TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@VernonForGA - Vernon Jones
Should Adam Schiff be disbarred for lying to the American public? YES or NO? https://buff.ly/42NAv9o
'He Is A Dishonor...': Fed-Up Republicans Take Action - Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff To Be Expelled from the House if New Measure Is Passed That Was Introduced by Rep. Luna
His days may be numbered.
conservativebrief.com
@wdunlap - Wayne Dunlap
Why was Adam Schiff chair of the House Intel Committee? He lied to the American people about collusion. He lied to American people about Michael Flynn. He lied to American people about Ukraine. He is STILL lying about all of it. He should be censured and removed!
@Travis_in_Flint - 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸
BREAKING: the United States House has voted to censure Adam Schiff a vote of 212-208. In total 4 Republicans voted present and 6 didn’t vote at all. He is now to be censured and referred to the Committee of Ethics for a full investigation into him politically weaponizing his position against President Trump.
@DesireeAmerica4 - 🔥Desiree🔥
If you want to see our new Speaker of the House in action, check out how he catches Alejandro Mayorkas in a lie! https://t.co/M0jEMPy4om
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker accuses the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of causing harm and failing to distinguish between domestic and foreign speech. They criticize the DHS for record levels of illegal immigration, declining deportations, and drug-related incidents. The speaker also mentions the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency (CISA) colluding with social media companies to censor free speech, as stated in a court opinion. When questioned, the DHS representative claims to be unaware of the court opinion but acknowledges being briefed on the Missouri litigation. The speaker questions the representative about the existence of the misinformation and disinformation subcommittee and who determines what is false. The representative denies involvement in censorship and states that CISA focuses on identifying tactics used by foreign nations to weaponize disinformation. The speaker disputes this, referring to the court's findings. The conversation ends due to time constraints.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The weaponized No, sir. No, sir. The court found specifically, it's a finding of fact that is not disputed by the government defendants. The Biden administration, your agency, the FBI or DHS, not in the litigation. They determined you made you and all of your cohorts made no distinction between domestic speech in foreign speech.
So don't stand there and tell me under oath that you only focused on adverse, you know, adversaries around the world. I have to be honest and tell you I'm not sure exactly what you do at the Department of Homeland Security other than great harm. On your watch, the data is pretty clear. We've had record levels of illegal immigration, a rapid decline in deportations, skyrocketing fentanyl deaths across our country, and the Secret Service, which is a DHS component, can't determine who left cocaine at the White House. In the middle of all this, you created the cybersecurity and infrastructure agency, CISA, which is a division of of of your of DHS.
And it's one of the Biden administration agencies that colluded with and coerced the social media companies to censor Americans protected free speech online that's specifically detailed in a 155 page court opinion that came out of the federal court in Louisiana in the landmark litigation of Missouri v Biden. Have you read that court opinion?
Speaker 1: Congressman, no. I have not. And, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency does not censor Speech.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, that's the court found otherwise, and it's really curious to me. Actually, it's quite alarming that you haven't read the opinion because your agency is listed in this opinion. The federal court looked at volumes of evidence over months of litigation, and they determined among other things that, If the allegations made by the plaintiffs, the States in this case are true, and and hold on, the preliminary injunction was granted against your agency, sir, and other Biden administration agencies, including the DOJ and FBI, the court said it involved the most massive attack against free speech in United States history. And you're telling me this opinion issued July 4th has not reached your desk.
No one's briefed you on it?
Speaker 1: Oh, I have been briefed on the Missouri litigation.
Speaker 0: Okay. But you haven't taken the time to read it yet? Congressman, no. Hold on. Have you read it or not?
I I
Speaker 1: have read parts of it, Connell.
Speaker 0: Parts of it. Did you read the parts where it said that this is Orwellian and dystopian and that your agency is involved in a massive cover up of specifically conservatives free speech online?
Speaker 1: Congressman, the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency is not involved in such Conduct.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, the court found otherwise, and you stand here under oath and you give us these answers that we know were not true because this is demonstrably untrue. I'm suggesting to you that you're saying things to us under oath that are proven by the record to be untrue. Let me ask you about this specifically. CISA was created to, we call it the misinformation and disinformation subcommittee of SIS.
Are you familiar with that?
Speaker 1: Congress
Speaker 0: MDM, the MDM subcommittee. You're familiar with that?
Speaker 1: Congressman, I am very well aware of the threat of disinformation emanating from adverse nation
Speaker 0: Are you familiar with the subcommittee? Just answer the question.
Speaker 1: I am.
Speaker 0: Okay. Does it still exist?
Speaker 1: Congressman, are you speaking of the
Speaker 0: Does the MDM subcommittee still exist?
Speaker 1: I would have to get back to you on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Alright. Kind of a big deal in your agency. I'm kind of shocked that you don't know the answer to that. Can you define what misinformation is?
Speaker 1: Congressman, misinformation is false information that is disseminated, to Excellent.
Speaker 0: Who determines what is false? Congressman, our focus. No. Who determines what is false in your agency? If you're gonna pull something off the Internet and collude with this social media platform to make sure Americans don't see it, who determines what's false?
Speaker 1: Congressman, we don't do that.
Speaker 0: That's not true. That is not true. That is not what the court has found. This is not a Republican talking point. This is what the documents show.
We've had people testify under oath that say, and you just defined the term, you're telling me that you don't know who determines what is false?
Speaker 1: Congressman, what we do at CISA, The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency is identify the tactics that adverse nation states use To weaponize disinformation.
Speaker 0: Okay. What is disinformation? What is disinformation?
Speaker 1: Disinformation is inaccurate information.
Speaker 0: Who determines what's inaccurate? Who determines what's false? Do you understand the problem here? The reason the framers of our constitution did not create an exception for quote unquote false information from the first amendment is because they didn't trust the government to determine what it is. And you have whole committees of people in your agency trying to determine what they did they determine they define as false or misinformation.
Speaker 1: That is not true.
Speaker 0: Within what is true?
Speaker 1: What we do
Speaker 0: Please enlighten us.
Speaker 1: Is what we do is we disclose the tactics That adverse nation states are utilizing to weaponize information.
Speaker 0: No, sir. The court found specifically. It's a finding of fact that is not disputed by the government defendants. The Biden administration, your agency, the FBI or DHS, not in the litigation. They determined you made you and all of your cohorts made no distinction between domestic speech and foreign speech.
So don't stand there and tell me under oath that you only focused on adverse, you know, adversaries around the world, foreign actors.
Speaker 1: That's not true. Congressman, the, the Missouri case, the litigation to which you refer, is the The subject of continuing litigation.
Speaker 0: But the facts were not disputed, and I so so regret that I'm out of time. I hope I get some more yield
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
This is a member of Congress. What a clown show https://t.co/4oFU82ddsN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Appropriations is where the money moves in Congress. Democrats are making lives smoother through government funding.
Republicans' Project 2025 is suspect, aiming to eliminate the Department of Education. This would negatively impact the environment, education, and rights.
Democrats are keeping people informed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yo. This is the ranking Rizzler on appropriations, serving Connecticut's 3rd district. It's time to enter your dark academia congress era. Alright, besties. House appropriation is the money moves in congress.
We are not chasing the bag. We are the bag. Democrats are making lives smoother through government funding. It's giving. It's giving it.
So Sigma main character energy. But Republicans project 2025 is mad sus. Eliminating the Department of Education, negative aura points. Basically, the biggest fandom tax on the environment, on your education, and your rights. Big l posting it online, buddy.
Democrats understood the assignment, but the law see how I keep you informed? Very cute, very demure.
@KarluskaP - Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸
Chuck Schumer you’re fired https://t.co/2vZqGsKWYC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Thanks for the support in the primary, but it's time for a new era of Republican leadership. With President Trump and JD Vance, we will promote an American agenda that supports legal immigration while rejecting invasion. We aim to make the U.S. energy independent, ensuring future generations won't rely on foreign energy sources. Ohio has the resources we need, including coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Additionally, we will eliminate electric vehicle mandates as soon as possible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: State senate. And Chuck Schumer, if you're watching, thanks for the help in the primary, but you're fired, buddy. This is a new dawn of Republican leadership. With President Trump and JD Vance in the White House, we are gonna advance an agenda that is an American agenda, an agenda that says we are pro immigration but not pro invasion. We're gonna make certain that the people who come to this country are invited here, are invited here like I was, like my family was, on our terms.
We're we're gonna make this country an energy dominant nation so that my kids do not grow up in a country where we ever rely on a foreign nation for energy ever, ever again. And we have that energy right here in Ohio. That means coal. That means natural gas. It means oil, and it means nuclear.
And in terms of EV mandates, they need to be gone first thing in January.
@Chicago1Ray - @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸
Raise your hand ✋️ if you want Kash Patel to instruct the FBI to investigate the role Adam Schiff played in the Russia Collusion hoax https://t.co/YTZdFU9xMX
@_wake_up_USA - Wake Up America
BREAKING: Adam Schiff says Kash Patel is unfit to serve as FBI Director, because he is a "conspiracy theorist." Send a message to Schiff👇 https://t.co/7SeqgQqnfw
@GuntherEagleman - Gunther Eagleman™
Do you think Mike Johnson should be removed as Speaker if he uses Democrats to push the 1,400 page spending bill? If you agree, put a “👍” in the comments and let your voice be heard! https://t.co/11bh8gZ7YP
reSee.it AI Summary
I've been reflecting on why Senate Judiciary Democrats brought a life-sized poster of me to Kash Patel’s confirmation hearing. It dawned on me that three Democrats on the committee—Adam Schiff, Mazie Hirono, and Cory Booker—are clients of Loren Merchan, the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan, who attempted to imprison Trump. They've paid her firm over $32 million, mostly sent to her home address. I uncovered this story, and it's clear they fear Kash Patel, who would hold them accountable. Why is no one in jail for this?
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
I have been thinking a lot about how and why Senate Judiciary Democrats brought a life sized of poster of me to @Kash_Patel’s Senate confirmation hearing. Then it hit me. 3 Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee @JudiciaryDems, the committee that held Kash’s confirmation hearing, are clients of Loren Merchan, the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan who tried to throw Trump in prison. Those 3 Democrats are Adam Schiff @SenAdamSchiff, @maziehirono, and @CoryBooker. Collectively, the 3 of them have paid Judge Merchan’s daughter’s firm a total of $32,377,312.51. Over $32 MILLION to Loren’s company @Authentic_HQ! Most of that $ was sent to the personal home address of Loren Merchan. I broke that story. And Kash Patel is someone who actually would hold these people accountable. No wonder why they fear him and why they want to discredit me. $32 MILLION. And nobody is in jail? @LoomerUnleashed @CcpSkipTracer @TeamTrump ‼️RECEIPTS ‼️👇🏻
@JamesPleickhar2 - James Pleickhardt
MTG thinks Ilhan Omar should be expelled from Congress and deported from the USA! 🇺🇸 Do you agree with MTG? 🧐 https://t.co/7gp4GOTCi9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ilhan Omar's comments are unacceptable, suggesting the U.S. government should prioritize Somali interests over American ones. She claims to protect Somalia from threats, which raises concerns about her loyalty. Censure is insufficient; she should be expelled for acting as a foreign agent.
Joe Biden is also under investigation for alleged foreign influence, specifically regarding payments linked to Ukraine. Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush are accused of supporting Hamas and allowing terrorists into the country.
This pattern of foreign allegiance among some lawmakers jeopardizes national security. We must unite to prevent foreign agents from serving in our government. Our duty is solely to the American people, and restoring this focus is essential for the country's safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Against Ilhan Omar. And the reason why I did that, and I'll just say this, censure is not going far enough. If it were up to me, we would expel Ilhan Omar and deport her out of the United States. Her comments are outrageous. She's acting as a foreign agent within our very government.
She said the US government will only do what Somalians in the US tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders and that is how we will safeguard the interest of Somalia. She also said, For as long as I am in Congress, Somalia will never be in danger. Its waters will not be stolen by Ethiopia or others.
Sleep in comfort knowing I am here to protect the interest of Somalia from inside the US system. Ilhan Omar needs to be censured, but censure is not enough. I'm telling you right now, she's acting as a foreign agent on behalf of a foreign country. Our country is going to be taking over from the inside. She's not the only one.
Look at Joe Biden. We're investigating Joe Biden for his family getting paid 1,000,000 of dollars for him acting in the interest of other countries and getting rich by it. We're talking about Ukraine and Burisma. He got a prosecutor, Victor Shokin fired in Ukraine, and his family took 1,000,000 of dollars for that. That's acting in the interest of a foreign country.
That's being a foreign agent We can move on. There's others here like that. Rashida Tlaib. She does everything she can to act in the interest of Hamas over in Gaza. She literally voted to allow Hamas terrorists to come into our country.
She made that vote along with Cori Bush. Cori Bush is acting in the interest of terrorists, Rashida Tully been Cori Bush, acting in the interest of terrorists. For as long as this continues and we allow people to serve in our government acting as foreign agents on the on the for the interest and for the good of foreign countries and foreign peoples, our country is not safe. Colleagues that we need to join together to stop foreign agents serving in our government in the interest of foreign countries. We serve the United States of America, and that's it.
We serve the American people and no other people. That's how our country needs to get back on track, and that's the only way we'll save our country.
@NancyMace - Nancy Mace
We're making an example out of @RobertGarcia. FAFO.
@libsoftiktok - Libs of TikTok
BREAKING: Rep. Nancy Mace announces she is filing a motion to censure Rep. Robert Garcia for promoting the use of "actual weapons" against Elon Musk. https://t.co/kdjeii3198
Video Transcript AI Summary
This is a real fight for democracy, so we need to push back on the chairperson of this committee. Marjorie Taylor Greene talks about decorum, but she's the biggest liar in Congress. If she's going to make a mockery of these hearings, Democrats need to bring that same energy. We then discussed Elon Musk's attempts to dismantle the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and consumer protection agencies. It's important to get the public's attention, call out Elon Musk, and make it clear that Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't a serious legislator and shouldn't be treated like one.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: For us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy, for the future of this country, and it's important to push back on the chairperson of this committee. I mean, Marjorie Taylor Greene talks about having decorum about bipartisanship. This is the person that lies more than anybody else in the entire congress. And so if she is gonna make a mockery of hearings, I wanna make sure that us as as Democrats are bringing that same level of energy.
And of course, after those comments, we went into exactly what Elon Musk is trying to do, dismantling the Department of Labor, dismantling the Department of Education, dismantling all of our consumer protection agencies. And so it's all important, but it's also important to get the attention of the American public and call Elon Musk out for what he is and to make people know that Marjorie Taylor Greene is not a serious legislator and she shouldn't be treated as such.
@charliekirk11 - Charlie Kirk
There’s a very obvious reason why Adam Schiff is panicking outside the FBI building this morning… Kash Patel: “Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years.” https://t.co/9yiQBzHMEN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Kash Patel is unfit to be FBI director due to his willingness to cross ethical and legal lines during the first Trump administration, demonstrating extreme sycophancy. He lacks the integrity and character necessary for the role, posing a danger to the public by potentially misusing the bureau's resources to target political opponents.
Adam Schiff is a criminal who led the impeachment trial against President Trump after concealing his meetings with a whistleblower. Schiff lied about his interactions to set up a presidential impeachment based on manufactured information, creating a conflict of interest as he prosecuted the target of his own manufactured evidence. He thought his involvement would remain hidden, but reporting has exposed his actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is someone we cannot trust. This is someone who lacks the character to do this job, someone who lacks the integrity to do this job. We know that. Our Republican colleagues know that. The only qualification Cash Patel has to be FBI director is that when everyone else in the first Trump administration said, no.
I won't do that. That crosses moral, ethical, and legal lines. Cash Patel said, sign me up. In the first Trump administration, as we are seeing in the second, you rise to the level of your sycophancy, and no one is a bigger or more dangerous sycophant than Kash Patel. This political hack does not deserve to be in this building.
He can't do the job. He won't protect the public. He will misuse the resources of the bureau. He will weaponize it against the president's political opponents rather than the protecting the safety the public safety of the American people.
Speaker 1: But Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred and fifty years. And what Prince broke that we're gonna talk about right now is Adam Schiff met with a whistleblower. Adam Schiff went to the podium day after day after day saying, I know nothing about this. We're not gonna discuss it. We're gonna protect it.
And then he, Adam Schiff, led the prosecution of the impeachment trial in the senate of President Donald Trump. Talk about someone who was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax that brought Charmela in, manufactured that false accusation and then pedaled it out to the world and he continued, you know, not surprising. He's lied about almost everything in his life, but now he lied just to set up a presidential impeachment. That's what I was talking about, these disinformation campaigns. And then they he should be investigated because he lied to the world about his interactions with Charmela, who is a whistleblower, and I can't stress this enough, that started a presidential impeachment.
Now your history is way better than mine, but I can't remember the last time a president was actually impeached. It's a significant process and escalation, and it's reserved for the time when it actually shows a crime, not when it shows the manufacturer of fake information to show a fake crime. The guy that found and manufactured the evidence with Charmela was the prosecutor in the case against the target of the investigation. That is the ultimate, from a prosecutorial standpoint, conflict of interest. But he knew what he was doing, and he thought he would never get exposed.
And I think thanks to, you know, I think it was John Solomon, his fantastic reporting. We now see what I've been saying for years that I thought he met with him for sure, and it will come out, and it now has.
@Squil_Mama - Squirrel Mama
I bet Adam Schiff is shitting his pants right now ! 😆😆😆 https://t.co/c5X46kfiLS
Video Transcript AI Summary
Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in Congress in the last 250 years. He repeatedly said he knew nothing, would not discuss, and would protect information, yet he led the impeachment trial of President Trump.
He was conflicted because he was part of the hoax involving Charmela, manufacturing false accusations and spreading them. It's not surprising; he's lied about almost everything, including to set up a presidential impeachment. He should be investigated for lying about his interactions with Charmela, the whistleblower who initiated the presidential impeachment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Adam Schiff is the worst criminal in congress in the last two hundred fifty years. Adam Schiff went to the podium day after day after day saying, know nothing about this. We're not gonna discuss it. We're gonna protect it. And then he, Adam Schiff, led the prosecution of the impeachment trial in the senate of president Donald Trump.
Talk about someone who was conflicted out of the game because he was part of the hoax that brought Charmela in, manufactured that false accusation, and then pedaled it out to the world, and he continued you know, not surprising. He's lied about almost everything in his life. But now he lied just to set up a presidential impeachment. That's what I was talking about, these disinformation campaigns. He should be investigated because he lied to the world about his interactions with Charmela, who is a whistleblower, and I can't stress this enough, that started a presidential impeachment.
@ericmmatheny - Eric Matheny 🎙️
Adam Schiff should be indicted and spend his life in prison for his role in crafting the fake Russian Collusion Narrative and the years of wasted money and the effect it had on eroding confidence in our institutions. https://t.co/G6Bm3L3ITV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues the case is more than circumstantial: 'there is more than circumstantial evidence now' and 'there is evidence not only to have been initiated but for it to continue'. He rejects the view there is no evidence of collusion, saying 'They can call it a fishing expedition. They can call it a witch hunt. It's all in a line message with the White House.' He states 'Christopher Steele may have found out even before our own intelligence agencies that the Russians were in fact aiming to help Donald Trump in the election' and that this 'has now been borne out by ample evidence.' He cites 'the Logan Act' as evidence and says 'the evidence is in plain sight.' The Senate intel chairman also said, at this point, no evidence of collusion, but he counters: 'I think there is direct evidence.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And I
Speaker 1: think But you admit it's a circum all you have right now is a circumstantial
Speaker 0: case? Actually, no, Chuck. I I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. So again, I think
Speaker 1: direct evidence of collusion?
Speaker 0: I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and and is very much worthy of investigation. So
Speaker 2: Is there has been a report from CNN that Wednesday night that there that the FBI was looking into collusion with with the Russians and the Trump campaign in terms of spreading information about Hillary Clinton's campaign. Is do you have any information to back that up?
Speaker 0: I'm not sure that I can comment on that. I can't say that I think that the investigation that the director talked about at our Monday hearing is justified. I think there is a sufficient basis for that investigation not only to have been initiated but for it to continue at this point. And I don't have a concern with other members characterizing the evidence as they have and many of them have said they think there's no evidence of collusion. My disagreement with those members is I don't think that's accurate.
Okay. And I feel an obligation to say so. So they can call it a fishing expedition. They can call it a witch hunt. It's all in a line message with the White House.
But nonetheless, real evidence is coming forward that just can't be ignored. So we do know a lot more. I I think the claims that there was no evidence collusion have long since fallen away. The question now is what is the the quantum of proof here? Christopher Steele may have found out even before our own intelligence agencies that the Russians were in fact aiming to help Donald Trump in the election.
That has now been borne out by ample evidence. I think you see the most palpable evidence of a collusion in terms of violating the Logan Act. Look, I don't think you can seriously argue that the Russians weren't trying to help Trump and hurt Clinton, as well as so discord in The United States. The evidence is quite overwhelming on this. It was the early conclusion of the intelligence community, but that's only been furthered by all of the evidence we've seen in our investigation.
And
Speaker 3: Put out statement and a report basically saying that they found no evidence of collusion between the Trump team, and the Russian government. Have Democrats found any evidence of collusion?
Speaker 0: Yes. We have.
Speaker 4: Can you agree that there has been no evidence of collusion coordination or conspiracy that has been presented thus far between the Trump campaign and Russia?
Speaker 0: No. I don't agree with that at all. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight, that it is very possible that the best evidence, is yet to come. But look, you can see evidence in plain sight, on the issue of collusion. George, there's ample evidence of collusion, of the campaign and its
Speaker 4: The senate intel chairman also said, at this point, no evidence of collusion at this point. Have you seen do you have direct evidence of collusion with Russia?
Speaker 0: Well, I think there is direct evidence. While there is abundant evidence of collusion, but as I've said along, there's plenty of evidence of collusion, and you've said on this show and others that there is direct evidence of collusion. Were you wrong about that now that you've seen the summary of the Tesla Council's report? No. Because they were saying no collusion.
Speaker 4: Your evidence? You've been saying that on TV for years.
Speaker 0: Well, I will tell you, and we and I've also been saying, as you know, that the evidence is in plain sight.
reSee.it AI Summary
A conversation began when Nick Sortor accused Congressman Dan Crenshaw of threatening Tucker Carlson's life, citing a statement where Crenshaw allegedly said he would kill Carlson if they met. Elon Musk questioned why Crenshaw expressed such violent sentiments. In response, Tucker Carlson invited Crenshaw for an interview, suggesting they could discuss the matter further in person. The exchange highlights tensions between the individuals involved, with calls for Crenshaw's removal from office.
@nicksortor - Nick Sortor
🚨 WTF? Deranged Congressman @DanCrenshawTX was caught on camera threatening Tucker Carlson’s life “If I ever meet Tucker Carlson, I’ll f***ing kiII him. I’m not joking.” CRENSHAW MUST BE REMOVED! https://t.co/vQi5uOTUkk
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
@nicksortor @DanCrenshawTX Why is Crenshaw homicidal regarding Tucker?
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
@elonmusk @nicksortor @DanCrenshawTX Why don’t you come sit for an interview and we’ll see how you do? I’ll send you my address, @DanCrenshawTX.
reSee.it AI Summary
I saw a video of Congressman Dan Crenshaw saying he would "kill" Tucker Carlson, but it’s being removed. How can we trust our leaders? Tucker Carlson has since responded to Crenshaw's threat.
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
BREAKING: Video of Congressman Dan Crenshaw saying he would "kiII" Tucker Carlson is being REMOVED SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE How are these our leaders? https://t.co/BenLrPGFOd
Video Transcript AI Summary
Have you ever met Saka? We've talked a lot about him. Have you ever met him? He is the worst.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you. Have you ever met Saka? We've talked a lot. I ever meet him up on the couch. He's the worst person.
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
Tucker Carlson's responds to Dan Crenshaw's threat to 'kiII him' https://t.co/Ap0Ufy5G0A
@RonDeSNews - Ron De Santins 🇺🇸 NEWS
🚨 BREAKING: Multiple House Republicans are moving to IMPEACH federal judges who are obstructing key policies from President Trump & Elon Musk! Do you support this bold move? 🔴 YES 🔵 NO https://t.co/IcBvIosyCy
@kylenabecker - Kyle Becker
Do you approve of a Democratic congressman being thrown out of Trump's address to Congress? https://t.co/ZcP54hVDQf
Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm warning everyone to maintain order in the House and stop disrupting things. Mr. Green, take a seat now. Because members are still disrupting things, I'm ready to have the sergeant at arms restore order.
Remove this gentleman from the chamber.
I didn't think the Democrats would go this far. I thought they would've calmed down. I wonder if anyone else will do this. Oh, it's gonna keep going and be even better. This is gonna go crazy.
All you gotta do is relax a little bit and activate the animal instinct while driving the cerebral cortex with your higher functions, but energizing it with emotion. Or you can channel Emperor Palpatine. If I really need some energy, like on a long road trip, I just literally go, "Power! Unlimited power!"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the house and to cease any further disruptions. That's your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of the quorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant at arms to restore order to the joint session. Mister Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
Take your seat. Finding that members continue to exchange folks. Concern to disruption or proper
Speaker 1: Not my friend Al Green.
Speaker 0: A sergeant at arm
Speaker 2: He referred him many times.
Speaker 0: Remove this gentleman from the chamber.
Speaker 3: There he goes.
Speaker 4: He gone.
Speaker 5: Fuck around. Find out.
Speaker 6: They did it, Alex. I didn't think they'd do it.
Speaker 4: They Trump's not watch, they're gonna die to bunch of people. Dude, they're
Speaker 7: not playing games now.
Speaker 8: I didn't think the democrats would go that far tonight, but there we go.
Speaker 9: I told you they would, didn't I?
Speaker 8: Yeah. You called that. I thought that they would calm down, but this might I wonder if anyone else
Speaker 10: will do this. Look at him pointing his cane.
Speaker 11: Oh, it's gonna keep going. It's gonna be even better. This
Speaker 12: is gonna go crazy, Colin. You can't help it, man.
Speaker 0: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the house. Mister president, you continue.
Speaker 4: All you gotta do is just kinda go, you know what I mean? Big brain is kinda Sometimes that's all you gotta do. Just relax a little bit. When you need energy, you always see what Trump's even tired like midnight, and he goes, it's just natural. You know, they they don't just do that in 300 or they're about to battle like That's all based on reality.
You gotta just activate the synapses and the animal instinct while driving the cerebral cortex with your higher functions, but energizing it with the emotion. Or you just can actually channel Emperor Palpatine's my favorite.
Speaker 10: If I
Speaker 4: really need some energy, it's like a long road trip, having something eighteen hours, don't drink coffee, I just literally go, no, No. No. Power. Unlumitants power. Was a joke.
Oh, prick. That's Jones motivational. The one place you support this battle and get the best supplements, Chelogy, silver flexible coin sold out. The allsutra.com are still available at reallifeJones.com.
Speaker 0: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the house and to cease any further disruptions. That's your warning. Members are engaging in willful and continuing breach of decorum, and the chair is prepared to direct the sergeant at arms to restore order to the joint session. Mister Green, take your seat. Take your seat, sir.
Take your seat. Finding that members continue to agree with the world. Concern to disruption or proper
Speaker 1: Not my friend Al Green.
Speaker 0: Directs the sergeant at arm
Speaker 2: He confronted him many times.
Speaker 0: Remove this gentleman from the chamber.
Speaker 3: There he goes. He go.
Speaker 5: Talking around, find out.
Speaker 6: They did it, Alex. I didn't think they'd do it.
Speaker 4: They No. Trump's not watch. You're gonna die a bunch of people, dude.
Speaker 7: They're not playing games now.
Speaker 8: I didn't think the Democrats would go that far tonight, but there we go.
Speaker 9: I told you they would, didn't I?
Speaker 8: Yeah. You called that. I thought that they would calm down, but this might I wonder if anyone else will do this.
Speaker 10: Look at him pointing his cane.
Speaker 11: Oh, it's gonna keep going. It's gonna be even better.
Speaker 12: This is gonna go crazy. You can't help it, man.
Speaker 0: Members are directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the house. Mister president, you continue.
reSee.it AI Summary
Multiple House Republicans are considering impeaching federal judges who they believe are obstructing key policies from President Trump and Elon Musk. One participant argues that while impeachment is difficult, removal for cause only requires a simple majority vote.
@RonDeSNews - Ron De Santins 🇺🇸 NEWS
🚨 BREAKING: Multiple House Republicans are moving to IMPEACH federal judges who are obstructing key policies from President Trump & Elon Musk! Do you support this bold move? 🔴 YES 🔵 NO https://t.co/IcBvIosyCy
@PerryMcIntyre13 - Perry McIntyre
@RonDeSNews Impeachment is a high, likely unattainable, bar. Removal for Cause only requires a simple majority vote.
@RickyDoggin - A Man Of Memes
Ted Cruz Bringing It https://t.co/RCT1h30we1
Video Transcript AI Summary
During a hearing, a senator questions a judge about a case involving a male convicted of raping a nine-year-old boy and a seventeen-year-old girl, and later convicted of possessing child pornography. The senator challenges the judge's decision to allow this individual, now identifying as female, to be housed in a women's prison. The senator accuses the judge of prioritizing political ideology over the safety and rights of the female inmates, highlighting the judge's statement that the individual was "entirely a female" despite having male genitalia. The senator quotes the judge's order, where she stated there were "no signs that petitioner is at risk of re offending" and deemed concerns about potential trauma to female inmates as "overblown." The judge defends her decision, stating the petitioner had not engaged in violence while in custody, and wardens requested the transfer due to medical needs. She claims the denial of transfer by the transgender executive council was based on hormone levels, which she found to be a pretext.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In your court, what matters more? The rights of individuals or your political ideology.
Speaker 1: I apply the law to the facts.
Speaker 0: I I asked question. Which matters more?
Speaker 1: Well, my political ideology doesn't matter at all.
Speaker 0: K. So I don't believe you. And I think this case demonstrates that you are willing to subjugate the rights of individuals to satisfy your political ideology. This case involves a male defendant who raped a nine year old boy. Was he guilty of that?
Yes.
Speaker 1: The petitioner plead guilty to that.
Speaker 0: K. So he raped a nine year old boy. He also raped a 17 year old girl. Was he guilty of that?
Speaker 1: He plead guilty. The petitioner plead guilty of that crime as well.
Speaker 0: So was he guilty?
Speaker 1: I I hope so because she plead guilty to it.
Speaker 0: He was a he when he did this. That's correct. And also criminal deviant conduct, which the record doesn't doesn't disclose what that was exactly. Then after serving in prison, mister McClain was released for parole, but then violated the terms of parole by having Internet and was sent back to prison. One year after being released again, was convicted of having child pornography.
Is that correct?
Speaker 1: I'm I'm unclear on exactly the time frame that you're at, but but the petitioner was convicted of distributing child pornography.
Speaker 0: Child pornography that was images of adults violently raping children.
Speaker 1: Abhorrent conduct.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: For which there are real victims.
Speaker 0: And this individual, six foot two, biologically a man, a minute ago you said that when this man decided that he was a she, you said this individual was quote, I wrote it down, sober and entirely a female. That phrase struck me as remarkable. Did this individual have male genitalia?
Speaker 1: I think what I said or at least what I
Speaker 0: That is a verbatim quote. Entirely a female.
Speaker 1: Sorry. What I meant to say was hormonally a
Speaker 0: female. Okay. But that's not entirely. Did this individual have male genitalia?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: So you took a six foot two serial rapist. Serial child rapist with male genitalia and he said, you know, I'd like to be in a women's prison. And your answer was that sounds great to me. Let me ask you something. The other women in that prison, do they have any rights?
Speaker 1: Is is that a question? Yes.
Speaker 0: The other women in that prison, do they have any rights?
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: Do they have the right not to have a six foot two man who is a repeat serial rapist put in as their cell mate?
Speaker 1: Senator Cruz, I considered the facts presented to me and I reached a decision based on what the law
Speaker 0: I asked you a question. Do they have a right not to have a six foot two man who is a serial rapist put in as their cellmate? Do those women have a right to that?
Speaker 1: Every person who's incarcerated has the right to be safe in their space.
Speaker 0: But you didn't think so. You didn't think so. And in fact, I'm gonna give some quotes from your order because senator Kennedy is right. This is not a judge's order. This is a political activist.
By the way, the beginning of your order says, at birth, people are typically assigned a gender. I gotta say that would astonish a lot of Americans. A lot of Americans think you you you go to the hospital, a baby is born and you congratulations. You have a little boy, little girl. The assigned a gender, I know you went to Brown, but it sounds like it's in a college faculty lounge with no bearing on reality.
The bureau prison argued. What I'm saying right now that if you put this person in a female prison, there will be a risk of sexual assault to the women. And you know what you did? You said you didn't care about the women. I'm gonna quote what you wrote.
You wrote quote, the Bureau of Prisons claim pedagogical interest in protecting female prisoners from sexual violence and trauma. This interest is legitimate, that's kind of you to say. But there are no signs that petitioner is at risk of re offending. The record is devoid of evidence of incidents of violence or assault during petitioner's incarceration when she was the perpetrator, only the victim. A theoretical risk of sexual assault by the prisoner without more cannot support the BOP's position.
No evidence theoretical. Have you dealt in what universe is someone who is a serial repeat child rapist not at a risk of re offending?
Speaker 1: Senator, as I do in every case.
Speaker 0: I know you've been told to repeat the line, I follow the law. I asked a question. In what universe is someone who is a serial repeat child rapist not at risk of re offending?
Speaker 1: Sir, I looked at the facts that were before me in this case. All of the evidence including the statements of every warden who had supervised this petitioner.
Speaker 0: You also wrote, the BOP also posits that permitting petitioner to live among women will be traumatizing and possibly dangerous to them. This concern is overblown. I have to say, if I were the father of one of those women, and you decided that my daughter's cell mate was gonna be a six foot two man who over and over and over again committed violent sexual assault. I would say the entire justice system is absurd and it is clear on your record, your political ideology matters a heck of a lot more than the rights of those women that you endangered. I think you're a radical and I think you have no business being a judge.
Speaker 1: Judge Ned.
Speaker 2: Judge Nedburn, there was an opportunity during your exchange with senator Cruz that you were attempting to offer a response relative to the the conditions under which this petitioner were was unsafe in the facilities in which she was being held. I'd like to offer you the opportunity to finish that response.
Speaker 1: So the facts that were presented to me and what I relied on to make my decision were that the petitioner had engaged in no violence, no physical violence, no acts of sexual violence whatsoever while in custody. All three wardens who supervised the petitioner requested that she be transferred to a women's facility because of her serious medical needs. In addition, the Bureau of Prisons long time medical provider testified at a two day hearing in my courtroom, and recommended that the petitioner be transferred because of her serious medical needs. And the last thing I'll say is that the transgender executive council, which is the body that makes decisions on behalf of transgender transfer requests within the Bureau of Prisons, never said that the petitioner could not be transferred, and never ever said that she couldn't be transferred because of any risk of violence. What the transgender executive council repeatedly said in denying the request was simply that she needed to maintain her hormone levels.
That was the repeated justification for the denial of transfer. But the petitioner had reached full female hormone levels before even being incarcerated. At the time, the district judge in Indiana who sentenced the petitioner requested that she be placed in a women's facility. Her hormones were entirely female at that point. And so the decision by the transgender executive council to deny the transfer request based on this idea that it was only because her hormones needed to be consistent and stabilized.
I found was a pretext, but they never once said
Speaker 0: opposite of what she said. Your
Speaker 2: own reporters. Senators, I gave both of you more time to finish your line of questioning. I allowed the witness to finish her. I allowed the witness to finish witness I allow the witness to finish her. That is
Speaker 0: I understand that
Speaker 2: is not. I have said that.
Speaker 0: Madam chair. She has an obligation to explain why she directly contradicted what she wrote in her report. She says in her report, the Bureau of Prisons claimed pedagogical interest is in protecting female prisoners from sexual violence and trauma. She just told you Senator So, yes, you are afraid of the answer to that question.
Speaker 2: Senator Padilla. Before
Speaker 0: afraid of the answer to that question.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m questioning why Adam Schleifer is still at the US Attorney’s office under the Trump administration. He has a history of opposing Trump, including supporting his impeachment and wanting to repeal his tax plan. We need to remove all leftist Trump critics from the office.
@LauraLoomer - Laura Loomer
Why is Biden holdover @AdamSchleiferNY Adam Schleifer still working for the US Attorney’s office under the new Trump administration? He is a Trump hater who has been working at the US Attorney’s office since 2021. Fire him. He supported the impeachment of President Trump and said he wanted to repeal Trump’s tax plan. We need to purge the US Attorney’s office of all leftist Trump haters. @EagleEdMartin @AGPamBondi @SergioGor
@MAGAVoice - MAGA Voice
HOLY SH*T 🚨 Stephen Miller just ended Senator Chris Van Hollen and the Democrat Party for going to El Salvador to give comfort to an Illegal Alien IT IS TIME TO IMPEACH CHRIS VAN HOLLEN GET IT DONE NOW https://t.co/aryPfzdXmX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Brigadier Garcia stated Senator Van Hollen is providing aid to an MS-13 member deported to El Salvador, documented by authorities as involved in human smuggling, human trafficking, and the vicious assault of a woman.
The speaker contrasts this with Senator Van Hollen's lack of sympathy for the Moran family, whose daughter Rachel was brutally raped and murdered, and Kayla Hamilton, murdered by an illegal alien released by Joe Biden. The speaker questions Van Hollen's empathy for constituents killed by fentanyl or children lacking education and healthcare due to mass migration. The speaker claims Van Hollen reserves his concern for an illegal alien who is a member of a foreign terrorist organization.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Conversation with Brigadier Garcia was her response. I'm almost I'm almost at a loss for words for how outrageous it is. Here's an individual, the, the man who has been deported to his home country of El Salvador, who has been repeatedly documented by multiple federal and state authorities to be a member of MS thirteen, one of the most violent and ruthless criminal organizations on planet Earth, which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization. And an individual who has been incredibly implicated in human smuggling and human trafficking. An individual.
Who is a documented. Woman beater, somebody who is viciously assaulted. A woman in ways that that that shocked the human conscious, that is who the Democrat party is going to provide aid, solace, and comfort to, not to Senator Van Hollen's own constituents like the Moran family. Rachel Moran was viciously beaten, brutally raped, and murdered, and her mother never even got a phone call from senator Van Holland or Kayla Hamilton, a young girl who was attacked in a public restaurant, raped in the bathroom, and beaten to death and murdered by an illegal alien that Joe Biden set free into the country. None of those people elicit human sympathy from senator Van Hollen.
How broken is that man's heart? How broken is his conscience that he doesn't have even an ounce of empathy or time or concern to share with those families? Or how many of his citizen constituents have been killed by fentanyl that Joe Biden allowed into this country by the cartels that made a fortune off of human trafficking and smuggling into this country or the the children in his state that cannot even get a good education or good health care because of the mass migration that has occurred into his state. None of concerns him in the least. You know, his heart is reserved for an illegal alien who's a member of a foreign terrorist organization.
I'm I'm the
@CharlieK_news - Charlie Kirk 🇺🇸 Commentary
🚨 BREAKING NEWS : CIA Director John Ratcliffe DROPS BOMBSHELL 💥 Confirming Sen. Adam Schiff ORCHESTRATED a SHADY PLOT with Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella to IMPEACH Trump! 😡 https://t.co/Lbsf36XYiP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The inspector general for the intelligence community cannot provide information about contacts between the "Hipsey majority" and the whistleblower before the whistleblower's involvement. Therefore, that information can only come from the "Hipsey majority" themselves. These individuals are fact witnesses in the same investigation they are running. It is claimed that nowhere else in the United States can someone be both a fact witness and the investigator, especially in an investigation to remove a president. It is asserted that Chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his committee members or staff are fact witnesses regarding contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I can tell you one thing that we've learned very clearly, and that is that the inspector general for the intelligence community can provide no information about the contacts between the Hipsey majority and the whistleblower prior to his involvement. So the only way that we'll be able to get that information is from the Hipsey majority themselves. They are fact witnesses in the same investigation that they are now running. Nowhere else in The United States Of America can you be both a fact witness and the prosecutor or investigation in anything, much less an investigation to remove a president from office. It's entirely inappropriate, and chairman Schiff should be disqualified from running an investigation where his, committee, members or staff, are fact witnesses about contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower process.