TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @WesternLensman
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
1996. Chuck Schumer is fuming that illegals are flooding into America to scam taxpayer-funded benefits: “People say, why can't you stop illegal immigrants from coming here?" “The number one answer we give our constituents is when they come here, they can get jobs, get benefits against the law because of fraud." Wow, Chuck.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Keith Ellison, Today: Nobody even knows what Antifa is. Keith Ellison, 2018: Tweets photo of himself holding Antifa handbook. https://t.co/LJfZgsSNiz
Video Transcript AI Summary
the fact that there is no... nobody even knows what it is. The first person I ever heard use the word Antifa was Donald j Trump when he was going on about how there were good people on both sides at Charlottesville. "That's the first time I ever heard anyone use the term." So now there it's this amorphous thing, and and and if nobody's really antifa, then everybody could be. And the reason you can't find them is because they're just that crafty.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the the fact that the that there is no I mean, no what is nobody even knows what it is. The first person I ever heard use the word Antifa was Donald j Trump when he was going on about how there were good people on both sides at Charlottesville. That's the first time I ever heard anyone use the term. So now there it's this amorphous thing, and and and if nobody's really antifa, then everybody could be. And the reason you can't find them is because they're just that crafty.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Don Lemon gets absolutely destroyed by two people on the street in Chicago when he attempts to tell them that crossing the border illegally isn’t a crime. After getting utterly embarrassed, he declares: “You guys are getting things mixed up!" Incredible. https://t.co/JM02BWUMrI
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Crossing the border illegally is not a crime?" "No. It's not a criminal act. It's a misdemeanor." "So why are they being sent back and saying that they're breaking the law?" "That's the point." "There's no due process. Where's the evidence?" "If they are breaking the law, most people will say, okay. Then they need to go if they're criminals." "But if they're not, why are they being rounded up and sent out, especially when he promised to to deport the criminals, and now he's not doing that." "Misdemeanor is not a crime." "No. If you get charged with a misdemeanor, that's not a criminal act." "We have different levels of crime." "Everything is not the same." "It's not a crime. You're not breaking the law." "A misdemeanor is... If you're speeding, it's a misdemeanor." "That's still breaking the law." "Is it law to come over legally? There are rules that processes that you should follow." "So you're breaking rules, but you're not necessarily breaking a law." "Then you get you suffer the consequences."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. Crossing the border illegally is not a crime?
Speaker 1: No. It's not a criminal act. It's a misdemeanor.
Speaker 0: So why are they being sent back and saying that they're breaking the law?
Speaker 1: That's the point.
Speaker 0: Okay. Somebody that
Speaker 1: acts We don't know if they're breaking the law because they won't tell. There's no due process. Where's the evidence? That's the whole point. And if they are breaking the law, most people will say, okay.
Then they need to go if they're criminals. But if they're not, why are they being rounded up and sent out, especially when he promised to to deport the criminals, and now he's not doing that.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I don't think we're going Misdemeanor is not a crime. That's
Speaker 1: what you're Yeah.
Speaker 0: So misdemeanor is
Speaker 1: not a criminal act. No. If you get charged with a misdemeanor, that's not a criminal act.
Speaker 0: Charge at all then if it's not a criminal act.
Speaker 1: Because we have different levels of crime. Everything is not the same.
Speaker 0: So it is crime? No. It's just different levels.
Speaker 1: Different levels of no.
Speaker 0: It's I shouldn't say crime,
Speaker 1: but it's not it's not you're not it's not a crime. You're not breaking the law. I mean, you are breaking the law, but it's not a criminal act. No. It's a law, but it's You're not breaking the law.
Speaker 0: A misdemeanor is No. Breaking the If you're speeding, drinking, get pulled over, DUI
Speaker 1: That's not a criminal act. Well, no. If you're speeding, it's a misdemeanor.
Speaker 0: A misdemeanor. So it's still breaking the law.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, if you wanna if you wanna qualify, that, we're doing semantics. Because I'm trying But what to tell you is everything is not the same. It's all not one thing.
Speaker 0: But is it the law? What? Is it the law that what? Is it law to come over legally? Is there a law?
There are there are rules that processes that you should follow. Yeah. So you're breaking rules. You're breaking the rules, but you're
Speaker 1: not necessarily breaking a law.
Speaker 0: So what happens when you break the rules?
Speaker 1: Then you get you suffer the consequences. But the consequences should not it's look. No one is saying no one should solve the consequences. You guys are getting things mixed up.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
2023: Chuck Schumer demands Tucker Carlson be taken off the air because he “slimed the truth." https://t.co/MXfn6ceVCO
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker contends lies persist, directing attention to Rupert Murdoch. "These lies continue tonight." "Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he is perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again." "Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it." The speaker frames these remarks as defending democracy and accountability, urging Murdoch to intervene to curb Carlson's appearances. The statements are presented as a critique of media influence and the integrity of public discourse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: These lies continue tonight. Rupert Murdoch, who has admitted they were lies and said he regretted it, has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight now that he's seen how he is perverted and slimed the truth and from letting him go on again and again and again. Not because their views deserve such opprobrium, but because our democracy depends on it.
reSee.it AI Summary
Rachel Maddow and Mark Cuban expressed concerns that Trump may retaliate against business leaders who do not support him, citing Elon Musk as a rare supporter. Cuban noted that most CEOs avoid publicly backing Trump due to fear of retribution. He contrasted his own support for Kamala Harris, suggesting he risks little, while Musk risks much by advocating for free speech. In response, Musk made a humorous remark comparing Maddow and Cuban to a fictional couple, while another participant referenced a pop culture fusion concept.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨Rachel Maddow and Mark Cuban warn that Trump will “target” business leaders that don't support him — that they worry "about his retribution or his vengeance." That sounds an awful lot like what’s happening right now with the targeting of @elonmusk and his companies. CUBAN: “You don’t hear a lot of CEO’s other than Elon Musk coming out and supporting him for that very reason…you don’t hear them condemning him because they’re worried about his retribution or his vengeance." “Literally there’s been nobody that I know other than Elon that has come out in support of him." The reality is, Cuban is risking nothing by supporting Kamala and establishment power. Elon is risking everything by opposing them — and standing up for free speech.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that Trump "picked out individual businesses or sometimes individual business leaders who he wanted to use the government to punish" and "went after Amazon and Jeff Bezos" and "went after saying he wanted to go after Mark Zuckerberg," engaging in actions "targeting businesses because of what were perceived to be his political interests." He warns this would make him "radioactive in the business world" because "business people are too smart to think that they can always be on the right side of those calculations." Speaker 1 notes that "you don't hear a whole lot of CEOs ... coming out in support of him" and that "nobody that I know other than Leon Elon" has supported him. He adds that some business leaders support Trump "with the caveat" for a "very transactional" reason: "For the right amount, you can guide policy. I think you saw that with crypto."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In terms of the targeting that he is talking about for a second term and what we saw in his first term when he picked out individual businesses or sometimes individual business leaders who he wanted to use the government to punish. When he went after Amazon and Jeff Bezos, when he went after saying he wanted to go after Mark Zuckerberg, when he did other things that were targeting businesses because of what were perceived to be his political interests, I would have thought that that would have made him radioactive in the business world because business people are too smart to think that they can always be on the right side of those calculations. Right? That they won't ever be the one who's in the crosshairs once you've got somebody who uses the government that way to reward and punish his enemies and and and his friends.
Speaker 1: Well, you don't hear a whole lot of CEOs other than Elon Musk, particularly of large companies coming out and supporting him for that very reason. You know, you don't hear them condemning him because they're worried about his rep retribution or his his vengeance. But literally, there's been nobody that I know other than Leon Elon that has come out in support of him.
Speaker 0: You recently said in an interview that some business leaders who are supporting Trump with the caveat of what you just described in terms of, you know, high level leaders, not too many of them doing it. You said that some business leaders who are supporting Trump are doing it because they think they can manipulate him. Can you explain what you what you mean by that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's very transactional. For the right amount, you know, you can guide policy. I think you saw that with crypto.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
@WesternLensman They remind me of a lesbian couple from Portland
@alx - ALX 🇺🇸
@elonmusk @WesternLensman They’re going to do the Fusion Dance to become Olbermann https://t.co/jvf77vWzlP
reSee.it AI Summary
I highlighted the term "Ambush" as the Fake News Word of the Day. A recent example involved Trump presenting a video montage to the South African president, showcasing leaders discussing White genocide. I believe the media plays a role in this narrative.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Fake News Word of the Day: “Ambush!" https://t.co/uAfLjgEh9n
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump is accused of orchestrating a diplomatic ambush of South Africa's President in the Oval Office. The meeting is described as a tense confrontation and a multimedia ambush. It is compared to the President's meeting with Zelensky, which also felt like an ambush. The event is repeatedly referred to as an orchestrated ambush inside the Oval Office.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To the dramatic scene in the Oval Office today. The tense confrontation, president Trump ambushing the president of South Africa.
Speaker 1: Up next, another Oval Office meltdown. President Trump ambushing the president of South Africa. President Trump is being accused of conducting something of a diplomatic ambush of South Africa's President in the Oval Office.
Speaker 2: To be
Speaker 1: with you, I'm Katie Tur. President Trump orchestrated another Oval Office ambush today. Today, Donald Trump meeting with the president of South Africa and attempting to ambush and humiliate that leader. Zelensky territory where essentially he was, a bit ambushed inside the Oval Office. Felt like an ambush in there, kinda like, the president Zelensky meeting in the Oval Office.
This was an ambush. It was orchestrated.
Speaker 2: General Roma Posta brought his best diplomatic self to this meeting, but nothing could have prepared him for this multimedia ambush.
Speaker 0: What started as, to some degree, an ambush.
Speaker 1: Well, Katie, I mean, it wasn't ambush. Ambush. It's ambushed. Ambush.
Speaker 0: An ambush. Ambushing.
Speaker 1: Ambushed. Ambushed inside the Oval Office.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
H/T @libsoftiktok https://t.co/RXAAWyNdvO
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
The talking points went out to the fake news… Trump “ambushed” the president of South Africa by playing a video montage of South African leaders calling for White genocide. The media is complicit. https://t.co/zTNqAE0OIf
reSee.it AI Summary
Jake Tapper has admitted he didn't adequately cover Biden's cognitive issues, reflecting on it with humility. This admission raises questions about his previous awareness of Biden's condition while he now seems motivated by financial interests. Additionally, he criticized the Biden White House for dismissing videos of Biden's cognitive problems as "cheap fakes," despite his network previously downplaying these concerns and supporting the Biden campaign. It feels like we're expected to overlook this inconsistency.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Jake Tapper now says he didn't cover Biden's cognitive issues enough, and claims to "look back on it with humility." In other words, Jake knew for four years Biden was cognitively impaired, but now sees dollar signs and needs to pretend he didn’t. https://t.co/EKVTSYokjU
Video Transcript AI Summary
Some criticism of media coverage of President Biden is fair, including of Speaker 1's own coverage. Looking back, some issues were not covered enough.
Reporting revealed that starting around 2019 or 2020, there appeared to be two Bidens: one that was workable and serviceable, and another nonfunctioning one who couldn't recall names of top aides and would lose his train of thought to an alarming degree. The nonfunctioning Biden appeared more frequently, and seemed to get much worse in 2023 and 2024.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Think of conservatives now criticizing you and the media in general for how president Biden was covered during his administration?
Speaker 1: I think some of the criticism is is fair, to be honest, of me. Certainly, I'm not gonna speak for anybody else. But knowing then what I know now, I look back at my coverage during the Biden years, and I did cover some of these issues, but not enough. I look back on it with humility. Look.
What we learned through our reporting is that starting in around 2019, '20 '20, there were two Bidens. There was a Biden that was perfectly workable, serviceable, seemed fine, and then there was a nonfunctioning one that couldn't come up with names of top aides, that would lose lose his train of thought to an alarming degree. And that nonfunctioning Biden reared his head increasingly over and over. It really seemed to exacerbate and get much worse in twenty twenty three, twenty twenty four.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Sure, Jake. https://t.co/qLYrWW7u0l
reSee.it AI Summary
Watching Thom Tillis explain his reasons for blocking Ed Martin is frustrating, especially since it could lead to an anti-Trump judge appointing the U.S. Attorney in D.C. It's hard to forget his efforts to derail the Hegseth nomination. He seems to be working against Trump and the voters who elected him.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
As you watch Thom Tillis explain why he wants to block Ed Martin — which would result in anti-Trump Judge Boasberg appointing the US Atty in DC — — recall he also worked to blow up the Hegseth nomination. Tillis continues to work his ass off against Trump, his agenda and the voters that elected him.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker clarifies that while Mr. Martin explained that some people were over-prosecuted, there were 200-300 who should not have been pardoned, a point on which Mr. Martin agreed. The speaker would likely support Mr. Martin as a US attorney in any district except the one where the January 6th protest occurred. The speaker indicated to the White House that they would not support Mr. Martin's nomination. The deadline relates to the length of time Mr. Martin can operate in an acting capacity, but the administration can extend that if desired.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It sound it sounds like your concerns were not of these But let me be very clear, though. Mister Martin did a good job of explaining the one area that I think he's probably right, that there were some people that were over prosecuted. But there were some, two or 300 of them, that should have never gotten a pardon, and he agreed with that. But the disagreement there had more to do. If mister Martin were being put forth as a US attorney for any district except the district where January 6 happened, the the protest happened, I'd probably support him, but not in this district.
When he's saying he's not being advanced to the markup, was he operating under that understanding that he's not being advanced through to a Well, he I think mister Martin I'm sure they're looking through it. I mean, to be clear, some of the deadline has to do with the length of time he can operate his acting, and the administration can work through that if they want to to have more time and potentially work them through. But at this point, I've indicated to the White House, I wouldn't support his nomination. As Trump called you
reSee.it AI Summary
Scott Jennings criticized Democrats for allowing district judges to decide when the U.S. is under invasion, arguing that it undermines the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. He described the current situation as the largest invasion in U.S. history, highlighting the violent acts committed by some individuals crossing the border. Jennings emphasized that the president is making efforts to address the issue and rejected the notion that individual judges should make such critical determinations. Another participant agreed, labeling the district judges as a disgrace.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🔥Scott Jennings RIPS Democrats who want district judges to determine when America is under invasion, NOT the Commander-In-Chief: "It's the biggest invasion in the history of the United States. We've never been invaded this way." "It is an incursion. And I would ask you to ask any of the families who've lost loved ones, if they think maybe that we are at war with the people who have come here, who have committed violent acts, who have m*rdered people, who have r*ped people, who have human trafficked people. It is a disaster what's happened in this country." “The president is trying to pull every lever that's on the books to take care of it. And these individual judges, these individual judges are overstepping. What you're essentially saying is that the president, who is the commander in chief, cannot determine when we are being invaded." "An individual district court judge is going to decide that. No, no, NO."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers debate who determines if the U.S. is at war or being invaded. One speaker argues a law requires an active war, not just claims of invasion, and that applying the law is the court's job. Another speaker claims the U.S. is experiencing the biggest invasion in its history due to millions of illegal aliens who are predatory, and the president should use every available tool to address it. This speaker believes the president, as commander in chief, should decide if the U.S. is being invaded, not individual judges. Another speaker asserts Congress decides if the U.S. is at war, according to the Constitution. A final speaker argues the American system's strength lies in its three co-equal branches, not in deferring to one person's opinion, warning against moving towards a monarchy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And that's exactly what they did here. What they said is this law requires an invasion or act of war, and we interpret that to mean you have to actively be at war. You can't, as Donald Trump says, come down an escalator and say, oh, people are coming into our country, rape raping our women and killing us, and that means it's an act of war. No. It has to actually meet that definition, and that's the court's job.
The president has the right to decide his agenda and and kinda influence public policy. But when it comes down to the application of law, that's the court's job, and that's what they did here.
Speaker 1: Can I debate this point? Because I think I understand your your point, and, you know, I have a disagreement about these individual district court judges. But when you think about what's happened in this country, millions of people have come in. It's the biggest invasion in the history of The United States. We've never been invaded this way I
Speaker 2: know, Scott.
Speaker 1: These illegal aliens, and they are predatory. It is an incursion. And I would ask you to ask any of the families who've lost loved ones if they think maybe that we are at war with the people who have come here, who have committed violent acts, who have murdered people, who have raped people, who have human trafficked people. It is a disaster what's happened in this country, and the president is trying to pull every lever that's on the books to take care of it. And these individual judges I appreciate these individual judges are overstepping if you're what you're essentially saying is that the president, who is the commander in chief, cannot determine when we are being invaded.
An individual district court judge is gonna decide that? No. Thank you. Who gets
Speaker 2: to wait. Can I just ask a simple question? Who gets to decide whether The United States is at war? The president in my opinion.
Speaker 1: No. If we're being invaded, I want the commander in chief tonight.
Speaker 2: Scott. Scott. No. It's actually the congress.
Speaker 1: When the you're asking if if we're being invaded.
Speaker 2: I'm asking the You wanna call congress and see if we're being invaded? Constitution.
Speaker 1: We'll be taking over before they ever get to the convention.
Speaker 2: That's gets you to decide whether The United States is at war. The answer is congress.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about if we're
Speaker 2: being invaded. The president No. You hear
Speaker 0: his colloquiums.
Speaker 2: War Yeah. He has to
Speaker 0: show We're actively war.
Speaker 1: And really what he needs to do is go
Speaker 0: to congress.
Speaker 1: You guys can't just get a hold roll it in another
Speaker 3: 20 Wait a second, though. I thought I thought the genius of our system was that we weren't beholden to one guy's opinion. That the genius of the American system of government was that we had three co equal branches, and in those co equal branches, decisions were made about how we go about doing things. Now we wanna tear that to shreds so that we can kowtow to one guy's opinion, then we are in a monarch in a monarchy. We're being moved.
Speaker 1: Please the commander
Speaker 2: do you guys have the
@badboujeebabee - BoujeeBombshell
@WesternLensman Correct the district judges are a disgrace. https://t.co/n2pL1aQRWD
reSee.it AI Summary
In 2024, Dan Goldman praised Joe Biden's sharpness, but by 2025, he questioned Trump's cognitive abilities regarding the 25th Amendment. The narrative about Trump's mental fitness was reignited by Hakeem Jeffries, who claimed many Americans doubt Trump's capability to fulfill presidential duties, labeling him a liar. In response, Will Cain strongly criticized Goldman for his views.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
2024: Dan Goldman claims Joe Biden is sharper than anyone he’s spoken to. 2025: Dan Goldman questions if Trump’s cognitive abilities are sufficient to get past the 25th Amendment. https://t.co/KQFfjvX68x
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker was in Israel on October 7 and received a call from President Biden. The speaker claims Biden was sharper than anyone they'd spoken to. The speaker questions whether Biden's actions stem from incompetence, cognitive issues, ignorance, or lying, and states they don't believe Biden is competent. They also question whether Biden's cognitive abilities are sufficient to avoid the 25th amendment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was in Israel on October 7, as you know, and president Biden was nice enough to call me. And I can tell you, this was the day before that interview, I can tell you he was sharper than anyone I've spoken to. Well, look, Will, I don't know whether it's incompetence, cognitive abilities, ignorance, or just plain flat out lying. Well, I don't think he's competent, Will. I don't know what to tell you.
Whether his cognitive abilities are sufficient to, get past the twenty fifth amendment, You know, we don't know that.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
The latest “Trump isn’t cognitively fit” nonsense was all kicked off by Jeffries: https://t.co/hwfg6wV2CS
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
For those that haven’t seen it — Will Cain obliterated Goldman on this. https://t.co/qe8SPPDO3I
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers disagree on President Trump's competency. One speaker believes it's absurd to question Trump's competency, especially after years of questioning President Biden's mental acuity. The speaker believes words matter and should be used carefully to avoid inflaming the public and to arrive at the truth.
The other speaker questions Trump's competency, cognitive abilities, ignorance, and truthfulness, citing examples such as a photoshopped photo, a Supreme Court ruling, Elon Musk holding press conferences in the Oval Office, misunderstanding trade deficits, and a disastrous economy. This speaker believes Trump has driven the country into a disastrous economy, undermined the rule of law and democracy, and cut taxes for the rich. The first speaker disagrees, stating that the first hundred days are exactly what Trump promised and what the American people voted for.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we can together agree that the absurdity of the minority leader statement questioning the competency of Donald Trump is beyond debate. It is absurd after years of refusing to acknowledge the truth when it comes to Joe Biden and seemingly manufacturing a truth when it comes to Donald Trump. I hope that's where we can agree and then move to more substantive debate.
Speaker 1: Well, look, Will, I don't know whether it's incompetence, cognitive abilities, ignorance, or just plain flat out lying. But Donald Trump doesn't know that a photo he's showing is photoshopped. He doesn't know that the Supreme Court ruled nine nothing against him. He's got Elon Musk in the Oval Office doing press conferences. He doesn't understand what trade deficits are and is tanking our economy.
So, you can call it whatever you want, but it's been a pretty disastrous first hundred days.
Speaker 0: First of I could debate you on each and every one of those things you just laid out, but I don't think you can call it whatever you want. I think that's an incorrect statement, congressman. I think words have meaning and they matter, and I think you know that. I think we have to be careful with our words, especially if we're not trying to inflame the public and most certainly if we're trying to arrive at the truth. And after four years of having us gaslighted over the competency, the the mental acuity of the previous president, it's absurd to question, even if you disagree congressman, and clearly you do with much of the president, the competency of the sitting president today.
I think the accuracy and truth of those words do matter.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think he's competent, Will. I don't know what to tell you. Whether his cognitive abilities are sufficient to get past the twenty fifth amendment, you know, we don't know that right now. But I I think what is clear is that he has driven our country into disastrous economy. He has undermining the fundamental rule of law and democracy.
He is taking away benefits in order to cut taxes for the rich. I think even you, Will, would have to agree with me that this first hundred days is not at all what he promised the American people.
Speaker 0: No. I'm sorry to notify you. I do not agree with you. I think this first hundred days is exactly what he promised the American people, and more importantly, exactly what was voted on by the American people.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
There’s always a script. https://t.co/58BCCRy17e
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Trump administration is escalating its crackdown on illegal immigration. This includes escalating deportation efforts and an escalating battle in DC over immigration and deportation. Tensions are escalating between local and federal authorities. The administration is making more aggressive moves, and there is escalatory action. A judge was arrested.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We begin tonight with the escalation in the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. Today's dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's conflict with judges. The Trump administration signaling a major escalation in its deportation efforts. Today, an escalation in the Trump administration's battle with the judiciary. Tensions between local and federal authorities over president Trump's immigration crackdown escalated today.
We begin this hour with a major escalation of the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration as We begin with what appears to be a major escalation in the Trump administration's deportation efforts and what is a major escalation in the battle here in DC over immigration and deportation. This feels like a insane and reckless escalation from the Trump administration arresting a judge. I will tell you, you are not alone. It's a dramatic escalation. More aggressive moves, more escalation.
Trump's escalation of his migrant verge. This kind of escalatory action. This is a dramatic escalation. Escalation. Escalation.
Escalation. Escalation. Escalation. Placing an immigration an escalation an escalation.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
PICTURED: Democrat Senator, wearing an expression of grave concern while consoling an MS13 foreign national serial domestic abuser; while that same Senator never once considered a meeting with the family of Rachel Morin, his own constituent. Interesting optics, Senator. https://t.co/uRy8ZzPsVh
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨Hakeem Jeffries escalates the rhetoric: Says if the Trump administration doesn’t return the deported El Salvadoran gang member back to the US — — the courts need to hold Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem in contempt. 21% is still way too high for this party. https://t.co/UV66mS2Bk0
Video Transcript AI Summary
To pressure the Trump administration to comply with the Supreme Court's directive, the federal district court needs to enforce its order through contempt. This contempt can target members of the Trump administration, such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court needs to set a compliance deadline regarding the return of Mr. Garcia. Senator Chris Van Hollen has shown leadership by indicating he will go to El Salvador himself if his constituent is not returned. Members of Congress can highlight injustice, dramatize it, amplify it, and force the administration to comply.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: To intensify the pressure on the Trump administration, to comply with the supreme court's directive, and the supreme court and or the federal district court actually needs to enforce its order. And the vehicles that are available for the court to do that relate to contempt. And that contempt, can be directed at a variety of different members of the Trump administration, including but not limited to, the secretary of state and or his or her designees and the secretary of homeland security and or his or her designees for the court to determine. It sounds like you're saying you think the court should hold some members of the administration in contempt. Anyone else you wanna mention there?
Well, I think what the court needs to do is to set a deadline as it relates to compliance, with the quasi directive that came down from the Supreme Court related to, returning, mister Garcia, specify that, and then make sure that it happens. And at the same period of time, I think as you've seen, and there's been some great leadership from senator Chris Van Hollen, who apparently indicated earlier today that either his constituent is returned or he plans to go to El Salvador himself. And that's exactly the type of action that, as members of congress, we can do to highlight the injustice, dramatize and amplify it, and force the administration to comply, which in this instance, I believe we will make sure happens.
reSee.it AI Summary
I released a video expressing my frustration and announcing that I'm writing to the White House to demand Congressional oversight regarding the tariff pause. I cited Trump's "GREAT TIME TO BUY!" post as potential evidence of insider trading. We need to investigate if anyone profited from Americans' struggles.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨NEW: Angry Adam Schiff releases video announcing he’s writing a letter to the White House, demands Congressional oversight over tariff pause. Cites Trump’s “GREAT TIME TO BUY!” public post as possible evidence of "insider trading." “We're going to get to the bottom of whether people were profiting off the pain of the American people." After being furious that the market declined, Democrats are now furious that the market rebounded.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump removed many tariffs, causing market disruption and raising concerns about potential insider trading within the administration. Following Trump's tweet suggesting it was a good time to buy, questions arise about who knew in advance about the tariff reductions and whether they profited by trading stocks. The speaker notes Trump's involvement with meme coins, his children's cryptocurrency activities, and Elon Musk's alleged self-dealing, suggesting a pattern of corruption.
The speaker is writing to the White House to demand answers, but acknowledges the need for congressional oversight due to the White House's unlikelihood of being forthcoming. Despite Republican unwillingness, the speaker highlights the importance of whistleblowers and invites them to come forward with information. The goal is to determine if individuals profited from insider information while the public suffered financial losses.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So today, Trump removed many of the tariffs he had imposed in this on again, off again, it must be Wednesday tariffs are off again kind of policy. This has just wreaked havoc on the markets, of course, but there is another profound danger as well and that is insider trading within the White House, within the administration. You may have seen early in the day Trump tweet this. Now this is a good time to buy. So the question is between that tweet and Donald Trump's announcement that he was reducing the tariffs on most other nations apart from China, The question is who knew what the president was going to do and did people around the president trade stock knowing the incredible gyration the market was about to go through?
Because look, this is a president who is trading in his own meme coin even as he's president. His kids are trading in their own cryptocurrency. You've got people like Elon Musk who are doing their own conflicted self dealing in the administration. In any administration this corrupt, it is more than necessary to ask, were people personally profiting from insider information while people's savings, their retirement accounts were being torched? So we're writing to the White House to demand answers.
Now I am fully cognizant of the fact that the White House is probably the last place to be forthcoming about this or any other corruption in the administration. We in Congress need to do more than demand answers. We need to do the oversight necessary to get those answers. To date, republicans have not been willing to do this, not when it comes to insider trading potentiality, not when it comes to anything. But we have been very fortunate in the minority that so many whistleblowers have come forward with information about corruption in the administration.
Just a few days ago, I held a hearing with people who had to quit the Justice Department, were fired at the Justice Department because they were observing corrupt activity that they would not participate in. We have tremendously benefited from courageous people coming forward. So we invite whistleblowers to step forward, but at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this whether people were profiting off the pain of the American people.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨WATCH: The best way to define to define the Democrat brand is to let Democrats define it — themselves. https://t.co/rluDgGk8Rs
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Democratic brand is defined by two words: weak and woke. Democrats are associated with violence, with one person stating Trump deserves to die. There are reports of attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships.
One person admitted to not having facts when asked to explain what makes Trump a fascist. A person identifying as undocumented and queer accused others of hate, racism, stupidity, and greed. Another expressed being tired of white tears and white men failing up.
Some view actions as "kicking the shit out of fascism." Others say "shut down the city" and criticize Elon Musk. The Democratic party brand is considered problematic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The best way to define the Democrat brand The Democratic brand is toxic right now. Is to let them define it themselves. There's two words that define the Democratic party for the public, weak and woke. Democrat violence. When they try to divide us, what happens?
We kill. We have to say that violence. How do you feel about Donald Trump? I think that he deserves to die. Democrat mayhem.
There is news amid the growing number of attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships, arson and vandalism across The US. Please, please. No one ever vandalized Tesla vehicles. And so Democrat protesters. What makes Trump a fascist?
Because you're you're you're giving me some tough questions about specifics. I don't have facts. Explain a little bit for our viewers what this means. Put your hand out. Akistocracy.
Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA. I am undocumented. Queer, unashamed. All you have is hate, racism, stupidity, and greed. So I can feel better about all the losing.
I'll say hi some more later. Democrat leadership. I am tired of the white tears. I am so tired of white men failing up. This is what kicking the shit out of fascism looks like.
We will not shut up. That ain't true. That's what you just heard. Screw you and the horse you rode in on. And god damn it.
Shut down the city. That Elon Musk has done with his high technology ass. These these people are just idiots. The Democratic party brand is really problematic.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
@elonmusk They have no clue why they are there, and they have no clue what their signs even mean. https://t.co/BxtiskoD3t
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cachistocracy is defined as government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state. The speaker suggests this term seems fitting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cachistocracy. Government by the least suitable or competent citizens of a state. Seems to fit, doesn't it?
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
The American responsible for the awe-inspiring feat of bringing stranded US astronauts home from space Is the same American that the left is currently targeting with violent terrorist attacks This is who they are https://t.co/e3mLCfmWbB
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨Sen Joni Ernst gets booed after she announces that DOGE has saved American taxpayers $115 billion since January. Keep it up, Democrats. You’re doing just great. https://t.co/Pflpt310Ad
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since January, Doge has saved $115 billion. This amounts to $714 per taxpayer.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Iowa. Mister president, since January, Doge has saved $115,000,000,000. That's that's amounts to Order. Please. That amounts to $714 per taxpayer.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve noticed that 23 Democratic Senators have released the same video, which I find cringeworthy. It seems they believe their messaging, rather than their policies, is the issue they need to tackle. I referenced a moment from Spartacus, and someone responded, clearly feeling defensive about the truth. I just want to clarify that it was me who made that comment, and I’m not interested in your truck.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
So far there are a total of 22 Dem Senators who have released the identical, cringe “Sh*t that ain’t true” video. Democrats are convinced that “messaging” — not policy — is their problem. This is apparently their attempt to address that 🤣 https://t.co/IH7p5u7w8S
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
UPDATE: 23. - Alsobrooks - Baldwin - Blumenthal - Booker - Cantwell - Coons - Duckworth - Durbin - Gillibrand - Hirono - Kaine - Kelly - Kim - Lujan - Markey - Merkley - Padilla - Peters - Schatz - Schumer - Van Hollen - Warner - Warren - Whitehouse https://t.co/II4D00ndsn
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
It was Spartacus: https://t.co/Br237FXd0A
reSee.it AI Summary
I told Trump voters they got hoodwinked, comparing it to dating experiences where we believe someone will be great for us, only to find out they aren't. I encouraged Democrats to keep up their efforts, expressing confidence in their performance.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Crockett to Trump voters: “You got hoodwinked!" "Any of us who have ever dated have been hoodwinked a time or two. We’ve sat there and thought he was going to so great for us because he sold us on all the things and then we realized… they ain’t sh*t. That’s where we are." Keep it up, Democrats. Really. You’re doing just great.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I would tell those voters that they were hoodwinked, and that's okay. Everyone's been hoodwinked before. I know this from my dating life. You think someone's going to be great because they sell you on all the right things. Then you realize they aren't who you thought they were. That's where we are now, and it's alright. What matters is waking up and realizing this isn't the right choice. So, even if you voted for him, you should now be saying, he is not the one for me.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Towers. What do you say to voters who voted for Trump because they thought he would lower prices, and now they've only gotten trade wars and the alienation of allies?
Speaker 1: This is what I say. I say you got hoodwings, and that's okay. That's okay. Because as I was just telling somebody just a minute ago, I have dated in my life. I know they've been talking about whether or not I'm married and all of a sudden they're like, I'm not married, never married.
Okay? Just wanna get that out there, but I have dated. And I will say, any of us that have ever dated, we've been hoodwings a time or two. But we just sat there and we thought that he was gonna be so great for us because he sold us on all the things or her. Okay?
And then we realized they ain't shit. That's where we are, and that's okay. What what matters is that you wake up and you say, this is not the one for me. So even if you voted for him, what you should be doing right now is saying, he is not the one for me.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Zelenskyy: If someone wants to "check" on the billions sent to Ukraine "we are very, very open with it." Elon: Challenge accepted. https://t.co/fFvtrODIec
Video Transcript AI Summary
Regarding military equipment, while documents show significant aid, the reality is different. Out of the supposed $183 billion from the US over three years, $67 billion arrived as weapons, checked and verified, a process shared with the American side. Additionally, $31.5 billion was direct financial support to the budget. This is all transparent, digitized, and accessible. We encourage anyone to review it. We maintain complete openness.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Military equipment. No. It's it's can't be so. 100 billions we have got during three years. Hundred and eighty three from The US.
Now on on the paper, in the documents, yes. But we have, in fact, because 67 came like a weapon. It came through the border. It's checked and it's fixed by every everybody and we can we go we shared it not once with with the American side and SOTI one point five. It was direct financial support to the budget.
Again, it's very open. It digitalized. It's open free and please. If if somebody want to check it again, we are very very open with Last last thing.
reSee.it AI Summary
Elon Musk highlighted issues with government funding to NGOs, suggesting it often involves money-laundering shell companies before reaching individuals like Raskin. In response, a user criticized Raskin for allegedly lying about the FBI's actions toward parents at school board meetings.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
Many such situations. Government funding to “non-governmental” organizations goes through various money-laundering shell companies until reaching guys like Raskin.
@MilaLovesJoe - Mila Joy
🚨 EXPOSED: J6 Committee Member Jamie Raskin's $160M USAID Connection! 🚨 You won't believe this - Representative Jamie Raskin, one of the key figures on the J6 Committee sho received a pardon from Biden, is linked to a MASSIVE $160 MILLION from USAID! 😱 Not only was he part of the squad trying to 'keep us in check' during the J6 hearings, but he's also the representative for Global Communities, a giant USAID contractor that raked in $160,000,000 in 2023! 🤑💸 Is this what they call "following the money"? Talk about a conflict of interest! #RaskinExposed #J6Committee #FollowTheMoney #CorruptionInCongress
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
@elonmusk Raskin does nothing but lie. Here he is two days ago insisting that the FBI didn’t go after parents at school board meetings. https://t.co/aPnOyWopRX
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've been hearing about the prosecution and vilification of parents, and as a father myself, I wanted to understand what was happening. After investigating, I reviewed Attorney General Merrick Garland's memo, which addresses a disturbing increase in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, board members, and staff. It's important to note that the words "mother," "father," or even "parent" do not appear in this memo. The idea that there's some widespread prosecution of parents is completely unfounded and fabricated. I'll submit the memo for the record.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When we talk about it, then I hear about the prosecution and vilification of parents, of mothers and fathers. And hey, I'm a father. My kids went to public school. That doesn't sound very good to me. So I try to get to the bottom of this because I've been hearing about it for five years now, and I ask myself, what are they talking about?
So I get the memo, which was from Attorney General Merrick Garland, and it begins, I can't don't have time to read the whole thing, there's been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, board members, and staff. The word mother or father don't appear. The word parent doesn't appear here. There's all of this propaganda about some prosecution of parents is based on absolutely nothing. This is just made up out of thin air.
So I will submit this for the record. The memo though, all this goes back to Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much.
reSee.it AI Summary
Last week, I had a conversation with the president, who encouraged me to be more aggressive in our efforts. Following his suggestion, we sent out an email to engage everyone involved. We aim to retain those doing essential jobs well, while considering the removal of those who aren't. The president also noted that a significant number of people haven't responded, raising concerns about their status. He expressed dissatisfaction with the current administration's spending habits and overall management.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨ELON AND TRUMP ON “WHAT DID YOU GET DONE LAST WEEK” EMAIL: ELON: "Last week the president encouraged me on Truth Social and also a by phone call to be more aggressive. And I was like, okay, yes sir, Mr. president, will we do that. The president is commander in chief. I do what the president asks." "I said, can we send out an email to everyone just saying wants to get on. But last week the president said yes. So we did that." "We wish to keep everyone who is doing a job that is essential and doing that job well. But if there if the job is not essential or they're not doing the job well, they obviously should not be on public pay." TRUMP: "I'd like to add that those million people that haven't responded, though, we learned they are on the bubble. You know, I wouldn't say that we're thrilled about it. You know, they haven't responded. Now, maybe they don't exist. Maybe we're paying people that don't exist." "But those people are on the bubble, as they say. They may be they're going to be gone. Maybe they're not around. Maybe they have other jobs. Maybe they moved and they're not where they're supposed to be. A lot of things could have happened. I wouldn't say that Biden ran a very tight administration. They spent money like nobody's ever spent money before."
Video Transcript AI Summary
The President told me to be more aggressive, so we sent out an email to all employees asking what they do. We got a partial response, so we're sending another email. Our goal isn't to be unfair. Employees can simply respond that their work is too sensitive to describe.
We want to keep essential employees who do their jobs well. If a job isn't essential or done well, those people shouldn't be on the payroll. Those million employees who haven't responded are on the bubble. Maybe they don't exist, or we're paying people who don't exist. A lot could have happened. The prior administration wasted money.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Million employees have responded so far to this email. Does that mean that the remaining 1,000,000 or so federal employees now risk being terminated? And is it your understanding and expectation when you post a directive on x that the cabinet secretaries will follow that order? Because several agencies have instructed employees that this is voluntary or or not to respond.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I mean, to so I guess it was a like last week, president encouraged me via Truth Social and also via phone call to be more aggressive. And I was like, okay. You know? Yes, sir.
Mister president, we'll we'll indeed do that. The president's commander in chief. I I do what the president asks. So unless you can we send out an email to everyone just saying what should get done last week? The president said yes, so it did that.
And, you know, we got a partial response. We're we're gonna send another email. But our our goal is not to be capricious or or unfair. It's we wanna give people every opportunity to send an email. And the email could simply be what I'm working on is too sensitive or classified to to describe.
Like literally just report that would be sufficient. We're we're you know, I think this is just common sense.
Speaker 0: And what is your target number for for how many workers employees you're looking to cut total?
Speaker 1: We wish to keep everyone who is doing a job that is essential and doing that job well. But if if they're if the job is not essential or they're not doing the job well, they obviously should not be on the public health.
Speaker 2: Wait a minute. Wait. Wait. I'd like to add that those million people that haven't responded though, Elon, they are on the bubble. You know, I wouldn't say that we're thrilled about it.
You know, they haven't responded. Now maybe they don't exist. Maybe we're paying people that don't exist. Don't forget, we just got here. This group just got here.
But those people are on the bubble as they say. You know, they maybe they're gonna be gone. Maybe they're not around. Maybe they have other jobs. Maybe they moved and they're not where they're supposed to be.
A lot of things could have happened. I wouldn't say that Biden ran a very tight administration. They spent money like nobody's ever spent money before, wasted money. The Green New scam, all of
Speaker 0: the
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
TOP: FA BOTTOM: FO https://t.co/coXxuUGYNQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
I don't want to lose her as a colleague here at MSNBC, and I believe letting her leave is a mistake. It's not my decision, but that's my opinion. It's unnerving that on a network with only two nonwhite primetime hosts, both are losing their shows, along with Katie Fang on the weekend. Regardless of who replaces them, this situation feels indefensible, and I cannot defend it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Her. I do not want to lose her as a colleague here at MSNBC. And personally, I think it is a bad mistake to let her walk out the door. It is not my call, and I understand that, but that's what I think. I will tell you, it is also unnerving to see that on a network where we've got two, count them two, nonwhite hosts in primetime, both of our nonwhite hosts in primetime are losing their shows, as is Katie Fang on the weekend.
And that feels worse than bad no matter who replaces them. That feels indefensible, and I do not defend it.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Joy Behar: Elon Musk is a “foreign agent” and “enemy of the United States” — “The guy was not born in this country." The libs are anti-immigration now 🤡 https://t.co/IJi3rd0B7B
Video Transcript AI Summary
People like Elon Musk, who wasn't born in this country, get away with things. He was born under apartheid in South Africa and was allegedly pro-apartheid. He's a naturalized citizen, likely through an H-1B visa. It's convenient for some to let this "foreigner" do their job. While I don't like Elon, I wouldn't call him an enemy of the United States *yet*.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And and Elon Musk kisses his butt and strokes his his tiny ego or big ego, whatever it is. And and he doesn't get to do He can take a nap while the guy was not born in this country, who was born under a apartheid in South Africa. So has that mentality going on. He was pro apartheid as I understand it. He's a naturalized citizen.
Right. He's a naturalized citizen. Oh, really? How did he do that? Did he come over the board illegally?
H one b visa. He threw in. Yeah. He allegedly overstate that visa. I think this is just Right.
Perfectly wonderful for Trump. He's Right. Gonna take a nap and let this foreigner foreign agent, you know Right. An enemy of The United States do his job. Anybody else?
I don't like Elon. I wouldn't go as far as to necessarily call him an enemy of The United States yet. Let's give a look at it. Friend? I
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Update: Behar asks Elon not to sue her after calling him “pro apartheid” https://t.co/hDsVInkDYa
Video Transcript AI Summary
I love this show because we can discuss important topics freely. Recently, I received some criticism for saying Elon Musk was pro-apartheid. I don't know for sure if he was, but he did grow up while apartheid was happening. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't – he might have been too young. So, please don't sue me! It feels like others can say anything they want, but we have to be very careful. That's why this show and platform is so important.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is one of the reasons I love this show. Go ahead Joy. I was just gonna say that now I'm getting some flack because I said that Musk was pro apartheid. I don't really know what for sure if he was. He grew up at that time when apartheid was in full bloom before the great Nelson Mandela fixed that.
He was around at that time, but maybe he was maybe he wasn't. He might have been a young guy too. Might have been. So, don't be suing me. Okay, Iman?
They're allowed to say any lie they want, but we have to be really strict. That's why this show is important. Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
I reacted to JD Vance's criticism of UK censorship, asserting that we support free speech in the UK. Vance countered, highlighting that free speech violations impact both the UK and American technology, and he plans to discuss this further at lunch today.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨UK PM Keir Starmer responds to JD Vance’s torching over censorship in the UK by continuing to outright lie — “We don't believe in censoring speech…we champion free speech in the United Kingdom." https://t.co/UYOs3ERVjw
Video Transcript AI Summary
We value our special relationship with the UK and our European allies. However, we are aware of infringements on free speech that impact not only the British but also American tech companies and, by extension, American citizens.
We don't believe in censoring speech, but we must address serious issues like terrorism and child exploitation. I discussed this with the Vice President today, and we had a productive conversation.
He is right to champion free speech. We also champion free speech in the UK. Regarding the measures we've taken, we are very mindful of ensuring they do not negatively impact US citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He did say today, we do have this special relationship with our friends in The UK and some European allies, but we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British, but also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens. House judiciary chairman Jim Jordan, I think, brought this up. Yeah. This is about UK's online safety act. Is The UK and EU trying to censor speech?
Speaker 1: No. We we we we don't believe in censoring speech. But of course, we do need to deal with terrorism. We need to deal with pedophiles and issues like that. But I talked to the vice president about it today, and we had a good exchange about it.
And of course, he's right to champion free speech. We champion free speech in The United Kingdom. And in relation to the measures that we've taken, obviously, we're we're very mindful that it shouldn't have an impact on US citizens.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
JD Vance today: ""We also know that there have been violations of free speech that actually affect not only the English, but also affect American technology and, by extension, American citizens. We'll talk about this at lunch today.” https://t.co/x2UCZyfPcE
Video Transcript AI Summary
We have special relationships with our friends in the UK and some European allies. However, there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British, which is their business, but also American tech companies and citizens. This is something we'll discuss.
We've had free speech for a long time in the UK, and it will continue. We wouldn't want to overreach with US citizens, and we don't. I'm very proud of our history of free speech in the UK.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Great. Yeah. Look, I I said what I said, which is that we do have a, of course, a special relationship with our friends in The UK and also with some of our European allies. But we also know that there have been infringements on free speech that actually affect not just the British. Of course, what the British do in their own country is up to them, but also affect American technology companies and by extension American citizens.
So that is something that we'll talk about today at
Speaker 1: We've had free speech for a very, very long time in in The United Kingdom, and and it will last for a very, very long time. Well, I mean, certainly, we wouldn't wanna reach across US citizens and and we don't and that's absolutely right. But in relation to free speech in The UK, I'm very proud of our our history there. We
Speaker 0: just
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
@SpacelySpr41329 Keeping Psaki and Lawrence is a clear display of white supremacy in action https://t.co/wRhO1quelQ
Video Transcript AI Summary
I think we roll them tonight. In this fantasy, he's going to get it all back in the debates. Debates are something Republicans are rising to. Stop the hammering! Where's the hammer? I think he wins it. Stop the hammering! Somebody go up there and stop the hammering! It's a polarized electorate. Stop the hammering! Call Phil Griffin, I don't care. Stop the hammering!
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Roll them tonight. I think. Well, in this fantasy that he's gonna get it all back in the debates against some You have insanity in my earpiece. Debates, I think it's something Republicans are rising to. Stop the hammering.
Stop the hammering out there. Who's got a hammer? Where is it? Think he wins it. Where's the hammer?
Is it on the go up on the other floor. Somebody go up there and stop the hammering. The polarized electorate where Stop the hammering. Call fucking Phil Griffin. I don't care who the fuck you have to call.
Stop the hammering.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Jamie Raskin's claim that the notion of parents being vilified at school board meetings by the Biden DOJ is just "propaganda" is unfounded. Meanwhile, a memo from the FBI's counterterrorism unit indicates they are tracking parents as potential threats, which feels like pure gaslighting.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
LEFT: Jamie Raskin says the idea that there was “vilification” of parents at school board meetings by the Biden DOJ is "propaganda” and “made up out of thin air." RIGHT: Memo from FBI’s counterterrorism unit creating a threat tag for parents and orders to track and investigate potential “threats." Pure gaslighting. Raskin’s remarks were made at Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on Weaponization of the DOJ.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I've been hearing about the supposed prosecution and vilification of parents, especially mothers and fathers, for five years now and as a father myself, I wanted to investigate the claims.
So, I looked at Attorney General Merrick Garland's memo, which claims there's been a disturbing increase in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, board members, and staff. Notably, the words "mother," "father," or even "parent" are not present. The propaganda about the prosecution of parents appears to be unfounded, seemingly made up out of thin air. I will submit this memo for the record.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When we talk about it, then I hear about the prosecution and vilification of parents, of mothers and fathers. And hey, I'm a father. My kids went to public school. That doesn't sound very good to me. So I try to get to the bottom of this because I've been hearing about it for five years now, and I ask myself, what are they talking about?
So I get the memo, which was from Attorney General Merrick Garland, and it begins, I can't don't have time to read the whole thing, there's been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, board members, and staff. The word mother or father don't appear. The word parent doesn't appear here. There's all of this propaganda about some prosecution of parents is based on absolutely nothing. This is just made up out of thin air.
So I will submit this for the record. The memo though, all this goes back to Mr. Chairman. Thanks so much.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Trump tells Maine Gov Janet Mills “I’ll see you in court” over men playing in women’s sports. Hours later… Trump DoE opens investigation: "President Trump wasn't lying when he said he will be seeing the Maine governor and her team in court." FAFO Doctrine in full effect. https://t.co/mGAS7rqo78
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm complying with state and federal laws. You better comply because you're not gonna get any federal funding at all if you don't. Your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports, so you better comply because otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding. I'll see you in court. I look forward to that; that should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after governor because I don't think you'll be in elected politics. The Trump administration is launching a new Title Nine civil rights investigation against Maine. President Trump was not lying when he said he will be seeing the Maine governor and her team in court over this.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Are you, not gonna comply with it? I'm complying with state and federal laws. Well, I'm we are the federal law. Uh-huh. Well, you better do it.
You better do it because you're not gonna get any federal funding at all if you don't. And by the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal, although I did very well there, your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports. So you better comp you better comply because otherwise, you're not getting any any federal funding. See you in court. Every state good.
I'll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after governor because I don't think you'll be in elected politics.
Speaker 1: I've just been given, there is a new title nine civil rights investigation that the Trump administration is launching against Maine. So, president Trump was not lying when he said he will be seeing the Maine governor and her team in court over this.
Speaker 0: It's
reSee.it AI Summary
I just learned that President Trump is praising Elon Musk and has scheduled a news conference for tomorrow. During this event, he plans to reveal names of recipients involved in waste, fraud, and abuse, claiming that significant amounts of money have been misallocated. He expressed concerns about potential kickbacks related to large expenditures, noting that out of 200 reviewed, only three seemed reasonable. Trump also acknowledged Musk's efforts, stating that he endures a lot of criticism while uncovering important issues.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨‼️JUST IN: President Trump commends Elon, announces a news conference set for TOMORROW — — will read list of names of recipients of waste, fraud and abuse. "I'm going to read to you some of the names that hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars have been given to." “I say it in front of our our attorney general. There's no chance that there's not kickbacks or something going on. When you give millions and millions of dollars to somebody that stands to look at something for 15 minutes and walks away with millions of dollars. That money's coming back in some form. And that's only one form of corruption." "I went through a list of 200 expenditures that were made, and I found three that looked like they were reasonable. Okay, three and, we'll be talking about that tomorrow." "I want to commend Elon. He doesn't need this. You know, he's abused by you people every day. He's found more things than anybody could find."
Video Transcript AI Summary
There's tremendous fraud and abuse happening, and I'm holding a news conference tomorrow to reveal some of the entities that have received hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars. It's hard to believe this kind of fraud can occur.
When you see billions being wasted illegally, there's likely kickbacks or corruption involved. Millions are given for minimal effort, and that money comes back in some form. They're spending massive amounts of money on ridiculous items. Out of 200 expenditures I reviewed, only three seemed reasonable.
I commend Elon for his work in uncovering this fraud. He doesn't need to do this, especially with the abuse he faces. He and his team, which started with 12 people and has now grown to almost a hundred, have found more than anyone else could. People are joining to help because there's massive fraud.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Should talk about widespread fraud and abuse. Oh, yeah. Tremendous fraud. There's tremendous fraud, and it's hard to believe that you can have that kind of fraud. You're talking about, like, are you talking about what?
Wait. Wait. Wait. General fraud. Which are you talking?
You're talking about with regard to all of the investigations that are going on about this stupidity. What we're gonna do is tomorrow, I'm having a news conference. I'm gonna read to you some of the names that hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars have been given to. And if you tell me that we should be giving money to those things, those entities, I think you'll probably have to leave as a reporter because you're not very talented. When you look at the kind of money, billions and billions of dollars being thrown away illegally, and there's no there's no chance I mean, I say it in front of our our attorney general, there's no chance that there's not kickbacks or something going on.
When you give millions and millions of dollars to somebody that stands to look at something for fifteen minutes and walks away with millions of dollars, that money's coming back in some form, and that's only one form of corruption. The biggest thing is what they do to our country, they're taking massive amounts of money and spending it on items. I went through a list of 200 expenditures that were made, and I found three that looked like they were reasonable. Okay. Three.
And, we'll be talking about that tomorrow. We have a lot of stuff. And I wanna commend Elon because he's done a fan he doesn't need this. You know, he's abused by you people every day. He's found more things than anybody could find.
I think he's got the credibility to do it. I know he does. And, it's his group of people. You know, they started off with 12. I call them 12 geniuses.
They started off with 12 and they went to twenty and twenty five, and now they're up to almost a hundred. People are joining to help them because there's a massive fraud that's taken place.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Elon-obsessed Jamie Raskin hijacked a committee hearing to rail about DOGE’s “mutant teenage racist computer hackers” — — and this deregulation advocate/entrepreneur wasn’t having it. https://t.co/0AWyTTF1Ss
Video Transcript AI Summary
They've seized financial systems at the Treasury, gaining access to Americans' financial records, members of Congress, prosecutors, and regulators. Courts have repeatedly stated that they're violating the Constitution and laws. That's what deserves attention, not administrative state discussions.
All you've done is complain about the process. Isn't the goal to improve the lives of Americans? It seems you're focused on process and think that improvements do not matter. If the goal is to improve lives, the focus shouldn't be on taking down individuals. The focus should be on how to make the American people better off.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He and his mutant teenage racist computer hackers have taken possession of financial payment systems at the United States Department of Treasury, meaning data access to the private financial records of every American citizen, every member of Congress, every federal prosecutor, every regulator who's supposed to be looking at what his business does, and what have the court's been saying? They've they've said a dozen times in three weeks that they're violating the constitution of The United States and the laws passed by Congress. That's what's going on in America today. That's what we should be having a hearing about, not some eerie academic, conversation about the administrative state.
Speaker 1: And the fact that, mister Raskin, you're here this whole time we've been here, You've been you've just been complaining about the process. I'd call it a process. And, again, I'm not agreeing disagreeing with with your issues right now around Musk and the process that's following mister Vladeck, the process that you're following. At some point, what is the end game? Isn't the end game to make us, the American people, better off?
Isn't it? Isn't it? No. I hear you saying that the stuff that would make us better off doesn't matter. All you care about right now is a process of Musk and his associates are not doing this the right way.
The goal is the goal more and right or not? If you say it is, as I think you should be saying, then the fight shouldn't be about, you know, we need to take Moscow down or Trump down. Let us rethink that if you want, but keep your eye on the ball, and your ball should be me. It should be me. I'm sorry.
It should be me. Yeah. It should be me. How do we make me better off? And you Thank you, mister Jordan.
You bet. And by me, you mean the American people. That's what I mean by that.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨JORDAN: DOJ should prosecute the FBI leakers on ICE raids: “This is this is as wrong as it gets. You're jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement officials by leaking that information to the bad guys." https://t.co/LIVc122ml7
Video Transcript AI Summary
If an FBI employee leaked an ICE memo, allowing gang members to evade capture, there should be consequences. Interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations, like deporting criminals, is a serious offense that should be prosecuted. Leaking information to criminals that jeopardizes the safety of law enforcement officials is as wrong as it gets. I believe the Justice Department will investigate and prosecute anyone found to be tipping off criminals and helping them evade law enforcement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What are the ramifications for somebody within the FBI who may have leaked that ICE, memo detailing what their operations were and and and allowing those, trended Aromagua gang members to actually get away?
Speaker 1: No. If you're interfering with legitimate law enforcement activity where they're going out and sending criminals back, repatriating criminals, you're interfering with that operation, that that should be prosecuted. I think I think, Tom Homan is exactly right. And my guess is Pam and soon to be Todd Blanche running our justice department will look into this. And if it happened, they will prosecute the individual who's tipping off the bad guys about the good guys coming to take them back, send them back to their country.
So, yeah. This is this is as wrong as it gets, and I think Tom Homan is and he spelled it out because you're jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement officials by leaking that information to the bad guy.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
LEFT: CNN propaganda hack angrily argues with @ScottJenningsKY that Elon and DOGE are not providing transparency. RIGHT: Scroll of the DOGE 𝕏 account, providing transparency. https://t.co/g3WNMzzvv5
Video Transcript AI Summary
I believe he wants to be transparent, as he says, and the media is watching him closely. I wouldn't fear Congress if I were him, they're looking into things.
However, he hasn't been transparent from the start. Making announcements isn't enough; providing data is crucial. The White House is providing some information, but you may not believe it. Should anyone blindly believe it's true? Do you think kickbacks of tens of billions from USAID are happening?
I believe there's fraud, waste, and abuse, and they might be finding and sharing information about it. But by definition, they're not fully transparent. They should provide data, especially about kickbacks of tens of millions. I agree, data is great. I like announcements and regular reports too.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I take him at his word that he wants to be transparent, that he invites transparency. Obviously, everybody in the English speaking world media is looking into him every single day. I would have no fear if I were him about congress about congress.
Speaker 1: He hasn't been questions
Speaker 0: and looking into it. I I think I think they are.
Speaker 1: The definition of it is he's not been on the front end of this so far. He's not been transparent. I mean, maybe there may be They are
Speaker 0: making routine announcements about the things they are finding, and they are inviting questions about the things they are finding every single
Speaker 1: day. But but by definition, he's not being transparent. They're not they're they're not providing data for the things that they say that they have found evidence of. They just aren't. There is
Speaker 0: the I mean, the the White House has provided
Speaker 1: You can make announcements, and he also did admit that he actually So you
Speaker 0: just don't believe it? I mean, they they are they are providing information. You just choose not to believe that it's true.
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't think anyone should just believe that it's true. Do you think that people have taken kickbacks of tens of billions of dollars from USAID?
Speaker 0: Here here's what I think.
Speaker 1: Do you believe that?
Speaker 0: I think every year
Speaker 1: No. But don't accuse me of just, like
Speaker 0: I I'm just I'm just asking you. Do you do you believe that there is any level of fraud, waste, fraud, abuse in the No.
Speaker 1: No. No. That's not what you're asking me, and I'm gonna ask the question. Don't accuse me of just, like And
Speaker 0: so and so if you you believe that, do you believe that it's possible that they are finding and producing information about it? Of course.
Speaker 1: That was my question. The question was, by definition, they're not being transparent. My they can continue to be successful.
Speaker 0: What do you want
Speaker 1: them to do? Provide data if they're firing if they're provide data that they have found people everyone would wanna know if someone has received kickbacks to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Speaker 0: I don't disagree with you. I I love the idea of data. I love the announcements. I love them putting out regular reports of whether they're they're not.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨SEN KENNEDY: “It strikes me as breathtakingly ironic that that the people who are screaming so loudly about President Trump's decision to audit federal spending— — are the very same people who wanted to hire 80,000 new IRS agents with guns to audit the American people." https://t.co/AveAVvKP1l
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's ironic that those criticizing President Trump's audit of federal spending are the same ones who wanted to hire 80,000 IRS agents to audit Americans under President Biden. The battle lines are drawn: some colleagues support bureaucracy and spending over the American taxpayer.
This isn't just Democrats; many in Washington D.C. have circled the wagons to support spending and bureaucrats over taxpayers. They have a right to be foolish, but these are the same people who chose to support illegal immigration over the rule of law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It strikes me as breathtakingly ironic. The cynic might say cynical. That the people who are screaming so loudly about president Trump's decision to audit federal spending are the very same people under president Biden who, who wanted to hire 80,000 new IRS agents with guns to audit the American people. As I've said before, if it weren't for double standards, there wouldn't be any standards at all in this town. The battle ground the the battle lines are drawn, mister president.
The battle lines are drawn. Some of my colleagues have decided to, to support the bureaucracy and the spending porn over the American taxpayer. That's what they've done. And, some of the same people it's not just my Democratic colleagues. There are many people in Washington, DC that have grouped together and they've circle the wagons and they've decided to support the spending porn and the bureaucrats over the American taxpayer.
That's their right. It's not against the law or unconstitutional to be foolish in America. But these are the same people. These are the same people who chose to support illegal immigration over the rule of law.
reSee.it AI Summary
I criticized Tulsi Gabbard, calling her untrustworthy, but I faced backlash for my own past when I was caught lying about my service in Vietnam and had to apologize for it.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
FEB 11, 2025: Dem Senator Dick Blumenthal rails against Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard — saying she "has proven untrustworthy throughout her career." MAY 28, 2010: Blumenthal is busted for lying about serving in Vietnam. https://t.co/QNQyyNOYSV
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm confirming that Tulsi Gabbard has appointed someone with a history of being untrustworthy, potentially aiding adversarial nations.
In Connecticut, the leading Democratic candidate in a major US Senate race is facing scrutiny after being caught misrepresenting his military service. Richard Blumenthal, the state attorney general, previously stated he served in Vietnam, but reports indicate he received five wartime deferments and served stateside in the Marine Reserves.
I misspoke, and I won't let a few misplaced words tarnish my record of service to our country. However, video evidence exists of Blumenthal claiming he was in Vietnam.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And confirming Tulsi Gabbard puts in place someone who has proven untrustworthy throughout her career, potentially an aid to Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and others.
Speaker 1: And a big US senate race in Connecticut got blown sky high today when the leading democrat in the race got caught in a lie over his military service. Richard Blumenthal, who is the state attorney general, has said in the past, he served in Vietnam. He did not. He served during Vietnam. The New York Times reports he received five wartime deferments, and he served stateside in the marine reserves.
Today, Blumenthal said he misspoke.
Speaker 0: I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country.
Speaker 1: Problem with that is there's videotape of Blumenthal saying that he was in Vietnam.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Blumenthal was forced to apologize for lying about serving in Vietnam. https://t.co/mM6GNcTo0P
Video Transcript AI Summary
I served in Vietnam, but upon returning home, there was no gratitude. Someone covered one lie with another. If he lied about Vietnam, what else is he lying about? This forced Blumenthal, the five-term state attorney general, to address the issue at the debate. I'm proud of my military service, but on a few occasions, out of hundreds, when I commented on it, I described it inaccurately. I want to say that I am sorry, particularly to our veterans and most especially to the veterans of Vietnam.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Would you lie about serving in a war? We have learned something very important since the days that I served in Vietnam. I served in Vietnam. I served in Vietnam, after again and again. When we return, we saw nothing of this gratitude.
He covered one lie with another. Since the day that I served in Vietnam, I If he lied about Vietnam, what else is he lying about? That forced Blumenthal, the five term state attorney general, to address the issue at the debate last night. I'm proud of my military service. On a few occasions, out of hundreds, when I commented on it, I described it inaccurately, and I wanna say that I am sorry, particularly to our veterans and most especially to the veterans of Vietnam.
reSee.it AI Summary
Tom Homan discusses the Biden administration's Open Borders Plan, asserting that it is a deliberate strategy for political gain rather than incompetence. He claims that the administration's actions, including overturning the Trump census rule, will lead to millions of illegal aliens being counted in the census, potentially increasing House seats for Democrats. He emphasizes that this is a calculated move to secure future political power, stating, "They sold this country out for future political power." Additionally, a video previously explained this situation succinctly.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨NEW: Tom Homan lays out the facts on the Biden admin Open Borders Plan: "They sold this country out for future political power." TRUTH: “It's not incompetence. It's not mismanagement. They knew exactly what they were doing…some think there was future political benefit with millions and millions of Democrat voters." “But we don't even have to get there because they also overturned the Trump census rule, which means millions of illegal aliens will be counted in the next census in sanctuary cities, which would result in more House seats for Democrats." "They sold this country out for future political power."
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump secured the border, saving lives. The Biden administration could have done the same, but chose not to, undoing Trump's policies. This wasn't incompetence; it was a deliberate action. Over 90 executive orders reversed border security measures. The reasons are multifaceted: some believe in open borders, others see political gain in welcoming millions of potential Democratic voters. Furthermore, changes to census rules will inflate the count of illegal immigrants, benefiting Democrats in future elections. Ultimately, the country was sacrificed for political power.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So president Trump deserves credit, not just securing that border, but in saving lives by securing that border. And and the Biden administration could have did the same thing. They knew how to do it. They just didn't wanna do it because they undid everything Trump did. They were just kept everything in place.
We'll never have this, issue we had, but why would they purposely unsecure a border? Because it's not incompetence. It's not mismanagement. They knew exactly what they were doing because they wrote over 90 executive orders destroying everything. It gave us the most secure border in my lifetime, my career.
I think it's for a lot of reason. I think there's some that really truly believe in open borders. There should be no borders. Some think there's a future political benefit, by these millions being future Democratic voters. But we don't even have to get there because they also overturned Trump's census rule, which means millions of illegal aliens will be counted in the lower in the next census and sanctuary cities, which would result in more house seats for Democrats.
They sold this country out for future political power.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
There was a video that explained this a while back. https://t.co/M6ihBwN6DA
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Dem Rep DeLauro is apoplectic about Trump and DOGE — — says Americans are outraged that the Trump admin is "dismantling the federal government." "Your kid may be in a classroom that doesn't have a teacher!" https://t.co/eFotphPdlq
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cutting essential services has significant repercussions for American families. Denying school lunches, cutting Pell grants and student aid impacts education, leading to teacher shortages and harming special education programs. These cuts affect middle and working-class families, jeopardizing their economic stability and future. The federal government is being dismantled, limiting access to vital services and resources needed to raise families and ensure economic security. The consequences are far-reaching, impacting everyone's ability to thrive. It's crucial to understand the human cost of these cuts.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The other piece of that is the outrage of the American public. And when you when you think about there is a legal issue, but you have to think about what the, you know, what are the repercussions to American families? You take education. You're you're looking at denying people, school lunches. You are taking the opportunity for a college education if you cut Pell grants.
You cut student financial aid. There are a whole range of of of of what these services do for the American public. That's the word that has to get out. When you cut education, you cut 72 you cut title one, seventy two thousand teachers nationwide are gone. Your kid may be in a classroom that doesn't have a teacher.
Special education for developmentally challenged kids, that will be cut. What happens to those kids? But, again, it's USAID, it's education. They're gonna go to Medicaid, and it is about the effect of what happens in the lives of American people, of middle class families, of working families, of what is going to happen, to to their ability, to be able to survive both economically and to to to be able to, have a future going forward. That is what they are doing.
They are dismantling the federal government, which will deny the American people the services and the resources that allow them to help to raise their families, have a secure economy, and a secure future for themselves.
reSee.it AI Summary
I confirmed that over $8 million in taxpayer dollars subsidized Politico. Eugene Daniels from Politico stated on PBS' "Washington Week with The Atlantic" that DOGE isn't showing evidence of waste or abuse. It feels concerning that an employee from a previously taxpayer-subsidized outlet is now on another subsidized platform spreading what I see as misinformation. Politico has been defunded, and I believe PBS should be next.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
February 5: Karoline Leavitt confirms that over $8M taxpayer dollars went to subsidizing Politico. February 8: Politico’s Eugene Daniels declares that DOGE is not producing evidence of waste or abuse. Daniels’ comments were made on PBS’ "Washington Week with The Atlantic." So, an employee of a formerly taxpayer-subsidized print-propaganda outlet (Politico) is appearing on a still-taxpayer-subsidized TV-propaganda outlet (PBS) spreading lies and propaganda. Politico has been defunded. Now it’s PBS turn.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We've stopped the $8,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies for Politico subscriptions. The team is working to cancel the payments immediately.
Large organizations inevitably miss things. Claims of widespread waste and abuse haven't been substantiated with evidence. We haven't seen proof of the alleged misuse of funds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I can confirm that the more than 8,000,000 taxpayer dollars that have gone to essentially subsidizing subscriptions to Politico, the American taxpayers' dime will no longer be happening. The DOGE team is working on canceling those payments now.
Speaker 1: I think when you have a bunch of humans doing one thing and the bigger the organization gets, there's always going to be something that is missed. I think what we have not seen The show, for instance, for example. What what we've seen what we have not seen from Elon Musk or this administration is any evidence of all of this abuse that they're talking about, right? You, they, right? Like they, they, they say they've gone in, they found all of this, all of this waste that has been happening.
We haven't seen it.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
Deranged Maxine has meltdown over CFBP, shouts "Elon Musk, where are you? Bring your *ss over here!" "He's a thief! He's a gangster!" It’s little wonder why Trump’s approval is soaring — these unhinged antics are high-grade American voter repellant. https://t.co/O75kXzh7Uw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Wow! Look at this crowd! We're at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by Dodd-Frank to help consumers fight back against predatory practices by big banks and student loan companies. Before this, people had nowhere to turn. Why would someone like Elon Musk want to dismantle this? Because he's a thief, a gangster, and he and his billionaire friends want to take over the country. Trump even said you can buy your way into power.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Wow. Wow. Wow. Look at this crowd. Elon Musk, where are you?
Bring your ass over here so you can see who's here and what we're doing. We're not afraid of you. We know that you are the co president now of The United States Of America. But ladies and gentlemen, I want you to follow very closely what he's doing and how he has done it. First of all, we're here at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
What is it? This is so important. Prior to this being, organized in the Dodd Frank reforms, consumers didn't have any place to really file complaints. They didn't have anywhere to go when the biggest banks in America was ripping them off. The student loans were being undermined.
They didn't have any place to go. Why does Elon Musk wanna get rid of all of this? Because he's a thief. He's a gangster. He brings his billionaire friends along with him because they think that they can take over this country.
And Trump has said, you give me enough money, you can have
reSee.it AI Summary
I signed an executive order on paper straws, which trended for three days. I’m bringing back plastic straws because paper ones just don't hold up—they break, explode, and can't handle heat. Plus, I doubt plastic straws impact sharks while they’re eating in the ocean.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🇺🇸President Trump signs EO on paper straws: “It was number one trending for three days…" "We're going to plastic straws. These things don't work. They break. They explode. If something's hot they don't last very long..I don't think that plastic's going to affect a shark very much as they're munching their way through the ocean." 😂🇺🇸
Video Transcript AI Summary
Paper straws are unpopular and ineffective. Their environmental impact compared to plastic is unclear, yet the switch has been costly and frustrating for everyone. We're instructing federal agencies to review their purchasing practices and are requesting a comprehensive review of this issue. It significantly impacts everyday Americans. Frankly, paper straws are a disaster. They break and disintegrate quickly, especially with hot drinks. We're returning to plastic straws because they simply work better. I don't believe the effect of plastic straws on marine life is a major concern.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Next, this is an executive order relating to the use of paper straws. As you've consistently identified, nobody really likes paper straws.
Speaker 1: Number one trending. Can you believe it? A paper straw was number one trending for three days or something.
Speaker 0: The the environmental impact of plastic straws versus paper straws is entirely unclear. This has cost both the government and private industry an absolute ton of money and left consumers all over the country wildly dissatisfied with their straws. So we're asking aspects of the federal government, federal departments and agencies to look at their existing procurement processes and we're asking your domestic policy counsel to look holistically at this issue to address it. And it really is something that affects ordinary Americans in their everyday lives.
Speaker 1: We're going back to plastics. Because these things don't work. I've had them many times. And on occasion, they break. They explode.
If something's hot, they don't last very long, like a matter of minutes, sometimes a matter of seconds. It's a ridiculous situation. So we're going back to plastic straws. I think it's okay. And I don't think that plastic's gonna affect a shark very much as they're eating as they're munching their way through the ocean.
Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Next, we have
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨NEW: Chuck Schumer takes to the Senate floor to urge federal workers to use the Democrat 'Whistleblower Portal' to report “wrongdoing” by DOGE — — because Senate Democrats want to "keep accountability and transparency alive." 🤡🌎 https://t.co/Foct8T28WZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
We champion transparency and accountability. Donald Trump attempted to manipulate our democracy for personal gain, but Senate Democrats are fighting back. We've launched a whistleblower portal to address concerns about potential wrongdoing, specifically related to the "Doge" issue. We urge Americans to report any observed misconduct. We believe in government transparency and accountability, values this administration has neglected. This whistleblower portal is a step towards restoring those vital principles.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We believe in transparency. We believe in accountability. Donald Trump has tried to reshape our entire democracy to fit his unlawful impulses and serve his personal political interests. Senate Democrats won't let him. And so we have the whistleblower portal.
We are urging Americans who see some real wrongdoing being created by this Doge thing to report it. We want all we I think all Americans want government to be transparent. We all agree that ensuring accountability is vital, but thus far, this new administration has done the opposite. Today, with the whistleblower portal, we senate Democrats are taking one step to help keep accountability and transparency alive.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
LEFT, OCT 2024: As the election neared, KJP assured Americans that no FEMA funds were being diverted to Illegals. RIGHT, TODAY: Elon exposes that FEMA still sending taxpayer dollars to illegals — just LAST WEEK having sent $59M to illegals for luxury hotels. More lies. https://t.co/eSw90bWgT7
Video Transcript AI Summary
Disaster relief funds are not being used for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. This claim is false. No money is being diverted from actual disaster response needs.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So disaster relief. This is a falsehood. Disaster relief funds used on immigrants illegally in The US. The fact is no money is being diverted from response needs. That's the fact.
reSee.it AI Summary
In an interview with Margaret Brennan, a USAID employee, who remains anonymous, expressed deep concerns about the current atmosphere within the agency, citing "massive insecurity" and fears of being doxxed. They claimed that actions taken by DOGE are unauthorized and harmful, asserting that these actions do not align with President Trump's mandate and are driven by a few rogue individuals. The employee emphasized the dangers of compromised personal data and criticized Elon Musk for unilaterally making decisions that negatively impact vulnerable populations.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
CBS Democrat activist Margaret Brennan conducted an interview with a USAID employee whose identity is concealed. While legacy media is actively investigating and doxxing DOGE employees, they respect the USAID employee’s wish not to be publicly named. In this three-minute excerpt (edits are marked with white flashes), the employee claims: - An atmosphere of “massive insecurity" - A fear of being doxxed - Their personal data is compromised - DOGE actions have not been approved by President Trump and are the actions of a “few rogue individuals" - DOGE actions are dangerous and illegal - DOGE actions are not serving President Trump’s mandate - Elon is unilaterally making decisions that take help away from the poorest people in the world Many of these claims are clearly untrue on their face, yet no pushback from Brennan was offered. Legacy media is working to undermine DOGE efforts to cut government waste and expose fraud, because legacy media is part of the waste and fraud. The full transcript of this excerpt is provided below, and the full interview is linked in threaded post. --- BRENNAN: Why in our conversation do you think you need to remain anonymous? EMPLOYEE: It has been a very hard, a very hard week. Personally. Professionally, as I said, I live in Washington, D.C. Many of my colleagues work in this field. Starting from January 21st, so the first day of the new administration, things started to go sideways very quickly. The atmosphere of fear that was in the USAID building, which we're no longer in, the atmosphere of fear, in terms of not knowing who was in the building, not knowing what their motivations were, not knowing if our emails or channels were safe, not knowing how to interpret these executive orders right around DEIA or administration priorities. EMPLOYEE: All of that created an atmosphere of massive insecurity. And so people have, I think, lost the ability to know what's true for what's not. At this point, everyone is really scared. EMPLOYEE: And so, you know, I have a daughter, I have a family, like most Americans. And I want to be brave. I think it's really important to share our personal stories at this time, but I am afraid, and I just don't want to put them at any more risk than we have to. BRENNAN: When you say doxxed, there is fear of public sharing of your name and possibly targeting? EMPLOYEE: Absolutely. BRENNAN: By who? EMPLOYEE: Well, I mean, at this point, those members, including Elon Musk, have access to not just the data within the USAID world. Right. And the USAID system, which includes my personal email address, my Social Security number, my entire security file in that security file is every contact I've ever known, every country I've traveled to, every home address I've had. EMPLOYEE: So no matter which way I look at it, my information is entirely compromised and it's in hands that I don't know and don't trust. EMPLOYEE: And yes, the government can be slow. It can be inefficient. It can cost taxpayers money. I do not doubt that at all. What is absolutely clear to me is that methods being used to achieve this so-called efficiency, not only do they not seem to be vetted and approved by the president of the United States or our Secretary, Marco Rubio. EMPLOYEE: They are entirely the actions of a rogue few individuals. They're dangerous. They're illegal. They're cruel more than anything. And so, no, I don't think this is serving American interests or answering to the president's mandates. EMPLOYEE: And so to have this sort of, to be vilified by a billionaire who has decided that he's unilaterally going to take help away from the poorest people in the world, and he's doing it on behalf of the American people is particularly gross and horrifying. And I am angry. I am sad, I am devastated for my colleagues, for myself, for my family, and for the American people.
Video Transcript AI Summary
This past week has been incredibly difficult, both personally and professionally. Since the new administration began, a climate of fear has permeated my workplace. We're unsure who to trust, and the constant uncertainty is terrifying. My information, including personal details and contacts, has been compromised. I'm worried about my family's safety, and that's why I'm remaining anonymous.
The methods used to achieve supposed efficiency are dangerous, illegal, and cruel. They haven't been approved by the President or Secretary Rubio, and they're the actions of a rogue few. Being vilified by a billionaire who's cutting aid to the world's poorest is horrifying. I'm angry, sad, and devastated for my colleagues, my family, and the American people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Why in our conversation do you think you need to remain anonymous?
Speaker 1: It has been a very hard a very hard week. Personally, professionally, as I said, I live in Washington DC. Many of my colleagues work in this field. Starting from January 21, so the first day of the new administration, things started to go sideways very quickly. The the atmosphere of fear that was in The USA Building which we're no longer in the atmosphere of fear in terms of not knowing who was in the building, not knowing what their motivations were, not knowing if our emails or channels were safe, not knowing how to interpret these executive orders right around BIA or administration priorities.
All of that created an atmosphere of massive insecurity. And so people have, I think, lost the ability to know what's true from what's not at this point. Everyone is really scared. And so, you know, I have a daughter. I have a family like most Americans, and I wanna be brave.
I think it's really important to share our personal stories at this time, but I am afraid, and I just don't wanna put them at any more risk than I have to.
Speaker 0: When you say doxxed, there is fear of public sharing of your name and possibly targeting. Absolutely. By who?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, at this point, Doge members, including Elon Musk, have access to not just the data within the USAID world, right, and the USAID system, which includes my personal email address, my Social Security number, my entire security file. In that security file is every contact I've ever known, every country I've traveled to, every home address I've had. So no matter which way I look at it, my information is entirely compromised, and it's enhanced that I don't know and don't trust. And, yes, the government can be slow. It can be inefficient.
It can cost taxpayers money. I do not doubt that at all. What is absolutely clear to me is that the methods being used to achieve this so called efficiency, not only do they not seem to be vetted and approved by the president of The United States or our secretary Marco Rubio, they're entirely the actions of a rogue few individuals. They're dangerous. They're illegal.
They're cruel more than anything. And so, no, I I don't think this is serving American interests or answering to the president's mandate. And so to have this sort of to be vilified by a billionaire who has decided that he's unilaterally going to take help away from the poorest people in the world, and he's doing it on behalf of the American people is particularly gross and horrifying, and I am angry. I am sad. I am devastated for my colleagues, for myself, for my family, and for the American people.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
MSNBC broke into PA coverage to hyperventilate about Trump clearing out the corrupt FBI: “Hostile takeover of federal law enforcement." Psaki is particularly upset about a requested list of employees involved with J6 cases. “A really, really big list." Straight into my veins. https://t.co/YWBtNpBtnt
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Trump administration has executed a significant purge at the FBI, dismissing all six senior executives and multiple heads of field offices. This includes the leader of the Washington DC office, which was involved in prosecuting Trump, and several federal prosecutors linked to the January 6 investigations. These officials are career law enforcement professionals, not political appointees, and their removal could severely impact the FBI's ability to address terrorism and crime nationwide. Additionally, the acting deputy attorney general has requested a list of FBI employees involved in January 6 cases, affecting personnel across various field offices. This upheaval leaves local offices in disarray and raises concerns about the future of federal law enforcement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As I I noted right before the break on another piece of breaking news tonight here in the nation's capital where the Trump administration has conducted an unprecedented purge at the top levels of the FBI. Unprecedented. Administration officials have forced out all 6 of the FBI's most senior executives and multiple heads of various FBI field offices across the country according to current and former FBI officials who spoke with NBC News. This hostile takeover of federal law enforcement, there's no other way to call it, included the high profile leader of the Washington DC field office, which was involved in the prosecutions of president Donald Trump. To run with us justice also fired multiple federal prosecutors who conducted the criminal investigation of January 6 rioters according to sources.
Now just to take a a moment a step back, I know there's a lot of news you are consuming right now, but these are officials these are these are not political officials. These these are career law enforcement officials. Most of whom all of whom have worked under multiple Democratic and Republican administrations. They are not political appointees. Many do not even work in the FBI's Washington headquarters.
Like Spencer Evans, he is a special agent in charge of the bureau's Las Vegas field office. In a note obtained by NBC News, Evans writes, I was informed by FBI headquarters today that the executive leadership at the Department of Justice plans to dismiss me from the roles of the FBI along with several other FBI executives as soon as Monday morning. I was given no rationale for this decision, which, as you might imagine, has come as a shock. These firings are potentially devastating to the nation's ability to fight terrorism and corruption, investigate crime across the country. That's what the FBI does.
But they are also not just about law enforcement officials in Washington. They they're no doubt going to have an impact on the local communities they serve as well. We're gonna be learning more about that, I'm certain, in the days ahead. And it's leaving a lot of these local FBI field offices across the country in a huge lurch. Now at the same time that Trump is purging the bureau's ranks, multiple sources tell NBC News that the office of the acting deputy attorney general, former Trump defense attorney, Emile Bovee, has asked the FBI for a list of employees involved in January 6th cases.
Now that could include case managers, technical workers, intelligence analysts, workers in almost basically every single field office the FBI has. As one former bureau official told NBC News, this is a really, really big list.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe that President Trump's FAA executive order undermines the integrity of the hiring process by prioritizing individuals who may not meet the necessary qualifications. It feels like a betrayal to the American people, especially when it comes to the safety of our air travel. The order mandates a review of all hiring decisions at the FAA from the past four years, insisting that anyone not hired based on merit should be replaced. This raises concerns about the implications for safety and competence within such a critical agency.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨MILLER: Trump’s FAA executive order will replace employees not hired on merit: "It is a betrayal of the American people to say that you are going to prioritize the hiring of people with severe intellectual defects to serve at the Federal Aviation Administration, the entity responsible for ensuring that every single passenger over American airspace safely takes off, safely flies and safely lands." “The order President Trump issued today tells the Secretary of Transportation to review every hiring decision at the FAA over the last four years and where someone was not hired based on merit, qualification or competence, that person needs to be replaced."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Prioritizing the hiring of individuals with severe intellectual disabilities at the FAA undermines passenger safety. This approach hinders the agency's ability to innovate and improve airline safety, forcing it to constantly react to crises instead of proactively developing new systems and protocols. The focus should be on hiring based on merit and competence to ensure effective operations. President Trump has emphasized the need for high standards and has ordered a review of FAA hiring decisions from the past four years. Any hires not based on qualifications will need to be replaced to restore integrity and effectiveness to the agency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It is a betrayal of the American people to say that you are going to prioritize the hiring of people with severe intellectual defects to serve at the Federal Aviation Administration, the entity responsible for ensuring that every single passenger over American airspace safely takes off, safely flies, and safely lands. And, yeah, what it does over a period of time to an agency is that it prevents that agency from developing the new systems, the new protocols, the new programs, the new priorities to constantly adapt and evolve airline safety. Because instead, you're always playing catch up. You're always playing cleanup. You're trying to put out fires.
You're trying to stop things from falling apart. You can't build. You cannot learn. You cannot grow because you're not hiring based solely on qualification and competence. They've been playing games to America's public safety in a way that is unconscionable.
And president Trump's made clear that he's not only and he issued another order today. He's not only installing the highest standards possible, but the order president Trump issued today tells the secretary of transportation to review every hiring decision at the FAA over the last four years. And where someone was not hired based on merit, qualification, or competence, then that person needs to be replaced.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
@StephenM 🔥More Miller: In his zeal to be a combative blithering idiot, Tapper blurts out that Miller is “demonizing” federal workers for voting for Kamala. Miler: "Wait. Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Did you just say that? Saying someone who voted for Kamala Harris is demonizing them?” 🤣 https://t.co/0IRmxOHZla
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is confusion regarding the impact of a sweeping order on public benefit programs, which remains unaffected, as clarified by OMB. The federal workforce, consisting of 2 million employees, is predominantly left-leaning, as evidenced by donations to candidates like Kamala Harris. This raises concerns about bias. The American people voted for significant change with Donald Trump, who needs to gain control over government spending, particularly discretionary grants not directed by Congress. These funds could be used for projects like unnecessary constructions or funding studies abroad. It’s crucial for political appointees to review these expenditures to ensure accountability, despite any misleading reports from left-wing media.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Seemed to a lot of groups in a lot of states, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, like a very sweeping order, and there is confusion. I just wanna make sure I understand. So anybody out there that provides school lunches, anybody out there Yeah.
Speaker 1: There's no there's zero impact on public benefit programs full stop as OMB has made clear. And I just wanna but I wanna really drill down on this shit because it's so important. Mhmm. There's 2,000,000 employees in the federal government. Overwhelmingly, the career federal service in this country is far left left wing.
The American people I don't know that to be a fact. Well, I'll give you a great example. We looked at USAID as an example. That's 98% 98% of the workforce either, donated to Kamala Harris or another left wing candidate, just as an example. Okay.
Speaker 0: But I'm just demonizing an entire workforce is having a Wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. Woah. Woah. Did you just say that saying someone who voted for Kamala Harris is demonizing them? No.
So according to
Speaker 0: Your your suggestion is that there's a bias. No. Your suggestion
Speaker 1: But you used the word demonizing. You just said that I'm demonizing somebody by saying they voted for Kamala Harris.
Speaker 0: Let's get back
Speaker 1: on track. But I just I I'm I am on track.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Let me stay on track. What I'm saying to you is this. There are 2,000,000 employees in the federal government. Right. They're overwhelmingly left of center.
The American people I gotta finish the sentence.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: I gotta finish the sentence. The American people voted for dramatic change implemented by Donald Trump. So it is essential for him to get control of government, to establish a whole of government process for Donald Trump's political appointees to review discretionary grants of spending for pet projects that are not directed by congress. So these are pots of money where congress hasn't said how to spend it or where to spend it. This might be something like saying I want to build a $500,000,000 fountain in the courtyard of the department of commerce.
This might be something like saying I want to fund gender studies in Afghanistan. There has to be political control and review. I can't help it if left wing media outlets published a fake news story that caused confusion.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just witnessed an intense exchange between Stephen Miller and Jake Tapper. Miller challenged Tapper's question about relying on illegal alien labor for agriculture, asserting that only 1% of undocumented workers are in farming. He emphasized that most illegal aliens are in cities, not on farms, and criticized the notion that they contribute to agricultural work. Miller also mentioned that there is a guest worker program supported by President Trump for farmers. It was a compelling defense from Miller.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🔥HOLY SMOKES: @StephenM just scorched a combative Jake Tapper and his “who’s going to pick the crops!" propaganda: "Well, I mean, I'm sure it's not your position, Jake. You're just asking the question that we should supply America's food with exploitative, illegal alien labor. "I obviously don't think that's what you're implying." LOL. Miller continued: "Only 1% of alien workers in the entire country work in agriculture. The top destination for illegal aliens are large cities like New York, like Los Angeles and small, industrial towns, of course, all across the heartland." "None of those illegal aliens are doing farm work." "The illegal aliens that Joe Biden brought into our country are not full stop doing farm work. They are not the illegal aliens he brought in from Venezuela, from Haiti, from Nicaragua. They are not doing farm work. They are in our cities collecting welfare." "As for the farmers, there is a guest worker program that President Trump supports." Masterclass performance here from Miller. 🔥
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Trump has stated that high grocery prices contributed to his election. The Department of Agriculture reports that 42% of crop workers were undocumented immigrants from 2020 to 2022, often filling jobs that many Americans avoid. However, only 1% of undocumented workers are in agriculture, with most residing in cities. The migrants brought in recently are not working on farms but are in urban areas. Trump supports a guest worker program and emphasizes transitioning to automation in agriculture. He insists on enforcing immigration laws to prevent illegal immigration and protect citizens, asserting that the government will combat transnational threats effectively.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A question about because one of the reasons that president Trump got elected, according to president Trump in an interview, I think it was with Kristen Welker of NBC, was because of grocery prices. Not the only reason, but a reason, high prices inflation, especially at the grocery. The Department of Agriculture says that between 2020 and 2022, 42% of crop workers were undocumented immigrants. And in many cases, as you know, these migrants do jobs many Americans do not want to do. So how do you how does president Trump make sure that the effort to deport people who are not in this country legally doesn't end up hurting Americans who want safe borders absolutely, but also don't want to see even more higher prices in groceries.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I'm sure it's not your position, Jake. You're just asking the question that we should supply America's food with exploitative illegal alien labor. I, obviously, don't think that's what you're implying. Only 1% of alien workers in the entire country work in agriculture. The top destination for illegal aliens are large cities like New York, like Los Angeles, and small, industrial towns, of course, all across the heartland as we've as we've seen with the Biden floods.
Mhmm. And heartland as we've as we've seen with the Biden floods. Mhmm. None of those illegal aliens are doing farm work. Those 30,000 illegal aliens that Joe Biden dumped into Spring Hill.
Speaker 0: I'm talking about the ones that are No.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. But I'm but I'm no. No.
But I'm explaining this. It's important to understand. No.
Speaker 0: You're kinda changing this subject. I mean, I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm
Speaker 1: I'm I'm I'm I'm talking about the
Speaker 0: ones in the cities. I swear.
Speaker 1: I'll do the I'll do the whole answer. The illegal aliens that Joe Biden brought into our country are not full stop doing farm work. They are not. The illegal aliens he brought in from Venezuela, from Haiti, from Nicaragua, they are not doing farm work, they are in our cities collecting welfare. As for the farmers, there is a guest worker program that president Trump supports.
Over time as well, we will transition into automation, so we'll never have to have this conversation ever again. But there's no universe in which this nation is going to allow the previous president to flood our nation with millions and millions of illegal aliens who just get to stay here, and we are especially not going to allow a subset of those illegal aliens to rape and murder our citizens. So we are going to unapologetically enforce our immigration laws, and as I'm sure you will celebrate, we are going to unleash the power and might of the US government to eradicate the presence of transnational threats on our soil. So
reSee.it AI Summary
Adam Schiff continues to act as if he doesn't want a pardon, claiming there's not much he can do about it. He wants people to think he's exploring legal options to avoid accepting it, which I find quite amusing.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨NEW: Adam Schiff is still pretending he didn’t want a pardon — but gosh darn it, there’s just nothing he can do about it. "We're looking at it. I'm not sure there's much to be done." Schiff actually wants people to believe he’s doing a legal deep-dive to see if he could get out of accepting the pardon. This is hysterical.
Video Transcript AI Summary
President Biden issued pardons to members of the January 6th committee, which you were part of. This came after President Trump suggested the committee should face jail time. You previously expressed that you did not want a pardon and communicated this to the White House. Now that you’ve received one, are you considering accepting it or seeking legal recourse?
We are evaluating the situation, but it’s unclear what can be done since the pardons apply to the entire committee. This is unprecedented territory. We’ve operated collectively, and the law regarding such pardons is ambiguous. It seems likely we’ll have to accept the pardon unless there’s an attempt to prosecute the committee.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And, of course, president Biden did issue pardons to members of the January 6th committee. You were on the January 6th committee. It came after president Trump said that he thought the entire January 6th committee should go to jail. What's interesting, senator, you had been quite vocal. You didn't want president Biden to give you a pardon.
You went so far as to convey that to the White House. So what are you going to do about the fact that you've now been given a pardon? Are you going to accept it? Are you planning to look for some type of legal recourse to reject it?
Speaker 1: We're looking at it. I'm not sure there's much to be done given that it went to the whole committee. This is also, I think, unprecedented. You know, in the first instance, it was a result of the president threatening, wrongfully threatening to go after people who oversee this misconduct in a legitimate committee process. Nevertheless, we'll have to look at this as a committee, to see if there's anything to be done.
Speaker 0: What does that mean you're going to look at it? Does that mean that you you'll make a decision collectively about better whether to accept these pardons?
Speaker 1: We have tried to operate together as a committee, and I think the law is unclear because this is frankly uncharted territory. Whether pardons of this this nature are like a law in which you're powerless to say yay or nay or there's something different.
Speaker 0: It is quite murky, but it sounds like what you're saying is we'll look at it, but most likely, you're going to have to accept this pardon whether you like it or not.
Speaker 1: I it may not be actionable one way or another unless there is actually some kind of bogus effort to prosecute the committee.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared that Hegseth emphasized a significant shift in the US military's role, stating they will actively support border security operations. He affirmed that the Defense Department is committed to defending the nation's territorial integrity, highlighting a new approach to border protection.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨DoD SHIFT: Hegseth makes clear that the US military will be involved in border security operations: "Whatever is needed at the border will be provided." "This is a shift. This is not the way business has been done in the past." "The Defense Department will support the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States of America." Imagine: A military that defends its nation's borders and protects its sovereignty. What a concept. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Video Transcript AI Summary
Support will be provided at the southern border through various military statuses, including state active duty, Title 32, or Title 10. This marks a shift in how operations are typically conducted. The Department of Defense is committed to protecting the territorial integrity of the United States, involving reservists, the National Guard, and active duty personnel, all in accordance with the Constitution and directives from the commander in chief. Discussions about invoking the Insurrection Act will be determined by the White House. We are prepared to take necessary actions to secure the southern border.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Sent to the border scene? Whatever is needed at the border will be provided. Whether that is through state active duty, title 32, or title 10, because we we are reoriented. This is a shift. This is not the way business has been done in the past.
This is the defense department will support the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States of America at the southern border, to include reservists, National Guard, and active duty in compliance with the constitution, the laws of our land, and the directives of the commander in chief. What if possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act? Yes? Those will be decisions made by the White House. I look forward to conversations about anything we need to do to ensure we're securing our southern border.
reSee.it AI Summary
Rep. William Timmons from South Carolina announced that members of the pardoned January 6th Select Committee should anticipate a subpoena soon. He emphasized the need to uncover the truth behind their actions, stating that the pardons indicate dishonesty. Timmons expressed determination to reveal the facts, particularly focusing on those no longer in office, and asserted that their pardoned status means they have no excuse to avoid testifying. As a member of the House Oversight Committee, he is committed to getting to the bottom of the situation.
@WesternLensman - Western Lensman
🚨NEW: Rep. William Timmons (R-SC) says pardoned J6 Select Committee members should “expect a subpoena soon." "Buckle up, because we're going to get to the bottom of the nonsense. select committee for January 6th." "There's a reason that everybody on that committee was pardoned. It's because they were not telling the truth." "They embellish, they lie, and we're going to show them exactly what happened." “Because they're pardoned, they don't have an excuse not to come in and testify for us. So we're going to get to the bottom of this. Particularly the members that are no longer in office. Expect to expect a subpoena soon." Timmons serves on the House Oversight Committee.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're diving into the January 6th select committee, which has not been truthful with the American people. The events of January 6th were indeed bad, with assaults on law enforcement being unacceptable. However, the narrative pushed by Democrats over the past four years is false and exaggerated. We aim to clarify what really happened and investigate why President Biden pardoned members of the committee. Since they are pardoned, they must testify, especially those no longer in office. Expect subpoenas to be issued soon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Buckle up because we're gonna get to the bottom of what the, nonsense select committee for January 6th. There's a reason that everybody on that committee was partnered. It's because they were not telling the truth. They were lying to the American people. Look.
I'm gonna we all know that what happened on January 6th, 4 years ago, was bad. It was awful. A number of people assaulted law enforcement. That's unacceptable. Narrative that the Democrats have had for the last 4 years is not true.
It's false. They embellish. They lie. And we're gonna show them exactly what happened. We're gonna get to the bottom of it.
And we're gonna find out why president Biden pardoned all of the members of the January 6th committee. And guess what? Because they're pardoned, they don't have an excuse not to come in and testify before us. So we're going to get to the bottom of this, particularly the members that are no longer in office. Expect expect a subpoena soon.