only a few months. The assessment, from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), was based on a battle damage assessment by US CENTCOM.
White House press secretary Carolyn Leavitt acknowledged the assessment but stated the administration disagrees with it, calling the leak a "clear attempt to demean president Trump". The DIA assessment concludes that underground facilities, including centrifuges and enriched uranium, are largely intact.
This contradicts statements from President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who claimed Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons was "obliterated." Hegseth stated the bombs "hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly." CNN's sources emphasized that while above-ground structures were severely damaged, the core components of the nuclear program remain largely intact.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is CNN breaking news. We have major breaking news into CNN. Three sources tell CNN that according to an early US intelligence assessment, the US military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities last week and did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back a few months.
Speaker 1: That's right. So this is an assessment that actually is out from the Defense Intelligence Agency. That is the Pentagon's intelligence arm, and it was based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US CENTCOM after the strikes according to one of the sources. Let's go to CNN national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand, who has this exclusive new reporting. This is, to that question that has been asked about how much damage has been done.
This is a real question. It's also a political question that has been to to something that Donald Trump has been sort of dealing with here recently. What are
Speaker 2: you learning, Natasha? Yeah. Look, Brianna. This is the first assessment that we are getting that The US intelligence community has found about the battle damage that was that resulted from those US military strikes on these three Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. And as you said, it was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is the Pentagon's intelligence arm.
And it is worth noting that it is a very early assessment. The strikes were only a matter of days ago, and the intelligence community is still gathering intelligence. They are still working to come up with a full comprehensive picture of what exactly happened here. But based on a battle damage assessment that was carried out by US Central Command, essentially looking at the images and looking at what was actually damaged, the Defense Intelligence Agency has assessed that the core components of Iran's nuclear program, are largely intact and that Iran's nuclear program has essentially only been set back by months. Now we presented this information to the White House, for comment, and White House press secretary, Carolyn Leavitt, she did acknowledge the existence of this assessment, but she said in a statement that the administration disagrees with it.
She said, quote, this alleged assessment is flat out wrong and was classified as top secret, but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous low level loser in the intelligence community. The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean president Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program. Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen thirty thousand pound bombs perfectly on their targets total obliteration. Now it is worth noting here that there has been descent, I should say, within the intelligence community, within the defense community about just how much of an impact these massive bunker buster bombs would actually have on Iran's nuclear facilities. It was far from certain given that these bombs had never been tested in an actual combat scenario whether they would actually penetrate those very, very deep underground tunnels that lie underneath these nuclear facilities.
And what we are told is that as of now, this Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, it does conclude at this point, again, is still very early, that those underground facilities, including the centrifuges, including the enriched uranium, that everyone has been talking so much about, those are largely intact. Now, of course, this does stand at odds with what president Donald Trump and secretary of defense Pete Hegseth has have been saying in recent days about the impact, of these US military strikes. Course, president Trump said it was totally obliterated, and secretary Hagship did as well. And he actually also provided CNN with a statement, and he said that, quote, based on everything we have seen, and I've seen it all, our bombing campaign obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly.
The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran. So anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the president and the successful mission. Now our sources did emphasize here that there was a severe damage that was done largely to the above ground structures at these nuclear sites. And so there was damage done, of course, by these massive bombs. But the core components of the nuclear program, we are told, they are largely intact, and it only set the program back by a matter of months.
Boris Biana.
Speaker 0: Natasha Bertrand, please stand by.
@Acyn - Acyn
Kennedy: Musk is frustrated. I think he believes in my judgment correctly, that we're quickly becoming debt slaves—that congress needs to rearm the magical healing power of no, and I agree with it. Having said that, I'm not ready to throw in the towel on this bill. https://t.co/OpY5Zrrlvu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses agreement with someone frustrated about the country becoming "debt slaves." This individual believes Congress needs to regain the ability to say "no." Despite this agreement, the speaker is not yet prepared to abandon the current bill.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He's frustrated. I think he believes in my judgment correctly that we're quickly becoming debt slaves, that congress needs to to reearn the magical healing power of no, and I agree with him. Having said that, I'm not ready to throw in the towel on this bill.
@Acyn - Acyn
Brian Glenn: Why don’t you wear a suit?!? Do you own a suit? https://t.co/p1gdffSPkJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
I have a question for President Zelensky. Why don't you ever wear a suit? You're the highest-level official in the country, and you refuse to wear a suit. Do you even own a suit? Many Americans have a problem with you not wearing one.
I will wear a suit or costume after this war finishes. Maybe something like yours, or maybe something better, or maybe something cheaper. We will see.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Second question My second question for president Zelensky. Do you ever why don't you wear a suit? Why don't you wear a suit? You're the highest level in this country's office, and you refuse to wear a suit. Just wanna see if you do you own a suit?
Yeah. Yeah. Problems. A lot of Americans have problems with you not expecting I don't have such I
Speaker 1: will wear costume after this war will finish. Okay. Yes. Maybe one.
Speaker 0: Something like yours. Yes.
Speaker 1: That's great. Maybe some something better. I don't I don't know. We will see. Maybe something cheaper than yeah.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
@Acyn - Acyn
Maddow: You are the only person who has the power to effectively fire Eric Adams.. How are you thinking about that now? Hochul: This just happened. I need some time process this and figure out the right approach https://t.co/ynBuBsWiZU
Video Transcript AI Summary
This situation with the DOJ is unprecedented. My husband was a federal prosecutor for 30 years, and this level of interference is not how our justice system is supposed to work. The allegations are serious, but I can't have a knee-jerk, politically motivated reaction.
I need to do what's smart and right. I'm consulting with other leaders in government to determine my responsibility. When the allegations came out in September, I interceded to help stabilize the city. I don't want this situation to derail our progress. As governor, I represent the city and must protect my constituents. I need time to process this and figure out the right approach. Of course I am consulting with advisors on this matter.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What we've just seen with the resignation of the US attorney, the the Trump appointed acting US attorney, the removal of line prosecutors on that case, the demand from main justice to drop that case, refusal from SDNY to do it, the then the resignation of of of Maine Justice officials who had the case dumped on them, and they wouldn't take it either. This is just an incredible drama in terms of federal law enforcement right now. But you are in a very unusual position, a singular position in with regard to this case, which is that thanks to the New York State Constitution and New York City law, you are the only person who has the power to effectively fire mayor mayor Eric Adams and remove him from this position, which might conceivably moot this whole fight. How are you thinking about that now? You could have done it at any point until now, but now given this crisis that's emerged in federal law enforcement around this case, are you feeling differently about that responsibility?
Speaker 1: Let me tell you from a couple of angles here. One is that this is unbelievably unprecedented for the Department of Justice in Washington to interfere in this way. My husband was a a thirty year federal prosecutor. Barack Obama made him his United States Attorney. You look at what happened here.
This is not supposed to happen in our system of justice. The Bundy administration in that Department of Justice is already showing they're corrupt. Now set that aside. I did see the letter that was issued by the acting United States attorney. The allegations are extremely concerning and serious.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: But I cannot, as the governor of this state, have a knee jerk politically motivated reaction like a lot of other people are saying right now. I have to do what's smart, what's right, and I'm consulting with other leaders in gov government at this time. Gotta have one same person in this state who can cut through all the crap and say, what is my responsibility guide me to do? And just as when the allegations came out last September, I and the city was in chaos, I said, I will intercede, work with the mayor to get rid of a lot of people who are under indictment, calm it down, bring in a new police chief commissioner who's doing an outstanding job. Our subways are safer.
People are feeling better around the city. More people are coming back. I don't want our rebirth to be stopped by this. I have to have maintained stability and the chaos and do what's right for the city Of New York because as governor, I also represent the city. These are my constituents as well.
I'm gonna make sure they're protected here. So this just happened. I need some time to process this and figure out the right approach.
Speaker 0: But you are consulting with other leaders, consulting with your advisers and looking anew at this matter given the recent Of course
Speaker 1: I am.
reSee.it AI Summary
I was concerned about missing out on Judiciary, but Chairman Jordan reminded me how much can change in four years. It feels like Groundhog Day with all the repeated hearings. Meanwhile, I see James spreading new falsehoods, and we’re stuck revisiting the same topics again.
@Acyn - Acyn
Moskowitz: I was worried about all of the stuff that I would be missing in Judiciary. Chairman Jordan said what a difference four years makes. Apparently not because today is Groundhog Day… I brought pictures of him doing this hearing. Here is one picture from March 9th, here is March 30th, July 20th, November 30th.. there’s so many more. Don’t let Comer out-Comer you. James is out there Comering with new falsehoods and we’re doing a hearing we’ve done eight times
Video Transcript AI Summary
When I first got to Congress, I wanted to be on the Judiciary Committee, but was stuck elsewhere, worried about missing out. But apparently not, because today is Groundhog Day. I brought pictures of the chairman doing this exact same hearing on March 9th, March 30th, July 20th, November 30th, February 6th, April 11th, and May 1st. The chairman seems to alternate between a red and yellow tie. Today, we're even: four yellow ties, four red ties. I even tried to match you, mister chairman. Don't let Comer lead you astray with new falsehoods while we're doing a hearing we've done eight times. Ranking member Raskin and others came over from Oversight. If you need ideas, we're happy to assist, since we're doing free speech.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chairman. You know, when I when I got to Congress, I wanted to be on the judiciary committee, but I was placed in purgatory with Comer. Thank you, Peter. Your time. And I was worried about all the stuff that I was gonna be missing in judiciary.
Chairman Jordan started today the hearing. He said, what a difference four years makes. Well, apparently not, because today is Groundhog Day. So I just wanna thank the chairman. He knew I had FOMO, missing out on all these hearings.
And so I brought pictures of the chairman doing this hearing. So here's one picture from 03/09/2023, he did this hearing. Then on March 30, he did the hearing again in 2023. Different tie. Different tie.
Oh, we'll get there. We'll get there, mister chairman. Here's one from July 20 doing the same hearing. November 30, same same hearing. Okay?
February 6, same yes. The same hearing. There's so many more. April 11, identical hearing. And finally, May 1, the same hearing.
So by the way, anyone keeping score, the chairman wore a red tie, four of those hearings, a yellow tie three times. But today, at the eighth hearing, we are even now. Today is yellow tie day. So four yellow ties, four red ties. I tried to match you, mister chairman, but mine's a little more gold.
I will work on the hue, but it is the golden age. Golden age. But at least I now know what to get the chairman The gentleman yield? For Christmas. Well, I'll yield in a second.
Okay. But mister chairman, don't let Comer out Comer you. I mean, James is out there Comer ing around with new falsehoods, and we're doing a hearing that we've done eight times. If if you need some ideas, we we got some. I mean, I feel bad for the ranking member.
I mean, ranking member Raskin came all the way over here from oversight. We had a vote. In fact, several of us came over here from from oversight. So if you need some ideas from from us, we'll we'll gladly assist. But look, we're doing free speech.
@Acyn - Acyn
Biden: I know I’m not a young man… I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to, I don’t debate as well as I used to, but I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to get things done. When you get knocked down, you get back up https://t.co/sBzv3HLjyB
Video Transcript AI Summary
I may not be young, but I know how to tell the truth, distinguish right from wrong, and do my job effectively. Despite facing challenges, like many Americans, I understand the importance of resilience and getting back up when knocked down.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Close to this. I know I'm not a young man. State the obvious. Well, I know. I don't walk as easy as I used to.
I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know. I know how to tell the truth. I know I know I know right from wrong, and I know how to do this job.
I know how to get things done. I know, like, millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back up.
@Acyn - Acyn
Biden: There is even reference that I don't remember when my son died. How in the hell dare he raise that? When I was asked the question I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business. Let me tell you something…. https://t.co/VDImISHWOA
Video Transcript AI Summary
I was questioned about my memory in the report, even about when my son died. I wear his rosary every day since his passing, and we honor him every Memorial Day. I don't need reminders of his death. I sat through a 5-hour interview discussing events from the past 40 years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I know there's some attention paid to some language in the report about my recollection of events. There's even reference that I don't remember when my son died. How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked a question, I thought to myself, it wasn't any of their damn business. Let me tell you something.
Some of you have commented. I wear since the day he died, every single day, the rosary he got from Our Lady of Every Memorial Day, we hold a service remembering him attending by friends and family and the people who loved him. I don't need anyone. I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away, if he passed away. Simple truth is I sat for a 5 hour interview over 2 days of events going back 40 years.
@Acyn - Acyn
Greene: You saw that video of Joe Biden when he saw me at the SOTU. This is the hat I had on. Nothing scares them worse than a MAGA hat https://t.co/ELrs1JQaEC
Video Transcript AI Summary
I wore a MAGA hat when Joe Biden saw me at the state of the union. They are scared of the hat.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, you guys saw that video of Joe Biden when he saw me this week at the state of the union. This is the hat I had on. There's nothing that scares them worse than a MAGA hat.
@Acyn - Acyn
Tulsi on NATO: They expect us to put up the lives of my brothers and sisters in uniform to protect them when they are not even willing to do that for themselves. https://t.co/Oo919yfPxY
Video Transcript AI Summary
NATO raises questions about its role in American national security. Americans and NATO members must consider the cost in taxpayer dollars and lives. The U.S. cannot continue to bear the burden of defense while other members do not contribute equally.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now with NATO, he is forcing the American people and NATO members to be confronted with some very serious and important questions For us, what is the role of NATO? Does our membership in NATO serve our national security interest? And if it does, then how much are we, the American people, willing to put on the line in our taxpayer dollars and in American lives? And how much are these NATO members willing to put on the line in their money and the lives of their citizens? We cannot allow ourselves, the United States of America, the American people to continue to be in this position where these NATO members expect us to put up our money.
They expect us to put up the lives of my brothers and sisters in uniform to protect them when they're not even willing to do that for themselves.
@Acyn - Acyn
Watters: You weren't on Jeffrey Epstein's jet were you? RFK JR: I was on Jeffrey Epstein's jet two times… https://t.co/5YO0efzMq7
Video Transcript AI Summary
I flew on Jeffrey Epstein's jet twice. The first time was in 1993 when I went to Florida with my wife and kids to visit my mom. We were offered a ride to Palm Beach by Glenn Maxwell, whom my wife had a relationship with. The second time, I flew with my family to Rapid City, South Dakota for a weekend of fossil hunting. I never flew on his jet alone. This was 30 years ago, before Epstein's crimes were known. I believe all information about Epstein and the high-level political figures involved should be released to the public without any redactions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You weren't ever on Jeffrey Epstein's jet, were you? I was on Jeffrey Epstein's jet two times. I was on it in 19 93 and I was on it and I went to Florida with my wife nineteen, 2 children visit my mom over Easter. My wife had I had some kind of relationship with Glenn Maxwell, and they offered us a ride to Palm Beach. So I went then and then on another other occasion.
I flew again with my family with, I think, 4 of my children and and and married of my wife to Rapid City, South Dakota to go fossil hunting for a weekend and, but other otherwise, as I was never on his jet alone. I've been very open about this from the beginning. This was in 'ninety three, so it was 30 years ago, it was before anybody knew about Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, his nefarious issues and I agree with you that these all of this information should be released. We You should get real answers on what happened to Jeffrey Epstein and any of the high level political people that he was involved with, all of that should be open to the public, it should be absolutely transparent and I don't see why any of those records would have any redactions in them. Why would we be hiding that from the American public?
Well, you might
@Acyn - Acyn
Brennan: McCarthy said his ouster is personal payback from Gaetz for the house ethics committee investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct… Does that bother you? Mace: Well, again, he's not indicted for anything. I don't really -- I don't know much about it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 mentioned that the ethics committee was a priority for Speaker 1. Speaker 0 also brought up the accusation that Speaker 1 called Speaker 0 a fraud. Speaker 1 responded by saying that Speaker 0 has not been indicted for anything and that they don't know much about the allegations. Speaker 1 mentioned having ups and downs with other members of Congress and being an independent voice. Speaker 1 also expressed concerns about being threatened to be thrown off committees and out of the conference. They emphasized their willingness to work with anyone who wants to move the country forward and unite during the speaker debate and vote.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You mentioned, among the things you wanted promises on, from McCarthy. The ethics committee something you said was also a priority for you.
Speaker 1: Matt
Speaker 0: Gates, on this program, you've called him a fraud. McCarthy said his ouster is personal payback from Gates for the House Ethics Committee Investing into allegations of sexual misconduct on that gas gates is accused of carrying out. That that bother you?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't again, he's not indicted for anything. I don't really I don't know much of and I have had my ups and, yeah, I've had my ups and downs, and I'm not on the ethics committee, and I don't I don't know what they have. I haven't seen it, but I've had my ups and downs with a lot of members in Congress because as an independent voice, I will call the balls and strikes, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the backlash. I think that's very apparent after the last 5 days or so. But again, nothing's come out of the ethics committee.
I also heard in the last couple of days in terms of the against Matt Yates. They're going to pull something out of ethics committee to get him back. They're I'm being threatened to be thrown off of my committees. I'm being threatened to be thrown out of the conference. They're threatening to gravel away on oversight.
There's just a lot of by fellow members. I mean, there was a letter signed on Friday, and so I want to use this as an opportunity to say I'm willing to work with anyone who's willing to work with me. We want to move our country forward and unite during the speaker debate in the vote this week.
@Acyn - Acyn
Fox just got pranked by a Tucker Carlson fan and cut the phone interview:
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tyrone explains that he and his friends gather every Tuesday to watch Tucker Carlson's show on X, formerly on Fox News. They believe Carlson is now doing even better since he left Fox News, as they perceive it as the most credible media in America. They discuss how the media controls what teleprompter readers can say, and now that Carlson is no longer with Fox News, he is not restricted by that. The conversation ends with a request to get Don back on the phone, as it is clear that he was not a student at Morgan State University.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And that's where they declare a mister and a miss Morgan state. And we've got Tyrone on the phone with us now. Tyrone, when you say poker game, what exactly happened? What transpired?
Speaker 1: Well, first, we were watching we all get together every Tuesday guy And we watch Tucker Carlson's show on X. We used to watch him on Fox News. Obviously, he's out there and no more. Mhmm. And still being the most credible media in America, we always get together to watch Tucker Carlson and think he's doing probably better now.
He's not with Fox News because the media always controls what Yeah. The teleprompter readers are able to say. And now he doesn't have that.
Speaker 0: Can we maybe we can work to get Don back on the phone, Tracy, we can get that. Clearly, that was not a student at Morgan State University.
@Acyn - Acyn
Raskin to Boebert: Democrat is the noun. When you use it as an adjective, you say Democratic.. As if every time we mentioned the other party it just came out with a kind of political speech impediment like, oh, the Banana Republican Party.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker corrects a grammatical error made by some colleagues, explaining that "Democrat" should be used as a noun and "Democratic" as an adjective. They suggest that continuously using the incorrect form may be intentional. They then express support for the Boebert amendment, which they believe addresses a flaw in the bill they pointed out. They claim to be the reason for the amendment and conclude by yielding back.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To make just a brief semantic point because the general lady was making a grammatical error that I heard some of her colleagues make before. I believe she referred to a Democrat solution. I heard another member talk about a Democrat member and a Democrat plan. I just wanted to educate our distinguished colleagues that Democrat is the noun. When you use it as an adjective, you say the Democratic member or the Democratic solution or the democratic plan.
And so I assume it's a good faith grammatical error the first few times. But after people are corrected several times and they continue to say it, it seems like it's an act of instability as if every time we mentioned the other party. It just came out with a kind of political speech impediment like, oh, the Banana Republican Party, as if we were to say that every time we mentioned the Banana Republican member or the Banana Republican plan or the Banana Republican Conference. But we wouldn't do that. So out of pure political courtesy, when it's an adjective, refer to the Democratic congresswoman or the Democratic member.
Having said that, I'd like to, say that I favor the Boebert amendment. I think it's really the Raskin Amendment because none of them apparently caught the fact that their reporting requirement wasn't to be published until I told them I actually read the bill, and I said, you know, there's no publication of it. So this amendment follows through on the fact that I pointed out to them that they their bill didn't even call for publication of the inflation information, which they thought was so central. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to support the Bobert Amendment because I think I'm the genesis of it. And with that, I'm happy to yield back.
@Acyn - Acyn
Not sure this Eastman interview is great for umm Eastman
Video Transcript AI Summary
On January 6th, there were different opinions on what should happen. Some believed that Vice President Pence had the power to reject electors whose certification was still pending. However, others, including myself, disagreed with this idea. I advised Vice President Pence to instead grant a week to the state legislators in swing states to address the alleged election irregularities. Not everyone agreed that there were irregularities significant enough to change the election outcome without legal proceedings. Ultimately, this led to the situation we find ourselves in now.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: John, and and just again, so to we clarify this. On January 6th, what did you want to happen? And how was that historically grounded? And the history of our country, how would that have taken place? So just so the viewers can understand what would have unfolded and how that would have ultimately been constitutional.
Speaker 1: So there, you know, Several things. Some people had urged that vice president Pence simply had power to reject electors, whose certification was still pending in the middle of the past.
Speaker 0: But go ahead. I don't believe that. I I don't That's one thing I don't agree with. And I
Speaker 1: and I explicitly told vice president Pence in the Oval office on January 4th, that even though it was an open issue under the circumstances we had, I thought it was the weaker argument. And it would be foolish To exercise such power even if he had it. What I recommended, and I've said this repeatedly, is that he exceed the request from more than a 100 state legislators in swing states to give them a week to try and sort out the impact of what everybody acknowledged was illegality in the conduct The election election. That's what everybody said.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not everyone acknowledged it, but that was the argument that was being made, obviously. And there were obviously irregularities is that everybody had seen? But whether that was yeah. It was whether whether it rose to the level of changing the outcome of the election, again, without a legal proceeding in the states that or the the argument ultimately was a difficult one to make?
I mean, hence hence, here we are.
@Acyn - Acyn
Steube: Tomorrow, I intend on filing an impeachment resolution on Joe Biden for bribery, for extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud , financial involvement in drugs and prostitution.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tomorrow, I will file an impeachment resolution against Joe Biden. The charges include bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud, and involvement in drugs and prostitution. Republicans have gathered evidence such as witness testimony, financial records, a laptop, text messages, and phone conversations. This evidence supports the impeachment articles against the president. I will file these charges tomorrow, and they only scratch the surface of the corruption and bribery allegations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And tomorrow, I intend on filing impeachment resolution on Joe Biden for bribery, for extortion, obstruction of justice, fraud, financial involvement in drugs and prostitution. All of these things, you just touched on the highlights of some of those, but we have all the facts and now. And in the beginning of this congress, Republicans wanted to make sure that we did the investigations, that we got the information before the American people. You have witness testimony. You have financial justice records.
You have the laptop. You have text messages. You have phone conversations. You have all of this evidence now to corroborate and support, impeachment articles against the president. And I intend on filing those tomorrow on all of these corruption and bribery charges that, you just hit the drop of the iceberg