reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Foreign interference is a pressing issue, primarily linked to countries like Iran, China, Russia, and Venezuela. China is confirmed to be involved, and Ukraine is also significant due to U.S. Treasury funds being sent there. This funding, approved by Congress, is often laundered through various offshore accounts and organizations, eventually returning as dark money to political campaigns in the U.S., particularly benefiting the DNC. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have played key roles in this process, which is why there is a strong push to support Ukraine. The laundering process is extensive, with money passing through thousands of organizations before reaching its final destination in political campaigns.

The speaker claims the U.S. has given close to $5 billion to the Taliban via NGOs, and this continues. They allege this money cycles back to Washington, with a paper trail that Elon Musk has alluded to. The speaker believes USAID money goes "almost a %" right back to Democrat campaign coffers, with some Republicans also possibly benefiting. They state that Republican leadership is upset about these claims but acknowledges their truth. The speaker also questions how Joe Biden could have reviewed 8,000 pardon files, suggesting "payola" and shadiness in Washington D.C., particularly across various departments.

Official A states that in 2022, the office found that president Biden's DHS allowed some Afghans into the country before they were fully vetted, including one who had been liberated from prison by the Taliban. Official A notes that over 50 known or suspected terrorists had entered the United States as a result of Biden administration screening or lack thereof, and that last month the director of national intelligence said that 2,000 Afghans in America may have ties to terrorism. Official A asks whether a formal vetting process was in place, and asserts that the department did not have a formal process at the start of the OAW. Official A repeats the figure and corrects it to 36,000, calling it astounding. Official B replies that CARE, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is the organization in question, stating that CARE was founded at a 1993 meeting and that they specifically state they are going to present themselves as a legitimate civil rights organization while furthering the mission of Hamas. Official A asks how much money CARE received from the federal government to shepherd Afghan parolees. Official B responds that CARE received $15,000,000 in California and more than $1,000,000 in Washington. Official A adds that when they check federal databases for CARE, they find nothing, and Official B explains that the money did not go directly from the federal government to CARE, but rather through an intermediary, and that this is how they’ve hidden the money. Official A states, “We need to find out where this money has gone. This is a scandal. This is corruption, and we've gotta figure out how taxpayer money has ended up in the hands of yet another organization terrorized.”

Speaker 0 describes Zelensky as an American hero and contrasts his public image with the underlying narrative. He explains Zelensky was totally apolitical, an outsider with no government experience, a comedian, and the star of a planned TV show called Servant of the People. In the show, the main character creates a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption, becomes popular, and is drafted as a protest candidate who eventually becomes president. In real life, the TV show is supported by oligarch Kolomoisky, who owned the channel and did a large, nonstop promotional push to make it the number one show, including primetime slots, ads, and crossovers with the news. In 2018, a year before the show ended, Zelensky formed a political party named Servant of the People, the same title as the show, and secretly produced another season of the show. In April 2019, he announced his candidacy on Instagram, with no campaign, no rallies, no real platform, and he skipped presidential debates; his few early press conferences were poor. Kolomoisky’s channel provided Zelensky with endless airtime and favorable polls while attacking his enemies. Speaker 0 continues that US intelligence agencies, CIA and NSA, helped by funding democracy campaigns in Ukraine—reportedly around $5 billion—funneled through NGOs, with USAID embedding advisers in Zelensky’s organization to assist the campaign. On election day, Zelensky wins with 73% of the vote. Afterward, the war with Russia occurs, he declares martial law, and elections are ended. An election in 2024 is anticipated as the result of democracy money. He asserts Zelensky is an actor in a carefully designed television show—“a construct,” akin to Epstein—an created entity that works, and asks what Americans think about his popularity. Speaker 1 responds that Americans are disappointed by the ongoing war and deaths, noting that the war’s human cost is a major failure of promises from the Trump administration, who claimed he would resolve it in 24 hours. He adds that conscripting 60-year-old men and Americans and others going to fight are part of the situation. He states that the Ukraine narrative, and wars in general, are not organic: wars like this are driven by demands for primacy, control, and wealth, rather than being spontaneous. He reflects that Putin didn’t suddenly decide to invade; similarly, the broader pattern of power is not organic. He notes the Russian soldiers were told they would be welcomed and that they had dress uniforms, and compares to expectations in Iraq, where it was promised that Iraqis would welcome forces. He asks what the Ukraine situation is really about, and comments that human war reduces to a few centers of power like NATO, China, the Soviet bloc, and oil-producing countries, ultimately converging to two leaders in a room who must kill each other, as part of the decay of empire, with the U.S. maintaining about 760 overseas military bases.

The whistleblower revealed that the CIA intervened to stop the Justice Department from investigating a major funder of Hunter Biden. This suggests Hunter Biden's ties to a sensitive CIA operation in Ukraine may be the reason for his protection. Various key players, including politicians like Joe Biden and Mitt Romney, along with organizations like the National Democratic Institute and the Atlantic Council, are linked to this complex web of interests aimed at shifting the European gas market away from Russia towards NATO. The involvement of CIA-affiliated individuals and organizations indicates a broader agenda at play in shielding Hunter Biden from scrutiny.

Speakers discuss the severity and novelty of threats to the United States’ political system, focusing on Russian interference and the digital domain. - All acknowledge that the country faced a cataclysmic disruption to its political system that is unlike prior experiences. Speaker 2 notes, as a Vietnam veteran, that fundamental institutions were jeopardized then but proved resilient, and expresses hope for a similar outcome now. - Speaker 1 emphasizes two points: (1) Vladimir Putin’s determination to shape political landscapes inside Russia and abroad, and (2) the consequential role of the digital domain, which allowed Russian intelligence to exploit and manipulate more effectively, culminating in the twenty sixteen election. - They note that Russian interference historically involved exploiting elections, but never with such aggression, directness, or multidimensional methods. The Internet and modern technology serve as a huge enabler for influencing opinion and undermining fundamental systems. - There is a discussion of whether this manipulation was unforeseen. Speaker 2 indicates it goes back to the Soviet era with attempts to influence elections, but the magnitude in twenty sixteen was unprecedented. The digital environment provides malefactors with more opportunities to attack and influence. - The panel explains active measures as fabricating or propagating stories (even patently false ones) to advance a narrative, color perceptions, and lend legitimacy to political actors. They note that the Russians focused on specific voter blocks in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, with estimates that 70,000–80,000 votes could have swung the election. - They discuss methods beyond information operations, including collecting information (e.g., DNC and DCCC email breaches) and money-related tactics: money laundering, disguising funding sources for political actions, and potential extortion or blackmail. They stress that collusion is a tool in the Russians’ kit and that they recruit or exploit individuals where openings exist. - Following the money is highlighted as essential across national security domains; FBI financial investigators and intelligence analysts play key roles, and there is confidence that Mueller and others will trace financial pathways to uncover motivations. - The distinction between cyber warfare and conventional warfare is acknowledged: there are no tanks or planes, but the cyber realm constitutes a war for democracy. A robust response is needed to strengthen the cyber environment, including proposals for a congressional independent commission to assess and strategize future protections, involving engineers, technologists, scientists, and private sector input. - They reflect on why the nation did not respond with the immediacy seen after physical attacks (e.g., 9/11). The lack of a physical rubble-like trigger makes cyber threats harder to mobilize a national response. Leadership issues are cited: when the White House diminishes the CIA, FBI, NSA, or intelligence and law enforcement, it undermines efforts to address the threat. - They recount briefings to the president-elect in January, noting high confidence levels in assessments that did not rely on the dossier; the bigger concern is a perceived indifference to the Russian threat and the denigration of security institutions. - They stress the importance of institutional integrity: the press, law enforcement, and intelligence are pillars of democracy, and denigration of these institutions undermines U.S. credibility abroad. They advocate for stronger checks and balances and reiterate their commitment to truthful reporting and protecting the country. - The speakers, experienced and apolitical, emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and the need for decisive leadership and sustained commitment to democratic institutions, despite political challenges. They conclude with a solemn commitment to safeguard the country and its democratic framework.

The summary approach: - Identify and condense the core claims: infiltration of a classified program, money flows, and international involvement. - Preserve the sequence of revelations: discovery, scope, consequences, and ongoing efforts. - Highlight unique, surprising elements: foreign funding, mood-modification aims, and the VPN manipulation allegations. - Exclude filler and repetitious material; avoid evaluative judgments. - Translate all claims into a concise English recap, retaining the original claims’ intent and phrasing where possible. - Keep within 420–526 words. In a rapid-fire investigation, RFK Jr.’s chemtrails task force allegedly used encrypted channels to infiltrate DARPA’s classified financial network and uncovered a global shadow war blueprint: powerful organizations funneling hundreds of millions into coordinated aerosol operations over American skies. Despite growing public outrage, the spraying hasn’t stopped; the investigators claim US taxpayers are unknowingly funding it, with millions flowing out daily. A foreign intelligence partner, officially an ally, is said to secretly bankroll what internal memos describe as psychological operations targeting US citizens. The report promises to expose the DARPA files officials “never wanted you to see.” The broadcast also asserts Israel has quietly bought up most of the world’s popular VPNs and recruited spies to run these companies, urging viewers to cancel subscriptions and promoting vp.net as the trustless alternative. Decades of top-level military authorization are alleged, with commanders issuing classified orders for aerosol dispersals over major population centers and then burying the evidence beneath compartmentalized clearance. If this is climate engineering gone awry, proponents claim, it’s better described as a hidden program connected to a broader budget and agenda than a mere accident. The video ties these claims to a broader evidentiary trail: a crowdsourced, live-updated database of spraying operations—geotagged videos and flight paths that map a national network of conspiratorial activity, logging every contrail, haze, and unmarked jet. Testimonies emphasize expert concern. A panel of scientists and academics calls for a solar engineering nonuse agreement, citing insufficient understanding of outcomes, a seventy-year weather-modification history that should foster humility, and the risk of unintended consequences. Federal cloud-seeding work dating back to the 1940s is cited, with EPA warnings about stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, and potential reduced crop yields, alongside questions about the necessity of such interventions given climate uncertainties. Critics note that questioning weather modification once labeled you a conspiracy theorist; now evidence supposedly shows decades of operation. A geoengineering company, Make Sunsets, is mentioned, with an FAQ claiming that failure to reflect sunlight could threaten millions of lives and many species. Bees are described as dying in record numbers, with peer-reviewed data alleging aluminum levels in bees up to 70 times higher than those linked to human brain diseases; aluminum is framed as a pollutant enter­ing ecosystems through spraying, with broad global contamination across the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK. A witness connected to the task force discusses infiltrating Doppler systems, correcting a financial network using legacy credentials, and discovering hidden ledgers and anonymous entities labeled atmospheric modulation research. The money trail reportedly flows through private foundations, corporate fronts, and foreign contractors, with billions fueling ongoing aircraft operation in the skies while the public remains unaware. Foreign money—specifically Israel—allegedly funds millions under “psychological spray operations” to modify population mood metrics. The account also portrays a broader information-war landscape where VPNs are framed as surveillance tools; Cape Technologies and its Israeli-intelligence-linked leadership allegedly own major VPN brands and watchdog sites, with connections to Pegasus and other surveillance tools. vp.net is pitched as a secure, American-owned, logless, zero-data VPN designed to resist surveillance, described as the only true protection against monitoring. The piece closes with appeals for subscriptions and support to keep exposing what it frames as elite crime.

Speaker 0: You broke this incredible story about NSA intercepts showing Ukrainian officials basically discussing a plot to funnel back millions in American aid money back to the Biden 2024 campaign through, you know, none other than USAID. I mean Yeah. Really, I guess it shouldn't surprise us anymore, but it should shock us. You know, can you walk us through it and, you know, what else we need to know? Speaker 1: Yeah. Let's give everybody a little quick history lesson because the context of this is important. In 2016, we know that The US the Ukrainian embassy in The United States was advocating for Hillary Clinton's campaign. They the ambassador even wrote an op ed doing so. Yeah. In the period before that, they were enriching the Ukrainian gas company. Barisma was enriching Joe Biden's son Hunter. So Ukrainians generally have had a leftward lurch in their support in the American political system, sometimes very overtly, like putting Hunter Biden on the board or Burisma or their ambassador writing an op ed saying they would prefer Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. Then we get through the whole impeachment scandal. We're told, don't believe any of that Ukrainian liberal preference. Turns out it was all true. It wasn't a conspiracy theory. Hunter Biden and the Democratic party were deeply entangled with the Ukrainian government, Ukrainian businesses. And we lived through that. Joe Biden's in the White House. And in 2022 and early twenty three, his fundraising is lagging even though he's the incumbent. He's got the problems with the Afghanistan withdrawal, questions about his mental acuity, enormous unpopularity, particularly when it comes to an open border. And so it's at that moment when NSA guys with headphones on are listening and they intercept a series of conversations. Some of these are probably on email. And it's a senior government official in the Ukrainian government of president Zelenskyy talking about a plot, that has been discussed with USAID workers, our foreign aid agency workers in Kyiv to give a $2,300,000,000 clean energy grant to Ukraine. Now Ukraine's in the middle of a war with Russia. The last thing they're gonna be building is some clean energy project. They're trying Speaker 0: to They're not building solar panels and you're getting bombed every day. It's probably not a great use of a panel. Speaker 1: Complete ruse. And they even say so. Listen, the intercept suggests that this is not gonna be a justified project. But you'll spend the money, and then by the time they discover it, won't it be recoverable. And the goal is take that money, then you're gonna give it to nongovernmental organizations, nonprofits, then they're gonna hire subcontractors with the USAID money. And then those subcontractors are gonna hire American companies. And those American companies are then gonna move the money into the coffers of Joe Biden's 2024 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. And they said they hope to arrange this in such a way that 90% of the money that originally came from you and I taxpayers through USAID to Ukraine would ultimately be laundered into the DNC and Joe Biden to help his 2024 campaign. That's what's been captured. That was only recently discovered. That intercept or series of intercepts were not ever brought to the attention of anyone at the FBI or anyone during the Biden years. Tulsi Gabbard just recently found it. She's asked the USAID to go look and see if they can find the contract. Did it happen? Was there some fraud involved? And so there's a beginning of an investigation to find out what whether whether what was discussed ultimately transpired, and we should know answers in a couple of weeks. Speaker 0: I mean, do we trust

There's significant fraud in USAID, with radical groups receiving funds they don't deserve. A staggering amount, like a hundred million, is being misallocated. It's crucial to investigate the kickbacks associated with this spending. Who would invest such sums in questionable projects? It's likely that those who received the funds are not returning any to the government, indicating a high level of corruption. The key issue is understanding the extent of these kickbacks.

The speaker discusses a conspiracy involving the US government and NGOs bringing illegal immigrants into the country. A DHS employee reveals how NGOs receive millions of dollars to facilitate this operation. The employee mentions Jewish Family Services receiving $600 million for a few months, with subcontractors requesting more funds. The partnership between NGOs and the government is described as a massive money laundering scheme.

Critics of the investigation claim there is no evidence, but there are 176 suspicious activity reports and witness testimony. The most damning evidence so far is the discovery of transactions that went to Joe Biden, where the money was spent on his behalf. This implicates him directly. Additionally, there is a cover-up happening within the FBI and Department of Justice. Federal prosecutors were being stonewalled, which is unprecedented according to Scott Brady. This suggests that elements within these agencies were protecting the president. These are the two significant pieces of evidence uncovered, and further investigation will continue to follow the evidence.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

- The speakers criticize a new funding bill as a bloated, bipartisan package totaling over $1.7 trillion, arguing it represents a “middle finger” to American taxpayers and funds more than merely keeping the lights on. They claim both parties supported it, eliminating any real fiscal fight. - They highlight a provision referred to as health care extenders on page 772, noting that temporary pandemic expansions in health and welfare programs are now baked in as permanent costs for taxpayers. This is presented as evidence that eligibility expansions for Medicare are being locked in. - They point to Israel-related spending buried within the bill, noting provisions allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for Israeli missile defense programs, including the Iron Dome, on page 101 of the 1,059-page bill. They argue that funding the U.S. government is linked to funding a foreign defense system, and that this represents corporate welfare for well-connected interests in Washington. - The discussion asserts that Ukraine-related funding is not explicitly in the bill as written, but that money may still be funneled through contractors or other channels. They question whether there will be a final victory lap on supposedly winding down Ukraine aid, suggesting money remains flowing covertly. - They discuss the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, noting that money for NED remained in the bill despite amendments to cut funding. They describe NED as a non-partisan tool that has supported regime-change activities, including actions in Iran and Venezuela, and criticize both parties for preserving this funding. - They critique the consolidation of aid into the State Department, specifically via USAID under Marco Rubio, arguing that oversight has weakened and that funding is redirected for various foreign policy aims (e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, Iran). They discuss the influence of Rubio on where funds go and describe the arrangement as increasing executive-led control with limited transparency. - They argue that the bill reflects a broader pattern of government spending: a so-called “uni-party” consensus that avoids reducing government size, with both parties acting in lockstep on foreign and domestic priorities. - The conversation touches on public opinion, citing a Gallup poll that suggests younger generations despise both major parties, and they link this to perceived bipartisan over-spending and interventionism. - Throughout, the viewers criticize what they see as a routine of declaring emergencies and then normalizing permanent programs, suggesting that emergency measures become permanent and that the political system uses crisis rhetoric to justify ongoing expenditure. - The discussion ends with remarks on political leadership, labeling Speaker Johnson as a weak figure and coining a proposed “fuck it party” as a first-principles anti-war alternative, with participants noting they would join or support it. Daniel McAdams provided expert commentary throughout.

Taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs. If it's a government-funded NGO, it's effectively just the government. A fraud loophole exists because the government can send money to an NGO that is no longer governed by U.S. laws. The money is sent overseas to one NGO, then through others. The speaker is highly confident that some of that money returns to the U.S. and enriches certain people. There are strangely wealthy members of Congress, and it's unclear how they accumulated millions while earning comparatively little. The speaker aims to investigate this and prevent it from continuing.

Speaker 1 claims that most past presidents for the last 20 years have been aware of corruption within USAID but chose not to act, alleging that many were complicit. Joe Biden, as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, oversaw USAID, which allegedly funded Burisma. Barack Obama's mother worked for USAID, and the Bush family also has connections. Speaker 1 suggests the Trump revolution challenged this system, which is why there was such a strong reaction against him. Speaker 1 further alleges that USAID funded the OCCRP, providing $20 million to journalists who then found damaging information on Rudy Giuliani. This information was purportedly used as the basis for the impeachment of President Donald Trump in 2019.

One name to watch is Victoria Nuland, who has a lot at stake regarding Ukraine, which I believe is one big money laundering operation. What Elon Musk has revealed is only the outflow of dollars. The full cycle of funding—where the money goes in Europe and how it flows back into the pockets of people in the United States—has yet to be demonstrated, but I am aware of it. I believe Trump and Elon will discover that people like Victoria Nuland will feel the pain as they are at the center of this. Zelensky is an actor with a great relationship with Putin. In the coming weeks or months, we will discover things about Zelensky that will upset the American people regarding money flowing back into the US and into the pockets of people in Washington DC. It will be ugly and involve the entire establishment.

A Substack piece alleges USAID and the CIA helped orchestrate Trump's impeachment. According to the speaker, a CIA analyst leftover from the Obama White House wrote the memo that led to the impeachment based on hearsay. This memo relied heavily on a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization funded by USAID. The OCCRP was allegedly created as an extension of the State Department and USAID. The speaker claims USAID was about regime change abroad, a public-facing version of covert CIA operations. The speaker suggests that, similar to censorship tools used abroad being brought home, the predicate for Trump's impeachment was created abroad. The speaker believes this is one of many revelations to come.

"USAID has been there since independence." "helping fund the creation of Dia and the Ministry of Digital Transformation." "Not Dia solving the corruption problem, but it's a huge answer to taking out the middlemen and to creating greater transparency." "ProZoro on procurement in the health domain, which is so cut down on corruption. USAID funded ProZoro." "We were giving $1,500,000,000 every single month just right into the treasury of Ukraine. Just in cash." "the spigot of about a billion a month that we were provide USAID was providing with our treasury department, that is no longer happening." "There are so many answers to this." "the independent journalists who have exposed corruption." "the journalists were the ones that uncovered corruption on the use of US taxpayer dollars." "the Ukraine supplementals always had tens of millions of dollars also from Moldova." "We extended a very large loan, interest free loan, to the government of Ukraine using the frozen assets as collateral." "I'm very worried about Moldova. This is the last chance for Moldova." "Slava Ukraini." "Samantha, stop will never give up."

We've uncovered some unusual financial discrepancies. Several bureaucrats with modest salaries have amassed tens of millions of dollars in net worth during their employment. One example involves a woman who walked away with approximately $30,000,000. This is particularly notable in USAID. We're investigating the source of this wealth. Perhaps they are skilled investors, but it seems more likely that this wealth accumulation is occurring at the expense of the organization. We're looking into it and trying to determine where this money originated.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

Claims in the speaker's remarks center on funding and connections. They state that the project is largely funded by USAID money, allegedly authorized by the Biden administration and later affected when Trump took office. The speaker also mentions alleged links to a prominent UK figure involved with intelligence and a spouse in the civil service. Specifically, they describe a man said to be a top officer in MI6 and a wife described as high up in the civil service. The wife is said to have worked in the Foreign Office for five years as the personal assistant to the permanent secretary, the highest-ranking civil servant in that department. The transcript raises questions about these individuals’ exact roles and affiliations based on the presented claims.

The transcript reports that overnight the United States government, specifically the National Security Agency, intercepted conversations of Zelenskyy’s government in Ukraine in late 2022. The conversations allegedly involved conspi­ring with federal workers at USAID to devise a plan to take $200,000,000 of USAID money, route it through a series of transactions, move it into the United States, and launder it into Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The presenter says there are intercepts for the first time and that Chelsea Gabbard’s team was willing to declassify them. An investigation is underway beginning with USAID to determine who was involved and whether any crimes were committed, with referrals to the FBI anticipated in the next few days. The documents are said to be declassified and available at justthenews.com, and members of Congress have been clamoring to access them. The presenter expects Tulsi Gabbard to make a statement later tonight on the investigation’s evolution. The discussion shifts to a framing of a transition from the era of weaponization, where prosecutors and FBI agents were used to target Donald Trump and his supporters, to a potential situation where there is conspiring with foreign powers to influence elections. The Ukraine matter is cited as the latest development. The speaker recalls a claim made three weeks earlier about FBI proof that China sent thousands of driver’s licenses to the United States with fake names to obtain fake ballots to vote for Joe Biden in the 2020 election, labeling these as words of the FBI informant in FBI documents that were made public. The presenter then notes that China may be conspiring with Joe Biden and the Democrats, and now possibly Ukraine, with two investigations underway. The speaker promises to keep listeners apprised of developments.

Speaker 0: By a member of the Ukrainian parliament. Let's talk about the tape recording evidence. Speaker 1: We don't know. Yeah. We don't know much about it because it's floating around Ukraine, but we do know the general prosecutor of Ukraine, our equivalent of the attorney general, came on our show this morning and said the following. There's enough evidence for me to open up a criminal investigation into the illicit effort by a Ukrainian to try to influence the United States election in favor of Hillary Clinton. That's a profound statement coming from the top law enforcement official of Ukraine. Why is it important? There's a court in Ukraine that's already concluded that, Ukrainian officials leaked Paul Manafort's financial records to try to sway the US election. You haven't heard anything about that in the American press, but that ruling occurred recently. Then a parliamentary member comes out and says, I have a tape of these law enforcement officials saying they did it specifically to help Hillary Clinton. That becomes the foundation of the Ukrainian investigation. Speaker 0: You have talked to people that have heard this tape. Correct? Speaker 1: Well, the, the prosecutor himself has heard the tape and said it was important enough, good enough evidence to warrant opening the investigation. So the tape, the court ruling, the top prosecutor in Ukraine says there was a foreign power Speaker 0: Two separate issues here. Number one Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Did Ukrainian officials offered us evidence that, in fact, they were involved in election interference in 2016 to help Hillary Clinton's campaign? But why didn't anybody in in the media pursue the interference story? And I thought they cared about interference, but, obviously, only if it's Russian interference and Trump because we know they don't care about the dirty Russian dossier. Speaker 1: That's right. Keep in mind that just a few months ago, Sean, we reported on your on your show and inside the hill that Ukraine's embassy in Washington confirmed on the record that back in 2016, the Democratic National Committee trying to help Hillary Clinton get elected asked the Ukraine Embassy to help interfere in the election by doing two things, dig up dirt on Paul Manafort and have Ukraine's president make a kerfuffle here in Washington about Manafort and Trump when he came to visit. Now the Ukrainians say they they rebuffed that attempt, but Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC, made that request according to the, Ukraine embassy in

I recently attended a meeting in an expensive Alpine town, overwhelmingly populated by wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is a pattern across Europe; the richest people are Ukrainian. This money, I believe, should belong to American taxpayers. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, possibly half, of the arms we send to Ukraine are being sold, some ending up with drug cartels on our border. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this. The media reports Zelensky's denials, but the New York Times could easily order Ukrainian weapons online—this is a fact. The official death toll is likely a lie; the entire situation is a deception. Sending billions in aid without tracking its use is irresponsible, and the possibility of these weapons being used against us is terrifying. This situation mirrors the issues we faced with the Mujahideen in the 80s. The lack of transparency and accountability is appalling.

Speaker 0 explains that transparency has been lacking and that tracking money through organizations is difficult. He says there is now at least a parameter for opacity, and that this parameter must be solidified to understand how money moves internally—through contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and networks of friends and associates. He predicts that over the next five years criminal activity will be uncovered as these money flows are examined more closely. Speaker 1 adds that there is a distinction between the border situation and how funds were dispersed north and south. As NGOs realize their federal funding is drying up, he questions whether there is enough momentum or private-sector money to sustain them, and what will happen to groups that no longer receive taxpayer dollars. Speaker 0 responds that hundreds of NGOs will close, noting that hundreds were created specifically for the mass migration crisis—serving as bus companies or as handlers at the border to assist migrants. He implies these organizations were established to address a surge and suggests their disappearance will follow as government funding wanes. Speaker 2 raises the issue of blanket preemptive pardons and asks if there should be an investigation into how the large influx of people—10 to 15 million—came about, characterizing the situation as not chaotic but well thought through. He asks if a thorough investigation is warranted. Speaker 0 calls for a full-throated investigation, including a presidential committee if needed, targeted at the DOJ under the new FBI director and the Attorney General. He argues there should be a focus on the political appointee class rather than only high-level officials like Mayorkas. He references his book, Overrun, Chapter Four, asserting that the situation was orchestrated and engineered at the political appointee level within the Domestic Policy Council, the DOJ, and all DHS agencies. He identifies people brought in from the NGO world, such as Tyler Moran, Esther Olavaria, Lucas Guten Tag, and Amy Pope, claiming they orchestrated the effort and undermined federal law and statutes that require faithful execution of laws. Speaker 2 adds that hundreds of millions of dollars flowed to the former NGO employers, implying a link between the orchestration and financial rewards. The dialogue ends with a continued assertion of movement toward an expansive influx, described as an invasion, and a call for accountability at the administrative and policy-making levels.