reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @SteveGuest
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched a must-watch clip: a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13. BBC has a bombshell report. Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
MUST WATCH: Footage of an a man who looks like Alex Pretti with a gun in his waistband, spitting on and attacking federal law enforcement officers and kicking the tail light of their vehicle on January 13. Bombshell report from the BBC. Important context: Pretti was not a peaceful protester.
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched CNN's Kaitlan Collins discuss the assassination of Charlie Kirk, where she stated that law enforcement has not yet identified a motive. Sen. Ted Cruz challenged this, suggesting that the lack of motive is absurd. Kaitlan clarified that she was not engaging politically but highlighting the legal distinction in the investigation. Additionally, the DA revealed that the killer had shifted towards more progressive views and had expressed frustration over Kirk's perceived hatred, indicating a personal motive linked to their relationship.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
WATCH: CNN's Kaitlan Collins on the Charlie Kirk assassination: "We don't have a motive yet. We don't know yet. We're waiting..." Sen. Ted Cruz: "Of course we know. Come one. 'We don't have a motive yet. We know we don't have a motive yet.' Really, that's CNN's position? He happened to fire the gun in celebration?!"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Officials say they do not have a motive yet. Law enforcement 'hasn't laid out a direct motive,' though they 'laid out a lot of evidence here of these messages' and 'they said that he was a left wing activist who hated Charlie Kirk.' The panel discusses whether the shooter was a right-wing actor; 'the assassin there was not a right wing assassin acting on a political motive.' They argue violence is partisan: 'It is the left that overwhelmingly celebrates this,' citing Blue Sky as 'a cesspool of leftist celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk,' and polls suggesting Democrats support violence against Musk and Trump. Kamala Harris was accused of funding rioters; 'following the money' for acts of violence is urged. They note past incidents, including the Minnesota murder, calling the perpetrator 'horrible' and saying he should be prosecuted. Senator Ted Cruz closes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You said a lot there, and we don't have a motive yet. We don't know yet. We're waiting. Obviously, we've heard what the governor's had to say with the Of course.
Speaker 1: We know. We don't have a
Speaker 2: motive yet. We know. We don't we don't have a motive yet.
Speaker 0: What's happening with Really?
Speaker 1: That's CNN's position. Mean, he just happened to fire the gun in celebration. You you can't tell the motive.
Speaker 0: Senator, that's not what I said. And and I said law enforcement hasn't laid out a direct motive. They've laid out a lot of evidence here of these messages and
Speaker 2: what they said to said that he was
Speaker 1: a left wing activist who hated Charlie Kirk. Pardon?
Speaker 0: Senator, with all due respect, you know exactly what I'm saying. I'm not arguing with you politically. I'm saying that law enforcement has not put a specific motive. You know that there's a difference of what they're putting in a legal argument than what you're talking about. And you're not even we're not even arguing about the facts here
Speaker 1: because said is is false. Senator
Speaker 2: Caitlyn. No.
Speaker 1: Caitlyn. Facts hold on a second. Let me answer your statement because what you said is facts.
Speaker 0: Senator, with all due respect
Speaker 2: Law enforcement. Respect, you're putting a lot of statements Go ahead. That I
Speaker 0: did not say. And I wanna get back to we just laid out the
Speaker 1: facts You you just said law enforcement has not not made out a motive. That is
Speaker 0: objectively to the deputy attorney general.
Speaker 1: That is objectively false.
Speaker 0: They did not set a concrete motive exactly what it was.
Speaker 2: And they went out every be engaged
Speaker 1: in misinformation. Katelyn, answer my question. It's not information
Speaker 2: the polls the vast majority of Democrats believe
Speaker 1: this murderer is
Speaker 2: a Republican and
Speaker 1: a Trump supporter. Have you seen that poll?
Speaker 0: Let me get back to my questions though, senator, because the question here
Speaker 2: You're not gonna answer that question. Are you gonna answer that question about the
Speaker 0: allegations that you'd like to see
Speaker 1: So so you're not gonna
Speaker 0: answer asking the questions here. And the question
Speaker 1: No. We're having conversation. I understand that that that
Speaker 2: you wanna say things where their financing is coming and then you don't actually want also to be able to get it. Laid out.
Speaker 1: Okay. Give give your speech.
Speaker 0: That's not true, senator. I'm asking you a
Speaker 1: question. Go ahead. I I don't know what your question is because we have a delay because you're an influence, so I can't hear what you're saying.
Speaker 0: You said that you believe that left wing groups should be investigated. You wanna know where the financing is coming from for Do you believe that they should also be looking into right wing groups as well, or do you believe it should only be limited to that?
Speaker 1: Look. I believe anyone engaged in acts of violence should be prosecuted and go to jail. But I will say there has been an enormous amount, and CNN has been guilty of this, of of both sides ism. I was saying, gosh, both sides are violent. And understand, yes, there is some violence on both sides, but it is the left that overwhelmingly celebrates this.
It is leftist that have been celebrating. You look at Blue Sky and it is a cesspool of leftist celebrating the murder of of Charlie Kirk. You look at recent polling that shows over 50% of Democrats saying violence against Elon Musk is justified. Violence against Donald Trump is justified. You you you look at Democrats who do things like what Kamala Harris did of giving money and and urging people to give money to bail out violent rioters and Antifa riots.
It is only one side that justifies this violent violence. My view is if you commit acts of violence, you you should be prosecuted. And and and so, yes, we should follow the money. Anyone funding acts of violence, we should
Speaker 0: But go
Speaker 1: this is a left wing problem. Problem.
Speaker 0: How can you argue that it's I think the argument that people have been talking about recently is what's going on with the Charlie Kirk case. I think people have raised that because there have been other acts of political violence as well when it comes to targeting Democrats. I mean, we've seen that with a lawmaker who was killed in Minnesota this summer alongside her husband. We've seen it with the break in at Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 2: But the assassin there was a just Brett Kavanaugh. Maybe the assassin would
Speaker 1: hold on a second. If you're if you're gonna say facts, get you need to get your facts right. The assassin there was not a right wing assassin acting on a political motive. The assassin there was someone who had been an appointee of Tim Waltz, and he was a deranged lunatic. And, yes, there are deranged lunatics who attack people both right and left.
But if you look at murders carried out for political agendas, are overwhelmingly on the left. Whether it is the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the two assassination attempts of Donald Trump, the assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh, over and over and over again, whether it was the congressional suit shooter who came to Washington to the baseball game and said, I wanna find
Speaker 0: congressional base We noted of those instances.
Speaker 2: We noted all of those instances.
Speaker 0: Also noting that there have been others including the Democratic lawmakers who were targeted just a couple of months ago. So I think that is the the point that people have
Speaker 2: made here. It wasn't by Republicans for a political agenda. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that lunatic should be prosecuted and go to jail. So what I'm not doing is what leftists are doing. Leftists are celebrating that murder. I think the murder in Minnesota was horrible. It was horrible, and that and that that violent criminal should be prosecuted and going to jail.
You would have a point if I said, gosh, let's set up a bail fund for that murderer, then you'd have a point. But but it's only one side that is doing that. Do you agree that on blue sky, there are thousands of leftists celebrating and reveling in the murder of Charlie Kirk? Okay.
Speaker 0: Senator, I don't think that anyone should celebrate
Speaker 1: someone's murder
Speaker 0: regardless of what that person believed in their honor. And I don't think Blue Sky is representative of how people feel. If you celebrate it, I think that's wrong, and I think that's wrong.
Speaker 1: It's only left wingers are on it.
Speaker 0: Senator Ted Cruz, thanks for your time tonight.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
Kaitlan later responds: "With all due respect. You know exactly what I'm saying. I'm not arguing with you politically. I'm saying that law enforcement has not put a specific motive. You know that there's a difference of what they're putting in a legal argument and what you're talking about."
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
DA: Charlie's killer "had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights oriented" & was dating his transgender roommate. The killer also wrote in a message: "I had enough of his hatred. Some hatred can't be be negotiated out." https://t.co/5A3pinqBG6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trans rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was trans transitioning genders. This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father who have very different political views. In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU, which Robert Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event. Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Agreed. Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trans rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was trans transitioning genders. This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father who have very different political views. In one conversation before the shooting, Robinson mentioned that Charlie Kirk would be holding an event at UVU, which Robert Robinson said was a stupid venue for the event.
Robinson accused Kirk of spreading hate. Robinson's father reported that when his wife showed him the surveillance image of the suspected shooter in the news, he agreed that it looked like their son.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
Minutes after the DCA plane crash, CNN anchor Abby Phillip is already trying to blame the Trump admin for the crash. Callous and yet so entirely predictable. https://t.co/FEhZkeey8b
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's January 29th, just nine days before a presidential transition. The FAA administrator has resigned, leaving the position unfilled. This period will involve significant public communication and investigations into recent events. What do you expect the transition will mean for the upcoming days as we learn more about what happened?
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mary, I have one more question for you. Look. It's January 29th. We are just 9 days, out from a presidential transition, an administrative transition. The FAA administrator resigned, at the end of the Biden administration, so there is no permanent confirmed FAA administrator right now.
This is gonna be a time when there's gonna be a lot of public communication Right. And a lot of investigation of what happened here. What do you anticipate this, transition period is going to mean for what happens today and tomorrow and in the coming days as as we find out what happened here?
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared my experience battling the wildfire at my home in Pacific Palisades with President Trump. I highlighted the issues that contributed to the LA fires and urged for a Special Master to ensure federal funds are properly allocated for fire relief and rebuilding efforts.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
WATCH: Breitbart reporter Joel Pollak shares with President Trump how he heroically battled the wildfire at his home in Pacific Palisades, he exposes the problems that led to the LA fires, and he requests that a Special Master would be appointed to watch the money so that the federal dollars are spent on fire relief and rebuilding and wasted.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Mr. President, I’m Joel Pollock, a journalist from Breitbart News living in Pacific Palisades. My colleague John Conn, who wrote the song "Fighter," lost his home in the recent fires. I managed to save my house using buckets to transport water from the gutter, but many neighbors struggled to fight the flames.
There were significant failures during the evacuation, including a lack of traffic police, leading to gridlock. The fire department wasn't pre-deployed despite warnings, and many neighbors lost their fire insurance just before the blaze.
My neighbors want to know if you can work with insurance companies to help us rebuild and change California's regulations to secure fire insurance. Additionally, we need federal funds to aid recovery, and I suggest appointing a special master to ensure that money is used specifically for fire relief and rebuilding efforts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Mr. President, my name is Joel Pollock and I am a journalist with Breitbart News, but I happen to live in the Pacific Palisades as do other colleagues. One colleague, John Conn, wrote the song Fighter, which you played at your campaign rallies. He lost his house and the studio he wrote that song in. We were lucky because I was able to fight the fire on my fence, but when I got to my house there was no water in the pipes.
So I got inside and I picked up the flower vases because I give my wife flowers every week and there was water there and we started with that. Then I found my son's bucket of baseballs and I dumped the baseballs on the ground and I used the bucket, But there was still no water except for the water in the gutter coming from the burnt homes uphill. So I went to and fro to my gutter and my fence with my bucket. 2 guys showed up in a truck, 2 neighbors. We found 2 more buckets.
Bucket after bucket after bucket. Many of my neighbors, including some here, tried to fight the fires. They couldn't. We were lucky our house was saved. But we should not have to rely on buckets to put out a fire.
That's right. You can't stop an 80 mile per hour wind or a 100 mile per hour wind, but there were many things that went wrong here that are basic and small. We did not have traffic police to guide the evacuation, so there was gridlock on sunset. They've removed the vehicles now, but there were dozens of vehicles that were abandoned by drivers who fled for their lives because there were no traffic cops available. The fire department wasn't pre deployed even though there was an extreme wind event coming and many of my neighbors lost their fire insurance in the days before the blaze.
So I asked my neighbors what would they want to know if I could ask the president a question and the number one thing was insurance. Can you work with the insurance companies to get people back to where they were before they lost the coverage because of California's regulations and can you make California change its rules so that when we build again, we can get fire insurance and we don't have to worry? And there's one other point I wanna make. I really appreciate my congressman advocating for money. We need the money from the federal government but I also understand Americans who are tired of spending money on California and disasters happen and that California government passes $50,000,000 to oppose your policies.
They have 50,000,000 for that but not for moving people into rental homes or helping people relocate or rebuild. I would like to ask you to follow the 9/11 Commission precedent and appoint a special master to watch the money, to make sure that every federal dollar that gets spent here is spent on fire relief and rebuilding and not on everything else. Good idea.
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Jake Tapper express frustration over Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, and Sundar Pichai attending a church service with Donald Trump and JD Vance. He emphasized the potential impact of these tech leaders on misinformation and deepfakes in the coming years.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
WATCH: CNN's Jake Tapper melts down at the fact X's Elon Musk, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Apple's Tim Cook, and Google's Sundar Pichai attended the inauguration church service with @realDonaldTrump and @JDVance: "We're about to enter an era of deepfakes and all sorts of misinformation and the degree to which those 5 gentleman play a role or do not play a role will be pivotal in terms of where the American people are four years from now."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The photograph shows influential tech leaders: Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Tim Cook (Apple), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Sundar Pichai (Google), and Elon Musk (Twitter/X). These individuals control significant information flow, impacting how we discern truth from falsehood. As we approach an era of deepfakes and misinformation, their influence will be crucial for understanding reality over the next four years. This isn't just a U.S. issue; they are gatekeepers of information for the entire world, affecting all of humanity's access to knowledge.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yeah. If I could just, before I throw it to Anderson, just bring back that photograph of the tech bros, inside, Saint John's Church. It's just one other thing I wanna, show. So we see Mark Zuckerberg on the left there with the curly hair, CEO of Meta, Tim Cook, his face is blocked. He has the white hair, CEO of Apple, Jeff Bezos on the right there, the bald gentleman looking to his right, CEO of Amazon.
The gentleman behind Mark Zuckerberg is Sundar Pichai. He's the CEO of Google. And Anderson, between those 4 people plus is Elon Musk, from Twitter or x, those 5 people that I just mentioned, the 4 in the photograph and also Elon Musk, control so much of the information that we receive. So much, is in their hands when it comes to ascertaining, monitoring, or refusing to monitor Yeah. Monitor, what is real, what is not real.
And we're about to enter an era of deepfakes, and all sorts of misinformation, and the degree to which those 5 gentlemen, play a role or do not play a role will be pivotal in terms of where the American people are 4 years from now in terms understand in terms of understanding what is true and what is false.
Speaker 1: You're also you you said we, not you're not just talking about we, the United States. You're talking about the world. Mhmm. All human beings on the planet, they control access to information. They are the gatekeepers in many ways to information for the entire planet.
Van, you you had some thoughts seeing that picture of all of them. Look. I mean
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
Biden did not say he would wear a mask until April 5, after @realDonaldTrump and the COVID TF released guidelines recommending wearing them. On March 10 in Philadelphia, Biden held an in-person rally with no social distancing. This was Biden in March: https://t.co/jC0vPoKa4Y
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
SCARY STUFF: Kamala Harris's first statement in the wake of Iran attacking Israel telegraphs her weakness. Not only is she reading notes, she sounds like she has NO CLUE what she is talking about. Deeply concerning stuff: https://t.co/VotuX8Lgvw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, as demonstrated by the attack on Israel. The speaker was in the situation room with President Biden, monitoring the attack and ensuring the protection of US personnel. The speaker supports President Biden's order for the US military to shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. Initial indications are that Israel, with US assistance, defeated the attack.
Joint defenses were effective, saving many innocent lives. The speaker will ensure Israel can defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist militias, and their commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Iran is a threat to American personnel, interests, and innocent civilians. The US will take action to defend against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists and will work with allies to disrupt Iran's aggressive behavior and hold them accountable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm clear eyed. Iran is a destabilizing, dangerous force in the Middle East, and today's attack on Israel only further demonstrates that fact. Earlier today, I was in the situation room with president Biden and our national security team as we monitored the attack in real time and ensured that the protection of US personnel in the region is paramount. I fully support president Biden's order for the US military to shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel just as we did in April. We are still assessing the impact, but initial indications are that Israel, with our assistance, was able to defeat this attack.
Our joint defenses have been effective, and this operation and successful cooperation saved many innocent lives. As I have said, I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself against Iran and Iran backed terrorist militias. My commitment to the security of Israel is unwavering. And let us be clear, Iran is not only a threat to Israel, Iran is also a threat to American personnel in the region, American interests, and innocent civilians across the region who suffer at the hand of Iran based and backed terrorist proxies. We will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend U.
S. Forces and interests against Iran and Iran backed terrorists. And we will continue to work with our allies and partners to disrupt Iran's aggressive behavior and hold them accountable. Thank you.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
BREAKING: "Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, appointed a member of a political faction that has pledged loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to a state board that advises the government on Asian-American affairs..." https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/12/exclusive-tim-walz-appointed-member-political-party-loyal-chinese-communists-state-board/
EXCLUSIVE: Tim Walz Appointed Member Of Political Party ‘loyal’ To Chinese Communists To State Board
Gov. Tim Walz appointed a member of a Chinese political party to serve in Minnesota's executive branch, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found.
dailycaller.com
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
ABC's Jon Karl had a meltdown earlier this month when Donald Trump & JD Vance spotlighted how Kamala's running mate Tim Walz supports taking kids from their parents if the parents don't consent to gender reassignment. @JDVance: "That is crazy!" https://t.co/azBxdfdgY9
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
Rep. Matt Gaetz went on ABC's The View and absolutely torched Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg. WATCH: https://t.co/h0edQczErk
Video Transcript AI Summary
One of Trump's supporters, Matt Gaetz, appears on The View. They discuss the Democratic candidates, Trump's appointments, and the pardon power. Gaetz defends Trump's character issues and highlights his policies. He argues that Trump's economic success will appeal to women voters. Gaetz criticizes Bernie Sanders and the Democratic party's direction. The conversation also touches on the importance of the pardon power and the qualifications of Rick Grenell. Overall, Gaetz presents a strong defense of Trump and his administration's actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: One of the guys in the White House and one of the White House's strongest and most vocal supporters since day 1. Please welcome a man who has obviously never watched The View,
Speaker 1: Thomas Matt Gaetz.
Speaker 0: Well, how do you know?
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. You.
Speaker 0: You have watched
Speaker 1: I do watch you guys make news every week. Every week. We are a
Speaker 0: big political show.
Speaker 1: I was just wondering if you were wearing black as a consequence of, like, the death of the political left in the debate last night. It was quite something to observe.
Speaker 0: You know, don't count the the dead yet, the bodies. Let's give it a little time before we count it.
Speaker 1: Well, Joe Biden, at least. I mean, I was hoping that maybe Whoopi's Bell could wake up the Biden campaign if you hit it.
Speaker 0: I thought he was actually, he didn't do any harm to himself last year.
Speaker 1: What state's he gonna win? I mean, this is a man Oh, wait.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The fundamental premise of the Biden campaign is that he's electable and he can't seem to win elections. So now you have socialist Bernie Sanders against billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, the Republicans love a billionaire. They love money. So what you talking about?
Speaker 1: Well, Michael Bloomberg used to be a Republican. It's fascinating
Speaker 0: that I Democrat first.
Speaker 1: The Democratic party is likely not gonna nominate a Democrat. They're either gonna nominate a socialist or someone who some time ago was a Republican.
Speaker 0: What am I thinking about?
Speaker 1: None of them. I don't think any of them are gonna beat the president. I think we have a raging economy right now. The American family is seeing revenue pour in as a consequence of higher wages, more productivity
Speaker 0: speech, ma'am.
Speaker 1: More more business investment, more capital coming from overseas into our nation.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump was a Democrat first.
Speaker 1: He was. He was. We we've all sort of been politically square dancing for a while, and I think that we're in a time of real political realignment right now.
Speaker 0: Let's talk about your boss for a second because yesterday Well,
Speaker 1: I don't my boss are the people of northwest Florida.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. So yesterday, Trump
Speaker 1: Well, don't dismiss him. It's the highest concentration of active duty military in the country. True. And, I know Megan's dad served there. So don't you can attack me if you want.
Don't attack
Speaker 0: me. I'm asking you a question. Okay. Yesterday, Trump announced he's appointing another loyalist of his, Rick Grenell, as his acting director of National Intelligence. But Grenell, as you know, has absolutely no intelligence experience, and he's overseeing all 17 of our intel agencies.
He stands between us and the next ISIS attack. And, you know, I don't know that it's a smart idea to put somebody who who's inexperienced like that and is also a yes man in that position. He's he's gonna have to tell Trump things that he's not gonna wanna hear. You know how he doesn't like that. Trump doesn't like that.
Speaker 1: Well, actually, if you look at the team he's assembled with people like John Bolton, the president regularly surrounds himself with people who disagree with him. I think some of the spirited discussions I've had I don't know
Speaker 0: who do that. Have
Speaker 1: been with have been with, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, myself, and the president discussing foreign policy, but on Ric Grenell. 50 years ago, a gay man or a woman would not be able to serve in our intelligence community. There were teams of people wanting to find out if he were gay.
Speaker 0: Is that?
Speaker 1: And they would well, just we'll get into Grinnell's qualifications. But just for a moment, I would like to take a second to reflect on the fact that it's a good thing in this country that we do not ban gay people from being able to patriotically serve in the
Speaker 2: intelligence community. Just transgendered people.
Speaker 1: Well, we shouldn't be banning anybody based on who they are and who they are. Well, let's do that. That's not the kind of Republican I am, and it's not the kind of Republican the president is. So on Rick's qualifications, 8 years at the UN, 2 years, in Germany
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: He advised the security council. And Berlin, where he was active, is one of the hotbeds of intelligence activity. Nothing happens there without the chief of station and the ambassador working together. So Rick Rennell is very qualified. I'm just getting some break.
Okay. So that's how
Speaker 0: The Germany, by the way, I was reading about him. They think he's very thin skinned, but that's another story.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, this is the view. Aren't we all?
Speaker 2: I have another question for you.
Speaker 0: No. I'm not.
Speaker 2: I actually and you know what?
Speaker 0: And I
Speaker 2: think we you yeah. It is just I I think we agree on this, the about pardon power. Now the president has been on a a pardon spree, and many think he's about to pardon Roger Stone, his longtime friend and and one time campaign adviser, who's being sentenced, I think, any minute now, they're in a break, for, crimes of obstructing justice, witness tampering, lying to congress. Do you think Trump should pardon Roger Stone?
Speaker 1: I do. And I think that it requires a review of the pardon power.
Speaker 0: Come on. Come
Speaker 1: on. Barack Obama pardoned over 1700 people. Bill Clinton pardoned 4 100 now. Bill Clinton pardoned 16 people who were member of a Puerto Rican terrorist organization that planned murders at the Bronx taverns here
Speaker 0: in the United States of America.
Speaker 2: For habitat wasn't the right thing
Speaker 0: to do.
Speaker 1: When we designed our constitution, there were vestiges of the British monarchy that Americans still had some reverence for. And one was the notion that the executive, that the sovereign could extend unlimited grace for any reason. Trial. I I No reason at all. No.
That that was an element of was borrowed.
Speaker 0: No. No. I understand. It sounds like it what
Speaker 2: I was getting at is can we agree that perhaps that pardon power needs to be reviewed and curbed?
Speaker 1: So great question. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton writes that the reason we have the pardon power is to serve as a check on a criminal justice system, which if allowed to run wild could create a great sense of sanguinity in our country. And so I think that if you look at the original intent of the pardon power, it cannot be limited. And again, it's not as partisan 26 people. Obama pardoned over 1700.
Bill Clinton pardoned 459.
Speaker 2: Congress, did you the answer to the question is what?
Speaker 1: I would I would agree that Roger Stone should be pardoned if for no other reason that there has been a double standard in this country where people like Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Clapper, and have not had any consequences.
Speaker 0: Can I
Speaker 2: can I just ask you, how about Rob Blagojevich who flees like a children's hospital? Was that a good part
Speaker 1: I'll I'll be honest with you. I don't know very much about, the the governor of Illinois. I'm not gonna get into that one. I I know Roger. I don't know Blago, and I'll leave that to others because
Speaker 3: Well, Congressman, I understand that, Republicans coming on The View, this is a great culture war place to come and, like, show the leftist what's going on. I get it. My husband works in conservative media. I'm a hardcore conservative. The thing I don't understand because I'm I'm not a Trumper.
I think that everyone knows that very clear. Policy wise, he's been great on many things, many things that are very important to me, life, military, the economy. But his character issues are still what holds me in so many, especially, I think, conservative women back from going full throttle with him. And I think you're gonna have problems specifically with college educated women coming in to the next election cycle. What would you say to women like me who still hold back on the grab them in the blank, attacking war heroes, attacking the gold star families, things like that.
Cheating on his wife's porn stars.
Speaker 1: An un an un well, look. If if cheating on your wife is a disqualification to be president, then y'all probably should have impeached impeached Bill Clinton and supported that. Well, and but but but not not with not with all of you waving any pom poms.
Speaker 0: I don't know what that means.
Speaker 1: To Megan's question, I wanna directly answer Megan's question. Yeah. Please. Donald Trump has a unique ability to get people who don't necessarily agree with him to vote for him. And so I think for women, we're gonna have to make the argument particularly that 72% of the new jobs created in this economy have been filled by women.
That a lot of women are concerned about the revenue in their family and whether it's gonna support careers and opportunity for themselves, their their partners, their children. And with 7,000,000 new jobs being created, people coming off of welfare, America is in a sense of great renewable renewal. We've got a comeback president running against the throwback left and the Venezuela wing of the Democratic party taken over with Bernie Sanders. Oh, come on.
Speaker 0: The Venezuela wing.
Speaker 1: Branch. Bernie Sanders. He praises Venezuela. He praises his Cuba. I don't want that for our great party.
Speaker 2: We want it.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Matt. Good line. Getz.
Speaker 1: Gates? Gates. Gates.
Speaker 0: Good morning, Gates.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
Oh look at this— here’s 10 minutes of Democrats denying election results: https://t.co/I0oUumk68d
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the legitimacy of various elections, including the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections. They express concerns about Russian interference, voter suppression, and irregularities with electronic voting machines. Some speakers believe that the election outcomes were affected and that the presidents were illegitimate. They mention specific cases like Bush vs. Gore in 2000 and the 2004 Ohio election. Stacey Abrams' loss in Georgia is also mentioned, with some speakers claiming that her election was stolen. Overall, the speakers question the fairness and integrity of these elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You can run the best campaign. You can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.
Speaker 1: How can you win with Russian interference, though?
Speaker 2: That's what we'll say.
Speaker 1: About it
Speaker 2: in 2020. But rightly.
Speaker 1: Because I think you're the illegitimate president that didn't really win. So do you, you know, fight against that in 2020?
Speaker 2: You are absolutely right.
Speaker 3: He is an illegitimate president in
Speaker 4: my mind.
Speaker 5: Would you be my vice president to a candidate?
Speaker 6: Folks, look. I absolutely agree.
Speaker 4: Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put in the office Because the Russians interfere.
Speaker 0: Trump knows he's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 5: The president elect, although legally elected, is not legitimate. I
Speaker 7: don't see this President-elect as a legitimate president.
Speaker 8: You said you believe that Russia's interference Alter the outcome of the election.
Speaker 2: I do. We have a president who, if in fact it is proven, has been assisted by the that may in fact not be a legitimate president.
Speaker 0: The one thing that Trump is fearful of, when it comes to his being president is that Finally, we will see how illegitimate his victory actually was.
Speaker 8: I have an objection.
Speaker 3: I object to the 15 votes from the state of North Carolina. I object because people are horrified.
Speaker 0: He's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 2: Do you believe Trump is a legitimate president?
Speaker 9: What I believe is that there's no question that the outcome of this election was affected by the Russian interference.
Speaker 4: But there absolutely is a cloud of illegitimacy.
Speaker 5: So that legitimacy is in question. Yes. So that was a very tainted election, and and in that sense, It's illegitimate.
Speaker 2: Why do you think the president is going to such great lengths to essentially prove that he beat you?
Speaker 0: Because he knows he didn't. He knows he's an illegitimate president.
Speaker 10: Stolen emails. Stolen drone. Stolen drone. Stolen election. Welcome to the world of Unprecedented Trump.
Speaker 1: So do
Speaker 11: you believe president Trump is an illegitimate president?
Speaker 4: Based on what I just said, which I can't retract.
Speaker 5: The Russian attempt to to have the election. And, frankly, the FBI is weighing in on the election. I think Make the make makes his election illegitimate.
Speaker 0: There was a widespread understanding that this election was not on the level. We Still don't know what really happened, Isaac. I mean, there's just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover. But you don't win by 3,000,000 votes and have all this other shenanigan stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, woah.
Things not right here.
Speaker 9: The outcome of the election was affected by their interference. And now we need to know, you know, to what degree, if any, the Trump Campaign was actually in collusion with the with
Speaker 0: with Russia. He knows he's an illegitimate president. So, of course, he's obsessed with me, and I believe that it's a guilty conscience.
Speaker 6: We actually won the last presidential election, folks. They stole the last presidential election.
Speaker 5: If Al Gore won that election, I think he won anyway.
Speaker 11: Actually, I think I carried Florida.
Speaker 0: Bush versus Gore. A court took away a presidency.
Speaker 12: If all the votes were counted in Florida, then Al Gore would be president today and George Bush would be backing off.
Speaker 13: I come from Florida, where you and others participated in what I call the United States
Speaker 4: There's no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.
Speaker 14: I rise to object to the fraudulent 25 Florida electoral votes.
Speaker 15: I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, delivery fraud, and an attempt The chairman
Speaker 11: must provide
Speaker 15: on it.
Speaker 3: Signed by myself on behalf of my diverse constituents and the millions of Americans who have been disenfranchised by Florida's inaccurate vote count. The Supreme Court, not the
Speaker 16: people of the United States, decided this election.
Speaker 2: Speaking to a Democratic group in Chicago Tuesday, he made it clear He thinks Al Gore was the winner.
Speaker 17: For the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.
Speaker 6: Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Jim Baker, and the Supreme Court hadn't tampered with the results. Al Gore would be president.
Speaker 9: The Supreme Court elected president. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000, although not the presidency.
Speaker 12: But the Supreme Court hampered that's a large chart. The Supreme Court stopped the counting of the votes, and if let the count go on. Elkhart would've got the necessary vote.
Speaker 13: The Supreme Court selected George w Bush As the president, he was not elected.
Speaker 3: There is overwhelming evidence that George w Bush did not win this election.
Speaker 18: What I observed, as a voter, a citizen of Illinois, 4 years ago were troubling evidence of the fact that not every vote was being counted.
Speaker 4: Don't think That George W. Bush won the election, in 2000 against our goal because I I think he probably lost Florida and also that nationwide.
Speaker 12: If you invite me back on this show in about 8 weeks, I think you're gonna learn that El Gore actually did get all the votes
Speaker 19: The court has been thwarting formation of the popular will, the most spectacular example being Bush versus Gore, where the majority by a five four vote and joined the counting of more than a 100,000 ballots in Florida and essentially gave America its 1st court appointed president.
Speaker 6: And stolen. I think in 2000, everybody thought, well, he did win the election. It'll go work.
Speaker 13: After the election, when you stole action. You came back here and said, get over it. No. We're not gonna get over it.
Speaker 6: You know it. I know it. They know it. We won that election.
Speaker 20: Constantly shifting vote tallies in Ohio and malfunctioning electronic machines, which may not have paper receipts have led to additional loss of confidence by the public.
Speaker 7: The right to vote has been Stolen from qualified voters.
Speaker 14: In 2004, the democratic process was thwarted.
Speaker 6: The 2004 presidential election in Ohio was riddled with problems.
Speaker 3: Some machines malfunctioned, causing votes to be counted more than once or not at all.
Speaker 21: Based upon an inordinate number of suggesting gross voting rights violations and misconduct. I join with my colleagues believed
Speaker 11: an objective to counting the state of Ohio's electoral votes. As in 2000, the votes of many who wanted to vote were not, in fact, counted.
Speaker 22: This last Friday night, I I arranged to meet senator Kerry at a fundraiser to give him a copy of my book. He told me he now thinks the election was stolen.
Speaker 23: The wife of John Kerry said she has lingering doubts doubts about the legitimacy of the election. Her theory goes like this. 2 brothers, she calls hard right Republicans, own 80% of voting machines in the US. Therefore, it would be easy to hack into the mother machines that control the electronic voting.
Speaker 2: There were numerous Irregularities in Ohio, including large percentages of rejections of provisional balloting, problems with voting machines.
Speaker 0: As we look at our election system. I think it's fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about its accuracy, about its Tegrity.
Speaker 20: There are still legitimate concerns over the integrity of our elections.
Speaker 6: I agree with tens of 1,000,000,000 of Americans who are very worried that when they cast the ballot on an electronic voting machine, that there is no paper trail To record that vote.
Speaker 7: The numerous irregularities that occurred with the electronic voting machines in Ohio on November 2nd of last year point to an unresolved national crisis.
Speaker 3: We cannot declare that the election of November 2, 2000 and was free and clear and transparent and real. There must be independent testing of the voting machines used in Ohio.
Speaker 24: I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided. We know that there was substantial voter suppression, and the machines were not reliable.
Speaker 20: Of congress who have brought this challenge are speaking up for their aggrieved constituents, many of whom may have been enfranchised in this process.
Speaker 11: Treating today's electoral vote count in congress as a meaningless ritual would be an insult to our unless we register our own protest against the obviously flawed voting process that took place in so many of our states.
Speaker 25: Voters who wish to cast a Vote for president or vice president. Can't approach the polls with certainty that their vote will be counted.
Speaker 26: One of the most significant problems in Ohio And in many other states was a lack of measures to ensure the integrity of electronic voting machines.
Speaker 8: In 2004, They caused Democratic voters in Ohio to wait for 8 hours before they could cast their ballot. They turned the department of civil rights of the justice department into the voter suppression division with voter ID laws, voter purging, voter caging, voter intimidation. There aren't gonna be any more election stealing.
Speaker 16: And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find result that I do have one very affirmative statement to make.
Speaker 23: We won.
Speaker 2: Without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida. You refuse to concede and say that you lost. Do you stand by that decision today? Absolutely.
The election was not fair. The process was not fair.
Speaker 6: If Stacey Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it. It's clear. It's clear.
Speaker 18: I think that Stacey Abrams' election is being stolen from her.
Speaker 16: It was not a free and fair election.
Speaker 10: Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and Stacey Abrams.
Speaker 16: But will I say that this This election was not tainted, was not a disinvestment and a disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. I will not say that.
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
In 2018, Joe Biden bragging about withholding U.S. aid to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (the same prosecutor that was investigating Hunter's client Burisma). We've known for years Joe was involved in Hunter's "business." The corrupt corporate media worked to cover it up!
Video Transcript AI Summary
I went to Kyiv multiple times to convince our team to provide loan guarantees. On one occasion, I was supposed to announce a $1 billion loan guarantee, but only if action was taken against the State Prosecutor. When they didn't follow through, I told them they wouldn't receive the money. They claimed I had no authority, so I said to call the president. I made it clear that if the prosecutor wasn't fired within 6 hours, they wouldn't get the money. Eventually, they fired the prosecutor and replaced them with someone reliable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I remember going over convincing our team, our brothers to convincing us that we should be providing for loan guarantees and I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kyiv and I was supposed to announce that there was another $1,000,000,000 loan guarantee and I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from, Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the State Prosecutor and they didn't. So they said they had they were walking out to press conferences, no. I said, I'm not going to we're not going to give you the $1,000,000,000. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president.
The president said I said, call him. I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting $1,000,000,000. I said, you're not getting the 1,000,000,000, I'm going to be leaving here and I think it was, what, 6 hours? I looked at it, I said, we're leaving in 6 hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.
Those son of a bitch. They got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Well,
@SteveGuest - Steve Guest
@60Minutes Why does the FBI answer 60 Minutes but not the Senate? Last year when Sen. Ted Cruz asked the FBI the basic question "Who is Ray Epps," the FBI said, "I cannot answer that question." https://t.co/fkZ3GHE3kQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks Miss Sandburn about Ray Epps and his suspicious behavior during the January 6th incident at the Capitol. He mentions Epps chanting about getting into the Capitol and the crowd suspecting him of being a federal agent. Speaker 0 also brings up Epps whispering to someone who then tears down barricades. He questions whether Epps urged them to do so. Speaker 0 mentions the FBI's public post seeking information on individuals involved in violent crimes, including Epps, but later Epps disappears from the list. Speaker 0 expresses concerns about the government's involvement in encouraging illegal conduct on January 6th and asks if federal agents actively encouraged violence. Miss Sandburn denies any knowledge of such actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Miss Sadburn, who is Ray Epps?
Speaker 1: I'm aware of the individual, sir. I don't have the specific background to him.
Speaker 0: Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably concerned about mister Mister Epps. On the night of January 5th, 2021, Epps wandered around the crowd that had gathered. And there's video out there of him chanting, tomorrow, we need to get into the capital, into the capital. This was strange behavior. So strange That the crowd began chanting fed, fed, fed, fed, fed, fed.
Miss Sandburn, was Ray Epps a fed?
Speaker 1: Sir, I cannot answer that question.
Speaker 0: The next day, the next day, on January 6, Mister Epps is seen whispering to a person and 5 seconds later, 5 seconds after he's whispering to a person, That same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades. Did mister Epps urge them to tear down the barricades?
Speaker 1: Sir, Similar to the other answers, I cannot answer that.
Speaker 0: Shortly thereafter, the FBI put out a public post Listing seeking information on individuals connected with violent crimes on January 6th. Among those individuals, in the bottom there, Is mister Epps? The FBI publicly asked for information identifying, offering cash rewards leading to information Leading for information leading to the arrest. This was posted, and then sometime later, magically, mister Epps Disappeared from the public posting. According to public records, mister Epps has not been charged with anything.
No one's explained why a person Videoed urging people to go to the capitol, a person whose conduct was so suspect the crowd believed he was a fed Would magically disappear from the list of people the FBI was looking at. Miss Sandburn, a lot of Americans are concerned That the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on January 6. My question to you, and this is this is not an ordinary law enforcement question. This is a question of a public accountability. Did federal agents or those in Service of federal agent actively encouraged violent and criminal conduct on January 6th?
Speaker 1: Not to my knowledge, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you.