reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @DorLinder
reSee.it AI Summary
I learned from forensic accountant Sam Atar's analysis that Mamdani's campaign funding raises serious concerns. He found that nearly all of the $1.7 million raised came from a professional fundraiser, with no donations from regular individuals. The data, sourced from the NYC Board of Elections, revealed that 27,000 lines of donations were attributed to bundlers, totaling zero contributions from the public. This suggests Mamdani is supported by established entities rather than grassroots support, leading Atar to describe him as "a lab rat."
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
Mamdani: Behind the smile, is a fraud! Sam Atar, forensic accountant, analyzed Mamdani's campaign funds. This is the same man who uncovered the alleged fraud of Letitia James. What Atar found is that not a single donation to Mamdani's campaign came from a regular person. All the information came from the NYC Board of elections website. There was a 27K row spreadsheet that took up over 500 pages. This is all public information. $1.6 million of $1.7 million came in through a professional fundraiser. Funds were bundled. That means it came in from a Committee or a PAC. So there is 27K lines that are not attributed to bundlers and the total of those lines are 0. The city keeps track through a source code what type of donation it was. No money goes to the campaign coffers but goes out to services like campaign commercials and such. Mamdani is backed by an establishment, not people. As Atar says, "He is a lab rat."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sam Antar downloaded all the information from the New York City Board of Elections website, a 27,000 row spreadsheet taking up over 500 pages. "not a single donation came from, like, a regular person." He ran it through Excel's tools and three AIs and came to the same conclusion. "70 of them or so were not attributed to bundlers and the total from those lines was zero. Zero. Zero." The money goes right to New York City votes who keeps track. "Was it bundled money?" Based on the data, not a single dime ends up in his campaign coffers as a result of all of his appearances. "It's all bundled money." Four and a half million people on social media between YouTube, Instagram, Twitter X, X Twitter, and Facebook and whatever; they all tell you go to the mom Danny campaign website and you donate. "His bundler raised 94% of the $1,700,000 that he raised from his base" and another $1,900,000 from PACS. "This is not a grassroots candidate." "His bundle... raised 35% of overall bungler funds attributed to all candidates across the city, and he was 10 times more than the second place bundle."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: With me now is the man who uncovered and analyzed all the data and all the numbers behind ma'am Donnie's campaign. He's a forensic accountant, Sam Antar. If you recognize Sam, that's because he's the same guy who uncovered Tish James, New York attorney general, her alleged we'll use the word alleged, her alleged fraud. Welcome to the Chris Salcedo show. So, Sam, this is a lot of work.
Okay. So how can it possibly be that this guy has such a huge call for millions of dollars? You were able to uncover that not a single donation came from, like, a regular person. How's that possible?
Speaker 1: First of all, let's talk about sources. I downloaded all the information from the New York City Board of Elections website. It's available to the public. It was a 27,000 row spreadsheet taking up over 500 pages. I looked at it both myself.
I said, what? There's something wrong here. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe whatever. There's no way that every dollar came from, bundlers.
And I and I run it through I run it through, Excel's tools. Run it through three different AIs and I came up with the same conclusion. And then I still didn't trust the AIs. Didn't get. So basically, have 27,600 and something lines.
Mhmm. Okay? 70 of them or so were not attributed to bundlers and the total from those lines was zero. Zero. Zero.
Zero. Now, when you look at it and you say, The guy has four and a half million people on social media between YouTube, Instagram, Twitter X, X Twitter, and Facebook and whatever. Right? And they all tell you go to the mom Danny campaign website. You know, you go and you fill out a form and you donate money.
And the form, if you look at the source code, which I did, the money goes right to New York City votes who keeps track. Was it bundled money? Was it this? Was it that? Right?
Now based upon the data, okay, all of those commercials, all of that beautiful media coverage that he gets, you know, they slobber over him. Based on all of that, the the the social media stuff is scripted. Not a single dime ends up in his campaign coffers as a result of all of his appearances. It's all bundled money. Now, it's calling it like a TV show with great ratings.
They play the commercials, but nobody buys the product. He's a lab rat. He was engineered in the lab, made for television, but he gets no grassroots results as far as it concerns money. His bundler raised one one single bundler raised 94% of the $1,700,000 that he raised from his base. He had another $1,900,000 that he raised from PACS on top of that.
This is not a grassroots candidate. Right. And his bundle, by the way, raised 35% of overall bungler funds attributed to all candidates across the city, and he was 10 times more than the second place bundle.
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
James Comey did not think it pertinent to tell President Trump that the Steel Dossier was financed by his political opponents. Yet he used that same Dossier to collude with the CIA and get FISA court approval to spy on Trump’s campaign. This is hugest political cover up of all time.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker was asked if they told someone that the Steele dossier was financed by his political opponents. The speaker responded that they didn't think they used the term "Steele dossier," but instead referred to "additional material." When asked if the person had a right to know the dossier was financed by political opponents, the speaker stated they didn't know. They added that informing the person of the financing was not necessary for their goal, which was to alert the person that they had this information.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you tell him that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents? No. I didn't I didn't even think I used the term Steele dossier. I just talked about additional material. But did he have a right to know that?
That it had been financed by his political opponents? I don't know the answer to that. I it wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information. Okay.
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
In an ABC interview while on the campaign trail, Obama said, “John McCain has not talked about my Moslem faith.” The reporter then corrects him with, “Christian faith.” Why do you think the reporter did not probe into this more? https://t.co/wmbg55Ljoe
Video Transcript AI Summary
John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith, and that is not some faith. My Christian faith.
John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith, and that is not some faith. My Christian faith.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was suggesting. You you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith, and you're absolutely right that that is not some faith. My Christian faith. And I was suggesting you you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith, and you're absolutely right that that is not some faith. My Christian faith.
And I was suggesting
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
The American Eagle commercials with Sydney Sweeney so reminded me of Brooke Shields’ Calvin Klein commercials in the 80s. In fact, I think AE jacked the concept. No one was offended back then. Do you remember these commercials? Did you have a pair of Calvin Klein jeans? https://t.co/G6FrYA54Ti
Video Transcript AI Summary
Genes determine individual characteristics and pass them to future generations. Structural gene changes can lead to evolution through selective mating, where a superior gene type transmits itself more effectively. Gene drift can also cause evolution, with some genes fading while others persist. Natural selection filters genes based on their ability to endure in the environment. These processes may result in the origin of a new species, relating to the concept of survival of the fittest.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are fundamental in determining the characteristics of an individual and passing on these characteristics to succeeding generations. Occasionally, certain conditions produce a structural change in the gene, which will bring about the process of evolution. This may occur in one or more of the following ways. Firstly, by selective mating, in which a single gene type proves superior in transmitting its genes to future generations. Secondly, by gene drift, in which certain genes may fade away while other genes persist.
And finally, by natural selection, which filters out those genes better equipped than others to endure in the environment. This may result in the origin of an entirely new species, which brings us to Calvin's and the survival of the fittest. Calvin Klein genes.
reSee.it AI Summary
I struggled with whether to share this personal aspect of my life. My father was a Moslem, and my maiden name was Alli, but I was raised Catholic. My childhood was difficult due to my father's narcissistic and controlling nature. Without the love from my maternal grandparents and my mother, I would have felt lost. I find the Moslem religion to be deeply troubling and believe it should be banned in America. Although revisiting this painful past is hard, I feel it's necessary to discuss it. More to come.
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
I wrestled with whether I would come out with this or not. Something personal that I have not shared is that my Father was a Moslem. My maiden name was Alli. Thank God though I was raised as a Catholic. I had a terrible childhood because of my Father. He was a narcissist and control freak. If it weren’t for my maternal Grandparents and my Mother, I never would have known love. The Moslem religion is hideous and should be banned from America. I did not want to revisit my past because of the pain but feel it is necessary. More to come.
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
Get ready, Nancy! The truth is going to come out. 500 J6ers have a class action lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi. https://t.co/v2PNuM4WAn
Video Transcript AI Summary
A federal judge approved a class action lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi filed by approximately 500 January 6th defendants. The lawsuit seeks $350 million in damages. The plaintiffs claim Pelosi set a trap that led to their imprisonment. If successful, the lawsuit would allegedly bankrupt Pelosi and prove the events of January 6th were a setup.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A federal judge today has approved a lawsuit. It's a class action lawsuit. It's about 500 j six defenders, and they have a class action lawsuit against none other than Ms. Nancy Pelosi herself. Mhmm.
They're suing her for $350,000,000. They are claiming in the lawsuit that the whole thing was a setup. She had just set a trap for them and let them walk in it and then jailed them. Oh my gosh. Can you imagine if they win the lawsuit?
Number one, it would bankrupt her, but number two, it would prove what most of us knew all along. We'll have to watch this one and see where it goes.
@DorLinder - Doreen Linder
Senator Kennedy lays it all out about the border. “Democrats are not upset at the way the border is secured, they are upset that the border IS secured at all!” https://t.co/oFmqf8FnN4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker asserts the southern border was secured under President Trump, upsetting some colleagues who claim it was done the wrong way. The speaker believes their colleagues are upset it was done at all, alleging President Biden reversed these measures, effectively inviting illegal immigration.
The speaker estimates President Biden has allowed up to 20 million people into the country illegally, likening it to adding 10 Nebraskas. The speaker suggests that either President Biden and supporting Democrats believe in open borders, or they appointed incompetent individuals to manage the border.
The speaker asks if vetting at the border is considered racist and if these foreign nationals are viewed as potential new voters. The speaker states that opposing illegal immigration while supporting legal immigration does not make someone racist, but rather someone who believes in the rule of law. The speaker concludes by reiterating the border was secured under the current administration, upsetting some colleagues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Some additional questions from No, sir. That's up to you to manage that time, senator Kennedy. Madam chair. I need a little help from a chair that respects the members of the Madam chair. This is You pretty much secured the southern border, haven't you?
Yes, sir. That upsets some of my colleagues, doesn't it? They say you've done it the wrong way, haven't they? Could you answer that?
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. They do say that.
Speaker 0: Do you think they're upset because you supposedly did it the wrong way? You think they're upset that you did it at all?
Speaker 1: I think they're upset that by president Trump enforcing the law, it happened so quickly and successfully.
Speaker 0: Yeah. When president Biden came into office, the first thing he did was get rid of all of the things we were doing to stop people from coming into our country illegally, didn't he? Mhmm. Yes. It was like The Price is Right.
Come on down. Except he said, come on in. But my Democratic colleagues went along with that, didn't they?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Yes. They did.
Speaker 0: In fact, they cheered him on, didn't they? Is that a yes? Yes, sir. How many people do you think president Biden let into our country illegally? Just give me a ballpark figure.
Speaker 1: Sir, we don't know for certain, but we believe it could be upwards to 20,000,000 people that have are illegally in this country.
Speaker 0: So so that's like adding 10 Nebraskas Mhmm. To our country, isn't it? That's correct. Why do you think president Biden and my democratic colleagues did that? Do you think they believe in open borders?
Speaker 1: I think they believed in open borders and letting people come into this country that would affect our society and Well,
Speaker 0: one or two circumstances are possible. Mhmm. It seems to me. Either president Biden and the Democrats who supported him believe in open borders Mhmm. Are the people that president Biden put in charge of securing the border, you wouldn't trust to run a snowball stand.
Right? That is correct. So nobody is that incompetent. So it has to be they just believe in open borders. Do they not?
Speaker 1: Yes. Because I know the people who were securing the border and they weren't allowed to do their Do
Speaker 0: you think they believe that vetting people at the border is racist?
Speaker 1: Yes. I do. I think, by the way, they allowed people in and granted them immediate parole staff.
Speaker 0: Do you think that president Biden and some of my democratic colleagues, I don't wanna paint with too broad a brush, madam secretary, thought of these foreign nationals in our country illegally as potential new voters? Mhmm. I do, sir. K. If you're an ordinary American and you oppose illegal immigration, but you support legal immigration.
Mhmm. Does that make you a racist?
Speaker 1: No, sir. No, sir. Not at all. It just means that you believe there should be a rule of law,
Speaker 0: and that's what America was built on. And that's what you've been enforcing. Right?
Speaker 1: Exactly. We have been following the constitution and the rule of law in this country.
Speaker 0: And I wanna be sure I understand because there's been a lot of confusing testimony here. You've secured the border.
Speaker 1: Have you not? This administration has. Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: Some of my colleagues are upset with you.
Speaker 1: Mhmm. Yes,
Speaker 0: sir. And they say you did it wrong? Yes, sir. And do you agree with me that what they're really upset about is that you did it at all? Yes, sir.
Madam secretary