reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Have you ever heard of someone innocent receiving a preemptive pardon? It's unusual. This situation seems to involve not just prospective pardons for uncharged individuals, but also the president's family and associates who have supported him. The president appears to be using these pardons to shield those who have protected him, creating an environment filled with questionable characters.

Speaker 0 asserts that there are two F’s that come to mind: fraud by design and financial Armageddon. - Fraud by design: This, according to Speaker 0, was not an accident or a happenstance event. It is described as a system that is designed by the left for people in their social circles. The claim traces the system back to the top of the federal government, beginning with the Obama administration and being promulgated even more by the Biden administration. It is said to run down to the states, including governors across the country, specifically naming governors Waltz and Mills. The speaker also mentions the local level, noting bad actors and headlines in Maine and Minnesota. The overarching assertion is that this situation is “the tip of the iceberg.” - Financial Armageddon: The second F is financial Armageddon. Speaker 0 argues that if the Trump administration does not take the issue seriously, listeners are “probably on another planet.” The speaker contends that the problem will have implications for the state of Maine amounting to “billions with a b of dollars,” and that this will spell financial Armageddon for the state. The speaker emphasizes the urgent need to get a handle on the problem. In sum, Speaker 0 portrays a systemic, politically driven pattern of fraud across federal, state, and local levels, described as the tip of the iceberg, and projects drastic financial consequences for Maine unless the issue is addressed, asserting that the Trump administration is serious about taking action.

The speaker expresses concern over the 4.8 million votes cast in the election and suggests that it could have been manipulated. They believe that the same issues occurred in various communities, regardless of size, and that it was an organized crime involving dirty voter rolls, ballot boxes, and mail-in ballots. The speaker claims to have spent the last 15 months developing these findings and concludes that it was an organized crime committed against Americans.

The speaker references a developing controversy surrounding Anthony Fauci, stating that there is “talk of Anthony Fauci being prosecuted as that may have been a auto pen pardon.” They note that “Trump just said they might revoke those pardons.” The speaker asserts that this issue should be on the front page news of every major news organization, arguing that, for the past four years, people experienced lockdowns whose consequences included shattered lives and lost jobs and livelihoods. They contend these losses occurred “based on now a verifiably highly flawed test,” emphasizing that “only fourteen percent represented true infection.” In light of these assertions, the speaker calls for accountability, insisting that there must be discussion about preventing a recurrence: “There should be accountability,” and “we have to start talking about this because this cannot happen again.” The overall message ties the alleged prosecutorial and pardon-revocation developments to broader social and economic harms believed to have stemmed from the lockdowns and the testing that supported them, urging media coverage and a public conversation about responsibility and safeguards moving forward.

The speaker discusses talk of Anthony Fauci being prosecuted, mention of an auto pen pardon, and Trump’s statement that those pardons might be revoked. The speaker asserts that this should be on the front page news of every major news organization. They reference the past four years and the lockdowns, stating that people’s lives were shattered, they lost their jobs, and they lost their livelihoods. This is linked to a claim that the foundation for these outcomes was a verifiably highly flawed test in which only fourteen percent represented true infection. The speaker calls for accountability and emphasizes that this cannot happen again, insisting that the issue must be discussed publicly.

According to Speaker 1, the indictment of two judges is just the beginning, with more to come. These judges were allegedly dismissing immigration cases, releasing over a million illegal aliens in one year, allowing them to potentially gain citizenship. Speaker 1 questions how many judges are tied to cartels or foreign entities and hopes Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are investigating these connections. Speaker 1 believes these judges think they will get away with their actions, but more indictments are expected.

Speaker 0 raises the issue of leadership in Minnesota, noting that dozens of people have been charged and convicted for stealing millions of taxpayer dollars from government programs. The question is whether Governor Walls did enough to stop the fraud in the state, and whether Speaker 0 supports Walls’ decision not to run for reelection. Speaker 1 responds by crediting Governor Walls with achievements: Walls is the reason Minnesota has paid family leave and free school lunches. He notes that they have been through thick and thin together. Regarding fraud, Speaker 1 concedes that obviously everybody could have done more to prevent fraud, and he says that is a fair point to make. He points to current efforts, stating that Walls is setting up a whole bunch of infrastructure to do that. He affirms that the fraud is real and that it must be acknowledged. In terms of accountability, Speaker 1 emphasizes that when somebody commits fraud, there should be investigation, charges, prosecution, and, if appropriate, jail for the individual. He stresses that you do not hold an entire community accountable for the actions of individuals.

The speaker discusses allegations of fraud involving “immigrants” and says foreigners are “getting popped all over the place for committing fraud.” They claim people in comment sections became angry after they said “they’ve been committing fraud,” with others responding by calling them a MAGA or Trump supporter. The speaker rejects those labels and says they work in human services and were “clearing the … applications,” which they say is how they know fraud was occurring. The speaker argues that Black Americans “could have been out there” snitching like “Nick Shirley,” and claims Black Americans have known about fraud connected to multiple POC immigrant communities “since the fucking nineties.” They say Black Americans have been aware that “$2 in a dream” stories are a lie and that people were receiving government benefits while working “under the table,” including food stamps, housing, AFDC checks, and Medicaid. They also claim these communities use childcare assistance, and they say they know about sending “husbands” to work while the individuals allegedly stay at home. The speaker asserts that Black Americans “know everything about every group of fucking people” because “no one pays us any” attention and because others think Black Americans are “too stupid” or “too incompetent” to read or do math. They describe having worked in “health care administration” and claim familiarity with fraud involving home health businesses and psychosocial rehabilitation services for people with disabilities, including “behavioral” services. They contrast Black Americans not troubling others with “the problem” beginning when others “began to trouble us.” The speaker says they join comment sections to explain what they claim to know, stating that other groups use Black Americans’ name to deflect from their own crimes, including robbing “local government funding,” “state fund government funding,” and “federal government funding.” They reference “anchor babies” and say others should “shut the fuck up” and stop making claims about Black Americans lacking culture or not working hard. They conclude by stating “Black Americans don’t snitch,” but say once others “started drinking your own fucking piss” and “talk[ing] to us crazy,” they “finna tell it all.”

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that there are no records of these required signatures, and it's unknown who used the AutoPen. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

The speaker alleges that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child trafficking, and the grooming of children. They reference Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with the Clintons as an example.

Biden auto pen thing was Payola. People were paying for pardons. New revelations from the New York Times about Joe Biden and the auto pen scandal. According to New York Times, mister Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons. Rather than ask Biden to keep signing revised versions, his staff waited and then ran the final version through the auto pen, which they saw as routine. Jeff Zients, former Biden chief of staff, three minutes later, hit reply all and wrote, 'I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all of the following pardons.' The final list reportedly included Fauci. 'cash for clemency deal' and 'three people controlled access, and they were making money off of it.' The House Oversight Committee has brought in a number of former Biden aides to speak about this, and this will drive a wave of questions.

The speaker asserts that fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, calling it a tell. They cite a striking example: $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government to Stacey Abrams’ NGO, which the speaker says basically didn’t exist. They question, “Why?” and note that there are many such cases like that.

The speaker is asked about the process of pardoning Arpaio. They admit to not knowing the details but mention that the president has the authority to issue pardons, even without the Department of Justice's involvement. They believe this particular pardon was within the president's power.

Speaker 0 accuses Minnesota of fraud on visas and their programs, asserting that 50% of them are fraudulent. They claim that Governor Walls is either an idiot or acted on purpose, describing him as bold for allegedly bringing people into the state illegally, who allegedly never should have been in this country, and who were said to be somebody they are not. The speaker contends that these individuals claimed to be married to someone who was really their brother or some other relation, and that fraudulent visa applications were signed up for government programs. They further assert that these actions resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars being taken from taxpayers. The speaker declares they will remove these individuals and recover the money, and that in the next year they will ensure that only people in leadership positions in the country who love this country are placed in those roles.

This past week, a record 1,500 commutations were granted, the highest number in a single day. Among those commuted were individuals involved in serious crimes, including a judge linked to a cash-for-kids scheme that imprisoned many, a man guilty of tax fraud costing over $1.6 billion, and a woman involved in a $26 million Medicare fraud scheme. Are you comfortable with these decisions? No, I’m not. There was also a man in Duluth running a major drug operation who had money hidden under his bathroom tiles that was commuted. I also disagreed with the pardon of the president's son.

Speaker 0 contends that a large number of pardons were issued by the auto pen on the final day of the Biden presidency, and asserts there is no record showing that Joe Biden participated in the authorization of those pardons. The speaker claims that these pardons include notable examples such as those for Dr. Anthony Fauci, members of the Biden family, Adam Schiff, the January 6 committee, and an extensive list that the speaker describes as continuing at length. The core assertion is that every one of these pardons was signed with the auto pen and there is no evidence that Joe Biden was personally involved in the decision-making process behind them. According to the speaker, the absence of Biden’s involvement in the decision-making is a key element of the argument, and the implication is that this absence of direct participation should be recognized in legal terms. The speaker further states that these pardons could be declared null and void by the Department of Justice. The underlying claim is that there is a basis for such a nullification rooted in the way the pardons were issued, specifically the use of the auto pen and the lack of documented presidential involvement. The speaker also asserts that the ongoing investigation will produce evidence that will support the DOJ’s decision to void the pardons. In this framing, the investigation’s forthcoming findings are presented as capable of reinforcing the claim that the pardons were improperly issued or improperly authorized due to the absence of direct presidential action. The overall narrative presented is one of procedural challenge to the pardons, anchored in the asserted method of issuance (the auto pen) and the supposed lack of Biden’s participation in the process. The speaker emphasizes a sequence in which the pardons, if deemed void, would be reversed or nullified by official action from the Department of Justice, with future investigative evidence expected to validate that outcome in court.

Mister Speaker, President Biden's recent pardons for his family were shocking and unprecedented. It’s hard to believe he would issue pardons for over a decade of nonviolent offenses. Four years ago, when there were hints that President Trump might do something similar, prominent figures like Biden, Schiff, and Schumer condemned it as outrageous. Now, they support Biden's actions, which we find disgusting. This raises suspicions about the so-called "Biden crime family." If they truly weren't involved in wrongdoing, why would they need pardons? This issue will receive significant attention, and we will be examining it closely.

Speaker 1 believes there's an open legal challenge regarding the use of an AutoPen for pardons. The typical AutoPen approval process requires signatures from at least five people, including attorneys, policy makers, and the president. Speaker 1 claims President Trump stated that no such signatures exist and the origin of the AutoPen use is unknown. Speaker 1 agrees with President Trump that this is a problem. Speaker 1 suggests testing the legality of the pardons by indicting someone who received one.

The speaker says the fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, and that is a tell. They describe these people as crazy. They point to examples like the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams’ NGO that basically didn’t exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government. She asks, why? and notes that there are many such cases like that.

Someone is allegedly going to be arrested for stealing 400,000 social security numbers and personal information from the Social Security database. This information was reportedly being sold to enable people to steal money from Social Security. The fraud is allegedly connected to illegal immigrants and voter fraud, as Social Security is the main way identification is established in the United States. Compromising the Social Security system can purportedly allow non-citizens to register to vote and obtain benefits. The speaker claims Democrats are using parts of the government to provide financial incentives for illegal immigrants to come to and remain in the United States, citing Social Security disability, Medicare, unemployment, and IRS refunds without income. FEMA funds meant for Americans in distress from natural disasters were allegedly diverted to pay for luxury hotels in New York for illegal immigrants, who are purportedly still there.

Liz Oyer and Joseph Schwartz discuss Donald Trump’s recent pardon of Joseph Schwartz, owner of Skyline, a nursing home empire with facilities in 11 states. Schwartz stole $38,000,000 from employees’ paychecks intended to cover health care and retirement benefits. He pleaded guilty to tax fraud and in April was sentenced to three years in prison, but last week Trump granted him a full pardon after he served only three months of his sentence. This pardon is notable because in April Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney, Alina Habba, issued a press release publicly thanking all agents and investigators who helped convict Schwartz. The investigation and pardon context: earlier this year Schwartz paid two lobbyists $960,000 to seek a pardon for him. The lobbyists are Jack Berkman and Jacob Wohl, described as far-right conspiracy theorists and convicted felons. They are known for elaborate scams, including attempts to frame public figures for fake sexual assaults. During the 2020 presidential election, Berkman and Wohl ran a voter intimidation campaign targeting Black communities, making tens of thousands of robocalls spreading disinformation to deter voting. They were convicted of felony election fraud charges in Michigan and Ohio and were fined over $6,000,000 by federal and state authorities. The segment notes that these two convicted fraudsters lobbied for a pardon on behalf of another convicted fraudster, and suggests a potential quid pro quo, though it acknowledges that Trump’s office has not stated a reason for the pardon. The host points out that Schwartz’s pardon has effectively put nearly $1,000,000 into Berkman and Wohl’s pockets and questions whether this constitutes a quid pro quo. Closing appeal: the host asserts that there is “incredible corruption of the pardon power” and urges viewers to raise awareness by sharing the post and asking elected representatives to demand accountability for presidential pardons.

The discussion centers on the legality and appropriateness of Joe Biden's use of an autopen, particularly concerning pardons. It's claimed that the Trump administration believes Biden's autopen use may be unconstitutional if he wasn't fully competent or if others used it on his behalf. A former US attorney claims to have contacted senior Biden officials early on regarding Biden's competence and the pardons, receiving some responses. The speaker argues that incompetence could invalidate contracts and pardons, even though the pardon power is plenary. He alleges a whistleblower from the 2020 Biden campaign identified three "gatekeepers"—Clayne, Anita Dunn, and Bob Bauer—who controlled access and potentially profited from it. While not yet verified, this information is deemed potentially scandalous. The speaker clarified that he contacted the Biden family and others in the US attorney's office.

Speaker 1 says that throughout the Biden administration he sought records about decision-making and why the U.S. funded Wuhan, China research, including why evidence about the virus origin being from a lab accident was being suppressed, but “we got nothing.” He says the Biden administration “stiff-armed” him by preventing access to virtually any documents. He says many of the findings during the Biden administration came from Freedom of Information Act requests by people outside government and from court actions forcing disclosure. He says that after the new election, he received promises from Secretary Kennedy and others that documents would be revealed. He says it took about six months, with resistance he attributes not to Secretary Kennedy but to “minders” around him. He says that after finally receiving documents, they have been reviewed for about a month. Speaker 1 states that in communications between Anthony Fauci and others, including Francis Collins, Fauci is depicted telling others to read materials, then delete them, and that he allegedly instructed them to delete “this material” after reading. Speaker 1 says deleting emails and discussions about government business is illegal for someone in the executive branch. He adds that Fauci testified he did not do that, and says this creates “two crimes”: destroying federal records and a prior sworn statement that he wouldn’t do it. Speaker 1 identifies a “big question” involving what he calls an “auto pen pardon” and says it will have to be challenged. He says there are thousands of auto pen pardons and raises whether President Biden was aware. He says they interviewed the person running the auto pen, who said they never met the president, and that the person said they did not discuss it directly but heard about it from higher-ups who allegedly talked to the president. Speaker 1 says this provides “a lot to go on” and describes it as a chance for the issue to get into court and for the Department of Justice to fight it out. Speaker 1 says he has invited Anthony Fauci involuntarily; if accepted, they will bring him in, and if not accepted, they will subpoena him. Speaker 0 asks whether the alleged wrongdoing falls under the auto pen time frame, noting that in some earlier auto pen matters there were specific time frames. Speaker 1 responds that the “umbrella” was “a decade,” described as leading up to the end of Biden’s term, and says this raises questions about whether a pardon can cover crimes not alleged at the time, whether it can be “all inclusive,” and whether a pardon can be upheld if it doesn’t specify the crime. Speaker 1 contrasts this with how pardons are typically specific to an accused or trial-ready crime. Speaker 0 asks about specific consequences, including prison time, regarding destroying federal records. Speaker 1 says lying to Congress is the biggest issue, that it can be five years in prison as a felony, and that destroying records adds to the crime and is against the law. He then ties this to contemporaneous emails, asserting that while Fauci said publicly he had no idea the virus came from a lab and that it couldn’t have been gain-of-function, privately he was “very worried” about the lab because he knew it did gain-of-function research. Speaker 1 also says gain-of-function research was funded by the United States government with Anthony Fauci’s approval, and claims Fauci’s pandemic guidance about origins and about cloth masks was contradictory to privately discussed concerns, including that Speaker 1 says cloth masks do not prevent transmission.

A Wisconsin government employee was fired for allegedly rigging the 2020 election by printing 64,000 extra ballots in City Hall. She had ballots filled out by city employees, kicked out observers, and brought in more ballots in the middle of the night. An email from a coworker confirmed the suspicious activity. The speaker believes this fraud led to Biden winning the election unfairly. The woman's actions were deemed illegal and unconstitutional, and the speaker calls for prosecution. They express anger and frustration over the situation, calling Biden a fake president.

Speaker 0 presents what he calls an explosive piece of tape: a man buys a registration form for an absentee ballot from a voter, pocketing $200 and expecting to collect the ballot when the voter receives it. Speaker 1 reacts, noting the illegality of the act and questioning why it isn’t illegal to do certain things, followed by a line that “We don’t get illegal” and a claim about lions, then attributes responsibility to someone who “came up with all this.” Speaker 0 continues, stating that she started the whole “pay to vote” scheme. He alleges that “the people that work for Ilhan” are actually counting the ballots, counting the vote. Speaker 1 adds that they “become a manager in the prison too,” claiming that those people “walk with you to the booth, and then they vote, oh, vote this guy. Vote this guy. Vote even if you speak English.” Speaker 0 introduces James O’Keefe, identifying himself as a truth exposer who holds the corrupt elite accountable, and pivots to messaging about protecting readers’ freedom and finances. The segment shifts to a financial pitch. O’Keefe warns of one of the biggest financial shifts of their lifetime, describing de-dollarization with nations like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia moving away from US dollars. He claims this threatens savings and retirement security and cites Ray Dalio’s warning about skyrocketing debt, relentless money printing, and a weakening dollar as part of a dangerous cycle that could impact Americans. He asserts that more Americans are turning to real assets like physical gold and silver, noting that gold “surged past $3,700 per ounce,” and that momentum is building. He says he has partnered with veteran-owned American Independence Gold to help viewers take action, offering to open a qualifying account with up to $10,000 in bonus gold and a free gold protection guide. He adds that a portion of every sale supports Tunnel to Towers and wounded warriors, and closes with the line, “Freedom isn’t given, it’s secured,” followed by the disclaimer, “This is James O’Keefe. As always, this is not financial advice. Always check with your licensed financial advisor before you invest.”