TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @Ann_Lilyflower
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Anya Wick says she is not suicidal! https://t.co/FRhEAJ8W4K
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker states they are not suicidal, have no intention or desire to die by suicide, and affirm that if anything happens to them, it will not be suicide.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am not suicidal. I will not kill myself. I have no intention or desire to kill myself. If anything happens to me, it will not be suicide.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
This is outrageous! These democrats are bloody thieves!! I think their assets should be immediately frozen until a thorough investigation can be conducted!! https://t.co/M6Dhy3tlap
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
This is how it's done! πΊπΈππ Arkansas is compelling Chinese state-owned company to relinquish its land in America! https://t.co/a3omPEDZpu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Syngenta, a Chinese state-owned agri-chemical company, must relinquish its 160 acres in Northeast Arkansas, primarily used for seed research. The parent company, Kim China, is listed by the Department of Defense as a Chinese military company, posing a significant threat to our state and agricultural technology. These corporations are known to funnel American research back to China, potentially compromising national security and endangering American farms. This situation represents a clear risk to both our farmers and our nation's safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm announcing that Syngenta, a Chinese state owned agri chemical company, must give up its land holdings in Arkansas. Syngenta owns a 160 Acres in Northeast Arkansas, which it uses primarily for seed research. The company that owns Syngenta, Kim China, is also on the Department of Defense's list of Chinese military companies posing a clear threat to our State, seeds our technology. Chinese State owned corporations filter that technology back to their homeland, Stealing American research and telling our enemies how to target American farms. That is a clear threat to our national security and to our great farmers.
reSee.it AI Summary
Former Mumford and Sons member Winston Marshall addresses his video criticizing Nancy Pelosi, highlighting his belief that elites pose a significant threat to democracy. Marshall's actions have been praised for exposing what some perceive as Pelosi's hypocrisy and incompetence.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
'Former Mumford and Sons member Winston Marshall discusses the video of him calling out former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying elites are the real threat to democracy.' Brilliantly done there, Winston Marshall, you did the American people a great service. Thank you for showcasing Pelosi's hypocrisy so eloquently. She is an embarrassment!
Video Transcript AI Summary
Winston Marshall, former Mumford and Sons member, criticized Nancy Pelosi for labeling conservatives as ethnonationalists and lacking rationality. He received positive online feedback for standing up against elitist attitudes. Pelosi's dismissive behavior towards him was noted, with her asking, "Who are you?" and "Why are you doing this?" Marshall's bold stance resonated with many who feel marginalized. The interview ended with appreciation for his courage in speaking out.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here now, the man in that clip, host of the Winston Marshall Show podcast and former member of Mumford and Sons, Winston Marshall. Winston, all I can really say is here, here, sir. Here, here.
Speaker 1: That was beautiful.
Speaker 0: What was the reaction in the room to that?
Speaker 2: Well, the reaction in the room was quite different to that on the Internet. Her side of the motion won quite convincingly, although, fortunately, there was quite a different response on the Internet. Can I just pick up on a couple of things in her argument that are really worth picking out? So first, in the clip you played, she said, she called out first, she called out demagoguery. Now I will note demagoguery, which means playing to the prejudices of peoples for political gain.
In her speech, she was practicing demagoguery.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: What was the prejudice she was practicing? She practiced to the elite prejudiced that Trump supporters, conservatives, republicans, MAGA, whatever, she thinks that they're all ethnonationalists. She used the word ethnonationalist maybe 5 times in her speech. That is demagoguery. She is playing to the prejudice of elites who think half of America are racists.
So that's one point. Another point in that specific clip that you played, you'll notice she said that, populists like to say fake news all the time. Well, I don't know about you, but I've heard disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, pretty much every single day since 20, since 2020. They have played exactly the same game. They use slightly different words.
All of these politicians are exactly the same. But here's the worst thing about that clip you played. Right at the end, she says that half of Americans are not able to see because they don't have the rational capabilities to see their brilliant proposal of these democratic policies that they put forth because they're blinded, 1, by their culture, and 2, by their god. I have not heard such disgusting language from a politician in a long time.
Speaker 1: Nor nor have I. And by the way, your your response was so simple, so crisp, and then so elegant eloquent. What kind of response have you had online? What have people said to you?
Speaker 2: Well, the funniest response is, the the not the bee who wrote an article saying Pelosi gets called out by, Mumford and Son's guitarist. And and Elon Musk tweets retweeted saying that reality is weirder and funnier than any fiction. Well, Elon, tell me about it. My life is completely bizarre. But it's been a very positive.
I think what I I've seen online is a lot of people relating to the feeling that they're written off as deplorables, and this has been happening for a long time. A lot of pent up anger and frustration by this. I'll also note something else. Whilst I was talking, and you can't see this in the footage which you can find on, my YouTube, or on the Oxford Union YouTube. When I'm speaking a couple of times, madam Pelosi, she mouths at me, who are you?
Who are you? Which I will translate means, do you know who I am? Now, fair enough, I'm a nobody. She's entitled to think that. But I thought that was rather arrogant.
But the other thing you cannot see, a little something for your audience, is at one point, I think when I'm reading out, I can't remember exactly, but she she looks at me and she goes, why are you doing this? She has not been confronted with any of these arguments perhaps ever.
Speaker 1: Uh-uh. She sheltered. Well, we thank you for doing it, mister Marshall, and thank you for joining us.
Speaker 0: We adopt you as a redneck hillbilly, bitterly clinging to your values and your bible.
Speaker 1: Your guns and your gun. Winston Marshall, great to talk to you.
Speaker 2: Bless the rednecks and the hillbillies. Thanks for
Speaker 1: being with us.
Speaker 2: Winston, thank you.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Who did this? π§ Walk like a Joe Biden..πΆπ΅ ππ€£π€£ https://t.co/dtZHYDxijZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The American president, Joe Biden, has a unique way of walking. He spins around and falls to the ground when he boards a horse. Some people find it entertaining, while others are tired of it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The American president is
Speaker 1: Walk like Joe Biden.
Speaker 0: And when he boards a horse one, he spins around and he hits the floor. He's got the moves. Oh, he hits the deck and he hits some more. All the dems are so sick of Joe.
Speaker 1: Walk like a Joe Biden. Walk like a Joe Biden.
reSee.it AI Summary
John Fetterman mocks Bob Menendez and urges him to resign from the Senate. The author questions Fetterman's sudden eloquence and expresses skepticism towards politicians. Thoughts?
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
BREAKING: John Fetterman Makes Fun Of 'Victim' Bob Menendez, Calls For 'Sleazeball' To Leave Senate What concerns me is that all of a sudden, John Fetterman suddenly sounds so amazing and speaks fast without any stuttering. I seriously do not believe any of these installed politicians. What are your thoughts? π€
Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator forcefully denies allegations against him and accuses the government of manipulating the media. Another person agrees with the senator's claims but also criticizes him for not resigning. The senator accuses his colleagues of acting politically and defends his engagement with foreign governments. The person dismisses the senator's speech and suggests he should focus on his trial. They question why the senator is still being paid attention to despite severe accusations against him. The person also discusses the tendency for senators to support each other in times of trouble. They find it strange that the senator has not been expelled despite being accused of being a foreign agent for two Middle Eastern nations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm sorry I'm gonna end
Speaker 1: this up. To the went to the senate floor today, forcefully denied the allegations against him, and said the government is
Speaker 0: trying to manipulate the media.
Speaker 2: I know. We're doing it.
Speaker 0: What's your thought?
Speaker 2: Oh, I know. Yeah. He's a victim. Yeah. He's a victim.
But but, hey, I've been calling for that sleazeball has to go. And I don't know why we have to get rid of Santos, and we would keep somebody like him around.
Speaker 0: He accused his colleagues, I guess, that that would include yourself, who called on him to resign or to leave congress of, acting politically. What do you say to his accusation?
Speaker 2: No. I I think it's I think it's my aversion to, gold bars in your mattress and and over half $1,000,000 stuffed around your and changing, your mind about, hey, which which $24,000 launch am I gonna get? It's just strange. And now when you're pulling at 4%, why are you hanging around at this point? You have no, future.
But, I can't imagine why we can keep him around.
Speaker 1: He said that this would chill standard engagement with governments from members of congress that if someone wants
Speaker 0: to work with Israel to try to refresh the iron dome, that that's no different than
Speaker 1: what he's doing. That was his on the senate
Speaker 2: floor. He shouldn't be on the floor of the senate. Shouldn't be giving a speech about anything. You know, he should be, at home back in New Jersey and working about his his betrayal or excuse me, his trial and his defense.
Speaker 0: I think that he probably
Speaker 2: should I don't know why he's even who's paying attention to him at this point?
Speaker 0: Do you do you think some senators, because this is custom in the senate, kinda close ranks regardless of party, regardless of how they really feel because when somebody gets in trouble.
Speaker 2: I don't These are like, you
Speaker 0: know, there we go but for the grace of god.
Speaker 2: I I don't speak for anybody else or whatever but, I, I I can't seem very clear. It's it's people in in congress decided that we have to expel Santos and they did that. And somebody that is more accused of much much more severe and sinister things. And now he's now been accused of being a, foreign agent for now 2 nations. Two nations in the Middle East.
What's he still doing here? It's it's it's bizarre it's bizarre to me. So
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Now this is scary. A British family was returning back from France and found two illegal men traveling in the roof box of their car. If y'all are traveling anywhere, please be careful. There are so many weirdos out there. https://t.co/NxVAPtEL6c
Video Transcript AI Summary
We have two people and we can't find the keys. I am currently recording them. We are also missing our belongings. Everything is gone.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've got 2 people. Where are the keys? Oh my god. I am. I'm recording them now.
Where's our stuff? What's still in there? Everything. There's nothing there.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Listen to this very important message. Rush Limbaugh is correct!! β€οΈπ https://t.co/2L3vqn7dT4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Many people want Trump removed from power and to ensure he can never run again. They are afraid of both Trump and his supporters, who remain loyal. They believe that by tarnishing Trump's image, they can break the bond between him and his followers. However, they fail to realize that the connection between Trump and his supporters goes beyond him as an individual. They cannot separate the supporters from the ideas and values they hold dear, such as Make America Great Again. The supporters existed before Trump and will continue to exist even if he is no longer in the picture.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Really want Trump gone, and I I know that they desperately want it codified that Trump cannot run again. Because make no mistake, they remain scared to death of you, and they remain scared to death of Trump. Trump's 75,000,000, 80,000,000 votes, and I'm gonna tell you, you're not going anywhere. Even if Trump does, you're not. They can't separate you from Trump.
And more importantly, they can't separate you from the ideas. They can't separate you from MAGA. They can't separate you from Make America Great Again, which I think remains one of our big campaign strengths going forward. They believe that they can they they can destroy this bond that exists between you and Trump if they somehow make Trump look bad, make Trump look like a reprobate, embarrass you about Trump. They can't do it because you came before Trump.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
'2023 Rewind' Byron Donalds Lays Out 'Damning Evidence' Against The Bidens Where is Biden's Impeachment? π https://t.co/vgXWis6nui
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Biden family's alleged web of concealment and corruption, highlighting the numerous companies and transactions involved. He emphasizes that the Biden family's only business is politics and questions the purpose of creating so many companies to conceal money. The speaker also mentions specific companies connected to Hunter Biden and the growing list of companies being investigated. He criticizes the Department of Justice for the lack of progress in investigating Hunter Biden. The speaker concludes by stating that there is no legitimate business for the Biden family except their involvement in politics, and the committee will continue to investigate and provide information to the press and the DOJ.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, chairman. Thanks for being here everybody. Look, a couple of things. First, what we're seeing here, what we're witnessing with, the Biden family, frankly, it's just a web of concealment, of deception. A lot of people would say corruption.
But let's be very clear, you have this many companies involved with this Velocity of transactions, size of transactions, like my colleagues have said, this is not how normal businesses operates. I had the ability, with Chairman Colmer and other members of the committee to go over to the Treasury Building and review documents. And having read those documents, one thing is became pretty crystal clear that there were many people who had serious questions about the transactions and about the velocity of these transactions, and they either get very, very deep into concealment, Hiding money, shifting money, and for the purpose, we don't know because one thing everybody in this room and the American people definitely know Except the Biden family doesn't really have a business. There is no business structure around this family except politics. And since Joe Biden has spent decades in the senate, served 8 years as vice president, and is now president of the United States, And the family's getting money from various countries and foreign businesses through various shell companies and this web of LLCs.
I mean, guys, you and the press. This is easy pickings. I'm giving you Pulitzer stuff here. Like, all you have to do is literally look at our memo and see the level of detail upon which They have created this, and it's very it's very, very frustrating. We have now been able to clearly see that the Biden's associates like Rob Walker, Eric Sherman has been discussed, created at least 16 companies while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States.
Sixteen companies Created while he was vice president. Now the list is 20 and as we continue our investigation, that list is growing. And like I said before, the question is to serve what purpose? And the purpose of all these companies being created is to conceal money that the Biden family has been gaining because Joe Biden has been sitting at the upper echelon of our politics For almost 5 decades, that is the entire purpose here. Here's an example of what I mean.
You have Rosemont Seneca Partners, Rosemont Seneca Advisors, Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, RSP Holdings, RSTP two Alpha, r s t p, 2 bravo. Rosemont, Seneca, Thornton. Rosemont, Seneca, Bohai. I wanna make sure I pronounce Bohai, b o h a I, and the list goes on and on. Cycling through this many companies serves no legitimate purpose.
And as somebody who actually worked in banking, I did that long before I came here. Whenever there was, like, this many companies Just laying all over the place and you see wire transfers and cashier checks over here going to random members of the family for no apparent purpose At the size and velocity at which all of this was being conducted, the only logical conclusion of a financial professional is you are concealing money. Let me restate this. You are concealing money from either the IRS Or from credit agencies or from other people in general. That's the only reason you set up a structure like this.
Some of these companies We're connected to Hunter's personal professional company, Oswego or Skinny Atlas Scale Atlas, however you wanna pronounce it. And the list goes on and on. And mister Biggs, he talked about Hudson West 3 and some of those other issues that were going on as well. One thing I wanna make sure is that All of this has happened and Joe Biden is aware. Nobody in this room can logically sit here and say That the president of the United States had no idea that these companies were being formed while he was vice president of the United States, and I will add you, he was in probably a better mental shape then than he is today.
You know, I'll throw that out there. And so what this committee is gonna continue to do is pursue this investigation. We are gonna continue to document and we're gonna provide that information to all of you in the press. So to help you and frankly, you know, like congressman Mays said, and probably help The DOJ along with their investigation. One quick note.
It's interesting that the Department of Justice has been investigating Hunter Biden for quite some time, and we seem to just never really get anywhere. And so I think that's also interesting as well. I wonder what's going on at the Department of Justice. But that being said, the bottom line is there is no real business here. None.
And let me also say this, because I know there are many in this room Who wanted to go down all the various, schemes that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle accused the former president of? Be very clear. The former president actually had a business, very big business. You could say it was his name. You could say it was his buildings.
You could say it was wine. You could say it His branding, you could say it was The Apprentice, but he had a very big and legitimate business which everybody in this room clearly knows and understands and can point to And say, ah, that's the thing. That thing over there. Joe Biden has no business except his position in politics, and it is the requirement Requirement of this committee to investigate that. We're gonna continue to do that and we're gonna let the facts speak for themselves.
Thank you, mister chairman. Lastly, we'll have, represent
Speaker 1: The gentleman from Massachusetts Reserves and the gentleman from Texas is recognized. Thank Thank you, mister Speaker. I yield 2 minutes to my friend, mister Donalds from Florida. The gentleman is recognized.
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister Speaker. I rise today in support of HR 529. And let's be very clear. The issue that is happening at our southern border, not the name calling or talking about former president Trump, What is happening at our southern border today and for the last 2 years under president Biden has been a dereliction of duty with respect to immigration law In the United States, if you wanna speak to the actual issues at hand, it is the fact that The asylum provisions under Joe Biden are a bastardization of asylum procedure as set forth In federal law by Congress. Congress never anticipated that you would have 6,000,000 plus people Come through the asylum process in 2 years.
Congress never contemplated that you would have an asylum, procedure where you would have people on a 7 to 10 year waitlist to actually go through an asylum procedure. The president knows this is the case, And it is being done on purpose. That is a congressional purview, and that actually is a dereliction of his duty To faithfully execute the laws of the United States. So if the minority party wants to ask about why we are here, It is that because it is my belief and the belief of many members on our side of the aisle that this resolution should go to the Homeland Security Committee So they can fully debate and go to the depths upon which Joe Biden has been derelict in his duty to execute the laws with respect to immigration In the United States, which has major impacts on the American people. There are a 100000 Americans who have died from Fentanyl overdoses Because of his dereliction of duty.
We have the drug cartels on our southern border who have operational control Of the southern border because of his dereliction of duty. And if the president and congressional Democrats actually Took the time to investigate this, like, going to the southern border, they would know this too. I support this resolution. Time. Members should be in support of it as well.
Speaker 1: Time's expired.
Speaker 0: Sure. Alright. To John, Melili Cape Coral. Did I say your last name right? Yes.
Okay. What and when is Congress going to impeach, President Biden for obvious corruption? So I guess people are interested in this question. Alright.
Speaker 2: Yes. Would be a political prisoner in Washington DC in solitary confinement with this country holding Christians in
Speaker 0: Well, I would say on the last point, I would say hold on to that one for a second. So I get to I sit on oversight committee. I think a lot of everybody in the room knows this. A couple of things. Number 1, the information that is now available to the Public, that would not have come out if we weren't in control of the oversight committee.
So we were able to get to the bottom of this. With everything that has come forward now, everything from suspicious activity reports at the Treasury Department, which I've read, there's about 200 of them, I've read about 30 of them. Between the different members of the oversight committee, we've read all these reports. They are real reports. A a suspicious activity report is a report that is filed with a financial by a financial institution with the Treasury Department.
So this is not a political document. When we were reading those, it became pretty clear that many financial institutions were concerned about, Aspects of money laundering and concealing funds from the IRS. They were concerned about it then. We went from there to being able to depose certain individuals based upon what we read, and that information led us to see that they set up these LLCs which were set up, that we've had the legal filings, that multiple accounts were set up. We have those those those documents around that, and the purpose was to move money through the various accounts.
It was because of Chuck Grassley in the Senate and people who contacted Senator Grassley that we found out about the forms that the FBI have From their whistleblower. That and we when reading those forms, we found out about the whistleblower saying I'm sorry, the confidential human source saying that human source saying that well, according to the FBI, this human source is highly valuable and incredible. And they've been paying this human source. They paid it up they paid him or her more than $200,000 over the last 8 years to deliver information to the FBI. So they've documented on the FBI's form That the human source says that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden both took $5,000,000 from somebody associated with Burisma, And the purpose was to get the prosecutor in, Ukraine fired to take the heat off Burisma.
I think the thing that gets lost in the shuffle Is that the reason why Burisma wanted the prosecutor gone is because Burisma wanted to buy into A holding company in the United States in the oil and gas field to in order to raise capital in the United States. And they knew that if they were under investigation in their home country, they would never be able to raise capital in the United States. So that's why the money was conveyed according to the confidential human source. That led to the IRS whistleblowers coming forward in the Ways and Means Committee. And And the IRS, whistleblowers, one of whom is the supervisory agent on the case, has testified That their investigations were, downplayed or held back, and that came from the political brass at IRS And the Department of Justice.
So I say all that to say, that in my comments to the speaker And to my colleagues is that, in my view, we actually have a two track process for impeachment. I think the first is The first is with, Merrick Garland, the attorney general. The the second is with the president of the United States. Now, I want I wanna be I wanna be clear on this and and this is the part where This is really, concerning. With with what is going on, At the political levels of the IRS and the and the Department of Justice and the FBI, there is a complete lack of trust, with with the political brass of these agencies, I think you have a lot of men and women who work in these agencies.
They are patriots. They are good people. They are Republicans. They are Democrats. They are Independents.
They do their job. They follow the law. But what we have seen is that it is the political brass that has caused so many problems. So I think that impeachment is one thing, But wholesale reform of these agencies at the political level is another. And that must be done.
That must be done. The last thing is and even when we took the majority and we knew in oversight, We knew in oversight that we were going to look into these suspicious activity reports because we were given information about it and we really wanted to follow through. And even from the beginning, you know, people said, oh, okay. You guys are in charge. Now go to now go and impeach.
And my state my statement has always been clear. Impeachment is serious. This is a serious charge against an official of our government if we go to that level. And we shouldn't cheapen it, just because, you know, of political get backs even though what happened to the former president was wrong It should not have happened. But you got to have the evidence.
You got to have the facts. And I'll just tell you, from everything I've seen, we're close to having all the evidence we need, And I'll leave it at that.
Speaker 3: Arnold from Florida.
Speaker 0: Thank you, mister chairman. To the witnesses, thank you for being here today. I wouldn't get quite to it because we have a lot to cover. Mister Ziegler, you're the you are the agent that opened up this investigation. From your transcript, Page 17, what it says is, is that you were investigating a social media company and through the process of that investigation You found out that Hunter Biden was paying prostitutes in a potential prostitution ring.
Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. You also say that in in the beginning phases of that investigation reviewing bank reports, that there was evidence that he was living lavishly Through his corporate bank account. Is that correct? And when I say him, I mean Hunter Biden. Is that correct?
Speaker 4: That is correct. Okay.
Speaker 0: Question for you, and also for mister Shapely. Is it is it is it a clear line of potential investigation if somebody is charging a massive living expenses Through a corporate account and not doing that through their own personal accounts and not accounting for that properly on their income tax returns, is that the basis of a criminal investigation?
Speaker 4: Generally speaking, that would definitely be factors that would spur a criminal investigation, yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Let me let me ask you this question. Let me answer this question real quick. So there was reference to the WhatsApp the WhatsApp text message referring to and everybody knows it now. Hey.
I'm sitting here with my dad. Tell the chairman to give me my money because, I we remember and we're gonna not gonna forget because we're the Bidens and we have all these connections, yada yada yada. We all we all know that text message now. Mister Ziegler, on page 105 of your testimony, page 105, gentlemen, you state, I know we wanted to get location data because I went to the prosecutors with this and they again came back at me with, Well, how do how do we know that? He could just be lying and claiming that dad hut Joe Biden now, That dad was there and dad was not there, were you allowed to get location data dealing with the WhatsApp text message?
Speaker 4: So from from my memory of it and from the the notes that were taken, I never obtained location data regarding that, message.
Speaker 0: Did, did did miss Wolfe, the AUSA in Delaware, did she say, oh, wow. Look at this Text message, let's figure out if let's figure out the location data and see where Hunter Biden was when he sent said message. Was she, like, excited about this as a prosecutor?
Speaker 4: So, I mean, when I asked her about the location data, in in her response right here, it was her responding with, Well, how do we know that? It wasn't a, yeah, let's try and figure that out. It was like, well, how do
Speaker 0: we know that? Well, did she read the text message? Because if I read that text message as Prosecutor, I'm saying, wait a minute. Dad is sitting next to him and dad happens to be the now president, then vice president of the United States? Shouldn't we find out where Hunter was when he sent said text message?
I mean, that's I'm not a prosecutor. I'm a finance guy, but that just seems like common sense to me.
Speaker 4: Yeah. And I think with the the previous email that was referenced, 10 held by h for the big guy, now that you have those 2 things Kind of correlating with each other as a normal process or procedure that we would go through, you would wanna figure out Is that information truthful in that WhatsApp message?
Speaker 0: I totally agree with you, Mrs. Ziegler, which is why I think it is the the View of members on this committee and frankly, a lot of Americans at this point that you there are elements at the Department of Justice Who did not want this information out? Who did not wanna go down the line of pros of actually going through the evidence gathering process to deceive the depths to which this international pay for play scheme was that was actually happening around Joe Biden going through Hunter Biden, and all the money that the Biden family was occurring. That's not a question for you. That's just a statement from me.
Last question. Through your investigation, how much money did you uncover was coming from Ukraine, Romania, and China.
Speaker 4: If you hold on one second, let me reference the, 17,300,000 approximately.
Speaker 0: Okay. So 17,300,000 through your investigation. And you are you and mister Shapely, you are the guys that investigate criminal tax evasion on an international scale. Is that correct? That is correct.
Okay. Question for the chairman. Mister chairman, through the investigation of the oversight committee, about how much money have we seen come from Ukrainia, Ukraine, Romania, and China? Over oh, over 10,000,000. Okay.
So we have 2 separate investigations. One done by the investigative branch of the IRS that is charged with doing these types of investigations. These are the people you want doing them And an independent investigation by the oversight committee, and we're coming up with the same amount of money, give or take a couple million, Going through the same person and Hunter Biden, and his investigation is slow walked, and we're supposed to sit here and think that Joe Biden knows nothing. I think for the record, mister chairman, that the relevant committee needs to have questions for Leslie Wolfe, the AUSA of Delaware, for David Weiss, The the attorney general of Delaware, for Lisa Monaco, who is the deputy attorney general, and for Merrick Garland himself, the attorney general of the United States. Because if this action is allowed to occur and investigations are slow walk with this level of detail, this ain't Donald Trump, y'all.
These are facts. I yield back. Thank you. Mister Dubinsky, I'm gonna come to you quickly. A lot of talk about evidence.
On the screens in the room, we have an organizational chart from the IRS investigative team that was looking into the business practices of Hunter Biden and his associates. This org chart is from 2014. Now, mister Dubinsky, when my former life, I was in community banking, and I'm com I'm comfortable with looking at organizational charts. When I first saw this chart, the first thing I thought about was a real estate holding company or a developer, and this is not to demean developers in the Great East State of America, But developers typically have multiple companies that float with various business interests and business lines. But the funny thing is That in the business dealings of Hunter Biden, there is no real estate.
None at all. So mister Dubinsky, in your ex professional experience, Looking at this organizational chart of business structure, what do you see here?
Speaker 3: I see a very complicated structure of entities, that are interrelated and would give me concern. If I were an investigator, I would wanna know what's going on in these entities, who's behind them, how's how's the money moving between them, And what is the substance of the transactions? What's really going on here?
Speaker 0: Mister Dubinsky, do you think it's in the in the interest of this committee that is now in an inquiry phase To actually find out all of the, flow of money between these entities and what the purpose was? Absolutely. Next slide, please. For From my colleagues on the other side, we're gonna start talking evidence now. This is now a slide of the organizational chart of the Hunter Biden business Business, companies and and with associates from 2018, from the same IRS investigators who were broke down the business structure in 2014, Does this slide cause you the same concern, mister Dubinsky?
Speaker 3: Yes. It does.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now let's talk about some more actually, one point I wanna make on this. Ladies and gentlemen, if and I know it's kinda small, so I would love to submit I will submit all this for the record. I would love my colleagues on the other side to see this. In 2014, one of the key owners was Devin Archer, who did testify and who did was, was under deposition under oath by the oversight committee.
In 2018, Devin Archer is no longer listed, but his wife, Christa Archer, is now listed. Mister Dubinsky, when you see a situation where ownership interest moves from 1 spouse to the other, is that a concern of some level of Fraud, potentially.
Speaker 3: I I would call it a red flag. That's something I would look at and and again, try to get to the bottom of what happened there. Was it just transferred? Was there money behind it? What was going on?
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Next slide. This is through a text message. This is a text message, between, it's going to Naomi Biden.
That's what this one is. Hold on. Let me let me get myself back. There we go. Sorry.
This is the WhatsApp text message between Jim Biden and Hunter Biden. In this text message, it clearly says, anyway, we can talk later, but you've been drawn into something purely for the purpose of protecting dad. This is between Hunter Biden and Jim Biden. Last time I checked, the father of Jim Biden and Joe Biden has now passed away. So I'm assuming this is Hunter Biden saying to Jim Biden, the president's brother, that you've been brought in this for the sole purpose of protecting dad.
Miss O'Connor, Do you think that this text message would lead this committee to get further information about the business dealings of Hunter Biden And how that actually links to Jim Biden, the president's brother, and why they are so concerned with protecting dad, aka Joe Biden, aka The president of the United States?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next slide, please. This is a text message between, Hunter Biden and Naomi Biden. And it this one's a famous one. Everybody knows this one.
This is the famous one that says, I hope you all do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years. It's really hard. But don't worry. Unlike pop, I won't make you I won't make you give me half your salary. Mister Dubinsky, If you saw a text message like this in a potential money laundering operation or a potential pay for play operation, Would you be looking for information related to money going from son to father?
Absolutely, without a doubt. Thank you. Next slide. Oh, this is a fun one. Ladies and gentlemen, this one is from 2018.
This is about 4 months before Joe Biden launched his campaign for president of the United States, December 2018. The highlight is This is a text message between Jim Biden and Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden was in a bad way, by the way. He was he was really strung out. He lost a bunch of money.
He needed help. Jim Biden says this can work. You need a safe harbor. I can work with your father alone. It'll probably take several months and everybody can read the text.
Miss O'Connor, mister Dubinsky, if you saw text messages like this between the president's brother and the president's son, Wouldn't you be concerned about them trying to give plausible deniability for the president of the United States to not have any knowledge of said business dealings?
Speaker 3: It's worth time's expired, but
Speaker 0: please answer the question.
Speaker 1: It's worth investigating. Mister Dubinsky?
Speaker 3: I would agree. I would I would investigate this.
Speaker 0: I yield back. Thank you, mister chairman. Gentleman yields back
reSee.it AI Summary
House Republicans claim evidence of Joe Biden benefiting from corrupt influence peddling. They provide updates on the engagement inquiry. Hold them all accountable. Watch for more details.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
π¨π¨π¨ BREAKING: speaker Johnson, Reps Claim 'Evidence' Biden Benefited From 'Corrupt Influence Peddling' House Republican leaders unveil more of what they say is evidence in Joe Biden allegedly benefiting from his family's influence peddling operations, and give an update on the engagement inquiry. Hold them ALL accountable. Worth listening, watch π
Video Transcript AI Summary
House Republicans held a press conference to discuss their ongoing investigation into the alleged corruption of the Biden family. They claimed to have uncovered evidence of foreign money funneled through influence peddling schemes to benefit the Bidens. They accused Joe Biden of lying about his involvement and financial benefit from these schemes. The Republicans emphasized the need for transparency and accountability, stating that they will continue to follow the facts and hold President Biden accountable. They also discussed upcoming hearings and interviews with key witnesses. Additionally, they addressed other issues such as the Iran deal and border security.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good morning. Thank you for coming to our weekly House Republican stakeout. I hope you all had a happy Thanksgiving. Welcome back. I wanted to begin with a quote from Thomas Jefferson who said, quote, the most sacred of the duties of government is to do equal and impartial justice To all its citizens.
In pursuit of that sacred duty, House Republicans have worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people for months To deliver transparency, following the money and the facts, to uncover what I believe will prove to be one of the largest political corruption scandals of our lifetime and potentially in our nation's history. This impeachment inquiry led by the chairman here today, Jamie Comer, Jim Jordan, and Jason Smith, continues to provide the American people the answers they both demand and deserve. They have found over $10,000,000 from China, Russia, Ukraine, and Romania funneled through the corrupt influence peddling schemes to line the pockets of the Biden crime family. The DOJ, FBI, and other federal agencies mobilized to play cover up and attack Biden's leading political opponent, Donald Trump, in a desperate effort to distract from Joe Biden's failings. And Joe Biden has lied continuously to the American people about how he was not only aware of, but was involved with and financially benefited from his family's corrupt influence penalty schemes.
Look around this room on these poster boards. The evidence is here. And unlike Joe Biden, the bank records do not lie. The Biden crime family sold out America, and the American people have had enough. And while extreme Democrats pursued a sham impeachment Now Donald Trump focused on baseless lies driven by parts and politics.
House Republicans have and will continue to follow the facts, Uncovering more damning evidence each and every day. This week, the House Republican conference is unveiling an impeachment inquiry website providing the public with a one stop shop for updates from each of our committees and the evidence they are uncovering. It also includes a timeline, which lays out exactly What the Biden crime family did to get us to this point. Transparency is the hallmark of America. With each new fact, we find it becomes more clear that Joe Biden is compromised and unfit to lead.
I'm honored to pass it over to our chairman who have worked so hard on their committees on behalf of the American people, and I'm gonna start with our oversight chairman, Jamie Comer.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Elise. Joe Biden has repeatedly lied to the American people about his family's corrupt Influence peddling schemes. Our investigation has revealed how Joe Biden knew up, participated in, and benefited from his family cashing in On the Biden name around the world. 1st, president Biden told the American people he never spoke to his son about his family's business dealings. That was a lie.
President Biden spoke by phone, attended dinners, had coffee with his son's foreign business associates. These individuals include Russian and Kazakh oligarch, a Burisma executive, and a Chinese national who funneled 1,000,000 To his son. President Biden claimed there was an absolute wall between his official government duties as vice president and his family. But there was no such wall. The door was wide open to his family's influence peddling schemes.
But Joe Biden allowed his son to catch a ride on Air Force 2 at least a dozen times to sell the Biden brand around the world. The the National Archives has also identified the office of vice president emailed with the Biden family and their businesses Over 29,000 times. However, the White House is withholding these emails from Congress In addition to the 82,000 pages of pseudonym emails, 82,000 pages. President Biden claimed his family didn't receive money from China, but we all know they did. President Biden's son, brother, sister-in-law, and daughter-in-law collectively received millions from CCP linked entities.
We've also revealed how Joe Biden received $40,000 in laundered China money in the form of a personal check from his sister-in-law. The White House and corporate media continue to move the goalpost as they seek to cover up for president Biden and his family. But, Nate, make no mistake. Financial records, emails, Text messages and witness testimony reveal that the Biden family enterprise is centered on Joe Biden's political career and connections. Joe Biden knew about, participated, and benefited from these schemes.
This is a national security threat at the highest level of government and Americans demand accountability for the Biden corruption. Over the next 2 months, our committees will interview members of the Biden family and their associates about this record of evidence. We expect full compliance with our lawfully issued subpoenas. No one is above the law even if your last name is Biden. Our committee will first interview and depose witnesses.
We then, of course, would welcome Hunter Biden to testify at a public hearing At a future date, democrat should have no concern with first opposing and interviewing key witnesses. This is how they conducted their impeachment inquiry of former president Trump and the January 6th committee. President Biden's pattern of lies, corruption, and obstruction demand action from congress. We will continue to follow the facts and hold president Biden accountable to the American people. It's now my pleasure to introduce the chairman of the judiciary committee, Jim Thornton.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Jamie. This story is as old as as old as time. You have a politician who does certain things. Those actions benefit his family financially, And then there's an effort to sweep it all under the rug. And we know this has happened.
The best example is to use the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Four key facts. Hunter Biden gets put on the board of Burisma. Fact number 1. Fact number 2.
He's not qualified to be on the board. He said so himself in an ABC interview. He said he got the job because of his last name. Fact number 3, the executives at Burisma asked Hunter Biden specifically, will you weigh in with folks in DC to help us deal with the pressure we are under. A few days later, Joe Biden gets on a plane, flies to Kyiv, and announces that you will not Get the money that was already approved unless you fire the prosecutor who was applying the pressure.
That all happens. That all happens. Those key facts happen. And those facts are confirmed by some of the evidence we've uncovered already already, this 10/23 form, where the confidential human source told the FBI items recorded in this form. That those are the key facts, and now it's important.
We got a lot of those key facts when we interviewed one of Hunter Biden's business Partners, mister Archer, it's important we talk to the others. We need to talk to Eric Schwerman. We need to talk to Rob Walker. We need to talk to Tony Bobolinski. And we are in conversations with their lawyers, and we think those are gonna happen, and we need to talk to Jim Biden who is also in business with Hunter Biden.
Those things need to happen. And then as the chairman just said as chairman Comer just said, We will, have Hunter Biden in a deposition. And frankly,
Speaker 3: I think in a in an open hearing, I think that would be that would be great. That's what needs
Speaker 2: to happen so the American people Get the facts, get the truth, and we can make a decision on how we move forward as a conference.
Speaker 3: With that, I would recognize the the next chair the chairman from the Ways and Means Committee, mister Smith.
Speaker 4: Thank you all for being here today. Thank you, chair Stefanik, for for having us. Most Americans, they work hard to provide for their families. They follow the law. They pay their taxes, but the Biden family has been playing by different rules.
2 brave whistle blowers came forward to expose the political interference impeding an investigation into the tax crimes of the president's son, Hunter Biden. These are serious credible IRS investigators Who risk their career to come forward. Amidst threats from those representing the president's son that anyone prosecuting the case would be committing career suicide. And as one might expect, they provided substantial evidence backing up their testimony that we have reviewed and released over the course of our work to hold government officials accountable. In the days since their initial testimony, we have learned that president Biden wasn't just aware of his son's business dealings.
He wasn't just involved, but he appears to have directly benefited from them. This directly contradicts The president the what president Biden said throughout his presidential campaign and while being president, We have learned about what can be described as the International Bank of Joe Biden, a lending scheme that saw Special loans to Biden family members repaid with funds from Chinese executives. We have learned about a Hollywood attorney acting as a special benefactor by paying off at least 2,000,000 of Hunter's tax debts in order to keep it out of the press At the beginning of the 2020 campaign, when confronted with this potential campaign by finance Finance violation, an assistant US attorney refused to investigate because, quote, she was not personally interested in pursuing it. We have learned that DOJ officials went out of their way To remove the mention of political figure 1, AKA Joe Biden from search warrants. As Ways and Means chairman, there are 3 major aspects that fall into my committee's jurisdiction.
1st, we need to get to the bottom of what exactly happened at the Department of Justice and the IRS to impede the Hunter Biden investigation. Did Joe Biden use his administration to protect him from the scrutiny? 2nd, the Biden family appears to have used numerous accounts, transactions, and loans To mask the flow of money, if these loans were in fact legitimate, they should be interest income. There should be interest income reported on tax documents. Was such reported?
3rd, How did Hunter and his associates move money through the many shell companies that have been identified? Is there tax information that would help explain the complex web the Biden's created? Over the next week, The ways and means committee will take further action to pursue the truth and follow the facts wherever they lead. We will be holding a hearing With the IRS whistleblowers to discuss the investigation as well as releasing additional material that they have provided, The American people expect no less. I am pleased to recognize the great majority whip from the state of Minnesota, which Tom Miller.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Robert Gates, who served as the defense secretary under president Obama, Wrote in his 2014 memoir that Joe Biden has, quote, been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over Past 4 decades. That statement couldn't be more true today. From Biden's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal to his failure to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party to cutting $1,000,000,000 deals with Iran. His blatant incompetence has been a slap in the face to our allies while emboldening our adversaries.
Series. Our house republican majority was elected to counteract the Biden administration's failed policies and that's exactly what we're gonna continue to do this week. Chairman McCall's no funds for Iranian terrorism act, which will be considered on the floor tomorrow, effectively freezes the $6,000,000,000, Excuse me. The $6,000,000,000 ransom payment Biden handed over to Iran. This is a common sense bill That every lawmaker in this building should unequivocally support Republican and Democrat.
If you care about Protecting Americans national America's national security, extinguishing terrorism, and standing with our troops who have faced relentless tax from Iran backed proxies, then a yes vote on this bill should be a no brainer. Weakness invites aggression, and house republicans refuse to sit on the sidelines as Biden's disturbing pattern of weakness on the world stage continues to endanger us all. And with that, I turn it over to our majority leader, Steve Steliz.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Whip. As you can see, we have 3 different committees that are relentlessly working to get the facts Out about this investigation that's been ongoing for months. The one thing that you can see as a steady consistent theme Where it started with Jamie Comer's committee, Jim Jordan's committee, ultimately Jason Smith's committee is that every step of the way, they've been consistently That whistle blowers were coming forward saying it wasn't just about Hunter Biden, that ultimately money was going into Joe Biden's checking account. What you saw at the White House over and over again was a constant changing of the story. The White House has changed its story multiple times As the facts have emerged over and over again and different if you look at some of these poster boards, you see checks, You see more facts that continue to be released.
And as more facts come out, the White House continues to try to change their tune to cover up what really happened. As Jamie Comer talked about, tens of thousands of pages of alias information still at the White House that they won't turn over to congress. What are they trying to hide at the White House? Why won't the White House fully comply? So we're gonna be relentless at continuing to get the facts.
All 3 committees working through this impeachment inquiry to ultimately get the facts out and find out where all this money was coming from. Foreign countries, ultimately, into the pockets of various members of the Biden family to the tune of 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars. So this will not slow down. And in the meantime, the House will continue to do its work here as the whip talked about today. We start a process of moving a few bills on the floor this week.
Tomorrow, we're gonna actually have a vote on that Iran bill. 6 $1,000,000,000 Joe Biden negotiated to give to Iran. Now let's think about what happens here. This was negotiated prior to Hamas invading Israel, murdering Israelis taking hostages. We see a ceasefire right now as more hostages hopefully get released.
But in the meantime, Hamas still holds hostages. Where does Hamas get their funding? They get their funding from Iran. Everybody knows that. The Biden administration knows it, yet the Biden administration opposes this legislation because they want the Ayatollah in Iran to get that $6,000,000,000.
Why would Joe Biden want the Ayatollah to have access to $6,000,000,000 knowing it goes to fund Hamas and other terrorism? We're gonna be taking a strong stand to freeze that money tomorrow. That will be a vote on the house floor. We also say as more Illegals pour into our country. Millions more illegals come into our country.
They're using federal lands in the Biden administration To house illegals, they're waiving environmental regulations that military veterans can't use, homeless veterans cannot use today, But they'll waive every environmental regulation to allow people coming here illegally to use those very same federal lands. And we're saying you can't use those federal lands Housing legals, that vote will be on the house floor tomorrow as well. So the house is gonna continue to do its work as we relentlessly pursue the facts in This case and leading that effort is our speaker, Mike Johnson.
Speaker 7: Thank you all for being here. These are, these are serious times and this is a very serious matter. And I've I've said many times over the last few years because impeachment has been An issue that we've all become all too familiar with that next to the declaration of war, you can make an argument that impeachment may be the heaviest power that Congress holds. That that constitutional responsibility lies with the House. We we have a duty to pursue the facts where they lead.
John Adams famously said facts are stubborn things, and you heard her recitation of that here this morning. These facts are alarming. They're alarming to the American people. They're alarming to us. And so while we take no pleasure in, in the proceedings here, we have a responsibility to do it.
We're very proud of the work of these 3 chairmen that you see here, chairman Colmer and Jordan and Smith, they've done an exceptional job in uncovering the obvious corruption. And you heard it here summarized this morning very succinctly. President Biden and the Biden family, we we owe it to the American people to continue this process, but to do it methodically and transparently. Many of you know I was on, I'm a lawyer, a constitutional law attorney. I served on president Trump's impeachment defense team twice.
We lamented openly, and we decried how the Democrats politicized that process. They were brazenly political and how they they brought those, meritless impeachment charges against the the president. This what you're seeing here is exactly the opposite. We are the rule of law team. The Republican Party stands for the rule of law, And the people in charge of this are doing this thoroughly, carefully, methodically.
They're investigating and gathering all the facts. And to do this appropriately and to do it in a manner that upholds our constitutional responsibility requires time. It it requires a sound process. You don't Rush something like this. You can't if you're gonna have fidelity to the constitution.
These chairmen are committed to proceeding in that manner, and that's what you're seeing. We we've heard from whistleblowers, Biden business associates, legal experts, and now we have reached the point in the investigation that we need to hear from a handful of really key witnesses in this. The the chairman have issued a a few dozen subpoenas and we expect that those are to be complied with in an expeditious manner. We're not prejudging this. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.
Again, that's our constitutional duty. And and I fully support our chairman and their efforts,
Speaker 3: On the house floor tomorrow to expel one of your members, George Santos.
Speaker 5: You have not said if you support this.
Speaker 2: Do you support the starting of this?
Speaker 7: I'll say this. We had a, a Republican conference meeting of the in in the last hour. There were opinion shared on on both sides. But I'll answer it this way, Matthew. Listen.
I said that the Republican Party is the rule of law team and we are. We believe in the rule of law. There are people of good faith who make an argument both pro and con For the expulsion, resolution for Santos. The there are people who say you have to uphold the rule of law and allow for someone to be convicted in a criminal Court, before this, this this this tough penalty would be exacted on someone. That's been the precedent so far.
There are others who say, well, upholding the rule of law, requires us to take this step now because some of the things that he's alleged to have done, The House Ethics Committee having done their job, are are infractions against the house itself. And so what we said is the leadership team is we're gonna allow people to vote their I think is the only appropriate thing we can do. We've not whipped the vote and we wouldn't. I I trust that people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith. I personally have real reservations about doing this.
I I'm I'm concerned about a precedent that may be set for that. So we're everybody's working through that and we'll see how they vote tomorrow. Yeah. Front row in there. Go get it.
Speaker 3: Welcome back.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 3: There are complicated negotiations underway over supplemental supplemental supplemental. You'll be Many questions you could ask, but I wanna ask questions. Do you believe that you're seeking conditions on any of the
Speaker 7: Yeah. There there's a lot of, very deliberate negotiations that have been going on on the supplemental and that happened all the way throughout the Thanksgiving, holidays. And, and it's going on in earnest and it will today. I'm gonna go visit the, our senate republican colleagues that they're steering lunch, in a couple of hours, and we'll be talking about that in detail. I'm not gonna give you a lot of that detail today because some of those negotiations are going on.
I'll tell you with regard to Israel. The house did our job. We We passed a bipartisan, support package, 14,500,000,000, which is exactly what was requested, and we sent it over to the senate, and it's been sitting on Chuck Schumer's desk. If they really believe in that priority, they'll take care of it. We added a pay for it as you all know.
It shocked the system of Washington. We're we're trying to get back to this fundamental principle of fiscal responsibility. I don't want and I don't think we should go and borrow money from some other country to help one of our allies. I think we can Take care of our responsibilities, but do it in a responsible manner. And we're trying to reintroduce the idea of this responsibility here.
Let me remind everybody here. We have a $33,700,000,000,000 federal debt, I think is the latest figure. If you if you pull up US debt clock on your on your smartphone, you can't even Follow the debt with the naked eye. It goes up so quickly. We Moody's has downgraded our credit rating.
The treasury department announced a few weeks ago that we have to borrow $1,500,000,000,000 over the next 2 quarters to Government in operation. We are not on a sustainable trajectory with regard to spending. And so part of the negotiations on the supplemental, part the negotiations on the remaining appropriations bills and everything that's on our plate is is viewed by us through that lens that we have to restore This idea of fiscal sanity. And so we're we're pressing that matter. With regard to red lines, we we believe that the border must be secured, And the vast majority of the people in this country agree with us wholeheartedly.
And when we all went home for Thanksgiving and met with constituents and friends and family and had Dinner as you all did. This was a a big topic of discussion because people are deeply concerned about their safety and security and all the things all the societal ills that happen at the border. So That is a top priority for us in all these negotiations to get that secured, and we need policy changes, not just further funding to process people. So you're gonna see that as a continuing theme and I'll I'll leave it there for now. Hang on.
Speaker 3: Here's the thing. Here's the thing. We can talk to you. Yep. The official act That was corrupt.
The Republicans are a legend today. It was that when he was vice president, Joe Biden pushed through the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor. And this was the subject of the impeachment of of Donald Trump. And you had a lot of state department officials who came in and said, This wasn't Joe Biden's policy. This was our policy.
He didn't do this to benefit his son. He did this because we wanted him to do it. So do they all commit perjury, or are you gonna bring them back for more interviews? Why why are republicans just ignoring all that testimony?
Speaker 7: No. No one's ignoring testament. Let me tell you the top 4 pieces of evidence with the government. I just got a bullet points here. From 2014 to 2019, Biden family members and their affiliate companies received over $15,000,000 from foreign companies and foreign nationals.
These are all facts. Facts are stubborn things. That included Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania, and China. Biden business associates received an additional 9,000,000. The the the chairman here have uncovered a lot of facts.
President Biden has, of course, lied at least 16 times about his involvement in his family's business schemes. There are at least 22 examples of Joe Biden speaking with or meeting with Hunter Biden's foreign business associates. The Oversight Committee recently released 2 checks. You see the graphics up here today. These checks are to Joe Biden.
1 is for $40,000 from China and another is for 200,000 from a now bankrupt health care company that his brother James Biden apparently swindled. Listen. This op this, this investigation has to continue Because again, as we said, those facts are stubborn things. I'm not going to answer outside questions about this. We let the facts speak for themselves.
And I think you're gonna see a lot more developments over that in the days ahead. That that was our last question.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Judge Engoron should be immediately disbarred and removed as a judge. He violated his oath as a judge. Judges r not above the law. https://t.co/0K88e278pS
Video Transcript AI Summary
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik wrote a letter to the Judicial Conduct Commission about Judge Engeron's behavior during the trial of Donald Trump. She accuses the judge of displaying bias against Trump and making prejudiced statements. Stefanik highlights that the judge entered summary judgment against Trump before the trial began and refused to listen to his defense. She also points out that the judge is a partisan Democrat who donated to the Manhattan Democrats, which violates the judicial code. Stefanik argues that if the judge can mistreat a billionaire businessman and former president, he poses a risk to all Americans. She expresses frustration that society and the media are allowing this to happen, indicating a decline in standards and a lack of accountability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: An amazing, beautiful thing happened. I'm not often moved by a letter, but I was today by the letter that Congresswoman Elise Stefanik wrote to the Judicial Conduct Commission about the behavior of that crazy judge, Judge Engeron, who was presiding over the fake fraud trial of Donald Trump. The guy even looks like a clown. Right? Bozo the clown, purple shirt, crazy hair.
I'm sorry, it is getting a little bit personal. But thank God there are people out there like Elise Stefanik, who doesn't just moan about things on Twitter, actually tries to get this guy removed from the case by creating a logical, ethical, 100% applicable letter outlining this guy's abuse, abuse of the system. And he's going after Trump because he doesn't like Trump. And she proves it. So she wrote this letter.
I wanna go through it because it's beautiful, but it's sad at the same time. Right? Let's focus on the beautiful part. This judge's behavior has no place in our system. The judicial system is being politicized to affect the outcome of the campaign.
Judge Engeron has displayed a clear judicial bias against the defendant. Last year, judge Engeron told president Trump's attorney that the former president is just a bad guy. Judge Engeron entered summary judgment against the defendant before the trial even began without witnesses, other evidence, and cross examination. Trump paid back the sophisticated Wall Street banks on time in full with interest as agreed. Did you know this part?
These banks and insurance companies supposedly defrauded continued to do business with the defendant. Yeah. With Donald Trump. Yet, Angarron judge Angarron decreed before the trial that the defendant somehow committed fraud. Judge Angarron told the defendant, we are not here to listen to what you have to say, he told the defendant's counsel.
I am not here to hear what he has to say. Now sit down. Judge Engeron and his staff are partisan Democrats. Judge Engeron donated to the Manhattan Democrats. Section 100.5 of the judicial code says that judges shall refrain from making a political contribution to an organization.
Judge Engeron has gone on to gag and fine president Trump for merely criticizing judge Engeron's law clerk, which is core political speech protected by the first amendment. Tagaga defended is un American. And then there's this. There was a an expert witness and they asked him, hey, who would buy something like Mar a Lago? Who could possibly buy it?
This happened in earlier testimony. Here's what the guy said. The expert, I could dream up anyone from Elon Musk to Bill Gates and everyone in between. Kings, emperors, heads of state, but with net worths in the multiple billions. He was asked a question.
Who could buy this place? The judge dismissed the testimony like this. Obviously, this court cannot consider an expert affidavit that is based on unexplained and unsubstantiated dreams. This guy is totally out of touch, totally out to get yeah. Like this.
Judge Engeron's disdain for president Trump and his politics are evident. If judge Engeron can railroad a billionaire New York businessman, a former president of the United States, and the leading presidential candidate. Just imagine what he could do to all New Yorkers. And in another jurisdiction, all Americans. We are all at risk here.
And society is not stopping it. Society is going along with it. That's why I say this is a very beautiful letter from a brilliant woman, the congresswoman. But it's also very sad because it reflects that this is happening and nobody can really do much of anything about it. The media are letting it happen.
The judicial system letting it happen. But that's where the culture is. It's in a freefall. You know, we're supposed to have standards that are universally applied. But they're not.
And things are crazy.
reSee.it AI Summary
In his 1991 testimony to Congress, Donald Trump emphasized his expertise in taxation and the real estate market. He criticized the NY case against him, questioning the lack of real estate tax experts involved. Despite the challenges he faced, Trump's intention was to combat corruption in the country. The video source can be found on Facebook.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
FLASHBACK: Donald Trump Testimony to Congress - November 21, 1991 IMHO, President Trump was right about taxation. They brought President Trump into to speak of what can be done with taxes and the real estate market. He is still an expert on this. This NY case is a total SHAM and a DISGRACE to our legal system. The judge/prosecutors are not experts. Have they even brought in a real estate tax expert? We need President Donald J. Trump more than ever. It is terrible what they have put President Trump through. He means well, and all he wants to do is fix the corruption in this country. Watch or Bookmark this to watch it later..π Source: FB videos
Video Transcript AI Summary
Donald Trump, a witness at a hearing, discusses the negative impact of the 1986 tax reform act on the real estate industry. He emphasizes the need for incentives to invest in housing, as it creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Trump believes the country is in a depression, not a recession, and that without incentives, the economic crisis could last for years. He criticizes the changes made to tax laws and the elimination of tax shelters, which hindered investment in real estate. Trump suggests that focusing on housing and restoring incentives could help alleviate the current economic problems and create employment opportunities.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'd like to call our next witness, Donald Trump, who certainly needs no introduction to He your fame and reputation precede you, Donald. We're very happy to have you here. We know you to be very frank and outspoken. And you've had extensive experience not only in real large real estate developments, but also in sports and gaming and entertainment industries. And I'm glad you're able to make it here this morning and appreciate your You're waiting and being so patient as you have been.
So we welcome you especially to listen and learn from your experiences as we know you've been very much involved in regard to this credit crunch that we have before our nation today. So you may proceed in any way that's comfortable with you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, mister chairman.
Speaker 0: Donald, you may proceed.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Well, first of all, I think, I could say to mister Seidman, who I I believe has done a really fantastic job while he was in government, that, had the 1986 catastrophe of the tax reform act not been passed, I'm not sure that you'd know mister Seidman in the capacity of TC. You'd know him in some perhaps more positive capacity, but not in the resolution trust. And I think in bringing that point up to mister Sigmund before he tended to The real estate industry, and I really hope that something can be done, as congressman Thomas, recently said, that something can be done to change at least parts of it because it has taken all incentive away from investing in real estate, and real estate really means So many jobs. I mean, you have a city called New York City.
You have a city, Boston. You have other cities and and so many other cities. But I can tell you from very personal knowledge, New York City has virtually no construction right now. And we're not only talking about office buildings, of which there are many. We're talking about housing, moderate income housing, low income housing, even high income housing, where you you create jobs.
You create so many other things. They buy carpet. They buy furniture. They buy refrigerators. They buy other things that fuel the economy.
And incentive has to be put back in To the construction of things that are needed, such as housing of all kinds. I heard this morning that we've had the lowest Number of houses built, in terms of the housing, since 1946 or 1947. And that's not much of a tribute to this, group of folks that are representing the country, unfortunately. I feel, you know, I feel very badly about it. Everybody feels very badly about it.
The fact is that the one word that nobody up on the panel is has mentioned is the word depression, and I truly feel that this country right now is in a depression. It's not a recession. People are kidding themselves if they think it's a recession. You look at what's happening into the automobile business, in the in the retailing business, The retailing business in any part of the country virtually is a total disaster, but But he feels very badly about it. The fact is that the one word that nobody up on the panel is has mentioned is the word depression.
And I truly feel that This country right now is in a depression. It's not a recession. People are kidding themselves if they think it's a recession. You look at what's happening into the automobile bill business and the in the retailing business the retailing business in any part of the country virtually is a total disaster. But the real estate business, we're in an absolute depression.
And one of the reasons we're there is what happened in 1986, in addition to what mister Seidman said, is what happened in 1986 with the, with the changes. So I really came on the basis that I wanted to, I'll answer questions on it, but I wanted to discuss the tax act of 1986. Active passive, you're Absolutely right. A 100% right. And something has to be done.
It has to be brought back. It has to be reformed. It has to be taken care of. I think for Certain types of, building such as housing, I think depreciation schedule should be very severely limited cut So that people have incentive to build housing as opposed to commercial, which really, again, the commercial, is probably taken care of for a long while. The reason it's taken care of for a long while, however, unfortunately, is the fact that the economy is so bad that there's no reason for the commercial.
And I think that gets taken care of and gobbled up very quickly had the if the economy improved. One of the big things that we don't have today that we used to have and that was a very Good thing for real estate, and that's the whole word of syndication and investment. And if you're a dentist and you're making 200 or $300,000 a year And you you can't invest now in real estate. The reason the stock market is artificially high, in my opinion, is there's no other form of investment. I mean, you can't put it into real estate And you can't put it into bonds.
So people are putting it into a stock market. All the companies in the stock market are doing lousy, but their stock is high. And I think what we have is when the stock market goes down by, let's say, a 1000 points in 2 days, which perhaps it might, then we're in a full scale depression, then everybody Admits it. Then the politicians admit it. The president's going to admit it.
Everybody's going to admit it. And right now, the only thing that sort of keeps the word depression off their list lip Lip, is the fact that we really have a 3,000 stock market, and people are surprised to see it, because the companies certainly aren't doing very well within within the market itself. But the syndication of real estate was a very positive thing. And you can't syndicate. You can't have people putting up equity.
That would take a lot of the strain off the banks. If people could put up equity in the form of equity money for syndication, where you used to be able to go out and syndicate a piece of real estate today. You can't. A lot of the strain that we're talking about liquidity crisis, a lot of the strain comes off the banks. And I think it could really open up a whole new market.
And the other thing is, frankly, by having cut the high income tax rates to 25%, as an example, People don't have the incentive anymore to invest. They're saying, why should I take a chance on investing in lower moderate income housing? I might as well just pay the tax. But the fact is that 25% for high income people for high income people, it should be raised substantially With the understanding that if you invest, you can get it down and down substantially below that number. The incentive was taken away When the tax rates came down for high income people.
And I say leave the middle, leave the low, lower them. But people with money have to have the incentive. The dentist, the doctors, they have to have the incentive to invest, and there is no incentive. So New York City desperately needs housing. There's no housing being built.
Every city needs housing now. There's no housing being built. And I hope in ways and means they're gonna be able to do something with respect to housing because if it if it's not done, you're just not gonna have any construction jobs in this country. New York City has the lowest number of construction workers, I think, since the depression. I was with a, a very, very capable firm other day, the biggest construction firm in New York City, HRH, and it's called HRH Construction.
And we were discussing what they had planned. They said they have not 1 building planned in New York City for the next 2 to 3 years. Now you think of it, not 1 building planned. So you say that means not 1 electrical worker? I mean, they're just finishing up some buildings.
And when those buildings are finished, there's going to be nobody employed In the biggest industry in the country, because construction is the biggest industry in the country, and there's going to be virtually nobody employed. So I just, come. I was asked to come by the chairman, and I make this plea that If something isn't done to put the incentive back, I mean, we're no different right now than the Soviet Union. They have no incentive, and we have no incentive. And if something isn't done to quickly put the incentive back, this country is going to be in very deep problems.
It already is, but it's gonna get far worse.
Speaker 0: Donald, let me ask you. If Congress does nothing, doesn't take any course of action whatsoever, How long do you think it would take our country to climb out of the economic crisis that is in today?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if incentives aren't given through taxing and other Means, I believe that this country could be in this deep recession slash depression for years for years. I see no No sign of any kind of an upturn at all. There's no incentive to do anything. There's no incentive to invest. Everyone's doing badly.
Everyone. The wealthiest people are doing badly. The poor people are doing badly. The men everybody is doing badly. I mean, you walk around the cities today, very, very few are doing well.
And unless the incentive is given back to this country and it's been taken away with 1986, unless it's given back, I really think you could be. I mean, there's an expression that we're using, survive till 95. I think it's maybe longer than that. It's survived to 95. I think we're being generous.
It's really, really bad, and you folks are gonna have to do something to fix it and to get people moving.
Speaker 0: How did we get here as we are? Is it been the mountain of debt that's being created in the public and private sector?
Speaker 1: Well, I think
Speaker 0: Has it been the generosity, as mister Sibin said, of our tax laws and allow an interest rates to be deducted so that it encourages a debt driven economy?
Speaker 1: Well, I think we got here by the fact that at the time, certain were done. I can speak in terms of the real estate business. Certain deals were made predicated on a certain tax policy, and then that tax policy was changed. I mean, I I truly believe that you wouldn't have had the savings and loan crisis. I mean, you save minutiae compared to the money that you've wasted on Bailing out the savings and loans.
Now your insurance companies are in deep trouble, and I think they're gonna get much worse because so much of their portfolio is in real estate. And I think you better save the real estate now. I mean, I can tell you, I buy things I bought things that were great deals in the middle eighties and the and even the later eighties. But when that tax law kicked in you know, really kicked in, all of a sudden, those deals, which were good economic deals, were no longer good economic deals Because they changed the game on me and they changed the game on everybody else. And it's pretty unfair.
You make a deal predicated on a certain tax law and then they change the, They changed the rules. So a lot of the problems that you've experienced are because of the fact that some very foolish people, In order to save a small amount of money because they heard the word tax shelter, and they thought the word tax shelter was a bad thing As opposed to saying it's an investment in real estate. I mean, an investment in low income housing, they call a tax shelter. And the word tax shelter is like the word junk bond. It's a very Bad sounding word, even though it isn't necessarily a bad thing.
So they heard the word tax shelter, and They didn't like that word, and they said let's get rid of tax shelters. But when they got rid of tax shelters, they got rid of people investing in low and moderate income housing and lots of other good things. And I think you're gonna have to go back. They could have corrected 1982, the law. 1982, they could have corrected it, gotten rid of the abuse, and had a Great situation today.
You wouldn't have had the savings and loan problems. I don't think you would have had many of the banking problems. You wouldn't have had What is going to befall you now, I think, they were just stronger to start off with, but I think the insurance companies are gonna be in very deep trouble because of The values of their real estate have been eroded because of what Congress has done. So you have some very deep problems that can be corrected Fairly simply by putting the incentives back.
Speaker 0: Real estate has always been one of America's favorite industries. The tax code has long favorite real estate to a great extent because it employs so many people and is so important for the welfare of our economy. In 1981, we became very generous with real estate. We cut depreciation schedules in half. Gave tax credits.
Would you say that's where we started to go wrong? Is that where we were
Speaker 1: No. I think it's where we started
Speaker 0: shopping centers and commercial buildings that were not filled?
Speaker 1: Well, I think I think that's where you started to go right, but maybe to maybe there was an excess. I think if it was channeled more toward the housing, which has always been I mean, there's never been enough housing. You need it desperately, and I'm talking all forms of housing. You need it desperately.
Speaker 0: Including low income housing?
Speaker 1: Including low income Yes. Absolutely. And including senior citizen housing and dormitory housing and other forms of housing. There there Has never been. It's an insatiable thing, and you could really get that going.
But what you're also getting going is jobs. Because I'll tell you what, New York unemployment and other cities' unemployment is astronomical. I think it's much higher than the numbers are indicating. Mhmm. I just don't think it's been reflected yet.
If you look at what's gonna happen with the construction industry in the next few years, forget it. There's not gonna be anybody working. Mhmm. So I really think you need that for a lot of reasons, but Also to spur jobs.
Speaker 0: Passive losses, one thing that many people draw attention to. Miss Seidman, you did, members of this committee did. When we passed it, we had no hearings to my knowledge on it. It happened almost overnight, and it was a surprise so that it was never given the full thought the attention that should have before we made such a bold and important move. There is a bill now that Mike Andrews has with several under it, I understand, sponsors that hasn't moved through the committee yet, the Ways and Means Committee, which says that developers should
reSee.it AI Summary
In a recent confrontation, Josh Hawley criticized a Biden official over the release of migrant children to labor and sex traffickers. Hawley expressed concern for the 85,000 children who lack contact and accused the officials of enabling exploitation on an unprecedented scale in the United States. This situation is deemed a disgrace in the country.
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
BREAKING: 'Josh Hawley Confronts Biden Official Over Migrant Children' Listen to Josh Hawley..ππ Josh Hawley: "You really think that you're helping these children by releasing them to labor traffickers? And yes, sex traffickers. 85000 children whom you have no contact with and your answer is we gave him a presentation before we turn them over to these people who are exploiting them on a scale not seen in this country for a 100 years. A century. A century. It's a disgrace in the United States of America."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Hawley questions Miss Marcos about the treatment of children in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). He highlights reports of children being exploited for labor and sex trafficking, and criticizes the lack of proper vetting and background checks for sponsors. Senator Hawley also questions Miss Marcos about her communication with the secretary and accuses her of not doing her job effectively. He concludes by expressing concern about the large number of unaccompanied children and the lack of oversight in their care.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank thank you, senator Grassley. Senator Hawley? Thank you, mister chairman. Miss Marcos, can I just start with you? You testified a moment ago to senator Butler that every child gets a know your rights presentation.
Is that correct?
Speaker 1: That is correct.
Speaker 0: Is that before or after you release them to labor traffickers?
Speaker 1: Senator, every child that comes into our care gets a know your rights presentation as well as
Speaker 0: these New York Times reports? These stories, the the series of stories The New York Times has done on the children who are in your care. Have you read them?
Speaker 1: Yes. I have.
Speaker 0: Have you read that children are scrubbing dishes? They are operating heavy machinery. They are delivering delivering meals. They are harvesting coffee. They are working construction.
They are working as housekeepers. They are working overnight shifts at plants where they are not paid, they are not going to school, they are not cared for, they are not giving meals, almost all of it illegally. Are you aware of that? That's a yes or no. Yes.
Do the know your rights presentation help him in those situations?
Speaker 1: Senator ORR,
Speaker 0: please. Yes or no, I think. I Do you really think that you're helping these children by releasing them to labor traffickers and, yes, sex traffickers, 85,000 children whom you have no contact with. And your answer is We gave him a presentation before we turned them over to these people who are exploiting them on a scale not seen in this country for a 100 years, a century a century. It's a disgrace in the United States of America.
Let me ask you this. You did a an audit, I noticed, where you gave yourself a clean bill of health. So just just tell me this, do you require sponsors to document their relationship with the child?
Speaker 1: Senator, we have a thorough vetting process.
Speaker 0: Do you require sponsors to document their relationship with the child?
Speaker 1: Yes. We go through No.
Speaker 0: You do not. You you do not. Have you read the senate's permanent subcommittee on investigations reports on your office? There was 1 in 2016. There was 1 in 2018.
There was 1 in 2020. There was 1 in 2022. Spanning administrations, What they found is you do not require sponsors to document their relationship with the child. You release them anyway. What about background checks?
Do you require background checks in all adults in the household?
Speaker 1: In cases where the child is being released to their parents, We do not require, background checks. But senator, I
Speaker 0: would do require background checks on all adults in the household in any case?
Speaker 1: Yes. In some cases, we do.
Speaker 0: At what percentage of cases do you do background checks on the adults in the household?
Speaker 1: I I don't have that number here from you.
Speaker 0: Do you do home visits in all cases? You can actually see where these children are are being released, who you whose care you're putting them in?
Speaker 1: We do not do home visits in all cases. Senator, I'd really like the opportunity to talk about what we are doing to
Speaker 0: I know what you're doing, and it's it's incredibly and totally inadequate. And we can read about it in The New York Times. Let me since you say you've read it, let's talk a little bit about that New York Times report if we could. Here's a quote from the April 17th installment. Again and again, veteran government staffers and outside contractors told HHS, including reports that reached the secretary, that children appeared to be at risk.
Did you warn the secretary that children were at risk?
Speaker 1: Senator, I'm in regular contact with the secretary,
Speaker 0: and the safety and well-being
Speaker 1: of children is Our top priority.
Speaker 0: Did you warn him that children were at risk?
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna get into the conversations I've had.
Speaker 0: You're here, and you're under oath. And this is an oversight hearing, and we need to know what you're doing because you're manifestly not doing your job. Did you warn him that children were at risk? Do you believe that children are at risk? Let's start with that.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: K. Did you warn the secretary?
Speaker 1: Senator, I'm not gonna get into the specifics of my conversation, but I would like the opportunity to talk about that.
Speaker 0: Warn the secretary that children were at risk?
Speaker 1: Like opportunity to talk about what we
Speaker 0: Let's look at what the secretary said to you. The other one, James. Yeah, that one, at least 5 HHS staff members said they were pushed out after raising concerns about child safety. Mister Becerra, the secretary, told the ORR director, that's you, right, that if she could not increase the number of discharges, he would find someone who could. And then he went on to say that if Henry Ford had run his plants like this, he would never have become famous and rich.
This is not the way you do an assembly line. Get the kids out. Run them through. Get them out to those sponsors, those traffickers. Why didn't you resign when he said this?
Do you think that this is morally acceptable?
Speaker 1: Senator, I joined ORR in September of 2022. I believe that was reported Prior to my arrival, but I cannot speak
Speaker 0: to article this year.
Speaker 1: I can't speak to what the secretary
Speaker 0: Do you think that this is acceptable to run to you to run ORR like an assembly line and to release these children to traffickers?
Speaker 1: We do not run ORR like an assembly line. The safety and well-being of children is our top concern. And by Plainly not.
Speaker 0: Plainly, it is not your top concern because you have managed to lose 85 thousand of them. And The Times knows where they are, 2 thirds of them, and they're with labor traffickers. It's unbelievable. Let me just ask you this. How many kids right now, the 430,000 approximately, unaccompanied children across the border into this administration?
It's an astounding number. How many are you in regular contact with right now?
Speaker 1: Senator, we have a number of different providers across the country
Speaker 0: But what's the number? What's the number? How many of you are you in you said child welfare is your top concern. What's the number?
Speaker 1: I don't have the Specific number How
Speaker 0: can you not know? Why would you come to this hearing and not know?
Speaker 1: Respectfully, if you would like us To provide comprehensive case management to children after they're released from our care so we can report
Speaker 0: that to them. I would like you to do your job and not release children to human traffickers. Respectfully, that's what I would like. I'd like you not facilitate the largest child trafficking ring in American history. Thank you, mister chairman.
Senator Rossoff. Thank you
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Hmmm... interesting!!! Listen to this Arab man and his thoughts about Palestinians. Click on the video and read.π https://t.co/rE4bXUlIxp
reSee.it AI Summary
Marjorie Taylor Greene was attacked by Taher Herzallah, a leader of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). Herzallah and other Hamas supporters should leave and assist during this time of war. Their concern for Palestine is misguided. #NoHashtags
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
.@mtgreenee Here is an old video about the Radical muslim man who attacked Marjorie Taylor inside the Capitol. His name is Taher Herzallah, who is a leader of American Muslims for Palestine. (AMP) This man is crazy and so are all those Hamas supporters like him. IMHO If they are so worried about Palestine they should all just leave and go help during this time of war. π€¦ββοΈπ€·ββοΈ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tahir Herzala discusses the difficulties faced by Muslim activists in working with progressive allies. He highlights the contradiction in how progressive movements celebrate freedom fighters from other regions but label Muslims as terrorists when they employ similar tactics. He mentions progressive politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who support progressive causes but take a pro-Israel stance. He also mentions the challenges faced within the Muslim community when working with progressive allies who may hold Islamophobic beliefs. Tahir emphasizes the importance of Muslims asserting their rights and remaining involved in the cause of Palestine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is one such as that. Our next speaker is Tahir Herzala. Tahir Herzala is the national campus coordinator for the American Muslims for Palestine. In this capacity, mister Horzallah acts as a liaison between members of Students For Justice in Palestine and Muslim Students Associations on campuses across the country. He helps these groups procure grants, materials and speakers.
He also is instrumental in helping students set up programs and activities. Herzala is one of the Irvine eleven, a group of students who were arrested and prosecuted for expressing their constitutionally protected rights of free speech and political dissent when they walked out of a lecture given by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren at UC Irvine in 2010. We're very proud of courageous individuals like this. Please join me in welcoming mister Tahir Herzala.
Speaker 1: I begin in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. May the peace and blessings be upon His last and final messenger, Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. I begin with that in particular because today's topic that I was assigned For myself was progressives except for Palestine and for those of us involved in the movement And the struggle on a regular basis, especially those of us who are Muslim, who are involved in the Movement, Recognize some of the difficulties and some of the issues that have come up recently. Working within our groups of progressive allies and of course coming from those who are outside of the movement but consider themselves progressives as well. And so, my discussion today will be about 2 elements.
Number 1, the progressive politicians so to speak. Most of them tend to be Democrats And then, the number 2 would be the or and also among them, I would include the new atheist and media pundits like Bill Maher. And then on the second, I would Discuss the issues or some of the obstacles or difficulties that Muslim activists face in working with our own friends and allies in the progressive community, and I want to begin By reading a small excerpt from a piece that I found on the Middle East monitor. A very courageous piece discussing something fundamental that I think is needed to discuss When we talk about our own movements and the title of this piece is called, Falling for the Whiteness of the Zionist Narrative and it's written by a brother named Shahin Muireduddin. In the excerpt he says, That doctor Salman Syed, in his classic, A Fundamental Fear, points out that one of the casualties of the demise Of the Soviet Union and the communist political project in the early 19 nineties has been the extinction of the category called the freedom fighter.
In a bipolar world, there existed a duality of the superpowers As opposing forces and the recognition of the freedom fighter in post colonial societies by either the American or the Soviet Bloc, depending on who opposed whom. But this category as a genuine reality did exist. However, following the dawn of the American century, the freedom fighter ceased to exist. This was primarily because since then all known dictators, tyrants, repressive regimes and Sheikhdoms Had and continue to have a symbiotic relationship with the United States, and hence the freedom fighter, meaning anybody who opposed the current global order Was relegated to the category of terrorist. This international West's Oxified hegemonic discourse has delegitimized all resistance to any repressive regime, And if that particular repressive regime is in the garb of a neoliberal democratic state, the delegitimization and dehumanization becomes complete.
He continues to say that indigenous Islamic resurgence movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which saw success taking their chances via the electoral route, were also violently dethroned without a flutter from the international community because democracy too was assumed to be a white only prerogative. Now, despite the unceremonious exit of the Soviet Union from the global scenario, Marxism still thrives as a meta narrative And the leftist discourse, although diametrically opposed to the American neoliberal project, unfortunately shares With their adversary, the same myopic view of indigenous Islamo centric resurgence movements or polities. In this camp, the resistance against imperialism was only genuine as far as it had a Left socialist root. Any other resistance narrative especially those based on an Islamic world view was similarly viewed derisively and pushed Into the realms of purposeful obscurity. This pejorative attitude which is ingrained in contemporary liberal discourse Helps immensely in spawning an Islamophobic narrative and cementing the racist power matrix.
And I wanted to include that In this discussion because what he said resonated with me deeply. And that we have historically celebrated Freedom Fighters. As a progressive community and I include myself as part of this progressive community, We talk so much about the revolutionary freedom fighters of South America. We talk so much and we even To the point where we have t shirts with the face of Che Guevara and posters in our homes of people like Nelson Mandela, who were individuals who considered terrorists at one part or the other. Individuals who used violent means to achieve liberation.
But when it comes to Muslims employing the same tactics. When it comes to Muslims engaging in movements to liberate their people, All of a sudden, that same respect is not given. All of a sudden, the discourse changes to talk about terrorism instead of liberation and fighting for freedom. And so, there's a clear contradiction not just among those who we know clearly oppose Islam. Many of those in the right wing and those who perpetuate Islamophobia.
But there are some contradictions among those who we consider our allies, people who we consider progressive activists, who internally maybe have become Themselves have internalized this concept of Islamophobia, maybe subconsciously and maybe even consciously. What if as Muslims we wanted to establish an Islamic State? Is that wrong? What if as Muslims we wanted to use violent means to resist occupation? Is that wrong?
What if as Muslims we wanted to Express and assert our narrative and in Islamic fashion. Is that wrong? To many of our progressive allies that might be something that they might be uncomfortable with, not recognizing that This is something fundamental to the identity and agency of Muslims. And so, we have 2 elements that I discussed earlier. We have the politicians, especially those who we consider progressive politicians and for example, People like Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat, and also Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and even people who we consider people who are from us, like Keith Ellison for example.
During the attacks on Gaza, It was very clear that those particular individuals who are progressive on many issues Elizabeth Warren champions the cause of students fighting against high tuition and student loan rates. Bernie Sanders champions progressive causes especially those for veterans and others. Yet, when it comes to the issue of Palestine and Israel, things flip. Things flip. When it comes to the issue of Ghazza in particular, we saw that this past summer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were making statements equivalent to that of Mark Regev, the official spokesperson for the Israeli government.
And that is very unique to the American context. We saw that Elizabeth Warren, a progressive democrat who some are talking about possibly a presidential run-in the future, Made her 1st international visit. Her 1st international visit to where? Israel. The 1st international leader for her to meet with on her international visit was who?
Benjamin Netanyahu. He's the champion of progressive causes in the United States. People who have we people who we potentially could have had faith in that are included in the political system. Even our brother Keith Ellison, during the attacks on Gaza, When asked by the one of the reporters from the Daily Beast about, a statement that he had written discussing the blockade on Gaza and the difficulties that the Palestinian people face in Gaza. The person writing the article for The Daily Beast wanted to get more information about why Keith Ellison was writing what he was writing.
And Keith Ellison's response was that, Why are you putting me in a bad position? There are people in my constituency that I don't want to offend. This is one of our own. These are progressive activists and so, we see that this is happening Within the politician community of the way their understanding or speaking of the issue of Palestine, A lot of the language they use, even among the Muslim politicians, unfortunately, It reeks with Islamophobic rhetoric. And then, within our own movement, and I'm going to skip Bill Maher because I don't think he's Really?
Was that worthy of speaking about? But even within our whole Movement, which is something that I feel is something of importance to us right now as we continue to work. We saw this especially when the revolutions broke out in the Arab world that many of those who stood by us On Palestine, many of those who stood by us, so many of the demonstrations and so many of the protests throughout the years, When we took a position with the Syrian people against Bashar al Assad or when we took a position with the revolution against Husni Mubarak, Immediately, some of those allies and friends started saying things like, we don't want to associate with Islamists Or we don't want to, bring a new Islamic dictatorship as if they had tried that before. As if they had experienced that before themselves, as if they had any experience with what an Islamically minded or oriented Political structure might be like. And so, it was clear that there was an obstacle, there was some struggle that was going to happen Between those of us who are a little bit more Islamically oriented and some of our progressive allies that didn't have a fundamental understanding of what Islam was.
Because believe it or not, many of our progressive allies who are great friends till today might actually believe what Bill Maher says but ignore it in order to do work for the greater cause. Might actually believe that Islam is the mother lord of bad ideas according to him but maybe put that to the side in the pursuit of a greater cause. And so, for us to fundamentally change this understanding of our faith To those of us who work in this in this movement and are interacting with progressive activists constantly, I think is is of Serious importance, especially now as the Muslim community asserts itself more powerfully and begins to engage And many issues as we begin to build connections and alliances and our intersectionality work that's happening on a regular basis, We must have a fundamental understanding of how we should be presenting ourselves as well as how we should work with our friends and progressive allies who might themselves espouse some of the Islamophobic beliefs and rhetoric that even Bill O'Reilly says. And so I'll close with a call to action, I guess. I'll close with A small word from my own experience as a student activist that there came a time Not too far in the past, where we had Students for Justice in Palestine leadership Tell some of our Muslim sisters that they didn't want them to be involved in their organization because they wore the hijab and they didn't want it to seem like SGP was an Islamic Organization.
I kid you not, this actually happened. And my message is to all of us who are here that obviously oppose that, is to not let Someone else dictate to you your level of involvement,
Speaker 0: and to
Speaker 1: not let someone else who you know is a progressive ally and friend dictate The way you should be involved and the way you should be asserting your rights, we are here and we are working for this cause and we are and those people have to recognize That Muslims will remain involved in the cause of Palestine as a just and noble cause. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Tahir Horzallah. We are always
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Damn, these people are fuckin ruthless Mfks. Watch what this hamas terrorist Muhammad who was captured by Israel had to say when they questioned him, "What did they do to the abducted women by the Hamas terrorists?"
@Ann_Lilyflower - π ππ·π· π²πΌ π‘π²π°π±π½ π πππ
Whoa!!! Watch and listen.. This incident took place in Canada. And it could happen anywhere right here in the US. If you are a parent, grandparent, caregiver, and have kids, please watch and share. Y'all be careful out there. Our world is filled with SICK MFs.
Video Transcript AI Summary
A mother and daughter went shopping at Vaughan Mills. The daughter went to the bathroom, but didn't come out for a while. The worried mother went in and found her daughter's shoes along with a stranger's shoes in one stall. When she opened the door, a man ran past her and her daughter was unconscious with a shaved head. Similar incidents have occurred at Yorkdale, with over 60 cases reported. The police haven't shared this information with the media, so it's important for us to spread awareness. Kidnappers target both men and women, injecting them with a sleep-inducing substance before shaving their heads and wheeling them out unnoticed. People assume the victims are disabled, so no one intervenes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The police don't want you to know this, so please share and duet this as much as possible. My mother and a daughter went to Vaughan Mills to go shopping. The daughter had to go to the bathroom, so the mother sat outside the washroom while the daughter went. About 20 minutes, while the mother was waiting, the mother started to worry and so she got up and she went looking. And this time, nobody had come in and and out of the bathroom.
So she went in and that's when she saw a wheelchair in front of one of the stalls. So she started looking under all the stalls and that's when she found her daughter's feet shoes as well as a stranger shoes in the same stall. So she pushed open the door to find the guy sprint right past her and her daughter was unconscious with her head shaved. Show, this is not just at Vaughan Mills, this happened at Vaughan Mills, but it's not just happened at Vaughan Mills, it's also happening at Yorkdale. There's over 60 cases so far, but the police have not gone to the media with this.
So it's up to us to spread the awareness as much as possible. The this is the newest way to kidnap people and it's not just women and children, it's men too. They wait for you to not be alert and they come up behind you, inject you in the neck with something that puts you to sleep and then they shave your head, throw you in a wheelchair and cart you right out under the cameras and under security's noses and there's and nobody does anything because they think that you're just not well. They think that you're just disabled, so nobody bats an eye about it.